Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[soozieqtips]

IANAL
But I have read here that a "motive" is not something that the State have to prove.

I wasn't meaning that exactly.

It seems to be a sufficient test for Nel to pick out a detail in OP's "version"and say "that does not make sense". Leaving aside the fact that what does not make sense to Nel says more about Nel than anything else, if "Does not make sense" for a detail is sufficient for Nel to claim that OP's entire version is not true, sufficient for Nel to state in open court that Oscar Pistorius is a "LIAR" then surely something that does not make sense in such an obvious way as the fact that a guy shooting his girlfriend intentionally, at 3:00 AM, needs some explanation.

Imagine somebody recounting the State version, minute by minute and cross examined, and badgered about every detail. Why were OP and Reeva arguing, where was Reeva at every second, where was Op, was he on his stumps, when were the lights on/off, where was the damned duvet at every second (lol) What fan was where, when, why. Was the stereo on or off. When did Reeva go eat this mythical extra meal, was the alarm on or off. Who switched it on or off When did she run to the bathroom. What did she say. What did he say. etc etc etc.

I bet you anybody trying to get the State version straight would soon be "not making sense"

We KNOW the State version (whatever the detail) is impossible from their own witness testimony and phone record times.

BBM - And you think such details are irrelevant?? I'm sure if it was YOUR relative that had been murdered, you wouldn't think the details were irrelevant at all. You seem to imply that OP shouldn't have to answer anything that he can't remember!! Well, tough on him. HE'S the one who murdered her. You didn't object to Roux when he was badgering and pestering State witnesses, yet you've done nothing but insult and bash Nel for doing the same thing. Why? Why does Nel doing his job make you so irate, but Roux doing the same thing cheer you up?

I cannot believe you'd diss significant details like the extra (mythical did you call it??) meal Reeve had (which meant unlocking the bedroom door and deactivating the alarm, all without a PEEP from the hypervigilant murderer), and the duvet on the floor which IS an issue despite your implication that none of this matters. Of course it matters. Thank goodness Nel is doing his JOB and proving OP to be no more a reliable witness than my cat. Nel doesn't have to make sense to you. Other people seem to be able to follow him just fine. And since you believe OP's story, you must also believe his claims that everyone else is lying. Now seriously, what are the odds on that? Nil.

 

[aoibhinn]

Yeah, that's why eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence on the planet---because the traumatized mind cannot remember details.

That's the exact opposite conclusion to the information I posted.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This area is currently being researched and new techniques are being introduced to inhibit misidentification of suspects, removal of leading questions, etc.
Autobiographical memory of personal trauma/highly emotional events is very different.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Question: Is that toilet room able to be locked from the outside?

I've never seen a toilet with an actual lock that uses a key before.

Is it possible he locked her into the toilet?

Yes!
...and imo the key was used that night by OP to lock Reeva in the toilette without her phone.
He was terrified that Reeva was going to call police and thus had to contain her.

In the original crime scene photos, the key hanging from the outside of the door was NOT a single dedicated key but a key chain/tag with at least two keys attached...ie. Not something likely to be in the lock on permanent basis.
OP claims it was on the floor of the toilette.
see attachment

 

[molly333]

Nel is well aware of the type of ego he has on his hands and what an amazing benefit this is to the State's case. It will be very interesting to see if it works and if justice will prevail.

I guarantee that Nel could make any one of us look like liars over what we had for breakfast, yesterday.

Did you salt the egg before or after you tasted it, Mr. TD?

But you already stated that you always salt your food before you taste it. Now you are saying you salted it after you tasted it? Which is it, Mr. TD?

Are you changing your testimony now about when you took the first sip of your orange juice?

 

[fox1lady]

To "snap at someone" - sharp, cutting remark. Nothing major.

OMG it is so sad that you think being constantly snapped at by someone who you are in a relationship with is nothing major

 

[molly333]

Yes!
...and imo the key was used that night by OP to lock Reeva in the toilette without her phone.
He was terrified that Reeva was going to call police and thus had to contain her.

In the original crime scene photos, the key hanging from the outside of the door was NOT a single dedicated key but a key chain/tag with at least two keys attached...ie. Not something likely to be in the lock on permanent basis.
OP claims it was on the floor of the toilette.
see attachment

wow. That would explain all the screaming before the shots.

Was there a window in that little toilet?

 

[katydid23]

She was close enough to hear a whisper or a low tone or a soft tone.

He was on one side of the bed and she was supposed to be on the other.

Trying to characterize what tone of voice to the minute detail of whisper versus soft tone is not only irrelevant, it is ridiculous.

Nel is grasping at straws, and a strong case shouldn't have to grasp at straws.

The reason it is not a 'strong' case is that the only true witness to the events leading up to the shooting is dead. So the state does not have strong forensics because everyone agrees that OP was the shooter. So the fingerprints and DNA are useless. All they need to know is whether OP knew who was in the toilet when he shot. But that is difficult to determine. So Nel needs to argue the minute details. That is all that is left to determine.

As for the 'whisper'---that argument came up because OP changed his version of events. He originally said he whispered, then he denied ever saying whispered, then he agreed he might have, then around and around again.

 

[TipDog]

She was close enough to hear a whisper or a low tone or a soft tone.

He was on one side of the bed and she was supposed to be on the other.

Trying to characterize what tone of voice to the minute detail of whisper versus soft tone is not only irrelevant, it is ridiculous.

Nel is grasping at straws, and a strong case shouldn't have to grasp at straws.

Not ridiculous or irrelevant at all, especially considering it's being added to boost OP's version. At any rate, OP should have stuck with "whisper" or "spoke in a soft tone" - just as he should have stuck with "Get out of my house!" or "Get the f*** out of my house!"

In both of those examples, the words used can and often do have different connotations. And it is Nel's job to discern which is which and grill OP about them. That's what he's been hired to do - take evidence and match it to the actual events that unfolded.

But when you don't tell the truth, you make these mistakes. And saying "I don't know, Milady" or "I made a mistake, Milady" doesn't fly - especially when you are on trial for literally blowing a defenseless woman's brains out in the middle of the night. Sorry, but OP should have his feet held to the fire for as long as the State deems necessary to find out why he'd take a life so recklessly and (I believe) intentionally.

 

[Madeleine74]

OMG it is so sad that you think being constantly snapped at by someone who you are in a relationship with is nothing major

The amount of it is a factor for sure. Like if it's every day. It wears you down. I reported to a guy at work that would often snap at me, especially in meetings with others. It took its toll for sure. Like dying of a million little papercuts. One or 2 is no big deal. Dozens and dozens...big deal.

If Reeva experienced a lot of moodiness from OP with attendant 'snaping' at her, it undermines whatever this "totally in love" relationship he claims they had.

 

[emmavoberry]

oh, we are changing that he screamed first to call the police. And why does he keep making reference to PLURAL folks in the toilet every time? Why would someone think more than ONE intruder?

An example of Oscar wanting it both ways. He is referring to intruders now to amplify "the threat" he felt and thus justify the amount of force he used. However, previously he has not suggested he envisioned more than one intruder in the bathroom stall. And, curiously, in his affidavit before this trial he does not account for his unarmed exit from the bathroom when it is well known that typically more than one intruder enters in SA home invasions. Later, he amended his earlier account to say he HAD been concerned about the potential for another threat to rear up as he made it back to the bedroom, although in that case it's interesting he dropped his gun and his whole combat mode stance.

If this whole case were not so horribly tragic, it would be funny to contemplate OP thinking two culprits (the two stooges?) had squeezed into the stall to pop out and ambush him and then tie up Reeva. But not. Reeva's mother must rue the day her lovely daughter met him.

 

[TipDog]

I guarantee that Nel could make any one of us look like liars over what we had for breakfast, yesterday.

Did you salt the egg before or after you tasted it, Mr. TD?

But you already stated that you always salt your food before you taste it. Now you are saying you salted it after you tasted it? Which is it, Mr. TD?

Are you changing your testimony now about when you took the first sip of your orange juice?

WADR, speak for yourself. I, on the other hand, would be inclined to tell the truth. I always salt my egg before I taste. it.

 

[shane13]

BIB This could have been to test how the sound travelled over distance.

I'm wondering if the 'scream test' at his uncle's house was an attempt to replicate the pitch of Oscar's scream? I would question its validity on two points :-

• Allow for multiple practice attempts and select the best one
• Inability to reproduce the emotional context of the night the murder occurred

Yes, I've written here that how can they duplcate the requisite "fear of death"' circumstances?

Afterall ... Reeva is dead.

 

[molly333]

Murphy, Are you there?

Does that picture show a key in the outside of the door lock at the crimescene?

And, there was another key found on the floor inside the toilet?

OMG What you stated is exactly what happened.

 

[ShadyLady]

I think he comes across as sincere, because he IS sincere. He really is suffering and in pain, and regardless of the whys, it's all real. IMO, the worry, the fear, the tears, the vomiting are all for himself, but it's still there and not being faked. I think this is why people believe him. I ran across a picture of him standing outside the courtroom, and it bothered me so much that I haven't been able to listen to today's testimony. IDK how, but it did a good job of summing up a lot of emotions, and I got a little glimpse of OP's surreal reality...the worrying about himself and the sense that he wants somebody to 'fix' this, the sheer exhaustion, the refusal to admit what he did and why. He was chalky pale, his hair grayer, he looked on the verge of vomiting, and to be honest, I don't know how long he can go on. In His mind, he IS fighting for his life, because without all that he holds dear, he sees no life. IMO, he thinks of no one but himself, and only his suffering matters-but, he is suffering and it's hard to listen to. This is a very depressing case.

Completely agree. I am now 1/4 through....and poor sobbing OP taking a break again.

His stress and heartbreak is that his jet-set life is slowly fading from view. :jail::jail::jail:

IMO

 

[molly333]

WADR, speak for yourself. I, on the other hand, would be inclined to tell the truth. I always salt my egg before I taste. it.

It has nothing to do with telling the truth. It has to do with the style of interrogation.

Nel would prove you stated you salted your egg after you ate it.

 

[molly333]

The reason it is not a 'strong' case is that the only true witness to the events leading up to the shooting is dead. So the state does not have strong forensics because everyone agrees that OP was the shooter. So the fingerprints and DNA are useless. All they need to know is whether OP knew who was in the toilet when he shot. But that is difficult to determine. So Nel needs to argue the minute details. That is all that is left to determine.

As for the 'whisper'---that argument came up because OP changed his version of events. He originally said he whispered, then he denied ever saying whispered, then he agreed he might have, then around and around again.

I agree it's not a strong case.

And, whether OP whispered, or soft toned, or low toned the request is irrelevant. IF you could even make a distinction among those, how could you possibly remember it after a year? Or even after a day?

 

[fox1lady]

Thank you, Beach. :tyou:

I tip-toed onto this board as I understand and respect forum dynamics. I've been lurking for a long time and love reading the comments - all of them, those that do believe OP's side and those (like me) who don't. They are all valid and important to the discussion.

It really is a very complicated, heart-breaking trial. And at the end of the day, two families have pretty much been destroyed. And all of it happened in a matter of seconds.

I can't see how the Pistorius' have been destroyed, they still get to see Oscar everyday. My sympathy is for the Steenkamp's, may Reeva rest in perfect peace and shine bright up there as she did down here.

 

[Madeleine74]

I guarantee that Nel could make any one of us look like liars over what we had for breakfast, yesterday.

Yes a good cross examination will do just that. I would probably have to wear an adult diaper on the stand to get through some of the most rigorous cross-exams I've seen in some cases. I'd be admitting to crimes I wasn't even charged with, that didn't even occur in the case.

 

[fox1lady]

I have just been watching a youtube of the day OP was arrested and the police officer giving a press statement. She indicated that he had requested to be brought to court straight after his arrest on the same day. One of the media said that this was unusual and asked if he was getting special treatment to which the officer said no. My question is, has OP ever even in the early days conceded that he killed Reeva and should face the consequences? In many of the other accidental shootings of relatives and loved ones that I've read they have thrown themselves at the mercy of the courts... it just seems to me the right thing to do somehow especially if it someone you love.

 

[fox1lady]

Yes a good cross examination will do just that. I would probably have to wear an adult diaper on the stand to get through some of the most rigorous cross-exams I've seen in some cases. I'd be admitting to crimes I wasn't even charged with, that didn't even occur in the case.

I bet you the next witnesses are bricking it! Can they refuse to take the stand?