Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Really?]

good idea.....take care.

 

[weeeva]

Sorry but I must insist. The state may well not have proved its case fully and beyond reasonable doubt quite yet. We are only halfway through the trial after all. There are defence witnesses to x-examine yet, maybe rebuttal witnesses plus the closing arguments but the point I was making was this-

This x-exam is just devastating for OP's credibility to the point of no return.
He is a totally unreliable witness and so his testimony will be discredited which means that his only defence - his version, will be totally rejected.

By all means ask more from the prosecution, I do too - but the case hangs or falls on the credibility of OP and his version.
If you cannot see or accept what an utter the disaster the last 4 days on the stand has been for OP then my point stands. No need to take it personally though, unless you really want to.

It is one thing to support OP (although personally I fail to understand the motive to do so) and I understand that some people hang onto their ideas like a dog to a bone or even enjoy taking a provocative or unpopular stance... but really, in this case trust the majority who know what they are watching and that is the steady and systematic disintegration of a lie and the crumbling of the defence's case.

Believe me TrueDetective I know the type of person you are describing in your last paragraph, and that is not me at all. The majority of posters on here have been 100% sure of OP's guilt before this trial even started. People who have had the accused hung drawn and quartered before the first witness took the stand. Are they not the ones who are hanging on to their ideas like a dog to a bone. Unlike the majority I came on here not as a supporter of OP, but as a person who wanted to hear the evidence and then decide whether he was guilty or not.
Any way we are not supposed to get personal so I will say no more on the matter. I will get off to bed before a full scale fight starts, as I expect the majority will be after me with a vengeance.

 

[Panda]

:seeya:

Great forum!

A couple of things that stand out for me in this case.

There's been next to no mention of Pistorius' dogs. The only thing I read was one of the policemen ensured the dogs were fed when he left the crime scene.

I also find Pistorius saying he was unable to hear after he fired shots rather unbelievable. He was able to have conversations with people at the rifle range after shooting and wearing ear protection - being a sport shooter myself, I find it implausible he wouldn't be able to hear Reeva scream.

I would be interested to know what the state of the kitchen was too. Was there any evidence of a late night snack for example?

I also remember something to the effect that Nel asked him why he put his vest onto of his prosthetics. Can anyone confirm this and the context?

Lastly, "I am pleading not guilty because the scene was contaminated" speaks volumes to me.

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

BBM

I agree 100%.

Flashbulb memories are one type of autobiographical memory.

As posted upthread, cognitive research has demonstrated that direct experience in a personally traumatic event enhances recollection.

The important distinction is proximity to the traumatic event. If the event is experienced directly (as opposed to being witnessed or learned of via third party, i.e. the news), the details of the traumatic event will be accurate, vivid, and resistant to forgetting.

 

[Really?]

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.

I'm late but by golly....:welcome3::applause:

 

[kittychi]

I can't believe this. My point is being proven over and over again here tonight.
He is saying he can't remember stuff, but Nel is saying it is impossible for him not to remember. And now you have done the exact same thing, not just you lots of people. I don't see why you suggest I am picking up only a few minutes of the day. The whole blooming day was the same. Even the judge was sick of it.
:banghead:

I don't agree that your point has been proven over and over again.

BBM: He says he can't remember stuff and then comes up with something. Something that was different from the previous hour or the previous day! Why would he change his story in multiple places? Why does he add things now, a year later when his memory isn't as fresh as it would have been last year?

Nel is looking for consistency and he isn't finding it. That is why he is asking the same questions over and over. Oscar has not been consistent, or do you think he has been consistent?

Really, all he has to do is tell the truth. It shouldn't take that long or be that continually upsetting.

ETA: What Oscar is claiming he isn't sure of is why his story changed!


At his bail application, Pistorius claimed: "I saw the bathroom door was closed and I thought someone could be in there."

"There's not a single word of that door closing in your bail application. Why?" Nel asked him.

“I’m not sure, my lady,” Pistorius replied.

“It’s not in your plea explanation either, why is that?”

“I’m not sure, my lady.”

“If you said it to [your own defence] counsel? Why did they not put it in?”

Again, the reply was the same.

“I’m not sure, my lady.”

 

[Viper]

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.

BIB People here and on other sites were equally critical, or appreciative, of Mr. Roux and the way that he ferociously went after innocent witnesses that had simply come forward to tell the court what they had seen and heard. He had one poor woman forced to tears IIRC and she had not killed anyone.

The key differences between what Mr. Roux did and what Mr. Nel is doing, as I see it, are:

1) Mr. Nel is questioning a confessed killer.

2) Mr. Nel is actually getting the killer to admit to things that he did not prior to Mr. Nel's questioning. That is a significant difference!!!

 

[Really?]

:wagon:.....:gthanks: thank you for joining us in this discussion.

:seeya:

Great forum!

A couple of things that stand out for me in this case.

There's been next to no mention of Pistorius' dogs. The only thing I read was one of the policemen ensured the dogs were fed when he left the crime scene.

I also find Pistorius saying he was unable to hear after he fired shots rather unbelievable. He was able to have conversations with people at the rifle range after shooting and wearing ear protection - being a sport shooter myself, I find it implausible he wouldn't be able to hear Reeva scream.

I would be interested to know what the state of the kitchen was too. Was there any evidence of a late night snack for example?

I also remember something to the effect that Nel asked him why he put his vest onto of his prosthetics. Can anyone confirm this and the context?

Lastly, "I am pleading not guilty because the scene was contaminated" speaks volumes to me.

 

[kittychi]

kittychi

Sorry I forgot to reply to the last part of your post, where you ask me if I thought he passed with flying colours. No as a matter of fact I am not of the opinion that he passes with flying colours. Why would you assume that would be my opinion?

If I had assumed that was your opinion, I would not have asked the question.

 

[Panda]

:wagon:.....:gthanks: thank you for joining us in this discussion.

Wow! Thanks for such a great welcome!:cheers:

Has anyone got any theories for the blood splatter on bedroom wall behind left bedside? (on the side where I think Reeva's sandals were)

 

[TipDog]

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.

That was my attempt at humor, Molly.:blushing:

And I cannot disagree with you more. It is not the fault of the PT in any case no matter what his/her style may be that a defendant cannot get his story straight. And something that hasn't happened cannot be proven to have happened. Reality simply does not work that way (aside from crooked lawyers/judges and the like who incarcerate innocent men, which does happen - but something that isn't going to be the case with OP, as he is definitely the one who pulled the trigger the night RS was murdered).

It may very well be that Nel cannot cast reasonable enough doubt on OP's version and OP gets less time (doubtful he will walk). But given OP's absolute refusal to admit that he pulled the trigger of a gun that will not go off without one pulling its trigger, in a crowded restaurant no less, shows that he is willing to lie, unwilling to take responsibility (akin to not telling the truth) and dangerous. It has unfolded from there.

But none of it is about Nel proving OP to be a liar when he isn't. In fact, it is OP proving himself to be a liar. At the very least, you must accept that he is responsible for his own evasive tactics and lies on the stand.

 

[aoibhinn]

BBM

I agree 100%.

Flashbulb memories are one type of autobiographical memory.

As posted upthread, cognitive research has demonstrated that direct experience in a personally traumatic event enhances recollection.

The important distinction is proximity to the traumatic event. If the event is experienced directly (as opposed to being witnessed or learned of via third party, i.e. the news), the details of the traumatic event will be accurate, vivid, and resistant to forgetting.

Yes, I agree with all the points you've made. They are in line with scientific fact. Earlier, I read your post on Flashbulb memory which applies in this context. I find the whole topic of memory (and lack of) fascinating.

I'm almost sorry that I brought up the whole memory thing It wasn't my intention to upset. I thought it might be interesting to share the information, in this context. I had some research papers to hand. I'm just a student, in no way an expert.

BIB While psychology might struggle to be recognised as a science (by myself, included), the neuroscientific research in this area cannot be ignored.

Interesting fact - Approximately one third of defendants in homicide cases claim amnesia at the time of the alleged murder. I can't find a figure for selective memory, though...

 

[Patticake]

There is an artist in the courtroom sketching OP in the box. Has anyone seen those sketches? If so, would you please share a link? TIA

His sketches are quite nice. He has a couple of websites. And he knows Oscar as the two of them practiced at the same track for 10 years. A short 1 minute YouTube vignette ... his name is Jaco van Vuuren;

Pistorius court artist trained with the sprinter on the track - YouTube

.

 

[Really?]

Yes, I agree with all the points you've made. They are in line with scientific fact. Earlier, I read your post on Flashbulb memory which applies in this context. I find the whole topic of memory (and lack of) fascinating.

I'm almost sorry that I brought up the whole memory thing It wasn't my intention to upset. I thought it might be interesting to share the information, in this context. I had some research papers to hand. I'm just a student, in no way an expert.

BIB While psychology might struggle to be recognised as a science (by myself, included), the neuroscientific research in this area cannot be ignored.

Interesting fact - Approximately one third of defendants in homicide cases claim amnesia at the time of the alleged murder. I can't find a figure for selective memory, though...

as Gomer Pyle would say........"Surprise.......surprise".

 

[Cherwell]

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.

He wouldn't get me. I never put salt on my eggs.

 

[TipDog]

BIB People here and on other sites were equally critical, or appreciative, of Mr. Roux and the way that he ferociously went after innocent witnesses that had simply come forward to tell the court what they had seen and heard. He had one poor woman forced to tears IIRC and she had not killed anyone.

The key differences between what Mr. Roux did and what Mr. Nel is doing, as I see it, are:

1) Mr. Nel is questioning a confessed killer.

2) Mr. Nel is actually getting the killer to admit to things that he did not prior to Mr. Nel's questioning. That is a significant difference!!!

BIB

Yes, this is something I think some of the OP sympathizers are forgetting.

Pistorius is on trial for murdering Steenkamp, in his home where she should never have had to have worried about being shot while taking a tinkle in the toilet. No matter how the winds blow, the damage is done and OP needs to be held accountable. Him being grilled on the witness stand is not only expected but acceptable. He is not taking an oral exam to be admitted to an academy, after all; he's being asked how it's possible he shot someone to death behind a closed door.

 

[Duchy]

Oscar has a huge credibility problem. If someone took him to a window and said it's a nice bright sunshine out there, he'd say it's not the sun, it's the moon.

or ..'I don't know'

 

[TipDog]

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.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do feel the most sympathetic for the Steenkamps, but OP's family didn't cause or do this and they are suffering too. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside they, too, sense the sinister and doubt his version. I would think that would be a horrific thing to think, let alone know, about your loved one.

 

[Madeleine74]

I can't find a figure for selective memory, though...

Wonder if it's related to selective hearing. It's an affliction each of my pets has enjoyed. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are thousands of cases!

 

[Really?]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do feel the most sympathetic for the Steenkamps, but OP's family didn't cause or do this and they are suffering too. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside they, too, sense the sinister and doubt his version. I would think that would be a horrific thing to think, let alone know, about your loved one.

BBM:

IMO...it was written on their faces a few time during today's testimony.