Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Viper]

It is so easy to mess people up on the stand and in police interrogations, that people actually give false confessions. Something like 25 percent of the people freed by DNA have given false confessions. The rest were mostly ID'd by witnesses who couldn't remember anything, either.

Respectfully, the BIB has NOTHING to do with this case.

 

[nastasya]

Hi. Regarding memory, e.g.. 9/11 you remember vividly if you weren't directly involved. If you're directly involved, many horrific events will be "a blur" or you purposely won't want to/ choose not to remember, as it's too horrific and would permanently haunt you/impede your whole life/view of the world. You would barely function.

Nice theory, too bad it's wrong.

I personally found somebody I loved who committed suicide about a month before Reeva was killed. It wasn't pretty.

I wish my memories were a complete blur. They're not. They're vivid and detailed, and they are in my thoughts every day.

For what it's worth, I fumbled for my cell phone and dialed 911 in the first 5 seconds of finding the body. I wouldn't hang up the phone with the 911 operator until the ambulance arrived.

I remember vividly the paramedic who got there first, the detectives, the people from the ME's office. Nothing is a blur. In fact, it's probably the strongest memory I have in my life.

My emotions when I think of that day are very similar to Reeva's mother. I have no idea what Pistorius is doing going into uncontrollable hysterics a over a year after her death. He never showed that much emotion about her when she was alive. Why now when she's dead?

 

[molly333]

Respectfully, the BIB has NOTHING to do with this case.

I'm just saying, I don't put a lot of weight on a skilled prosecutor making mincemeat of a defendant on the stand.

 

[Viper]

minor four said last night that he would probably be found guilty of CH because of SA law, but that the Judge had the discretion to give him no time.

So it sounds like the fight is over how much jail time, if any, unless the prosecutor can prove murder one.

And Minor4 is just another WS forum member; he/she is as biased for or against Mr. Pistorius as any other FM here. This is the Internet! I believe that I have said that in a reply to you recently.

 

[molly333]

And Minor4 is just another WS forum member; he/she is as biased for or against Mr. Pistorius as any other FM here. This is the Internet! I believe that I have said that in a reply to you recently.

well, I don't know SA law, so I'm assuming she's right.

What do you think the fight is over? Something different?

 

[TipDog]

It is so easy to mess people up on the stand and in police interrogations, that people actually give false confessions. Something like 25 percent of the people freed by DNA have given false confessions. The rest were mostly ID'd by witnesses who couldn't remember anything, either.

Would you by chance have a link to the statistics that back this? I'm seriously very curious, more so about how easy it is to "mess people up on the stand." I've certainly heard of the innocent being found guilty due to all sorts of things, but never really that it was directly a result of the defendant being messed with on the stand (and by this, I'm assuming you to mean messed with the way you perceive Nel to be messing with OP).

Appreciated.

 

[Panda]

Nel: why would you scream, why would you scream out
OP: I was scared. I wanted to ask Reeva why is she phoning the police

Unless I heard incorrectly, that is a BOMBSHELL ...possibly the prime motive for snuffing her out -- he was afraid she was going to call the police!

I think in his confused state on the stand at that moment, op got the contexts of his post kill screams mixed up with pre-kill screams.

He has never before to the best of my know. explained so specifically why he screamed (as he claims, though he says he couldn't hear himself doing it.) And in previous written and spoken testimony,he has indicated that from the time he heard the "intruder/s" until the time he broke down the bathroom door, he had no visual on Reeva (hence, his mistake), just assumed she was in bed, but not answering his low tones/whispers/what evers.

He has claimed that he called out for her to call the police. Why then would he want to ask her why she was calling them?

If Winston Churchill can use this expression, I guess I can.
OMG!!!

Originally Posted by Murphys_Law View Post
Apr 14 Session 3
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

@15:45 Nel starts talking about the moments immediately after the shots.

@16:50
Nel: why would you scream, why would you scream out
OP: I was scared. I wanted to ask Reeva why is she phoning the police

Unless I heard incorrectly, that is a BOMBSHELL ...possibly the prime motive for snuffing her out -- he was afraid she was going to call the police!

I think in OP's very confused state on the stand at that moment, he got the contexts of his post-kill screams mixed up with his pre-kill screams.

Very well picked up. I've just gone through it again, and he definitely says, [COLOR="Magenta[COLOR="Red"]"]"I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police ..."[/COLOR][/COLOR]

 

[BritsKate]

The three first witnesses heard the bloodcurdling screams of a woman, that went on for 15 minutes or so [I wrote why did no one call police?] and then ending with the gunshots. They put the time at 300am for the gunshots.

Dr. Stipp hears two rounds of gunshots [he says] with a woman screaming in between.

One of my questions has always been--what was going on that she is screaming and screaming like that? And, this answers that question--he had locked her in the toilet room.

Again, is there a window inside that toilet room?

The three first witnesses heard the bloodcurdling screams of a woman, that went on for 15 minutes or so [I wrote why did no one call police?] and then ending with the gunshots. They put the time at 300am for the gunshots.

Dr. Stipp hears two rounds of gunshots [he says] with a woman screaming in between.

One of my questions has always been--what was going on that she is screaming and screaming like that? And, this answers that question--he had locked her in the toilet room.

Again, is there a window inside that toilet room?

Both the State and the defence have placed one set of bangs at 3:17. The second set. The State contends these were the gunshots while the defence claims it was the toilet door being broken down. Annette Stipp places the first set of bangs that sound like gunshots at 3:05. Dr. Stipp stated both sets sounded like gunshots.

 

[minor4th]

Let's see O explain away the blood spatter above the headboard. . .

He already did

 

[nastasya]

I'm just saying, I don't put a lot of weight on a skilled prosecutor making mincemeat of a defendant on the stand.

The prosecutor is just asking the questions. He's not the one giving different answers - within the same breath.

OP: "I whispered.... spoke softly... blah blah blah"

OP: "I never said I whispered! Anybody who says I whispered is lying!"

OP: "Um... yeah, the denim on top of the duvet is a problem for my version."

OP: "The gun went off by itself. My finger wasn't on the trigger."

OP: "I lost somebody I cared about! Doesn't anybody understand? (This is supposed to be about ME!)

You get what I'm saying.

Nel didn't make mincemeat out of OP.

OP just proved to the world he's a self-centered, entitled, lying, self-confessed killer. It's just a matter of how much time he spends in prison.

 

[molly333]

Both the State and the defence have placed one set of bangs at 3:17. The second set. The State contends these were the gunshots while the defence claims it was the toilet door being broken down. Annette Stipp places the first set of bangs that sound like gunshots at 3:05. Dr. Stipp stated both sets sounded like gunshots.

It's confusing. But whatever they hear, there should be no screams from Reeva after the gunshots. And, enough hear screams of a woman before the gunshots and nothing thereafter that I think I can safely say she was screaming for a long time for some reason. Not sure I could convict on that, given the contradictory ear witness testimony though.

 

[HauntsForHope]

Nice theory, too bad it's wrong.

I personally found somebody I loved who committed suicide about a month before Reeva was killed. It wasn't pretty.

I wish my memories were a complete blur. They're not. They're vivid and detailed, and they are in my thoughts every day.

For what it's worth, I fumbled for my cell phone and dialed 911 in the first 5 seconds of finding the body. I wouldn't hang up the phone with the 911 operator until the ambulance arrived.

I remember vividly the paramedic who got there first, the detectives, the people from the ME's office. Nothing is a blur. In fact, it's probably the strongest memory I have in my life.

My emotions when I think of that day are very similar to Reeva's mother. I have no idea what Pistorius is doing going into uncontrollable hysterics a over a year after her death. He never showed that much emotion about her when she was alive. Why now when she's dead?

I'm sorry for your loss. So tragic
As a trauma survivor, I can agree with you, that you absolutely remember every moment with such clarity that will never leave you.

I believe OP (and other defendants) break down on the stand when confronted with facts that they cannot reconcile. Filling in the blanks in a lie is very difficult, and even harder to keep track of, even after only a day or two. When a story is true, you can recite moment by moment every time. A lie however is like a ghost, is has no substance. OP said he was emotional because he 'could not remember' when Nel asked about him getting around the fans. Once faced with the fact that his story wasn't adding up, he got frustrated and started crying.

 

[Viper]

well, I don't know SA law, so I'm assuming she's right.

What do you think the fight is over? Something different?

BIB The fight is over OP's freedom. Many here want him to be free after this is over. Many more do not want him to be free. So it is an Internet battle, which means nothing. Even WS verified attorneys can have a dog in this fight and refuse to admit to reality! OP is going to prison for a very long time. The only fight is for just how long of a time: 25 years or until he dies.

 

[Panda]

He already did

Sorry, I missed that. What was his response? blushing:Apologies if it's already been mentioned - I wouldn't know where to start trying to find it!)

 

[TipDog]

I'm sorry for your loss. So tragic
As a trauma survivor, I can agree with you, that you absolutely remember every moment with such clarity that will never leave you.

I believe OP (and other defendants) break down on the stand when confronted with facts that they cannot reconcile. Filling in the blanks in a lie is very difficult, and even harder to keep track of, even after only a day or two. When a story is true, you can recite moment by moment every time. A lie however is like a ghost, is has no substance. OP said he was emotional because he 'could not remember' when Nel asked about him getting around the fans. Once faced with the fact that his story wasn't adding up, he got frustrated and started crying.

BIB

Exactly

 

[nastasya]

It's confusing. But whatever they hear, there should be no screams from Reeva after the gunshots. And, enough hear screams of a woman before the gunshots and nothing thereafter that I think I can safely say she was screaming for a long time for some reason. Not sure I could convict on that, given the contradictory ear witness testimony though.

Yes, you could convict on the fact that Reeva was screaming.

If OP heard her screaming it means he fired his 9 mm Parabellum directly at her four times. That's intentional murder. It's what he's charged with.

The witnesses did not contradict each other at all. They all testified to hearing a woman screaming, followed by gunshots, followed my silence.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[Panda]

I'm sorry for your loss. So tragic
As a trauma survivor, I can agree with you, that you absolutely remember every moment with such clarity that will never leave you.

I believe OP (and other defendants) break down on the stand when confronted with facts that they cannot reconcile. Filling in the blanks in a lie is very difficult, and even harder to keep track of, even after only a day or two. When a story is true, you can recite moment by moment every time. A lie however is like a ghost, is has no substance. OP said he was emotional because he 'could not remember' when Nel asked about him getting around the fans. Once faced with the fact that his story wasn't adding up, he got frustrated and started crying.

I agree. Who doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were doing at such times as Presidents' assassinations, moonlanding, Princess Diana's death etc.

Having said that ... being on the stand can be a whole different ball game. It's very easy to get flummoxed, confused, terrified and worried about what's going to come out of your mouth, even if you are innocent. Frightening experience.

 

[nastasya]

The problem is, without some history of violence or threats, you can't make a rational leap to the conclusion that on that night he lost his temper and couldn't control himself so reached for his gun and killed Reeva. There's no context for that.

So every murderer kills for the first time only after a history or violence and threats?

Did you see the story about the 16 year old in PA who flipped out and stabbed 20 kids?

Or kid in Newton who shot up the school?

Do we really need to cite the tens of thousands of example that contradict your assertion?

 

[Murphys_Law]

Both the State and the defence have placed one set of bangs at 3:17. The second set. The State contends these were the gunshots while the defence claims it was the toilet door being broken down. Annette Stipp places the first set of bangs that sound like gunshots at 3:05. Dr. Stipp stated both sets sounded like gunshots.

BritsKate, love your posts but I wish to offer a small correction.
Annette Stipp places the first set of bangs at 3:00 or before ... recall she said it was 3:02 on her clock, which she says is fast by 2 or 3 minutes, therefore the more accurate time would be 3:00 or before. Thus, there is approx. 15 minutes between the first and last set of bangs.

 

[Val1]

Re: Changing his defense from putative self defense to involuntary action --

There has been a lot of talk about Oscar changing his defense and what that means or if it helps the state prove murder. Here is my take -

Oscar is not changing his defense, he is just using different terminology than Nel (albeit, he's perseverating).

When Oscar says it was an accident and that he didn't intend to shoot the intruder - I believe what Oscar means is that he didn't plan to kill the intruder and that he didn't have time to reflect on what he was doing. He is not saying that the gun went off by accident or that he had no control over pulling the trigger - he concedes that he pulled the trigger and that it did not go off accidentally.

When he says he didn't intend to shoot or kill the intruder, he seems to be meaning that he didn't want it to come to that - he didn't want to have to shoot anyone or kill anyone; that wasn't his "plan" as he approached the bathroom, although he was aware that he might have to shoot to defend himself (and Reeva).

Going back to the first moments of his cross examination, he said "I didn't intend to shoot Reeva, or anyone else for that matter" and he also said that the whole shooting was an "accident." When he first said those things, I thought to myself "OMG, this guy is a screwball and won't even admit that he shot to defend himself." <--- that is what it sounded like! However, now having listened to him for 3 or 4 days, one can better glean his meaning. It's not that he's changing his defense; he's just using a totally different set of terminology to describe it.

Keep in mind that Roux will redirect him, and he will do so in a way that is not pressured or aggressive. I expect much of this to be clarified in redirect examination. If I were in Roux' position, I would also make a point of getting Oscar to acknowledge that he felt great pressure under cross examination and that the manner of questioning was mentally exhausting and impaired his ability to think clearly. I do believe that is some of what we are seeing.

Iow's, OP was playing chicken and being the olympic athlete that he is/was, he wasn't going to be the one to give in first and damned the consequences?