Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[molly333]

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.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. Looking only at the homicide cases, false confessions are the leading contributor to wrongful convictions, contributing to 64 (62%) of the 104 homicide wrongful convictions that were overturned by DNA evidence, where as misidentifications contributed to only 32 (31%) of the homicide wrongful convictions. Twenty-nine of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php


These stats are higher than the last time I looked.

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

That was my point. Giving Oscar every little last bit of doubt there is still screaming being heard for at least 7 minutes before he says he fired the gun. And if the 2nd group of bangs were the shots, like the State contends, the 1st had to be something like hitting the door.

Why would he hit the door if he had the key after locking her in?

ETA: And if 5 witnesses told me they saw a balloon and one said scarlet, another said ruby, one stated crimson, another vermilion, and the last said it was wine coloured, I'd have to conclude the balloon was some shade of red. They don't contradict one another - they heard different bits of the event. 4/5 heard the bangs at 3:17, iirc.

 

[BabaJ]

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

After all this defendant killed a person, whether it was intentional or accidental. He has the luxury of going through a fair trial while Reeva does not have this option and neither do her parents. You cannot compare their grief to "what poor Oscar is going through". Although I do not believe that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he killed Reeva intentionally (yet?), I think that Nel is doing his job well and I have no pity for OP.

 

[Dr Mattus]

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!)

They were droplets which came from reeva's hair as OP carried her through the bedroom on the way from the bathroom to the stair.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Thank you...see, even unintentionally I'm still trying to give Oscar every benefit of doubt as to times. Honest, guv.

So that means I'm back to about 12 minutes of unexplained screaming by someone who sounds like a woman...before shots were fired.

 

[wb180]

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. Looking only at the homicide cases, false confessions are the leading contributor to wrongful convictions, contributing to 64 (62%) of the 104 homicide wrongful convictions that were overturned by DNA evidence, where as misidentifications contributed to only 32 (31%) of the homicide wrongful convictions. Twenty-nine of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php


These stats are higher than the last time I looked.

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.

I guess that means you put no weight on what OP says which means you don't believe his various versions of events. You are just waiting for PT to prove their case. That's fine, I hope they will to your satisfaction but at this moment, they are disproving OP's versions of events given OP is on the stand.

 

[nastasya]

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. Looking only at the homicide cases, false confessions are the leading contributor to wrongful convictions, contributing to 64 (62%) of the 104 homicide wrongful convictions that were overturned by DNA evidence, where as misidentifications contributed to only 32 (31%) of the homicide wrongful convictions. Twenty-nine of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php


These stats are higher than the last time I looked.

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.[/QUOTE]

You're misinterpreting the data.

Those statistics are ONLY for the cases that were re-opened. The 62% stat is for that infinitesimally small sample size out of tens of thousands of actual murder convictions.

That's only 64 total cases in the universe of all the tens of thousands of criminals who murdered people.

 

[molly333]

I guess that means you put no weight on what OP says which means you don't believe his various versions of events. You are just waiting for PT to prove their case. That's fine, I hope they will to your satisfaction but at this moment, they are disproving OP's versions of events given OP is on the stand.

well, to my mind, they have to prove what he says is a lie by using physical evidence not by getting him to trip up over silly things like 'whisper' versus 'low tone' versus 'softly'. That's crazymaking stuff that would make anyone totally crazy on the spot.

And, not by manipulated or irrelevant physical evidence, either.

 

[atthelake]

OP said today he'd had a scream test done where he now lives, presumably not where he killed Reeva. Huh?

Didn't he move in with his uncle?

 

[molly333]

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.

You're misinterpreting the data.

Those statistics are ONLY for the cases that were re-opened. The 62% stat is for that infinitesimally small sample size out of tens of thousands of actual murder convictions.

That's only 64 total cases in the universe of all the tens of thousands of criminals who murdered people.

I didn't misquote it. I said 25 percent and that says 25 percent of all cases.

I didn't realize murder cases were so high, though, 62 oercent in this study.

 

[BritsKate]

They were droplets which came from reeva's hair as OP carried her through the bedroom on the way from the bathroom to the stair.

Coming down the passage from the bathroom, the bedroom door (only exit to downstairs) is on the right. Why was there blood on the watch case, which is on the speaker? The duvet, both sides, on the floor nearer to the balcony doors? The wall on the left side of the bed? And the headboard?

What was the reason to carry her to the balcony or over by the bed before leaving the room? It certainly wasn't en route.

Curious.

 

[wb180]

well, in my mind, they have to prove what he says is a lie using by physical evidence not by getting him to trip up over silly things like 'whisper' versus 'low tone' versus 'softly'. That's crazymaking stuff that would make anyone totally crazy on the spot.

So you do put weight on what a defendant says on the stand but no one is allowed to question him on stuff he said himself.

I want you to be my judge/jury if I ever do anything wrong!

 

[TipDog]

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. Looking only at the homicide cases, false confessions are the leading contributor to wrongful convictions, contributing to 64 (62%) of the 104 homicide wrongful convictions that were overturned by DNA evidence, where as misidentifications contributed to only 32 (31%) of the homicide wrongful convictions. Twenty-nine of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php


These stats are higher than the last time I looked.

So if you can actually get someone to falsely confess to a crime they didn't do, it shows how easily people can be messed up. That is my point. And, I expect a skilled prosecutor to mess up a witness on the stand so badly that they don't know which way is up, when he is through with them.

That is why I put almost no weight on what a defendant says on the stand, except in rare cases.

Thank you for the link, Molly. Very interesting.

However - and I'm sure you knew this was coming - your relating statistics for inappropriate police interrogations that have lead to false confessions has little to nothing to do with how a prosecutor grills a defendant and zero to do with this trial.

Nel is not trying to coerce OP into a false confession. OP has already confessed. Nel is trying to get OP to tell the truth, because he's been privy to all of the evidence and he knows that OP's version is complete bulldung.

And as respectfully as I can suggest to you- maybe you're placing blame on the wrong interrogators? An officer roughing up a suspect in an interrogation room is not a prosecutor asking difficult but necessary questions in court in an effort to find truth and justice for the victim involved.

 

[BritsKate]

well, to my mind, they have to prove what he says is a lie by using physical evidence not by getting him to trip up over silly things like 'whisper' versus 'low tone' versus 'softly'. That's crazymaking stuff that would make anyone totally crazy on the spot.

And, not by manipulated or irrelevant physical evidence, either.

I really don't think Nel gives a flip whether Oscar said whispered or spoke softly. I think his real issue was Oscar adamantly stating, and refusing to concede, he'd ever said whispered at all.

And Oscar has stated many things he later says he never stated. When called out for it, he resorts to 'I don't remember' or 'I made a mistake'.

 

[wb180]

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.

Same thing with me. When my grandmother had a stroke, I also remember quite vividly what happened. Even the smell of her neck. It has been many years ago but I still remember it.

 

[molly333]

So you do put weight on what a defendant says on the stand but no one is allowed to question him on stuff he said himself.

I want you to be my judge/jury if I ever do anything wrong!

:scale: Sure, anytime.

 

[elfie]

I put it to you that OP is fighting for his life.


Moo

Or rather, fighting for his lifestyle. :banghead:

 

[molly333]

I really don't think Nel gives a flip whether Oscar said whispered or spoke softly. I think his real issue was Oscar adamantly stating, and refusing to concede, he'd ever said whispered at all.

And Oscar has stated many things he later says he never stated. When called out for it, he resorts to 'I don't remember' or 'I made a mistake'.

Don't forget that he is comparing Oscar's statements on the stand with written statements made for the bail hearing and some other hearing.

We don't do that sort of thing in this country. We are not required to testify against ourselves, which is what these written statements pretrial are.

Also, those written statements were written by lawyers. Have you ever had a lawyer or any third party] write up a statement for you? If you trust them, as I'm sure Oscar did being a basket case, you end up with this situation.

 

[TipDog]

well, to my mind, they have to prove what he says is a lie by using physical evidence not by getting him to trip up over silly things like 'whisper' versus 'low tone' versus 'softly'. That's crazymaking stuff that would make anyone totally crazy on the spot.

And, not by manipulated or irrelevant physical evidence, either.

By your standards, many murderers would walk free on a regular basis. In many cases there is no dead body, let alone any other physical evidence. What we're witnessing now in this trial is what true detective work is all about, even with the bundling police work. Circumstantial is extremely valid and often what seals a conviction.

Personally, I hope the fact that OP introduced the "crazymaking," as you call it, and then lied about it will be the defining reason the judge throws him in jail for a good long time.

She should sentence him aloud in a soft tone and then ask him to whisper back to her that he understands the ruling.

 

[clearskies1]

Sorry if this has been covered before and I can't believe I'm even asking this 4 days into OP's cross but, is it now clearly established that OP is claiming that his actions (shooting 4 times) were involuntary/unintentional and that he's not claiming intentional (albeit mistaken) self-defense? TIA.