Trial Discussion Thread #29

[DebinGA]

I can imagine OP fleeing the country at some point to avoid jail.

 

[kittychi]

What I feel a lot of people don't realise, Gerrie Nel included, is that OP's emotions are very real, and not faked. The reason this is a source of confusion is because in some ways he seems mature and grown up, in other ways he is not.

According to experts: "Children with physical or learning disabilities may be at risk for unhealthy or delayed emotional development. Learning disabilities can exacerbate emotional issues and prevent the development of healthy peer relationships, according to Jean C. Gorman, author of "Teaching Exceptional Children," appearing on LD OnLine, a resource for learning disabilities and ADHD. Because a child's physical disabilities are more visible and intrusive, it can be difficult for her to gain the social benefits of playing with other children. A research report by SSTA Research Centre for the Saskatchewan School Board says that children with disabilities may be slower to develop emotions and weaker in expressing those emotions, and may have difficulty forming attachments, which impacts identity development."

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/...ce-childrens-emotional-development-19539.html


The problem is that people have not factored this in. They keep talking about OP as though he grew up like themselves, and they judge him accordingly. That's why they keep trying to come up with imaginary scenarios about how he must have killed RS, each one more ridiculous than the other.

Emotionally he is wired differently to many others, and he can't help himself, and he is not faking it. His family and friends know that, which is why they are so affectionate towards him. We simply cannot use our limited vantage point to say that he is guilty, which is why I am extremely careful about this.

IMO it is obvious that he has been coddled and does not know how to act when he is out of his safe sphere of support. If his emotional wiring is that unstable, then he should not have guns.

Oscar learned to shoot guns just like big boys. He must take responsibility like a big boy, too.

 

[Feynman]

BIB. That is incorrect, as that statement relies on carving out a single sentence from all of the testimony and pushing aside relevant testimony as never being given. Is that misrepresentation of the testimony all that the DT has? Really? If so that is truly sad.

OK. So when did any State's witness testify to bat bangs first, gunshots second?

 

[Viper]

I don't think OP takes the DT's advise based on his dismal stand performance. So, I can't imagine he would take their advise on any plea bargain. I really think OP is trying to get off with only a tiny slap on the wrist.

I know his testimony was contradictory regarding putative self defense and involuntary action, but it was always the same, he maintained both defenses throughout. So I suspect that Roux did instruct him to answer in that way. I don't understand why just yet, but that is what I believe.

And if you go back to his first day on the stand when he said he was "fighting for his life" and he was concerned about answering questions with great care, it bolsters my opinion. I don't believe OP is so arrogant that he would go against his attorneys' advice and instruction when he has so much on the line.

Just my two cents.

 

[anagrammy]

I think you missed the context of my comment. My point was purely in relation to the question of why OP made such a fuss about the position of the magazine rack, and the suggestion it was to emphasise the difficulty he was having getting RS out if the toilet. As he called Stander after he'd got her out, that doesn't really make sense.

Could it be possible that the magazine rack must be in place to justify the bruise on her buttocks because it actually came from him hitting her with the cricket bat?

I have a new theory that I've been playing with posing the idea that there is an entirely different possible scenario which explains what happens.

It is based on a few clues that have puzzled us sleuthers, such as why he insists the magazine rack has been moved, and why he jammed his fingers down her throat, why her top was on back to front, and why she has the marks of a beating on her back, and why her nipple was abraded.

Is it possible that the fight which lasted so long took place all over the house and it involved escalating physical abuse of the type that we are all familiar with: the slapping, the hair pulling, the wrestling, the choking until almost unconscious.

What if they started fighting downstairs when she discovered he had nothing for her and she knew that he had created that huge Valentine's Day surprise for a previous girlfriend, taking days to prepare with the balloons and message on the driveway, etc. Then it escalates and becomes a shoving match, a slapping, hair-pulling, knock down drag out.

Let's say he didn't intend to cause permanent injury but thought he would give her a fanny paddle blow flat on the behind, but because he was running up the stairs away from him, the bat did not hit her flat on the fanny, but rather inflicted the "lunar" huge bruise on the sensitive inside of her crack. The angle of the injury is perfect for that scenario. She screams and falls on the stairs grabbing at her butt and he tries to shut her up by putting her in a headlock facing towards him, pressing her mouth to his chest.

He is carrying her up the stairs by the head like that and she struggles mightily, causing the nipple abrasion. His upper body strength is legendary, so he thinks he is avoiding choking her by having her face him. This causes the strange injury to the base of her head, noted by the pathologist, where her spine connects with her skull.

He throws her on the bed, flinging blood on the headboard. She is not completely conscious and he pulls her pants off because she is not going anywhere--he is not going to let her leave and make a report. There are minor wounds bleeding (from the nose and scalp) and these are the sources of the drops in the bedroom.

While he is gone, she wakes up, hurriedly pulls on clothes (top on back to front), throws her fresh pants off the balcony and locks in the bathroom, thinking she'll jump from the window.

When he finds she's locked him out and is screaming from the balcony, he becomes enraged and takes the cricket bat to the door. HE MUST STOP THAT NOISE before security comes! Of course OP took her phone, so she grabs one of his thinking she can use it to call the police....

He sees she is in the bathroom and he is full of adrenaline and fear (that she will report him and he'll be ruined). He has to stop the screaming and keep her from talking to anyone. He kicks the door and yells at her NOT to call the police. She says she will unless he lets her go, but of course, he knows he can't trust her. She told him what a sorry piece of **** she thinks he is.

He hits the stainless steel plate with the cricket bat saying she'll be sorry if she does and his kicks are ear-splitting and now he hears the window slide open and is still screaming and ...SHE IS GOING TO ESCAPE!

He goes and gets his gun AND TAKES OFF HIS PROSTHETICS. This is her fault, he thinks, she has left me no choice. He screams "Get the F*** out of my house" in front of the door, on his stumps, and Reeva knows she has made a terrible mistake. She makes that blood-curdling scream a second before he fires.

He hears the magazine rack sliding and/or peeks through the door, adjusting his aim and fires until she stops screaming. He is regretful, but not overly so because she made him do it.

I won't run through his post-murder behavior because it speaks to his guilt itself. He has to go put his legs back on, and make adjustments to the crime scene. You can fill in those mysterious blanks of time with his need to break or steal phones, and destroy any evidence that might be speak to premeditation.

 

[Viper]

OK. So when did any State's witness testify to bat bangs first, gunshots second?

Please see my reply to TipDog not far upstream. TIA

 

[molly333]

Alan Dershowitz

South Africa is a failed country. It is a lawless country. It is a country with an extraordinarily high rate of violent crime. And, it's a country with deep, deep racial divisions and problems, that we wish had disappeared because we all love Mandela, but that's not the reality.

Alan Dershowitz Trashes CNN Reporter Robyn Curnow's Oscar Pistorius Coverage - YouTube

 

[TorisMom003]

In listening to Mrs. Stipp's cross I find myself rolling my eyes. Oldwage (Sp?) is trying to claim that her entire testimony is false because she signed a legal document that is a sworn statement and made under oath when she added the part about seeing man in the bathroom window and going back to the police to change that part the next day. Fast forward to OP's testimony where he also signed a legal document that is a sworn statement and made under oath in which there are clearly things wrong and/or not included. OP however never bothered to correct those things and instead blamed any mistakes on his lawyers.

Still listening for the toilet window light part.

 

[James50]

BIB. True, the case is not over yet. Do you have that much faith that the DT ballistics expert can perform a miracle for OP? If so, how, why? This trial has not gone well for the Defense IMO, and I have not seen posts proclaiming otherwise.

Well you know, Viper, in my experience it ain't over until it's over or until the fat lady sings. Let's just say we'll see. I think it isn't so much that the DT has done a bad job, but the prosecution uses smear tactics rather than incontrovertible evidence to score points. And, well, anyone can do that.

 

[lisasalinger]

Random observation: The lawyers chewing on their glasses during court is pretty gross... in particular Oldwage. Somebody needs to get him a chew toy for his next birthday.

 

[TorisMom003]

Random observation: The lawyers chewing on their glasses during court is pretty gross... in particular Oldwage. Somebody needs to get him a chew toy for his next birthday.

Gum. Although OP wouldn't like that since the lawyers are on camera, but gum would keep them from chewing on their glasses.

 

[Fuskier]

OP was in the passageway when he heard the door slam, is that right? So Reeva can only have been a second or two ahead of him. The timeline seems so wrong. She'd have only just got out of bed while he was getting his gun, and been walking down the passage to the toilet when he started screaming? That's a very tight timeline, and so improbable, it cannot be reasonably possibly true - am I right???

Exactly. The timing of his version, and his changed version, means that Reeva could only have been seconds ahead of him IMO. I hope the PT will put together the alleged timeline in seconds.

 

[James50]

Oscar learned to shoot guns just like big boys. He must take responsibility like a big boy, too.

So what do you call appearing in court, standing in the witness box and agreeing to be cross examined?

Actions speaks louder that words, but he took responsibility in words as well. He told the first person who appeared on the scene that he had shot Reeva by mistake.

But in any case, I'm not particularly interested as to what he should do or not do, as it is not my plave to judge him. All I was trying to do was understand him and what might have been going on in his head when this incident took place. Because I think if we can understand him and the way his mind works, we will then have the key to knowing what really happened.

 

[TipDog]

Well you know, Viper, in my experience it ain't over until it's over or until the fat lady sings. Let's just say we'll see. I think it isn't so much that the DT has done a bad job, but the prosecution uses smear tactics rather than incontrovertible evidence to score points. And, well, anyone can do that.

Please provide examples of how you believe the PT is using smear tactics and how what they are doing is any different from what any PT would do when prosecuting an individual on trial for murder, especially a trial in which the accused is, in fact, the known killer.

TYIA

 

[wb180]

So what do you call appearing in court, standing in the witness box and agreeing to be cross examined?

Actions speaks louder that words, but he took responsibility in words as well. He told the first person who appeared on the scene that he had shot Reeva by mistake.

But in any case, I'm not particularly interested as to what he should do or not do, as it is not my plave to judge him. All I was trying to do was understand him and what might have been going on in his head when this incident took place. Because I think if we can understand him and the way his mind works, we will then have the key to knowing what really happened.

I understand how his mind works because he is lying on the stand and hence he is covering up and because of that no one knows what really happened. You can blame him for that.

 

[wb180]

Well you know, Viper, in my experience it ain't over until it's over or until the fat lady sings. Let's just say we'll see. I think it isn't so much that the DT has done a bad job, but the prosecution uses smear tactics rather than incontrovertible evidence to score points. And, well, anyone can do that.

Smear tactics?! In a court of law? Really?!?! Haha

 

[Fuskier]

Excellent post Hope. I don't think OP had the time or presence of mind to think how he was going to cover things up. Especially in the frame of mind he was in at the time, and the eye witness accounts of his emotional state.
I believe that it was himself he was worried about when he ventured into the bathroom and Reeva would have been an afterthought, but he can't say that in court can he? Something else struck me from the very beginning and I have never mentioned it before because it is difficult to put into words the feeling I have about it. It was the witness account of how OP was pleading with god to let Reeva live, and trying to make a bargain with god by promising to be a good person etc. (I can't remember exactly what he said), if he would let Reeva live.
This strikes me as real. I don't know if anyone else on here has tried to bargain with god in times of great worry or grief. I have, more than once, and to me, that heart rending plea coming from a person's mouth is real. I know many will say that he was just pleading to be saved from jail, but it strikes me as being genuine.

There are different ways of looking at things. The concept of God is each person's version according to their religious education, needs, free will, etc. IMO there is no universally agreed concept of what God is and the concept varies from culture to culture.

It is also possible that OP pleaded with his version of God, in front of others, for his own reasons. It is possible that once his 'rage' had been discharged, he realized what he had done was permanent, irreversable. He then pleaded for his own needs because he realized there would be serious consequences for him.

One telling exposure of his inner world is how he bargained with God in his witnessed plead: he promised to dedicate Reeva's life to God, if God let her live. The fact is he did not own Reeva and her life was her own, not his to dedicate or to destroy. In bargaining with his version of God for her salvation, he was already taking away her right to make her own choice -by dedicating her life for her etc. Degree of ownership here?

 

[Val1]

Couldn't find the gallery part?

Argh, it was in a tweet the other day while I was watching the trial.. am searching now.:findinglink:

 

[TipDog]

So what do you call appearing in court, standing in the witness box and agreeing to be cross examined?

Actions speaks louder that words, but he took responsibility in words as well. He told the first person who appeared on the scene that he had shot Reeva by mistake.

But in any case, I'm not particularly interested as to what he should do or not do, as it is not my plave to judge him. All I was trying to do was understand him and what might have been going on in his head when this incident took place. Because I think if we can understand him and the way his mind works, we will then have the key to knowing what really happened.

BIB 1

Something he's bound by law to do unless he wishes to flee, thus becoming a fugitive. Not the same thing as taking responsibility as a gun owner or taking responsibility for killing someone. He's required by law to be there, it's not by choice.

BIB 2

That's his defense and not him taking responsibility at all (certainly not by calling it a mistake when it wasn't a mistake - he shot at and through a door knowing a human being was behind it and would be struck by the bullets). It was his gun in his home and he had no one else to blame.

 

[James50]

BIB 1

It is not Nel's responsibility in the least, nor part of his job, to worry about OP's emotions..

So why then did he keep making reference to his getting emotional? You can't have your cake and eat it.

May - does not mean will. Not all disabled children are stunted emotionally or grow up with emotional issues.

So there's your reasonble doubt. He MAY be not faking it.

Not all disabled children are stunted emotionally or grow up with emotional issues.

Read my statements carefully. That's exactly what I said. With all due respect, you react too fast and jump too quickly to conclusions.

And in OP's case, he was given tremendous support (still is given) by members of his family. He overcame his disability to become a world class athlete. I don't see evidence of an antisocial, awkward man-child whose emotions should be considered with such gentle care. Instead, he is hot tempered and quick to express emotion, often while wielding a deadly weapon.

Well we all see different things. What I see is to me as clear as crystal. He is a man-child, but that doesn't means he's totally maladjusted. In one way he is, in another way he isn't. He is a contradition, rather than the monoslot people are trying to put him in.

This is your opinion entirely and not fact. He could easily be faking it, especially if what you referenced is true - he'd be weaker in expressing emotion, not more prone to it.

Yes, this is the way I feel and I'm sticking to it. If he's tbe cunning liar so many are trying to make him out to be, then there are much more effective ways of duping the public than to put on a show of emotions knowing that so many people are accusing him of using emotions to cover up his guilt.

A human life has been lost by the hands of one very reckless (and I believe sinister) individual. He just happens to be disabled.

Sorry, that's way too simplistic and dismissive of context for me. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.