Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Suthrnqt]

Quotes from an interview with defense lawyer Ulrich Roux, published in the Sunday Times this morning:

How did Oscar fare under cross examination?

He has not fared well. He has come across as being an evasive witness and not giving straightforward answers to very direct questions. Most detrimental, however, is the fact that his version has changed on numerous occasions when tested by Gerrie Nel. this makes it near impossible for the court to accept his version. He has been very selective as to what he remembers and what he does not. This does not bode well for his credibility as a witness and the court will make a negative inference as to his recollection of exactly what happened on that evening. He has also become agitated with Nel, losing his temper somewhat and falling into the traps Nel has set for him. The fact he is blaming his legal representatives, the South African police, as well as his friends for lying all ocmes across in a negative light and indicates he is not prepared to take responsibility for any of his actions.

What did you make of Gerrie Nel's aggressive questioning?

Nel's style is to rattle witnesses, unsettle them emotionally, and in so doing get them to make mistakes. When Pistorius has been emotional and upset, his chain of thoughts and judgmenthas definitely become clouded and that is when Nel has pounced on him. The main function of cross-examination, however, is to test whether a witness's version is the truth and whether it is reasonably and possibly true. Nel must be careful his aggression does not deter from this fact and take away the effect that the contradictions actually have. He has managed to force Pistorius into making numerous concessions, which will be very difficult to recover from. He must continue to focus on these concessions and contradictions for the remainder of Pistorius's cross-examination.

What are the key concessions Pistorius has made?

Pistorius testified he has been a victim of crime his entire life and named a number of occasions, such as the apparent gunshot fired at him on the highway and the apparent assault on him in a public place, yet he has never laid any charges at a police station. He conceded this. He initially testified he could not remember firing the four shots, but later conceded the fact that he clearly remembers he did not fire a double tap. This is a big contradiction and places much doubt over the accuracy of his recollection of how events unfolded on that evening. Further concessions were regarding the apparent contamination of the crime scene and how unlikely it is that the police would indeed move items around without knowing what Pistorius's version is, the length of the fan's power cord, the fact that he did not repair the broken windo in his house immediately, that there was no ladder outside his house, the alarm was activated, and so on. He conceded to the ammunition charge as well as to the fact that it was negligent of both him and Darren Fresco to handle the firearm in the way that they did at Tasha's. The three minor charges are posing a big problem for Pistorius because of the character evidence that was introduced when evidence was heard on the charges. I cannot see him escaping a conviction on any of these charges. His testimony on the ammunition and Tasha's charges have been tantamount to a confession, in my opinion. Just flatly denying that he fired a shot out of hte car's sunroof, after two witnesses have testified that he did, leaves much to be desired.

I guess it was Roux's turn to throw OP under the bus.

 

[james83]

James:
Did you ever reply to my query some pages back about your 10:10 mark on a video where OP changes the order of batshots and gunshots in his reply in a trial video.
I think you wrote Monday 1st session. But that wasn''t it. (I tried.)

Can you give the video's link please?
TIA

Hi Sorry, i am still looking, i didn't actually see a video of it just read it somewhere, i think it was from Roux leading Pistorius through what happened.

 

[Cherwell]

It is therefore quite possible that the five witnesses heard Reeva screaming in fear for her life, then gunshots and then did not necessarily hear the cricket bat striking the door at all since it would have been far less likely to carry than the gunshots.

I agree. In any case, people aren't always fully aware of the sound that actually wakes them. Because somebody awoke to the sound of screaming, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the screams that woke them.

 

[Giles]

No, there doesn't need to have been a third set of bangs. Not if the door was already damaged enough to enable the panels to be prised out. OP might even have punched it out, he's got form for that.



Have they actually stated that? I must have missed it. Certainly photographs of the airgun have been entered into evidence, so questions may still be asked about that.

You may be right on the first point. I hadn't considered that. I wonder if this is what the Prosecution will argue?

Nel mentioned that their case was that only 4 shots were fired during Mr Stipp's testimony. There was an objection which arose and during his discussion with Mr Roux, he admitted this...

 

[Viper]

Quotes from an interview with defense lawyer Ulrich Roux, published in the Sunday Times this morning:

How did Oscar fare under cross examination?

He has not fared well. He has come across as being an evasive witness and not giving straightforward answers to very direct questions. Most detrimental, however, is the fact that his version has changed on numerous occasions when tested by Gerrie Nel. this makes it near impossible for the court to accept his version. He has been very selective as to what he remembers and what he does not. This does not bode well for his credibility as a witness and the court will make a negative inference as to his recollection of exactly what happened on that evening. He has also become agitated with Nel, losing his temper somewhat and falling into the traps Nel has set for him. The fact he is blaming his legal representatives, the South African police, as well as his friends for lying all ocmes across in a negative light and indicates he is not prepared to take responsibility for any of his actions.

What did you make of Gerrie Nel's aggressive questioning?

Nel's style is to rattle witnesses, unsettle them emotionally, and in so doing get them to make mistakes. When Pistorius has been emotional and upset, his chain of thoughts and judgmenthas definitely become clouded and that is when Nel has pounced on him. The main function of cross-examination, however, is to test whether a witness's version is the truth and whether it is reasonably and possibly true. Nel must be careful his aggression does not deter from this fact and take away the effect that the contradictions actually have. He has managed to force Pistorius into making numerous concessions, which will be very difficult to recover from. He must continue to focus on these concessions and contradictions for the remainder of Pistorius's cross-examination.

What are the key concessions Pistorius has made?

Pistorius testified he has been a victim of crime his entire life and named a number of occasions, such as the apparent gunshot fired at him on the highway and the apparent assault on him in a public place, yet he has never laid any charges at a police station. He conceded this. He initially testified he could not remember firing the four shots, but later conceded the fact that he clearly remembers he did not fire a double tap. This is a big contradiction and places much doubt over the accuracy of his recollection of how events unfolded on that evening. Further concessions were regarding the apparent contamination of the crime scene and how unlikely it is that the police would indeed move items around without knowing what Pistorius's version is, the length of the fan's power cord, the fact that he did not repair the broken windo in his house immediately, that there was no ladder outside his house, the alarm was activated, and so on. He conceded to the ammunition charge as well as to the fact that it was negligent of both him and Darren Fresco to handle the firearm in the way that they did at Tasha's. The three minor charges are posing a big problem for Pistorius because of the character evidence that was introduced when evidence was heard on the charges. I cannot see him escaping a conviction on any of these charges. His testimony on the ammunition and Tasha's charges have been tantamount to a confession, in my opinion. Just flatly denying that he fired a shot out of hte car's sunroof, after two witnesses have testified that he did, leaves much to be desired.

Thanks Jassy!!! I am bumping your post for anyone that may have missed it.

 

[Cherwell]

You may be right on the first point. I hadn't considered that. I wonder if this is what the Prosecution will argue?

Nel mentioned that their case was that only 4 shots were fired during Mr Stipp's testimony. There was an objection which arose and during his discussion with Mr Roux, he admitted this...

Thanks, I must try and find that and have a listen.

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.examiner.com/article/oscar-pistorius-settles-assault-case-ahead-of-his-murder-trial

"MSN reported on Feb. 12 that Pistorius' lawyers have reached an agreement with Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, who had accused Pistorius of assault. Taylor-Memmory claimed to have been injured at a house party in 2009 when Pistorius allegedly slammed a door and then punched it. Taylor-Memmory said she was injured from that breaking door. Pistorius was arrested for assault following that incident."

 

[Gryffindor]

So deafening and hearing loss are legit, Minor? Thanks :-D

 

[wb180]

r

http://www.examiner.com/article/oscar-pistorius-settles-assault-case-ahead-of-his-murder-trial

"MSN reported on Feb. 12 that Pistorius' lawyers have reached an agreement with Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, who had accused Pistorius of assault. Taylor-Memmory claimed to have been injured at a house party in 2009 when Pistorius allegedly slammed a door and then punched it. Taylor-Memmory said she was injured from that breaking door. Pistorius was arrested for assault following that incident."

Sorry off topic but what is it with doors in SA?? How come so easy to break?? U guys need some solid doors

 

[weeeva]

I think the "wood moving" would be explained by him as Reeva maybe stepping back and knocking the magazine rack which scraped along the tile.

OP said on the witness stand that because the toilet door was not properly aligned it made the noise of two pieces of wood rubbing together when opening and closing. That was the imaginary noise that caused him to believe the door was being opened by an intruder.
I have a door that does this; in order to close it properly I have to sort of slam it shut.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think it's just as likely that the earlier bangs were made by OP in rage or frustration, banging on the door with the bat. This could have broken the panel enough to enable the pieces to be prised out after the shooting. I'm not sure if the sound would carry as far as gunshots though.

I also wonder if it can be entirely ruled out that he didn't fire off some shots earlier, say out of the window or off the balcony. We have seen that he has little regard for the safety of others, and is reckless enough to do something like that. He may have done this to threaten or scare Reeva. Is it possible that he used the air rifle at that point?

Air rifles are usually very quiet.

 

[wb180]

OP said on the witness stand that because the toilet door was not properly aligned it made the noise of two pieces of wood rubbing together when opening and closing. That was the imaginary noise that caused him to believe the door was being opened by an intruder.
I have a door that does this; in order to close it properly I have to sort of slam it shut.

He imagined this noise because the door was locked. Maybe he heard it too often who knows. But then he has no credibility so I discount everything he says.

 

[DebinGA]

r

Sorry off topic but what is it with doors in SA?? How come so easy to break?? U guys need some solid doors

I don't know, but I'd think his entrance door would be solid core and very difficult to break with a punch ... but an angry OP managed to do it.

 

[BritsKate]

I can't imagine OP prancing around on his stumps having a prolonged argument with Reeva. I think he would be too self conscious and embarrassed. It appears to me that he feels like half a man without his prosthetics, which is understandable, but could be a dangerous frame of mind to live in.

Some amputees prefer not wearing prosthetics though. While they may make them more 'able-bodied' they aren't always comfortable, can lead to skin irritation and infection, etc. I think we need to bear in mind that Oscar has lived his entire life being an amputee and by his own admission (like going to brush his teeth), Reeva had obviously seen him on his stumps.

JMO and FWIW

 

[shane13]

LOL @ Oscar speak. There are way too many if I think I may have accidentally remembered what may have really happened but accidentally said something that could incriminate me than the answer m'Lady is I I can't recall.

Even as we discuss here, my term Oscar-Speak and the associated new language, is about to be introduced into the curriculum of better Universities around the world.

Most better universities will have the courses on Oscar-Speak as Joint Dept [pun intended in Oscar-Speak] offerings. I.e. physics and linguistics Depts are getting together at better Unis right now to offer this new language.

Oscar-speak is part of the macroscopic aspect of the Heisnberg Uncertainty Principle. Nothing definitively happens. Everything is accidental or merely in people's thought processes. And no one in Oscar-world can be convicted of a crime.

Indeed the advanced level courses on Oscar-Speak will include how to converse with people who are not {yet} in Oscar-world. E.g. should you shoot someone in Oscar-world, and be in discussion with someone not (yet) in Oscar-world, you will need to learn how to say at that time, "Security-world, Everything is fine."

Yes the advanced courses will teach you how everything is someone else's fault, and you need to learn how to convey this with this crucial new language, Oscar-Speak.

Yes Oscar-speak is the language of Oscar-world, which is part of the 11-Dimensional Superstring/Supercricketbat Multiverse.

Clearly Oscar-Speak is also the language of the future. But that is graduate level course work.

Please contact me, if you wish to enroll or want the texts.
©Shane13 [j/k]

 

[Mystymiss]

I think it's just as likely that the earlier bangs were made by OP in rage or frustration, banging on the door with the bat. This could have broken the panel enough to enable the pieces to be prised out after the shooting. I'm not sure if the sound would carry as far as gunshots though.

I also wonder if it can be entirely ruled out that he didn't fire off some shots earlier, say out of the window or off the balcony. We have seen that he has little regard for the safety of others, and is reckless enough to do something like that. He may have done this to threaten or scare Reeva. Is it possible that he used the air rifle at that point?

I too believe the first sounds was OP with the cricket bat hitting and damaging the toilet door. Damage to this door was enough for OP to see RS and this is when he shot her. (her screaming stopped!)

 

[Interested Bystander]

"Roux was rude and obnoxious with the state witnesses, so it's a case of getting your own back," said Laurie Pieters-James, an independent criminologist who has attended the trial. "Roux was sarcastic and belittling: 'You are in some way inferior to me.' Gerrie Nel's approach is different. He's directly attacking: 'You are lying.' He's much more direct in going for the jugular."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/barry-roux-gerrie-nel-oscar-pistorius-trial

Of course, OP supporters refuse to admit Nel is doing exactly the same thing as Roux... his job! It seems that Roux is supposed to be nasty to (perfectly innocent) State witnesses, because that's his job - but when Nel is 'nasty' to the accused, a man on trial for murdering his girlfriend... that's mean! He's supposed to be nice and friendly, not ask him awkward questions, treat him kindly and blah blah blah. Nel is doing a great job, and that's been backed up by other attorneys who have been following the trial.

My impression of Roux was that he was patronising and inferred that the ear witnesses were lying, time after time.

Nel is very direct but he cannot pussy foot around when questioning OP. I cannot see that he actually called him a liar. I have run the tape and all I can hear is that he said he was lying (which of course does mean the same). I didn't know the prosecution couldn't suggest someone was being dishonest when giving evidence. He needs answers to questions and it does seem to me that OP rarely answers a question and on occasion changes his story which to most people seems strange but seems not to disturb him at all. He just soldiers on saying whatever next comes into his head.

I think Nel will have spent the week-end working on his final important questions and Roux will not, by law, have been able to speak to OP but I do wonder whether the law will have been observed. I am sure there are ways to make contact via a third party. That is if he wants to, as poor Roux has been accused of being incompetent (my words not OP's) on more than one occasion.

 

[Viper]

The sound of the wood sections being broken would be loud and possibly are the source of the third set of sounds. Wood makes a very loud "CRACK" sound when it is broken. And the entire upper section of that door was torn out in pieces.

Regarding <modsnip> and testimony that the bullets hit the door before the bat hit the door. He was testifying to "when the bat was used to pry loose the first thin panel." That is one of two separate events related to the bat. And he was correct that the bat came after the one bullet hole because the tear went through that one bullet hole. However, he said it was not scientifically possible to conclude which came first, the two minor bat strikes or the 4 bullets. So two events are distinguished with the bat, first the two strikes to scare Reeva and second the bat being used to pry the thin panel section loose.

I believe that the following is correct:
1) The bat was struck on the door twice to scare Reeva and it was used to strike the bathtub plate very hard - first set of noises
2) The gun fired 4 bullets in to the door - second set of noises
3) The bat was used to pry to slender panel piece loose and then OP took to breaking all of the upper panels of the door - creating loud cracking sounds as he broke them off of the door.

 

[BritsKate]

asanque.

Of the 2 witnesses who heard the initial banging, they both seemed very reliable and Annette Stipp was awake prior to the noise. It could be that it was the banging that woke the other witnesses up.

The Defence will call several witnesses who claim they heard only the screams of a man. One of these witnesses (forgive me, I forget his name presently) will claim that his wife thought she heard a woman screaming but that he knew Oscar and he assured her that it was Oscar screaming. So, this demonstrates that Oscar was screaming and that his screams sounded like those of a woman.

Crying, not screaming. The defence initially stated the screaming the State's witnesses heard was in fact Oscar screaming (that he screams like a woman), Oscar has testified he'd 'never screamed like that in his life', but the defence wants to introduce evidence via testimony that the nearest witnesses never heard screaming at all, only crying.

And I believe you're referencing the husband of Estelle van der Merwe who also referenced crying:

"I asked my husband who was crying like that and he said it was Oscar," said Mrs. van der Merwe, who lives across the street from Mr. Pistorius' home in a gated community on the eastern outskirts of Pretoria.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304815004579418412253809306

So...let's assume it was Oscar screaming or crying like a woman - why was he screaming and/or crying for 12 minutes before he fired his gun?

 

[clearskies1]

Re the inside-out jeans on the bedroom floor: when I wash my jeans I turn them inside-out (supposed to stop the color from washing out). Not saying they really were Reeva's jeans, but I think she did wash that day at OP's place. Maybe she threw in some of OP's stuff (jeans) when she did the wash.

MOO.