Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Thanks

Nel is imo excellent but it is the opinion of SA family that Roux is tip top in his field

That said, I found Nel underwhelming yesterday.

It's funny because me and DH HATED Roux at the start of the trial - a case of "how nasty is he?" Etc but I think I just really felt for Berger in particular because he really tried to rip her to shreds. Obviously I recognise he was doing his job, but I suppose he wasn't any less aggressive than Nel, it's just that we've seen Nel be relentless in the face of OP's emotions.

Judge said court at 9.30 tomorrow morning.

I like Nel but I feel that a lot of why he comes across is good is his style and manner - adding 'am I right?' To the end of what he says, affecting an air if frustration, being confident, saying things that actually aren't accurate to make the witness feel wrong footed - I'm not the stickler for detail you are' to OP for example.
He is very good but I think it's a combination of style and substance and charisma. Plus he doesn't dwell when he's wrong/ not going anywhere (jeans).

Yep, I think that's it nerf.

I think Nel could probably tell me about myself and I'd believe him. In the witness box, where you're already stressed as hell, it must be hard to go up against someone is so confident and apparently so right.

someone should interview him, it would be v interesting and insightful I think

If Roux is the best defence lawyer in South Africa, and he's being paid a huge amount of money by Pistorius, how likely is it that Pistorius would not follow his advice?

Exactly. I'm not convinced OP is arrogant and going off piste. I think he is very stressed, aware if the consequences, unable to confer with counsel, and all this when he has to live with what he did.

How confusing is it to tell the truth though?

I think he(OP) probably thinks he is following his counsel's advice but his nature to self-justify rather than concede anything gives the prosecution more leverage. I think quite a few of OP's tears have been borne of frustration i.e. he is mindful not to expose his temper in the courtroom but the anger is expressed as tearfulness at times.

I would not say they are the best defence lawyers in the country, they are among the best.

@lookingthroughthefog, OP came across arrogant and argumentative, as a witness he failed to keep his answers short and to the point (as many experts in SA who have worked with Roux doubted his long windedness would have been at the advice of Roux) instead chose argue the probability of his version, changed his defence when he couldn't explain himself, blamed his defence team for he inadequate preparation. Roux is as good as OP testimony

I would chose Roux to defend

How confusing is it to tell the truth though

possibly quite hard when someone is deliberately trying to trip you up at every turn and openly calling you a liar I think.

Why did they adjourn again so early? They only did half an hour after lunch didn't they?

ZuluinJozi I have to admit that I can understand OP's failure to keep the answers short. Even if I knew I was supposed to do that and "only answer the question" (just like an exam) I would be tempted to try and pre-empt and also explain myself and my motivation for fear that Nel wouldn't ask me the questions I needed him to in order to explain myself. Did I explain that properly?

Add stress to the equation and I can see that I might get in a mess and I normally a pretty articulate person. I find Nel immensely frustrating so God knows what OP thinks.

Be cool - really really hard to tell the truth when someone wants to catch you out. I would hate to argue the sky was blue with Nel!

Louise YY to the needing to add detail.

I disagree.
It is easy to tell the truth.
It does not change.

I would be tempted to try and pre-empt and also explain myself and my motivation for fear that Nel wouldn't ask me the questions I needed him to in order to explain myself.

I think I'd probably do the same, however, shouldn't the point be you feel confident that your defence team would get up in order to ask precisely the questions I needed to explain myself. Roux had the opportunity to go over anything when Nel had finished. He went back to produce the card so that there was evidence of the couple saying 'I love you'.

What's difficult, is Reevas parents listening to all that waffle, knowing it is not the truth, not knowing if they will ever hear the truth of what happened to their daughter.

He has blood on his hands, and doesn't know how?
BS.

shouldn't the point be you feel confident that your defence team would get up in order to ask precisely the questions I needed to explain myself

Perhaps not if you're a control freak? Which I am and allegedly, Oscar is. Especially when you know what will happen if you're convicted.

But of course you're right.

It was surprising how little Roux went back over. Someone said earlier that Nel was very forceful and vocal. Maybe he didn't say very much

Disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer so don't know.

You cannot be tripped up if you are telling the truth

I disagree I think a year on its hard to recall exact details, they will get mixed in with other things you regularly did, bits that you have remembered or had suggested to you.
I think not remembering for example if the duvet was on or off the bed is understandable as it wasn't immediately necessary for him to be aware of this in a really heightened situation.

But I think he might have known it was Reeva

"You cannot be tripped up if you are telling the truth"

Is that a bit like "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" because I think we all know that isn't necessarily true - and I'm not talking about this case when I say that.