Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

I disagree too. I am truthful, but regularly get mixed up. Usually about where I've heard stuff. Or things I've done.

and that's not under any pressure. I'm sure if I was being cross examined by someone like Gerrie Nel then I would be in bits.

Telling the truth is one thing - but remembering the minutiae is quite another, and that (it seems) is what Nel is using to try and trip him up given that he's sticking to his story of 'intruder/felt scared'. As someone said, Nel could probably tell you something about yourself and you'd end up believing it, or at the very least questioning whether he could be right...

And in RL I have the luxury of saying. "oh wait a minute , I'm wrong ". Not a luxury I would have in a witness box

No chance of him saying he is wrong regardless. I think on something this serious you would know.

SirChenin

I agree with you. OP stuck to his story but Nel was telling him he said things he hadn't even said. I just don't think the fact that OP stumbled in those circumstances is meaningful in itself.

I just didn't get that Nel had got as much from OP has he would have wanted to. Picking over words didn't really shake his testimony. IMHO

So agree Springy and Charlie - there did seem to be a lot of clutching at straws by Nel and going over and over the minutiae in the hope that OP would trip up massively and give away something that would lead to an incontrovertible, damning conclusion....but he didn't.

I think you can easily get flustered when you're telling the truth especially if you're dealing with a questioner who obsesses about the difference between 'low tone' and a 'whisper'. However I imagine everyone (lawyers/judge) takes into account the pressure you are under when you are in the witness box.

One of the things I found difficult about OP's testimony was the way he would answer naturally and immediately (eg he didn't fire a warning shot because it might ricochet) and then he would backtrack once he heard the implications of that statement (ie that meant he had time to think about his actions and the best course of action). His testimony didn't feel very natural. It was the gaps that were most telling.

I do think any media training he has had has probably worked against him in the witness box because in interviews you're always trying to push your own key messages; you don't deal in negatives; and you try to steer everything to your advantage. It doesn't seem to be the best policy when you're on the stand.

I think the duvet question is actually very important. If it was off the bed, it is much harder for Op to say that he didn't realise Reeva had got up. With the duvet on the bed, he can claim he thought she was under it.

But the duvet could have fallen off the bed and OP not noticed eg he could have pushed it to one side when feeling the bed for Reeva, it could have moved again when he sat on the bed to put on his prosthetics, moved again when he went back to pick up his phone and eventually tumbled off the bed whilst OP is focused on getting back to the bathroom. At that point, I wouldn't really expect OP to remember where the duvet was or when it fell.

I have never known a duvet fall off that easily!

Are there any rules about gaps between crimes being committed and coming to court? Don't long delays make it more difficult for witnesses to remember details and give defendants more time to concoct stories to fit the evidence?

We were the victims of a crime a couple of months ago - valentine's day this year actually. My DH and I disagreed over details when giving a police statement the same night and we weren't implicated in any way. Last year my DD was a witness for the prosecution in a court case and was terrified she wouldn't remember exact details correctly when cross examined by the defence.

If I understood the news earlier it could be July before a verdict is reached!

I have never known a duvet fall off that easily!
I have but then maybe I just have a family of very restless sleepers so the duvets are quite often close to collapsing on the floor!

It's issues like that I find interesting. I might not remember when the duvet fell on the floor but is it reasonable to say that in court? Or do you always have to have an answer for everything when you're on the stand?

I was a victim of an attempted robbery last year. Now if someone asked me where my phone was when I started telling them about what happened, I wouldn't be able to answer but, on thinking about it, I called the police so my phone must have been in my bag/pocket or hand when I first confronted the robber. It's probably about a year ago, I have no idea which of those answers is the truth. I just remember the salient point which is that I was able to use my phone so I must have had it with me.

On other points my memory is very clear eg where the robber was in relation to myself, where my dcs were, etc, and I can remember thinking quickly and rationally about positioning myself between the robber and the dcs and steering the robber away from the dcs so he didn't see them. All those points were very important to me. But I wonder if the courts allow for such unbalanced recall.

Regarding the duvet, since the police's own photos show without a doubt that they moved stuff (including Reeva's jeans which were inside out in one photo and the right way round in another) I think the issue of the duvet is a dead duck. There is no way the prosecution can prove it wasn't moved.

I think that Pistorius has got a fairly large safety net of knowing that there is no real way of proving any part of what was in his mind that evening.

We can have serious doubts that Reeva didn't say a single word to him as he was getting the fans in from the balcony. We can have doubts that he couldn't see anything at all in the room (bearing in mind that he'd just woken up, so his eyes would have adjusted to the light). However, I'm not convinced that we can say that from those doubts, we can leap to; there must have been an argument, and he must have followed her to the toilet.

An awful lot hinges on the testimony of the witnesses around. All of the ones we've seen so far are convinced they heard an argument, and all are convinced they heard a woman scream. If these witness statements are correct, then he did know it was her. What the defence are saying is that these are not reliable statements, and that what they heard wasn't Reeva shouting and then gunshots, but Oscar shouting, then the cricket bat.

I have doubts about these witnesses too, based on the De Menezes case in the UK. So many witnesses came forward to say that they saw a things that were simply not present. ( news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm ) Witness memories are so very complicated, and even when you're being truthful, it's very hard to say what you know for sure, and what your head puts there because of circumstances.

The one witness I think is pretty reliable, is the one whose son had an exam the next day. She woke because of an argument - not because of bangs, and she had reason to time check because her son needed to sleep. She grew more annoyed the longer the argument went on. She had reasons for remembering what she did outside of later hearing what had happened.

I am interested to see whether the defence brings forward some closer witnesses who say 'no, didn't hear a thing until the gunshots, and then I heard a man calling for help, and I knew it was 3 in the morning because I'd stayed up all night to watch a very quiet football match.'

So I'm still wedged on the fence with the Murder knowing it was Reeva.

I remain firmly convinced that he is guilty of Murder Dolus - Eventualis (he intended to kill whomever was behind that door, and even if that wasn't his intention he knew that would be the result, and culpable homicide - he did not sufficiently check for Reeva in the bedroom before he shot.

Can I just add about the magazine rack. I think Nel was trying yo highlight its importance as Reeva must of fell on to it when she was first shot alerting oscar of her position as he then changed aim towards it.

Yes, I agree about the magazine rack. That is what changed my mind from thinking he was trying to break the lock or scare her to thinking he was aiming at her.

If witnesses came forward to say they didn't hear arguing, it wouldn't make me disbelieve those who did.

My god JULY! For a verdict. I have a lot of sympathy for the Steenkamp family having to wait that long and go through all this for that long.

I wonder if OP's family firmly believe him, or if there is doubt when they listen to the evidence in court.

There is stuff on David Dadic,s twitter saying if they appeal he could be out on bail for another 12-18 months after July. I am not trying to push him into jail but that would be about 3 years of freedom which he might not deserve.

I think it would completely depend on the situation of the witness for me, Aventurine.

If his next door neighbour had stayed up because, as a random example, he arrived home from a late shift at 3 in the morning, had a quick bite to eat, quietly caught up on his email, then heard shooting, then Pistorius shouting... then I might be inclined to believe him.

I think that's extraordinarily unlikely though. If they're relying on people not waking up until gunshots go off... that's more tricky.

I'm not arguing that though; I'm arguing about reasonable doubt. Are we all absolutely, unshakably sure that those witnesses definitely heard Reeva and then gunshots, or is there a reasonable doubt that they heard Pistorius and the cricket bat.

I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I think that there was significant difference between the cricket bat sound and the gun sound, and that the witnesses have heard gunshot before, and like I say, the one witness for me is very reliable. But it's the reasonable doubt thing. Pistorius says there was no argument - only him. The witnesses say there was. Which story do we doubt more.

Also, thinking about it, the Stipps say they heard the screaming during the gunshots. If they were hearing Pistorius and the bat, would he be able to scream at that level and pitch while simultaneously exerting enough force to break the door with the bat?

I thought I was quite open minded about all this but found myself being pleased when Nel started finding holes in Dixon,s testimony. So maybe I am not as unbiased as I thought.

I'm not unshakebly sure that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and then gunshots, but for me the arguing is less easy to explain.