Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

Something else that struck me from the two witnesses today, and I apologise in advance for the grim details.

When Mr Stander testified, he said when he went back into the house, he went to Oscar in the kitchen. He was trying to be sick, but nothing was coming up.

When Carice testified, she said he was sick several times.

Now, the first thing I wonder is; are they thinking of two different occasions which would make this make sense?

Because the other thing I wonder is, this is a pretty emotional response. It gets a bit of a 'poor guy, he's so sad he's been sick/wants to be sick but can't manage' thing in the mind. Only the two of them seem to have slightly different takes on what would warrant the most sympathy.

And the last thing that the totally cynical me wonders is; was he actually sick, or was he just pretending?

I'm not saying either one of the the Standers is a liar - I might well be mistaken about who was talking about what when, but it seemed like a spin or an embellishment.

I also recognise that I'm probably reading too much into a tiny and largely irrelevant details. It's just one of the places where I thought that they were more sympathetic to him than totally neutral.

Yeah I thought that today when Stander said they weren't friends.

I wondered too if Nel was the reason Roux couldn't find replacements for the witnesses who were unavailable today.

Interesting Telegraph article here about the fact that Frank allegedly slept through the whole incident.

What I really thought today was how in her evidence carice kept saying Oz and I felt she really liked him/looked up to him

I was just going to comment on something similar - she called him Oz, and he called her Ricie (according to her). They seem closer than just distant acquaintances. She said that he'd go to her house for coffee, and she'd go to his house for coffee.

Mr Stander was much more 'we didn't go out for drinks or anything like that. My house has an open door, anyone can come for coffee and he sometimes did. He never came for dinner though...' Lots of work trying to downplay the relationship. She seemed much more effusive.

I suppose it's how you categorise friends - I am friendly with people but for me a friend would have some deeper connection than just a couple of coffees together. There are people I socialise with alone and I like but we are friendly. There are others I see once a year who are close friends.
Maybe in trying to be scrupulously honest mr stander appears the reverse?

My interpretation of Mr Stander playing down the relationship was in a bid for his evidence to be taken more impartially, as they have been portrayed thus far as friends.

Sorry, am also catching up on Web Sleuths so to copy another thought over from there - it is extraordinary that given that Frank was at home OP didn't go to him first for assistance with Reeva.

I suppose it's how you categorise friends

I am totally standoffish in real life (but extremely friendly on the internet). If I've had a couple of coffees with someone, I'm pretty much moving in and married to them.

Hang on, doesn't the fact that op had a live in housekeeper mean that op's first thought at hearing a noise during the night could have been the housekeeper and not an intruder?

Thanks for the link Voice. We can all draw our own conclusions from that

Maybe the friendship thing was generational. I would imagine Carice Viljoen is ages with OP and they may have had more in common than he would with her father.

I'm trying to relate that to myself to see and I guess I would be more inclined to have coffee, and go to houses of my peers, but keep a more distant "friendship" with their parents

voice I was sorry to read that. It's interesting because when people have commented on how rehearsed he sounded, my feeling is "of course he is rehearsed". Knowing millions of people will be watching and wanting to get the exact right points across, I just thought how could he not be. So it's interesting to see that isn't always the case.

looking re not being neutral and being too sympathetic towards him - I expected exactly that given they are defence witnesses. If they strongly believe he was being truthful and is traumatised etc, then they would have a tough job being neutral I think. So do you mean that sympathy towards them may have affected the truth of what they were saying?

Sorry if this has been asked already, but at one point today Nel says "I want to talk to you" to the judge. And she says "I want to talk to you too". Eh?! Can someone explain what that was about or will we never know?

Totally agree, Godot.

And it brings in a new element to the ladders and guard dogs thing. The dogs didn't bark because they're not barky dogs (as Stander was at pains to point out). Also, the person who sleeps in the grounds would not have heard someone trying to break into the house. Why not? Is he a very deep sleeper? Is he hard of hearing? Pistorius has spoken to the contractors about leaving ladders by the house, but he hasn't said to Frank 'please make sure they're away before you go to bed...'

It seems that it would be incredibly convenient to Pistorius if Frank had not ever been at the house. And lo and behold, until this morning, none of us knew he had been.

OK, I'm getting fighty now. Better go to bed.

looking don't go yet :) Are you saying you think Frank was paid off? Surely that would be a ridiculously risky strategy for OP?

Isn't frank more in the category of close neighbour as opposed to live in housekeeper?
And none of them have testified either.
Looking - that's so funny. Maybe loads of the school mums think we are besties and I have them in the casual acquaintance box.

'I am totally standoffish in real life (but extremely friendly on the internet). If I've had a couple of coffees with someone, I'm pretty much moving in and married to them.'

this :D

So do you mean that sympathy towards them may have affected the truth of what they were saying?

I think I'd say more, sympathy towards him may have affected the emphasis of what they were saying.

I'm not saying they're lying. I'm saying, they may be inclined to push certain things that may point to his innocence. His emotional state, for example.

When Stander got the dates wrong of the break ins, as another example. He was quick to list the different break ins on the estate - even the one that had not been reported to the police. You'd think, given that he had the details to hand, he'd have checked the dates. I'm not saying he lied about the date; I'm saying, he didn't check that particular detail, as if he had an inclination that it would make the break-ins evidence less important to Oscar's case.

Like I say; I'm not saying lying. It's just that he made a mistake which, if not verified, just happened to be beneficial to Oscar.

A question - probably for Ronald : Is it normal in SA to call an older man "Oom" (uncle)? From what Stander said, they're friendly but not close friends (he said he hadn't invited OP to dinner or a briie) so it seems a bit odd to me. When I was a kid some of my parents' friends children called my mom and dad "uncle and auntie" but they were the children of very close friends.

Hillwalker - sorry, I misunderstood your comment!

Are you saying you think Frank was paid off?

No, actually I don't. I have to say it crossed my mind today, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I actually think it as a fully fledged opinion. I think that Frank was in a dreadful position, that's all. I don't think I'm alone in wondering more about him.

I suppose it's difficult - I'm in such a different culture that I can't speculate how things are with a person of that position. My assumptions all might be erroneous (I'm assuming very little education, paid almost nothing but room and board. Someone who doesn't exactly have advantages. Someone whom people can conveniently forget). In that position, I can equally see him slipping away to find less notorious work elsewhere as I can see the family giving him a small sum to do just that.

I can see him as being terrified of testifying against Pistorius. I don't actually think they would need to pay him.

But... like I say, my assumptions about this person are all just that - I'm assuming; I don't know how it works.

I agree with you Looking re. Frank. I don't think it would have been anything as 'vulgar' as being paid off. I think he would know that the best thing is to keep a low profile, maybe he would think that he might become known as the kind of person whom a prospective employer couldn't trust to keep quiet, and that it would therefore hamper his chances of future employment. I too think he would have been in a dreadful position and it upsets me that today is the first day that anybody has even heard about him. I'm sure I wasn't alone today in thinking 'who the feck are they talking about?!" when his name was first mentioned. It is shocking that the person who was the closest to this tragedy has until now not even been mentioned. As the Telegraph puts it, the domestic staff who have been witnesses in this case seem to have been almost invisible.

Carice Stander's use of 'slowly but surely' really annoyed me!

Isn't the Stander's house much further away than some of the other witnesses?

yet no one is questioning her abillity to hear the screaming etc.

ALthough, I think her testimony of what she heard and did in her bedroom sounds quite believable just from the delivery.

Friends in Africa use 'aunty' and 'uncle' almost as a sign of respect rather than closeness iyswim
I'm not convinced Frank would have been paid off. House staff have to be discreet as they have such access to everything. If Frank admitted to hearing something then it would probably impact on his chance of getting other employment plus he'd have to decide where he dropped being discreet and started being a witness. If he admitted he heard something that night, then would he be questioned on previous arguments or previous girlfriends? Suddenly he'd go from trusted staff to in-house spy. It's an impossible situation for staff.

I always wondered about him, as OP has always spoken about him in interviews, on twitter, etc and did think it odd that more hadn't been made of the fact that he had his quarters downstairs - I had thought in the garden, but it appears to be a room off the kitchen.

Different ends of the house, but unless he was a very deep sleeper (or was drunk - pure speculation here, I know) he must have heard something.

Well, he clearly did hear something, why else would he have been at the door when the Standers turned up

I think I agree with Looking and Voice here, I don't imagine they have paid him off as such

Looking I too would assume the same as you regarding education etc and also can see him being worried about testifying perhaps against his employer, or not wanting to out of loyalty (wonder how long he's worked for OP?)

On the other hand, I wouldn't be loyal to someone I thought was a murderer (easy for me to say since I could probably get another job..) and also assume someone like that would also be worried about getting into trouble with the police for not testifying or being suspected of lying. A bit of a cleft stick perhaps?

looking that all makes sense. I guess it must be hard though to be perfectly neutral in that situation - because as soon as a witness has a view one way or the other as to OPs guilt, then what they say may be biased, or even not be biased in reality but just be perceived by others as biased iyswim.