Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

It looked like even OP grinned when Nel told the Professor HE would decide what to ask & when.

I think Nel will hone in on the sound of the magazine rack moving; it would be unlikely that the Prof could have put that in before OP testified as his testimony was the first time he referenced the noise he heard being the magazine rack. Therefore the "tailoring" evidence aspect can be exploited.

I think the decision to face down a threat can be an instinctive response (almost not a decision at all). Once you have decided on that course of action then all decisions slot into place following that iyswim.

So if you decide (or automatically) flee a stressful situation then once that is your decision the other actions follow eg opening a door, heading downstairs, going outside, shouting for help. You choose your next action but you don't stop every step of the way to think should I change my response to fight instead. Equally once OP committed to a fight response then all the other actions become logical (although not unconscious iyswim). I guess what I'm saying is I think it's difficult to change from a fight to a flee response. However, within that fight response there are lots of choices which could have led to a different outcome.

How much do these experts get paid to be interrogated like this?! Not enough for me to be tempted!

One question that I would like to put to this witness: The reduction of blood to the 'thinking brain' which he says happens when the person is under stress - could the blood be restricted to that part of the brain if the 'startle' point is not a sudden sound, but a build up of stress during an argument?'

Nel is now challenging the previous suggestion that the shooting was part of a flight or fight response. He's taking Derman to each of the three startle noises that OP reported, and asking if, after each one, there was a freeze, a fight or a flight response.

He then asks if a fight or flight response is enough to cause the whole incident, he concedes that he doesn't know.

I'm not listening right now, but the twitter reports are that he's getting really rattled and complaining about Nel's questioning.

I was only watching on Twitter today, and it looked very messy.

Court adjourned till 9.30am Monday when cross examination will continue. Nel made application not to sit tomorrow as wants to consult with Psychiatrist who was on the panel on State's behalf.

Professor definitely rattled/cross verging on the cheeky/argumentative. Not sure that prosecution got much beyond showing that the Prof was more of a character witness than an expert witness.

That, and proving bias, Member.

The fact that it's on record that he called Oscar to discuss it again because Oscar's version to him didn't initially make sense. Then insisting that there were certainly the startle noises which is what the whole of his expert testimony was based on. Initially he said that he wasn't there to state aspects as fact, and that his testimony would be the same science regardless of the facts... but then getting caught up about him not being able to discuss whether one startle situation would be enough, because he 'knows' that there were two further startles.

In fact, all he actually 'knows' is that Pistorius said there were three startle noises. To my mind he should have been able to say what the science would have been if there had only been one startle. Even if he'd had just said 'logically, there will have been a build up if there were two, three or four startles'. But he didn't; he said he couldn't speculate because he knew there were two more startles.

In short, he will not entertain the possibility that Pistorius might be lying. His version, as far as the witness is concerned, is the true event, and he can't apply his science to any other version.

I thought Nel did an excellent job today. Very tough interrogation by him though, attempting to lever himself into what start off appearing to be minuscule cracks in the witness's testimonial. But I did feel as though at the end he did demonstrate bias. I have to admit that I rarely felt as though he achieved that in OP's cross-examination. Arch nit-pickery yes, and yes, closing in on him regarding his intent when he shot in a way I didn't feel as though he handled adequately - but in a way Derman's report was just SO favourable, it was as though it had been written specifically for every single aspect of the case, in order to counter what the defence knew would be their points of weakness.

Do I remember correctly that OP originally claimed that he heard the door being unlocked as the last noise & then changed to saying it must've been the magazine rack moving? Nel seemed to labour the point that OP had only ever referred to that noise with the witness as being the rack - is that significant?!

I finally got to watch it live today after their lunch break. Definitely an interesting witness to watch - he seemed more concerned about whinging that Nel was picking on him than actually discussing the case!

this article was linked to on twitter
I agree with a great deal of it

I've been away (and ill boohoo) so I'm just catching up with this, thanks everyone for the summary posts.

Just in general on the 'fight' or 'flight', it seems to me that they are trying to couple 'fight' with an involuntary reaction but there is some sort of pre-meditation to grab a gun, walk to the bathroom on his stumps and steady himself against a wall to fire four shots that - to me - takes away any involuntary reaction.

It's baloney to me. Even if they were convincing that OP's startle response and fight over flight reflex influenced his behaviour, all that tells us us that he is a dangerous man who is likely to shoot for no reason!

Just listening to yesterday. Have to say Nel sounds like a desperate man going on and on about the standard. I really hope the judge sees through him. Getting the expert to agree that all sounds have tone and then twisting it to a woman's voice has a tone and so you need to increase the Db level - in line with a noise polution standard.

Hi there
Just catching up, am listening to Wednesday's testimony.

OP doing a reenactment from twitter

unsure how/why this is sensible

How/why has that video not been used in court? It could have put a swift end to the days they were trying to work out if he could move sufficiently on his stumps.

Is it actually OP? His legs don't look right in the video. Plus it would be a strange thing to do.

Nerf I wondered if it was a fake but according to Karyn Maughan on Twitter it was filmed by The Evidence Room as part of pre-trial prep and never meant for release. Apparently someone involved has sold it to an Aussie tv company for millions. Yet another person making money out of this terrible tragedy.

Wow, what a bloody nightmare for him.

Just watched that clip, thought he couldn't walk without his stumps?

He was able to walk forwards and backwards without support

Forgive my confusion but what is the reason for all the discussion about his stability on stumps?

Is it because it could show how vulnerable he was to attack of some time or because if something else?

Video can't be seen this morning (and I could view it last night). Maybe the legal team have suppressed it?

If Nel brings this into evidence, it could give defence grounds for appeal on trial being televised compromising fairness of trial. If trial hadn't been broadcast, would the video have been released into the public domain at exactly the point the last two defence witnesses have claimed mobility severely limited on stumps.

Just watched the trailer via herald sun. Really shlocky tabloid stuff.