What’s Left to Prove in Pistorius Case?   11 comments

Streaming AC360 on CNN, waiting for the Pistorius trial to resume in about an hour, and wondering what the muse will hit me across the face with this evening. The latest Cadillac Escalade commercial comes on. The background music is pretty compelling: David Bowie’s “Fame.” Now, I’m not a particular fan of David Bowie – I don’t like his politics – but this particular tune is pretty slick. Great lyrics, some very fitting in this case. So, I click off this window and over to the CNN window, and there’s this shiny white Escalade pulling up in front of a shiny white house that looks spookily similar to Oscar Pistorius’ house. Huh? (Shakes head to ensure he’s not dreaming.)

It happens more often than we think; that we’re doing something, and our attention is distracted by a completely different thing, and then something within that distraction turns out to be somewhere between borderline related to or incredibly poignant given the unrelated thing we were involved in before we were first distracted. The subconscious mind works in strange ways….

Yesterday’s testimony was incredibly boring. I believe the only thing that came out of the entire day was the fact that the front door to Oscar’s house was left almost imperceptibly open. I don’t believe I’d heard anyone testify to that before.

Both daddy and daughter witnesses spun wildly detailed versions of a very simple story, hers slightly different than his. They were very difficult to listen to, and there was no surprise Mr. Nel let them both off pretty easily. All he really needed to do was ask one question to each of the defense witnesses on cross: “And your testimony means…. what…?” Upon receiving a shrug as a reply, I would cut the witnesses free in disgust and called whomever today’s leadoff batter is. Hopefully, he’ll be able to keep me awake past tea….”

— 00:10h PDT 6 May 2014 —

The live television stream from the courtroom doesn’t come on until the witness is already taking questions. The questions are all softballs. Naturally,the husband on the other side of the Pistorius house never did  hear a shot, just “crying,” which the witness described very adeptly as “crying.”

There’s weeping, sobbing, bawling, wailing, howling, all kinds of descriptive words one could use to describe a form of crying, and each has a different facet. This guy never heard of either term, in English or Afrikaans..

The woman describes something she heard  as “a bang sound. There’s no other way to describe the bang than as a bang.”

Not in EITHER language you speak??? Kitchen pots falling on tile make a “bang” sound. A garage door closing on a car makes a “bang” sound too. So does a firecracker. And so does an M-80, and a grenade. But to her, it’s all the same. She describes a bang about as well as her husband describes “crying.”

Are these people totally deficient, or are they lying? Both of them have watched the entire trial, because the whole world is, and they’re his (the defendant’s) neighbors, so of course they’re interested. They were useless; time-fillers.

The next friendly neighbor stated that she woke up to hear someone crying very loud, so loud he could been in her house (questionable analogy), and after waking her husband to see if he heard the screams, which he said he did but thought they happened in a dream, she said she told him  (55:30 mark) “…I thought that maybe a security guard had been shot.”

Curious, since she’d never mentioned hearing a shot, and I can’t imagine one single voice producing more decibels than a 9mm pistol. [Note to self: record witness’ impression of Oscar’s scream for use as ringtone.] For some reason, Nel didn’t catch that; maybe he was as bored as I was, listening to this tedious repetition of stuff we’ve heard so often before.

In the first place, I cannot understand how the people in the two houses next to Pistorius’ failed to hear the gunshots. Four gunshots in a bathroom, with a window open, at 0300 in the morning. Not a one of them. How can anyone take them seriously? They’ve all watched the trial, and they’re all testifying against anyone who said earlier that they’d heard the shots. So, what does that mean? That there was no gun? That Reeva Steenkamp wasn’t all shot up? That Oscar didn’t do it? How is Gerrie Nell letting them get away with this, and why, my lady, is the judge herself not getting involved in silencing these witnesses whose stories are to a great part made up specifically to dispel the prosecution’s case?

I suppose we’ll all get to see what goes down Thursday morning at Zero Dark Thirty Pacific Time, after a round of presumably peaceful elections in South Africa.


11 responses to “What’s Left to Prove in Pistorius Case?

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Very well said.


  2. Marvellous stuff! Does the randomness of distraction become predictable as we get more distracted? When our attention spans have become mere microseconds will we be able to glimpse the hidden synchronicity of life, the universe, and everything? I doubt it. Still, your “Pistorius Principle” definitely warrants more research, a coffee table book, and a trilogy of films.


    • LOL! I’ve used distraction to my great advantage when I was in business and needed to break the attention of the guy on the other side of the negotiation table. Predictable? No. That’s what makes it work so well. If it were predictable, one would lose the element of surprise, which is key. Our attention span is already measured in nanoseconds (see “Google Advertising”). As for the rest of it, I’m still trying to make sense of what affects who on Championship Sunday in the BPL this weekend. (I miss the NFL.)


  3. In answer to your question as to why Gerrie Nell is ‘letting them [defense witnesses] get away with’ their perjury and my Lady not silencing these witnesses…Nell cannot object to anybody’s testimony unless there is legal grounds to object. Same thing with the Judge. If there were legal grounds for saying, “I object my Lady because these witnesses are just making shit up to drag this out, etc.”, I’m sure Nell would do it. Same thing for the judge. What is she going to say? “You assholes are all lying and you know you’re lying, so get out of my court!”? There are times during opposing testimony that you just have to sit and happily keep your mouth shut and give the liars all the rope they need to hang themselves. Believe me, judges are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chafe, and the OP defense witnesses are clearly screwing OP everytime they open their collective mouths. Keep the faith, Warren, keep the faith! 🙂


    • Thanks for your comment, Cheryl. I guess I was asking a rhetorical question about the judge silencing them, and I know Nel can’t unless they’re being unresponsive (kind of like Pistorius himself, who never said “I shot her,” or “I killed her,” nor did he say “Yes” to the questions “Did you shoot (or kill) Reeva?” He sidestepped the question each time, and everyone in the house watched him squirm away from the truth. The defense witnesses on parade are not credible whatsoever, and they’re not doing their neighbor (whom they all claim to have met once) or themselves, God knows, any favors by standing up for him and compromising themselves in front of the entire country. I’m just hoping the day’s session starts on time and isn’t delayed by Roux having left his lunch at home, or his pet bush baby eating his notes, or his giving improper directions to the witnesses, or kidnapping their babysitters, or God knows what. =)


  4. I agree with you. Boring old nosey neighbours dragged up to fill in time. The bottom of the barrel is being scraped. The social worker has fallen for Oscar! As if he cared. Silly woman.


    Pamela Allman
    • The social worker would be better off with Oscar than the ignorant little teenager he’s shtupping before he gets locked away for the rest of his natural life. If I were that girl, though, rather than line up in waiting for the first rich, arguably good-looking woman abuser to come along, I’d invest in a LifeLock Alert system or some other signaling device (marine flares? orange smoke grenade?) just in case Oscar decides to get grouchy at 2 in the morning again. I wonder what that girl’s parents have to say. They’re probably grungy gothy street punks who blame everything on society because no one will hire them due to the full set of formal silverware embedded in their faces.


  5. Sorry for very late comment. So you don’t regard the fact that the neighbour Mike called security at 3:16 before the second bangs at 3:17 as relevant? The prosecution claim the 3:17 shots killed Ms Steenkamp and she screamed right up to the shots. So Mike and his wife heard the man crying loudly at the same time as Burger/Johnson and the Stipps heard a woman screaming therefore. All four immediate neighbours heard a man crying loudly and did not hear a woman.
    In addition, Estelle VDM heard a woman and was told by her husband that, no, it was Oscar – so two people in the same place got a male and female confused.
    Isn’t that the relevance of this testimony?


    • Hi, Suzi. Your comment is welcome at any time. The Internet is timeless, and news is whenever we break it. Time is relative. If you just discovered the issue, then it’s breaking news to you.

      Ma laidee, atdis patickilar pint ent’oym et dooz’na meeean moocha shite.

      (Afrikaans is SO bloody hard to Anglicize – never even attempted in advanced sociolinguistics.)


  6. Pingback: What's Left to Prove in Pistorius Case? | Occupy Wall Street by Platlee

Please comment or reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: