Why did Mr Stander show up with his wife and daughter? Very odd at 3:30 AM! I wonder if OP asked Stander to help with a cover up? IDK. Then Mrs Stander said something to the doctor about being worried that the media would find out....
Trial Discussion Thread #3 - 14.03.08-09, Weekend
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
- Status
Lyra500
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 12
I have to take issue with your assertion that Roux has established that gun shots and a cricket bat striking the toilet door sound identical.
Possibly it is just me, but i am not convinced by this at all.
Stipp did not agree that the two sounds were identical from what I read (as in cricket bat and gun shot). Stipp maintained that he heard two sets of gunfire which sounded identical because they were both gunshots. These are two entirely different things. It is Roux that keeps bringing up the cricket bat and trying to force the witnesses into agreeing that the final set of gunshots which they all claim to have heard were actually the cricket bat and that the woman's screams they heard were actually Oscar. Just because OP and Roux say they were the cricket bat does not mean that is the truth and to assume it is and therefore claim that things have been 'established' is entirely misleading in my view.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
"Det Botha said four mobile phones were seized at the property, but none was used to call police or paramedics.
Mr Roux said there was another phone which the defendant had used to call for medical help at 03:20. He had also called a security guard. Det Botha said he had not been told about the other phone."
http://zambianeye.com/archives/18901
Minor4th: To my knowledge, it has never been established that this 5th phone was given up. It was taken from the scene and Botha was chastised for not asking for it. (Not sure how you would expect to recover 5 cell phones from a one-person household with one guest.)
LE may very well have gotten that 5th phone, but I have not seen anything to indicate that.
BTW: Why didn't you call yourself Major3rd?
I think I read it was handed over after the Bail Hearing. What we don't know is if this was the phone that could not be cracked or whether it was an old phone that he no longer used. Samantha Taylor clearly said he used two phones, one for work and one for personal work and two of his phones were found at the scene of the crime. The more I think about it, how odd to find 4 phones on the bathmat at a murder scene? Why would they take both of their phones to the bathroom? I can see why Reeva might have taken one and why would his work phone be in the bathroom at 3am in the morning?
Hmmm!
Kitty, you really should watch the video that was posted.
Not one word of truth in the movie I conclude after watching the video just given to us!
The movie was as guilty as he was. Unlike the movie fiction, there was blood on his clothes and he even told his driver that "I just killed someone'.
MURDERER_SERVANT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 762
Dr Stipp said that the siluette he saw in the bathroom window was in dark clothes ..Is it clear when he saw that movement in the window ..My guess is during the screams before the shots ? What happened to Oscar's bloody clothes at the time of the crime and noone asked what he was wearing to Baba and DR Stipp? IIRC Reeva was wearing a black top .. If Oscar's clothes are light colored , then could that be Reeva? :scared:
Photo of home & 3D re-creation video of incident & visual: http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/06/Dramatic-testimony-from-inside-Oscar-Pistorius-home
I think OP home is in the middle of photo - with all the shrubs around it. Which home is the doctors? The one with red on it, on corner, or behind his? Just wondering since he is the one who heard the double sets of noises and must be in closest proximity (of the neighbors who have testified).
I think OP home is in the middle of photo - with all the shrubs around it. Which home is the doctors? The one with red on it, on corner, or behind his? Just wondering since he is the one who heard the double sets of noises and must be in closest proximity (of the neighbors who have testified).
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
"Det Botha said four mobile phones were seized at the property, but none was used to call police or paramedics.
Mr Roux said there was another phone which the defendant had used to call for medical help at 03:20. He had also called a security guard. Det Botha said he had not been told about the other phone."
http://zambianeye.com/archives/18901
Minor4th: To my knowledge, it has never been established that this 5th phone was given up. It was taken from the scene and Botha was chastised for not asking for it. (Not sure how you would expect to recover 5 cell phones from a one-person household with one guest.)
LE may very well have gotten that 5th phone, but I have not seen anything to indicate that.
BTW: Why didn't you call yourself Major3rd?
Sorry Kittychi, I missed the underlined. So the phone had been used. Curiouser and curiouser. Why would he run three phones? What else was he up to in his life that required 3 phones.
Everyone has a bias... everyone on earth has a bias as to what they heard, what they saw.. its a given. Roux is paid to have a bias, he is employed by Oscar to maintain and present a bias.. Nel is paid and employed by the Republic of South Africa to present a bias... it is a meaningless accusation, and the bottom line here is who has the strongest reason to have a bias.... no question that platform is occupied by Oscar.. his life depends on his bias being the one that prevails.
Witnesses being catalogued as 'biased' is redundant.. Any one who is a witness for the prosecution has ipso facto a bias.. ditto for the witnesses for the defence, its intrinsic. It is the position they have been put in by Oscars shooting of Reeva.. if he hadn't shot her, would they be biased? could they be portrayed as biased? Absolutely not. This applies to both sides of the case in equal and exact measure. That is.. the witness for the defence of Oscar are and must be as biased, logically..
None of these people, the ones already testified, the ones to come, would be there , including Nel and Roux , if Oscar hadn't pulled the trigger. Oscar wouldn't be in court having his bias towards his actions being presented.
Its a huge huge stretch to conclude that Ms Burger, for example, woke up that night from the sounds she heard and instantly formed an inaccurate bias against Oscar. To assume that, there has to be some previous interchange between Oscar and Ms Burger that provoked a desire to form (a) a bias and (b) an inaccurate and malicious bias and then , astonishingly , perjure herself in a murder trial.. That is one hell of a leap of logic, so huge it cannot be even put in the rational basket..
excerpted quote
On 3.: Since the sounds of a lady in the loo should have been familiar to OP, he may have added the "sound of the window opening" as something new and "terrifying" (OP appears to be a gun-crazy world class athlete who's scared of moths and his own shadow). This is very important, because as you say, he didn't mention it in his affidavit. How could he leave out the most "terrifying" sound of all? He had four days to come up with the affidavit and he leaves that out? (I hope that window was checked for fingerprints. If Reeva's prints are on it, it doesn't mean much. But if they're not there, then ...)
And then there is the problem of Reeva carrying her iphone into the bathroom and also opening the window? Hmmm ...
Guess I'm not part of "y'all". Keep up the good posts minor4th.
On 3.: Since the sounds of a lady in the loo should have been familiar to OP, he may have added the "sound of the window opening" as something new and "terrifying" (OP appears to be a gun-crazy world class athlete who's scared of moths and his own shadow). This is very important, because as you say, he didn't mention it in his affidavit. How could he leave out the most "terrifying" sound of all? He had four days to come up with the affidavit and he leaves that out? (I hope that window was checked for fingerprints. If Reeva's prints are on it, it doesn't mean much. But if they're not there, then ...)
And then there is the problem of Reeva carrying her iphone into the bathroom and also opening the window? Hmmm ...
This is an example of something that would not be allowed in a US court. I can't figure out if it's just different in SA or if the prosecutor is just failing to object. For instance, Roux asks A LOT of questions that calls for the witness to speculate. Things they couldn't possibly know. For instance, asking Dr. Stipp, "you wouldn't be able to hear Reeva screaming if the window was closed, would you?" How could he possibly know such a thing? The only thing you should be allowed to ask a witness is what they know, saw, heard, or felt without asking for speculation or hearsay.
The way the questioning goes in SA is peculiar to me because I'm so used to US trials, which have a very strict and structured standard for questioning and using evidence. The other day, in response to something Sam Taylor said, Roux said, "this is very interesting to me, I think?" Perhaps it's because there's no jury and there's less chance of prejudicing laypeople. A judge won't be swayed by such non sense. But it's different.
salberg7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 1,200
I am on the fence about premeditated murder. I think OP may be guilty of culpable homicide. I agree with Minor4th. No solid evidence - yet - for premeditated murder. Can't wait to see how the rest of the trial & evidence progress. I think week one was a score for the state. We'll see. JMO. Great discussion! Love this site. OT but good info on the missing Malaysian flight thread here too.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
My recollection is that he said the figure was light. Tomorrow I will go through the video of his statement again, unless you have a reported quote from the court proceedings which would save me a great deal of time
.IIRC, "premeditated murder" in SA is different than in the US to my understanding.
In SA, it can be called premeditated if, indeed, Oscar purposely went to get his gun because he intended to use it to kill Reeva. IOW, in mere seconds, he chose to shoot to kill her.
In US, it seems there is more time and intent required. I.e, he planned to kill her before she got there and he purposely locked doors, etc., to fulfill his plan.
I do hope a South African person on this board can clarify that and add info or correct me if I am wrong.
TIA
.
sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
And let us not forget that Stipp testified that he has prior military training, so his belief in hearing what he identified as two sets of gunfire is credible, IMO. In fact, upon hearing the 2nd set of sounds, he warned his wife to get out of the way.
I think it's possible that both the State and the Defense may have the sequence of events (gunshots and cricket bat) out of order.
After all, the State has already withdrawn their early claim (supposedly after the ballistics forensics came back) that OP was wearing his prosthetic legs at the time he shot and killed Reeva. They should have never made that claim unless they could back it up with evidence. This fact has caused me to be less than confident in the State's ability to successfully prosecute this case, even though I believe they have other solid evidence. But, at the start of this trial, Nel said something to the effect that the evidence was "circumstantial".
Mind you, most evidence is considered circumstantial (even DNA, in some instances)) as opposed to direct evidence.
Direct Evidence
Evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that fact.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Direct+Evidence
In addition, prosecutor Nel didn't ask Pieter Baba any follow-up questions during his direct examination of Baba regarding what he may have observed about the clothes OP was wearing when he was carrying Reeva down the stairs. Mr. Baba testified that he was trying to see what type of clothes OP was wearing. It could be that Mr. Baba hadn't been able to ascertain that, so there was no point in Nel asking him. I hope that was the reason, and not that Nel had forgotten.
ETA: As for Mr. Roux, I think he'll say anything in an attempt to persuade a State's witness to change their testimony and agree with him (and, by extension, OP). So far, his tactic hasn't worked. I think his main goal is to create confusion in the mind of the Judge, but I've noticed that My Lady takes copious amounts of notes. If Roux actually produces all the documents and evidence he claims to have, I suspect they won't be nearly as eye-opening as he claims them to be.
I'm looking forward to tonight's trial proceedings.
That's an interesting video. It states that Pistorius fired 4 shots into the door and then backed out of the bathroom to look for Reeva. Now, how could Pistorius think it was safe to do that? If there really had been an intruder in the toilet, 4 shots, all from one direction, could easily have missed and infuriated an intruder, if such an intruder existed and had been in the toilet. At the point Pistorius decided to go back to the bedroom, how did he feel any safer than he did before he fired?
There was a poster on the JA board who came on only after she watched the Lifetime movie to say what an awful person Travis was and how awful he was to Jodi and how she understands what Jodi did, despite fully admitting that the only info she has to go one was the movie, which was full dramatizations and factual liberties. It's ill-advised to form an opinion based on a dramatic movie alone.
Something similar occurred when Roux questioned Baba. I just listened to Baba's testimony myself because I didn't want to rely strictly on the tweets from courtroom reporters. It's my understanding that Baba and one or two additional guards were inside a truck in front of OP's house when Baba initiated calls to OP. Baba said he "began making calls" to OP when they arrived at his house, but I don't know how many calls. He claims to have initiated the call that became their first conversation, during which OP allegedly said everything was fine. The other guard inside the vehicle (the driver) was able to hear both sides of the conversation and Baba commented to him that something was not right. It sounded to me like Baba asked OP to come downstairs to reassure them everything was fine and that's when the conversation ended. Baba didn't say exactly how the first call ended (which person initiated hanging up) but when referring to the second call he said "the line went dead again", so perhaps OP hung up both times. I don't know. OP then called Baba, cried, and then the line went dead. Roux claims phone records indicate OP placed the first call at 3:21 and Baba's call was placed at 3:24. Baba disputed this (not the exact time of the call, but the fact that OP called him first) and Roux said he would provide documentation of this on Monday. To me, it sounded like Roux was strictly referring to calls made to/from the landline security number which would not be relevant if Baba called from a mobile phone while in his vehicle. But Roux claims Baba's initial statement said he called OP at 3:24. It seems phone records will be very important in this case.
Unrelated to phone calls, but also of interest, is that Baba said he and two other guards saw Stander and his daughter arrive, parking half in the street. Stander and his daughter ran toward OP's house and the three guards ran after them. Stander's daughter opened the door and went inside. Stander stood in the doorway. The guards stood behind Stander. All this coincided with OP walking down the stairs holding Reeva. Baba was shocked and only snapped out of it when Stander's daughter shouted "Oscar!" Baba testified that OP became aware of five people (the Standers and three guards) present in and around the doorway as he was descending the stairs with Reeva. Baba said after snapping out of his shock, he was focused on observing with OP was wearing and that is when Stander asked Baba to go call police and ambulance. The driver of the security truck (Jacob?) was asked to make sure no vehicles were parked at OP's.
As always, all of the above is just my opinion.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Cell phone.
That's actually not quite true. Premeditation can require planning. But premeditation can happen in an instant. It depends. If Reeva was screaming before he shot her, that is a case for premeditation here, as well. But only a case. There is also a case for heat of passion, I think. He seems quite struck by what he's done, in any case.
I'm not a lawyer though. Perhaps minor could weigh in.
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 164
- Guests online
- 4,169
- Total visitors
- 4,333