Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He was responding to a hypothetical idea of what if the video was an attorney client work product; in that case it is protected. But in this case it seems that OP and Roux did not commission The Evidence Room, but rather OP and Uncle Arnold did, and that would not be protected by the attorney client work product rules.

All of the accusations from the Pistorius Camp came out yesterday and today by OPs lawyer Brian Webber, not by Roux. I doubt that The Evidence Room has had time to consult with their lawyers yet on how they will respond publicly and possibly within the civil court(s), but I would bet that we hear from their lawyers tomorrow or Tuesday latest. I'll bet that they are very upset with what Webber has said about them and they have a very different story to tell.

Well, if the dreadful Oldwage turns up on Monday morning with a bunch of authorities on attorney/client privilege, sub judice and mistrial, we'll know for sure who's behind this.

If the report I read is correct, Brian Webber has already claimed that the video was protected by privilege on the grounds that it was material prepared for use at the trial.
 
He was responding to a hypothetical idea of what if the video was an attorney client work product; in that case it is protected. But in this case it seems that OP and Roux did not commission The Evidence Room, but rather OP and Uncle Arnold did, and that would not be protected by the attorney client work product rules.

All of the accusations from the Pistorius Camp came out yesterday and today by OPs lawyer Brian Webber, not by Roux. I doubt that The Evidence Room has had time to consult with their lawyers yet on how they will respond publicly and possibly within the civil court(s), but I would bet that we hear from their lawyers tomorrow or Tuesday latest. I'll bet that they are very upset with what Webber has said about them and they have a very different story to tell.

Brian Webber is part of the DT. The statement issued earlier today clearly says the defense hired The Evidence Room for trial preparation purposes.

Nel will have a FIT if a mistrial is declared because of this.
 
To me, this illustrates why OP could not have knelt, at least not normally, with his "legs" on. Those feet do not include any mechanism to allow for how a person's ankles/feet would bend and I doubt his knee sockets would either. In fact, I would think he would be less stable kneeling with his "legs" on, than without. Even that other pic that showed him with his "legs" on with his sister in the toilet room only shows him with his right leg stretched out in front of him and I believe the other was under him in more of a crouch position. I need to see the whole video...

In the second picture he is kneeling at the foot of the stairs wearing his prosthetics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oment-shot-Reeva-Steenkamp-bathroom-door.html
 
I don't understand why there are many references to the new house that they were going to make their home? After 3/4 months, usually nobody is thinking about a lifetime home with their boyfriend/girlfriend. I mean 12/16 weeks with already some arguing going on who would consider this? Or am I just old fashioned?

Somehow I don't think it is a coincidence that this video and photos of this great house showed up at the same time. I suspect the photo release is at Uncle Arnold's direction to his media hired guns to make OP look good because either he 1) knew the video was coming and wanted to counter it or 2) he also released the video, thinks it helps Oscar, and wanted to make a positive 1-2 splash in the media.

I believe that Uncle is doing his best to try to put OP in a positive light in case he is acquitted and wants to move on with his life like nothing happened.
 
BIB

Hey Viper, could you point me to some information that confirms that it was OP and Uncle Pistorius that commissioned this video which in turn would mean it wouldn't be covered under the attorney, client privilege.

I will try, but this is the Internet and everything can be twisted! LOL!!!! So far only Webber has come forth, not Roux or Oldwage, and Webber is not invoking attorney client privilege (work product) with regards to the video. In fact he is declaring the illegality of the acquisition of the video on the one hand and the breach of contract for airing it too soon on the other hand.

Here is the relevant portion of the statement that he released, quote:

"Brian Webber, a lawyer representing Pistorius, said in a statement the video was "obtained illegally and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement with The Evidence Room".

"Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully," said Webber, adding that the broadcaster had agreed not to air the material until the end of the trial.

I believe that there is further reference from Webber about who commissioned the creation of the video and that leads back to a non attorney too, but I don't feel the need to search for it right now. What are your thoughts?
 
So then how could he hear a sound coming all the way from the bathroom, of a sliding window?

Quite - I feel that this is possibly the most easily demolished aspect of his Defence.

In previous cases, OP conferred with Sam Taylor and other house guests regarding noises. In this case, by implication, he saw no need to confer with Reeva because the noise was so loud that there was absolutely no room for debate.

Howver, even if Reeva, having crept noiselessly out of the room, had banged the window against the frame as hard as she could - and why would she - it's unlikely that OP would have heard anything very much at all, given his distance from the bathroom and his close proximity to the fans.

I wonder if our resident sound expert, Pandax 81, has a view on this?
 
O/T - Am I the only one who logged onbrd today and found a new format??? One thing is for sure... which is good to say given that few things are... I love this format !!

its so much clearer to read looks great too :) 1 gripe i keep pressing the multiquote button instead of thanks grrr lol but yeah its a lot better ...
 
BBM - I know. That's why I wasn't sure if the video had been speeded up or not, because it was hard to equate this nimble :liar: with the practically immobile victim he's been painted as.

Yes he looked like the Evian water dancing baby animation commercial. Really odd
 
Hi guys, i see some of you still cant view the video? i watched the whole thing, so a summary to you non-aussies.

1.First part is just a short lifestory summary of Pistorius and Reeva, Pistorius grew up without lower legs, didn't hinder him growing up he still did tons of stuff playing for football iirc.
Reeva wanted to train for law, but was scouted for her looks to be a model, father wanted her to focus on law and was dissapointed she modelled.

Oscar and Reeva relationship, Reeva wanted to keep it very low-key, started when Oscar asked her out of the blue to be his date to some event, overwhelmed by publicity
she confided in that black chick friend of hers first she was seeing Oscar.
They started dating, initially she was happy and cheerful, very quickly started telling her parents (mother) that they were fighting all the time, mother remarks
this isn't normal since they just started dating.
Mother recalls a time where reeva calls her in a car with Pistorius and Pistorius is driving crazily (perhaps speeding crazily) mother talks to Pistorius and tells him
if you kill my baby i will wipe you out.

2.Short of (Roger?) evidence room guy and his qualification and what he was brought in to do, hired by Arnold of Pistorius' family to recreate animated computer simulation of Pistorius' version of events.
Now this is where it gets interesting, i have followed the trial but didn't really follow the recreation of the room well, from watching his computer simulation, it is extremely damaging to Oscar, here we get a combination of seeing the computer simulation of oscars version and Oscar talking about how things happened (this is the common short trailer we all can see him running without prosthetics etc).

The computer simulation portrays the room as very small space to work around with, the bed is between the balcony and the hallway to the toilet, the simulation of Oscar's version, shows him going to the balconey, moving fan etc (cut to Roger explaining that Pistorius' version reeva got up to go to toilet at this time without him knowing).

Oscar hear's a noise, goes to under the bed to get his gun, now THIS part is extremely damaging, because the entire computer simulation portrays Oscar as basically having his face right next to the bed, so Reeva's sleeping position is literally in front of his face about one hand length away,he should have been able to see if Reeva was there or not. The whole re-enactment makes it seem, how could you possibly not know Reeva was not in bed?

Ok He goes down the hallway, now we cut to Oscar live re-enactment, he takes a long time to explain he was bracing himself against the LEFT wall with his shoulder/back, in case the person was around the corner on the right just before the toilet door, this lengthy explanation makes it seem very clearly Oscar was thinking quite rationally and thinking things through, this is another damaging testimony to the whole flight or fight scenario we are getting presented with.

Oscar shouts (oscar we hear Oscar re-enacting his shouting) to Reeva call police/get out get the f out etc etc, this is also particularly damaging as he in no way sounds like a girl lol.
He hears the magazine rack slide (like screech kind of like rubber shoes on basketball court or wooden floor of kitchen if you know), he fires 4 shots.

The whole portrayal, definitely portrays him with absolute intent to kill, no anxiety or nervousness or accidentally pulling the trigger.
After this he tries to use a cricket bat to take down the door.

3. Ok throughout this, the presenter tries to get some differing opinions then Roger's which is pro oscar, one of them is witnesses heard girl screams during shooting, says this is problematic for Oscar defense.
But most of the focus is on Roger who we see tries to explain away all the inconsistancies by backing up Pistorius' defense team various excuses, Pistorius screaming they must have mistaken it for a girls voice.

We get a re-enactment Roger made of hitting a door outside with cricket bat and then using a gun, its actually fairly distinctly different sounds, but he then says well at 2-3-4-500 metres, you probably cant tell the difference.

Ok we cut back to re-enactment of Oscar, so the entire re-enactment up till now is Oscar on his stumps, he goes back to balconey, shouts for help, goes back into bedroom on his bed puts prosthetics on, rushes to dead toilet, re-enacts carrying reeva out with Aimee, i recall that Pistorius had his prosthetics on, he is simply kneeling/sitting in such a way when getting Reeva off the floor, that the prosthetics is flat under him, carries Aimee down stairs and lays her down on the floor.

4. Final part is more shorts with Reeva's friend and her family how they miss her she is gone forever, personally, reeva's friend sounds incredibly political with her words, she is very careful not to say anything bad about Oscar, she states when Reeva told her of problems, that she thinks Oscars love levels and Reeva's love levels didn't match (personally i find this friend to be very shifty).

Hope this helps in any way.
 
It makes me angry & sick when I think of how the DT had OP bare his stumps in court. Then had the judge & assessors step down from the bench to view just how bad OP's stumps were, with the long winded narrative given by Derman during the viewing of his stumps...grrrrr

Speaking of Derman, the guy closest to the camera on the right, does really resemble him imo... and he's not wearing the same blue shirt/suit as the young guy.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/a/24395332/new-footage-of-pistorius-revealed/
PIS1-art.jpg
 
I wonder if Nike will take action against channel 7. Their logo is a protected trademark and without prior dress clearance for product placement they may be in for a lawsuit. On reality TV shows logos are often pixilated on shirts and hats because the trademark owners do not want to be associated with them. Considering the fact that Nike suspended their endorsement contract with OP right after he killed Reeva, I would imagine they would consider him wearing their logo on this TV program could tarnish their reputation.
 
I will try, but this is the Internet and everything can be twisted! LOL!!!! So far only Webber has come forth, not Roux or Oldwage, and Webber is not invoking attorney client privilege (work product) with regards to the video. In fact he is declaring the illegality of the acquisition of the video on the one hand and the breach of contract for airing it too soon on the other hand.

Here is the relevant portion of the statement that he released, quote:

"Brian Webber, a lawyer representing Pistorius, said in a statement the video was "obtained illegally and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement with The Evidence Room".

"Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully," said Webber, adding that the broadcaster had agreed not to air the material until the end of the trial.

I believe that there is further reference from Webber about who commissioned the creation of the video and that leads back to a non attorney too, but I don't feel the need to search for it right now. What are your thoughts?

BIB

I'm not really sure what to make of it. Life has taught me to look at the deeper meaning behind things.

If it was just a leak of which the DT and Pistorius had no prior knowledge, then it would be an unfortunate incident for them.

However, from the Webber press release this morning which you quoted above, it does seem that the DT had prior knowledge that Channel 7 had this video and that they were going to show it. Webber's comments seem contradictory because on one hand he says it was illegally obtained but then says that they agreed to not show it until the end of the trial.

Which lawyer would allow illegal material to be shown, even after the trial was over?

Just imagine if OP was to be cleared of all charges (yes slim to none), but imagine if he was and this video came out. It would put OP in a negative light at a time that he would be building his life again. That's why I don't understand why they wouldn't have got an injunction against showing the video unless they to found out at the very last minute, perhaps last night when teasers from the show started surfacing on the net.

I also hope it wasn't some desperate attempt at getting a mistrial though from what I have read, it seems slim to none because it wasn't the PT or the judge that released this video. It was a failed contractual agreement between the DT, of which I include Uncle Arnold, and one of their contractors.
 
In the second picture he is kneeling at the foot of the stairs wearing his prosthetics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oment-shot-Reeva-Steenkamp-bathroom-door.html

Yes, but could he stand again while still holding/carrying his sister, or would he have to put her down, then brace himself with one foot already flat on the floor first? I still believe he dragged RS out of the toilet room on his stumps, then put his "legs" on just before he lifted her for his trip downstairs. Having spent a fair amount of time around leg amputees while my husband was in the rehab facility after his arm had been ripped off and he was relearning how to walk with his partial paralysis from his nipple line down, I don't recall seeing any of them ever able to stand up from a kneeling position without either assistance or having braced/positioned themselves against something for support and never from a position where both knees were on the floor.
 
partial quote:
Oscar hear's a noise, goes to under the bed to get his gun, now THIS part is extremely damaging, because the entire computer simulation portrays Oscar as basically having his face right next to the bed, so Reeva's sleeping position is literally in front of his face about one hand length away,he should have been able to see if Reeva was there or not. The whole re-enactment makes it seem, how could you possibly not know Reeva was not in bed?
No, in OP's version, Reeva was sleeping on the other side of the bed from where the gun was below, certainly not in front of his face while he was getting the gun and well more than a hand's length away at that point.
 
partial quote:
No, in OP's version, Reeva was sleeping on the other side of the bed from where the gun was below, certainly not in front of his face and well more than a hand's length away.

Yes, with the duvet covering her legs and not on the floor in the path he would have to take to get around the bed to his gun, with her jeans laying slightly over the edge of it.
 
Yes, with the duvet covering her legs and not on the floor in the path he would have to take to get around the bed to his gun, with her jeans laying slightly over the edge of it.
That's a different point from the one I addressed in the post you cite.
 
partial quote:
No, in OP's version, Reeva was sleeping on the other side of the bed from where the gun was below, certainly not in front of his face while he was getting the gun and well more than a hand's length away at that point.
your right, the simulation still portrays as Pistorius unlikely to have known Reeva was not in bed, as his face was literally on the same level of the bed on the left side, and him walking around the bed in the simulation portrays as a fairly small space.

Essentially when Pistorius comes from the balconey, AROUND the bed to get the gun, he is basically circling the bed, the simulation makes it look very unlikely he would not have known someone is or isn't on the bed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
2,658
Total visitors
2,751

Forum statistics

Threads
600,830
Messages
18,114,239
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top