Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

Nunehi said:

Hi there!

I'm fairly new here and I'm very new at posting, so please don't be harsh if I do anything wrong :blushing:

I found this newspaper article posted in our local newspaper "Die Beeld" very interesting and wanted to share it with you. Unfortunately it is an Afrikaans newspaper so I translated it into english as best as I could (English is not my first language...) Please bear with me lease:. It is based on the comments of a local Prof that specializes in Law at a University in Johannesburg. Here goes...

7 Misconceptions regarding the “Oscar Case”

The Defence team has closed their case in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius and everyone had an opinion regarding the outcome of the case. Marida Fitzpatrick has indicated 7 big misconceptions that people tend to have regarding the case.

Mistake 1: The burden of proof lies only within the state (PT)

In most criminal law cases it is the case but not in this case.
Pistorius acknowledges that he has shot Reeva Steenkamp. Therefore the burden of proof also lies with the defence team as he needs to prove that his version of what happened is possibly true that he acted out of putative self-defence.

Mistake 2: The state has to show motive

The state has to show above reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew there was a person behind the door and shot with the intention to unlawfully kill someone. They do however not have to show why he did it.
The state argues that they had an argument, but cannot say what about. “It is not something that the state needs to prove. It is not a void in their case” said Prof. James Grant Criminal Law specialist from WITS University

Mistake 3: Manslaughter / Culpable manslaughter is second prize

Manslaughter is not the diluted version of murder, it is two different charges. A charge of Manslaughter will only be taken into account if the judge accepts Pistorius’ account and defence of putative self-defence.

If the judge rejects this version, manslaughter will not even be considered.

Mistake 4: The police altered the scene

The defence team claims that this is true, it was however not proven yet. Altered and contaminated is not the same. If you walk through the scene without the necessary foot coverage you may contaminate the scene, if you consciously move pieces of evidence to create a certain impression you are altering the scene.

Pistorius alledges that the police moved certain objects, but he cannot remember where it was originally. He also cannot say why the police would have moved it.

Mistake 5: 1 eyewitness + 1 eyewitness = 2 eyewitnesses

The four eyewitnesses for the state said that they heard a woman scream, this does not only carry the weight of just four witnesses.
Grant said that because they verify each other’s versions, the weight each witness’ testimony carries exponentially more weight. “The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts”

Mistake 6: The defence team’s neighbours contradicts the states’ neighbours

The neighbours that testified for the defence team did not hear a woman’s screams, but they also did not hear the first three shots and that which preceded it.

They woke up from the last shot and only heard Pistorius’ cries afterwards.

They are therefore not contradicting the four state witnesses’ accounts with regards to the screams from a woman that they heard and testified about.

Mistake 7 : The other three charges is not important / small

In comparison with a murder charge, the charges with regards to the firearms act seems small or not important, but it is everything but.
“The judge heard how he said the weapon fired on it’s own while in his hand without him physically pulling the trigger, while we know it is not physically possible,” Grant said. “It can affect his overall credibility adversely”.

- Translated from the Beeld article “7 Mistastings oor die Oscar saak” written by Marida Fitzpatrick and published by Naspers on the 9th of July 2014. (http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-07-09-7-mistastings-oor-die-oscar-saak)

I would really love to get your thoughts and opinions on this!

Click to expand...

Val1 said:

That certainly looks like the type of shop that would sell a distressed look frame as per the pic.
View attachment 54629

Click to expand...

Viper said:

When I first read your insight on this I was very supportive and I agreed. But after researching DND and the iPhone I was led to the Airplane mode as the one that worked with your discovery; I could not find any DND apps that replicated Airplane mode. Using Airplane mode could not be any more difficult than whatever DND app that you are looking at, BTW if you post a link I will read it! But you are still linking sleep mode and unplugging the phone with the DND app! Airplane mode is a push of the Settings icon and then the Airplane mode icon, and then selecting On or Off. Even OP could do it.

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

LOL… indeed… however the politically correct term is "vintage" frame

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

Fair enough…

The research was done a while back but I'll track the app down and post a link ASAP

BTW, you seem to suggest that OP was somewhat 'technologically differently abled' (tech-idiot)… why ?

Click to expand...

RainCheck said:

However, my own experience also makes me feel conflicted about OP guilt. My abuser groomed me for well over a year before he ever really hurt me. He tried so hard to be another person for that year. He was my dream man, other than his temper I saw him use on other people. He was so charming and romantic while subtly breaking me down and making me dependent on him emotionally and financially. He manipulated me into thinking all my friends were bad for me and even my family. He worked long and hard to hide the monster he really was until he was sure he had me exactly where he wanted me. Reeva and OP were only together 3 months, right? It seems like OP would have still been in the honeymoon phase and working on Reeva. I can see him making belittling remarks to her and then being really apologetic, but he wouldn't have gone full force abuser yet. It seems so extreme for so early in their relationship for him to become enraged enough to kill her. It's the only thing that makes me confused! I think from what I've read about her talking badly to her, he fits the profile of an abuser. It was just so early in their relationship for him to unleash such violence. It doesn't mean he didn't, but it doesn't fit the pattern I've since researched and read about following my experience. I didn't ever want to make the mistake of getting involved with another abuser again so have spent a lot of time since trying to recognize them.

The other information I read which gave me pause had nothing to do with OP. I started to read about the rampant crime and violence in South Africa. I can't imagine how that would affect the people living there. In the process of reading about it I found the story of Rudi Visagie, the former rugby player who accidentally shot to death his daughter when he thought she was a car thief http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/25/southafrica.rugbyunion How bad is crime in South Africa a man could do that on accident to his own child? Is it bad enough a man could really assume a noise in his bathroom was an armed criminal come to rob and maybe even kill him?

I'm very conflicted with this case. On one hand, I think OP is a controlling man with anger issues who is capable of domestic violence. On the other hand, I think crime is so rampant there he really could have thought Reeva was a robber! I haven't read or heard or seen anything in the evidence that's a "smoking gun" sort of detail for me. I'm very interested to see the outcome of the trial because I think it could easily go either way!

Anyway, sorry if I made no sense or sound ignorant because I don't know enough of the facts! I just wanted to share the thoughts I've had. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Viper said:

He murdered his girlfriend in his toilet after an argument. Neighbors heard her screams before they were silenced by his bullets. And yet he expects a judge to believe that he was defending himself from an armed intruder that had scaled a two story wall just to lock himself in OPs toilet closet. So he's not very bright. Nuf said?

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

Perhaps you should take a look at the timeline of Whatsapp messages and phone calls before stating incorrectly that posters are wrong about something.

It's rather obvious that Reeva did NOT want to stay at Oscar's and that Oscar insisted that she stay.


12:12:05 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Baba I hope u don’t mind but I came back to the house to work a bit and do some washing. It will help me a lot to get stuff done and relieve some stress. I’ll go through to Jhb at like 3 "

Reeva was stressed and had to get some work done (perhaps her speech). Being alone without distractions was her intended goal to get ‘stuff done’. Reeva tells Oscar her plan : leave around 3PM and return home to Joburg.

Although Reeva’s message reads like she is already at Oscar’s house, she is NOT. From the detailed billing info, Reeva arrived at Silverwoods between 12:45 and 13:02:52

13:02:52 – Oscar calls Reeva (4 m. 1 s.) – he whines about the ‘$h!tty thing’ that happened to him. Conversation until 13:06:53

About 4 minutes after that conversation Reeva sends Oscar this message

13:10:48 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " It’s a difficult thing to try to console you baba because it’s a $h!tty thing and you’re a nice guy. I guess these things happen and we can just hope they work out for the best. You are an amazing person with so many blessings and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far outweigh this hurdle I can promise you that "

13:40:54 – RS 5353 – Silverlakes tower – GPRS (2 h. 2 m. 20 s.) – Uninterrupted until 15:43:14 – Reeva initiates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:21:40 – Whatsapp – Reply to the 13:10:48 message from Reeva
OSCAR : " Thank you so much my angel. you don’t have to my angel. Stay tonight if you would like. "

15:21:52 – Whatsapp
OSCAR : " I’m just finishing off at Ryan "

Although Reeva has already stated that she will be going home to Joburg at 3PM and it’s now 20 minutes past 3PM, Oscar hints that she could stay the night at his house.

15:23:09 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Thank you baba. Let me know if you’d like to spend time with M or Carl. I’m sure you maybe feel like some family tonight. "

Not wanting to tell him ‘No’, Reeva diplomatically suggests that Oscar should seek comfort and consolation from family members (Aimee or Carl). Reeva obviously gets that Oscar would like her to stay but she can’t accommodate him tonight.

15:41:54 – Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 33 s.) – Conversation until 15:43:27

One can clearly infer the subject of this conversation from Reeva’s Whatsapp message that follows in 2.5 minutes at 15:46:10. Oscar is being insistent about having Reeva spend the evening with him.

15:43:14 – RS 5353 – Silverlakes tower – GPRS – Reeva terminates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:46:10 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Angel I’m going to go home at like 6. Please stay and do whatever it was you were gonna do "

Reeva re-conveys her firm intent to go home to Joburg and pleads with Oscar for him to forget her for tonight. Her tone reads like a loving but exasperated mother that has to deny her son something he wants right away.

Reeva has to give a speech the very next morning in Joburg. The drive from Silverwoods to Joburg is a 1-hour drive without traffic. Driving in the evening, Reeva would be going in the opposite direction of weekday rush-hour traffic. In the morning, Reeva would be going in the same direction of weekday rush-hour traffic.

15:54:27 – Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 53 s.) – 8 minutes after Reeva reaffirmed that she did not want to stay. Oscar insist again and manages to convince Reeva to stay that evening.

Click to expand...

james83 said:

It's always been something i have found very very odd, he meets this beautiful girl, apparently falls madly in love with her, she's the one the love of his life etc, they are looking at house's together.
Now you would think given all that, he would really go to town for valentine's day, especially given the fact that he's a very wealthy man, but yet it's clear that he had done nothing, not even a card.

Click to expand...

Judgejudi said:

I never said your post was incorrect, only the bolded line “RS had only stayed because OP had insisted so much” to which I replied:

“This is incorrect. They'd both originally made other plans and weren't going to spend the evening together. I always felt that OP couldn't have cared less whether or not she stayed”. The athlete told her: "Stay tonight if you like."

Regardless of how many phone calls or messages went to and fro, IMO that is very different to insisting. Insisted means forcefully demanded and that’s what my post referred to, nothing else.

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

There are many DND apps out there… I've read up on it and found many that can be easily configured to do the following :

- Preset start and end time of DND e.g. from 11PM to 5AM DND mode automatically turns ON

- Stops all incoming 'stuff' i.e. incoming phone calls, SMS, emails, 'everything' including automatic updates… phone is basically in airplane mode for all intents and purposes

- If user touches the phone during preset DND schedule i.e. makes the phone get out of sleep mode… this indicates that the user wishes to use the phone, DND mode automatically turns OFF

- If the phone goes back into sleep mode during preset DND schedule i.e. user is no longer using the phone… DND mode automatically turns ON

- Many additional features e.g. block everything incoming except from girlfriend and/or best friend and/or mom and/or security

Sam Taylor stated that OP always took his personal phone with him wherever he went, even to the bathroom.
Sam Taylor stated that OP always charged his personal phone in the bedroom
We all saw the tell-tale white Apple charging cable dangling from the amplifier in OP's bedroom

When OP got up to investigate the noise RS had made downstairs in the kitchen, he unplugged his phone and took it with him… this made the DND app believe OP wanted to use the phone so it automatically turned OFF the DND mode.

This was at 01:48:48… since the phone had not received anything incoming for the past 3 hours because DND was active, the server dumped everything it had in its queue for OP's personal phone at that time… this explains why the GPRS connection lasted so long : 5 minutes 9 seconds… there was a lot of things to transfer.

OP did not use the phone at that time… that's why no calls were logged and nothing appeared in application data as being sent by OP.

OP just put his phone in his pocket… after a few minutes of inactivity by the user, the phone went back into sleep mode and the DND automatically turned back ON again.

…. arguing with RS between 2AM and 3AM…. OP shoots RS

Now OP wants/needs to call someone… so he reaches in his pocket to grab his phone and starts looking in his contacts for Johan Stander's number...the DND app saw OP wanted to use the phone so it automatically turned OFF the DND mode.

This was at 03:18:45...the phone had not received anything incoming for the past hour… again the server dumped everything it had on his phone… since there wasn't as much the GPRS only lasted for 1 minute 15 seconds.

OP found Johan Stander's number, he dialed it and the call began at 03:19:03… this means it took approximately 18 seconds for OP to get his phone out of sleep mode, access contacts, find Johan Stander's number plus the phone to dial the number and connect the call.

Click to expand...

Greater Than said:

Thanks for the link. I found this one that states these fees for experts:

Regardless, they're fees in Australia not South Africa, so it's irrelevant anyway. I was just curious where you had heard $250/day from because I agree it wouldn't be worth it to an expert to work on a case and subject themselves to cross examination for such a nominal fee.

Click to expand...

G.bng said:

. I mean, the possibilities are endless, but for me a one voice "argument" just doesn't make any sense at all and IMO, and of course IMBW, I can't see how it will make sense to Masipa and Co, and Masipa showed quite an interest in the "one voice" EVDM heard since she, not just Roux, corrected Nel a couple of times when he referred to "voicES" when questioning EVDM.!

Click to expand...

eimajjjj said:

This frustrates me so much if true: (regarding Roux hinting at appeal as a 'number' of witnesses did not testify due to media)

Criminal law experts believe the move is critical to keeping Pistorius out of prison if he is convicted. It tries to show that he has been prejudiced from the beginning of proceedings and prevented from getting a fair trial.

Professor Anthony Minnaar, of the Unisa school of criminology, said the strategy was clear and "transparent".

"It is to keep all options open for appeal . [An] appeal could very well be successful as Pistorius's defence team will be able to show that not all evidence has been heard as certain witnesses were too 'afraid' to testify.

"If they are successful in applying for an appeal, a whole new case will have to be made as the entire case will have to be taken up on review," he said.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/07/09/oscar-keeps-all-options-open

Click to expand...

4MrsB said:

In addition to your observation (which I totally agree with), I also thought it odd that OP waited until August 2013 (Reeva's 30th birthday), 6+ months after her death, to open the VD card & gift from her.

I understand it would be difficult, heartbreaking & take time to gather strength to open a gift from a recently lost loved one. But when you lose someone you love "as dearly as OP states he loved Reeva", any last words, text, messages on an answering machine and most definitely a last card or gift picked out for you from them would be so important to see & cherish.

(Of course, if you intinitionally murdered them it might make you feel too guilty to do so.)

A situation where you killed the loved one is obviously extremely different (whether intentionally or not)...but picking her birthday to open it seems so "staged". I would think he'd want to be alone, a quiet, personal moment, when he felt up to it. Not based on a specific date listed on the calendar. It just doesn't smell right to me. Everything seems like a big "show" that Oscar puts on, all shining a light on HIM as "the other victim". I say a staged & orchestrated moment by OP. Similar to holding a "private" memorial service for Reeva and then "leaking it" to the press beforehand.

Come to think of it: Shouldn't the police have taken it in as evidence considering the circumstances, opened it and then returned it?

Click to expand...

PISTORIUS: I got home on the evening -- early evening on the 13th and there was a wrapped present on the kitchen counter with a card that said, Ozzie (ph), and when I walked in the kitchen I acted as if I was going to open it, white wrapping paper, and Reeva told me I would like you to open it the next day. So I didn't open it.

On 8th of August on Reeva's birthday I opened her Valentine's Gift to me and it was a photo frame that she got made, four photos of her and I. And the card that she wrote --

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1404/08/nday.02.html

Click to expand...

Viper said:

He murdered his girlfriend in his toilet after an argument. Neighbors heard her screams before they were silenced by his bullets. And yet he expects a judge to believe that he was defending himself from an armed intruder that had scaled a two story wall just to lock himself in OPs toilet closet. So he's not very bright. Nuf said?

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

Fair enough…

The research was done a while back but I'll track the app down and post a link ASAP

BTW, you seem to suggest that OP was somewhat 'technologically differently abled' (tech-idiot)… why ?

Click to expand...

@OscarPistorius It's called FaceTime boo!!! Hahahahaha