awaiting sentencing phase

[Mr Fossil]

that 'last use of the phone at midnight' seems odd. as there are internet connections before that time, and after... but the phone was not connected at midnight.

surely moller has entered the four internet connections as evidence here... were the four internet connections in nel's closing argument? or was op's phone record somehow then silenced by the 'carl argeement'?

seems so odd that all this has been overlooked/ignored by the court. it is directly relevant to op's version that he was asleep... and is that 'telephone data' that masipa expressly preferred to witness testimony.

unfortunately, i guess if questioned op would have said he was just checking the weather, or similar... phone activation is no proof of an argument.

The last use of the phone isn't at midnight. OP's phone usage was divided into two days, exhibits ZZ4 and ZZ5. There are three GPRS activations post-22.30 and the one at 01:48 is specifically highlighted by Nel and Moller.

 

[soozieqtips]

Perhaps he had switched it back to airplane mode while she's questioning him but she then grabs it before his timeout has activated his passcode lock ... she doesn't need a signal to look at the phone and maybe she didn't understand Airplane mode so couldn't use the phone to call for help (like maybe she threatened to do when in the toilet). She could have used Emergency but then she wouldn't have thought to go back to the passcode screen.

BIB - that's assuming she even had the phone in the toilet. She could have dropped it in a panic in the bathroom as she was rushing to get into the toilet and away from OP, but who knows? He had time (and the presence of mind) to place phones where he wanted to.

 

[soozieqtips]

My point is that for GPRS to be activated someone had to get a signal on the phone. GPRS is an 'always on' service as I understand it, and I believe OP uses Airplane mode to disconnect his phone from the network. That stops him receiving inconvenient messages whilst he's with Reeva, but she'll think the phone is on as normal. So this means he's awake. And why would he activate his phone?

Do we know for a fact he didn't have wi-fi? You can enable wi-fi even if you're in airplane mode. I do this myself.

 

[Mr Fossil]

BIB - that's assuming she even had the phone in the toilet. She could have dropped it in a panic in the bathroom as she was rushing to get into the toilet and away from OP, but who knows? He had time (and the presence of mind) to place phones where he wanted to.

I'm saying she had his phone in the toilet, not hers. That's what leads to the violence. He wants his phone back. She is looking at the contents of his phone and a heated argument develops. Initially he doesn't have his prostheses on and she manages to get out of the bedroom with his phone. He puts his prostheses on and follows her downstairs. She races back upstairs and locks the bedroom door (hence bedroom door damage). The argument is heard next door but only her voice because he is on the other side of the bedroom door. In the bedroom, both the balcony door and the bathroom window are open. She is looking at his phone messages. Eventually he bashes down the door and she flees to the toilet with his phone.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Do we know for a fact he didn't have wi-fi? You can enable wi-fi even if you're in airplane mode. I do this myself.

Me too. We concluded the other day that he doesn't (for a variety of reasons). I'll dig them out later and post.

 

[james83]

Quote from Pistorius Original bail statement way back on 19th Feb 2013

"On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends".

In light of the recent secret phone call discovery i wonder if infact Pistorius was planning to meet up with one particular female friend until- to again quote from Pistorius original bail statement

"Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home".

I can't help but wonder if Reeva threw a spanner in the works by insisting she and Oscar spend the evening together.

It's also interesting that the call to Jenna Edkins was around 6pm just before Oscar arrived home.

And while on the Subject on Jenna Edkins, there is something odd about her tweets the day after the shooting, as well as them seeming to bad in very bad taste

Jenna Edkins @JennaEdkins · 15 Feb 2013
People must stop jumping on the bandwagon with such hurtful allegations. Os is the loving , amazing inspirational person we know him to be.

Jenna Edkins @JennaEdkins · 15 Feb 2013
You have all my familys love and support #loveandsupportoscar

Jenna Edkins @JennaEdkins · 15 Feb 2013
All I am saying is let him speak , let his side be heard without jumping to conclusions.. Love and thoughts to Reevas famiy..

This is the tweet i find very odd

Jenna Edkins @JennaEdkins · 15 Feb 2013
I would just like to say , I have dated Oscar on off for 5 YEARS, NOT ONCE has he EVER lifted a finger to me , made me fear for my life..

Note she says "I have dated Oscar on off for 5 years".

The word "have" implies that the dating is still ongoing, surely the correct use would have been "I dated Oscar on and off for x amount of years".

This girl know's more.

 

[mrjitty]

The last use of the phone isn't at midnight. OP's phone usage was divided into two days, exhibits ZZ4 and ZZ5. There are three GPRS activations post-22.30 and the one at 01:48 is specifically highlighted by Nel and Moller.

Maybe I am misremembering the testimony but didn't they say those data connection might not have been human?

Of course I agree with you - by far the most likely explanation is that a human initiated a data transfer

I hadn't picked up on the always on aspect - so that would tend to indicate someone must have turned the data connection on.

I had misunderstood the evidence to be that was a data transfer at those times.

But your view seems to make more sense. GPRS is always on - and my phone is in fact talking to the servers all the time.

 

[Sherbert]

I'm saying she had his phone in the toilet, not hers. That's what leads to the violence. He wants his phone back. She is looking at the contents of his phone and a heated argument develops. Initially he doesn't have his prostheses on and she manages to get out of the bedroom with his phone. He puts his prostheses on and follows her downstairs. She races back upstairs and locks the bedroom door (hence bedroom door damage). The argument is heard next door but only her voice. He is on the other side of the bedroom door. The balcony door and the bathroom window are open. She is looking at his phone messages. Eventually he bashes down the door and she flees to the toilet with his phone.

Mr Fossil, I have to say that this thought did occur to me, too, but I'm unclear on a few points:

1. How such an episode would tie in with Reeva's snacking

2. How long Reeva would have with OP's phone before passcode entry timed in

3. Which side of the bedroom door had been forced

4. Also, would Mrs Van der Merwe have heard Reeva if she were shouting at OP from the bedroom, through the bedroom door?

My impression is that Reeva raised her voice to communicate with OP because she was locked out or locked in somewhere. If she were in possession of the phone in the bedroom with him locked out, wouldn't she want to read the messages as quickly as possible rather than spend an hour arguing with him through the door?

I certainly feel that it is perfectly plausible that she ran into the toilet with his phone, but only if she hadn't had the chance to read the messages at that point.

 

[vanatos]

this trial is going to go on for so long, with alot of twists and turns, i wonder if i have the mental energy to keep up.

 

[foxbluff]

An extract from "An Accident Waiting to Happen" by Patricia Taylor, Sam's mother.

http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/despite-his-promises-oscar-was-his-old-self-1.1750765#.VC1BeixxnBy

Ty JudgeJ for the link.

I hope Mrs. Taylor was well paid for this book, because I certainly don't think she did her daughter any favors by publishing it.

I, too, wish OP had sort therapy but imo Sam's mother could have benefited from the same... or, at the very least, have taken a parenting class.

 

[WilliamMunter]

http://www.702.co.za/listen-live now. Barry Bateman and Mandy Wiener being interviewed.

Podcast of interview available.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm saying she had his phone in the toilet, not hers. That's what leads to the violence. He wants his phone back. She is looking at the contents of his phone and a heated argument develops. Initially he doesn't have his prostheses on and she manages to get out of the bedroom with his phone. He puts his prostheses on and follows her downstairs. She races back upstairs and locks the bedroom door (hence bedroom door damage). The argument is heard next door but only her voice. He is on the other side of the bedroom door. The balcony door and the bathroom window are open. She is looking at his phone messages. Eventually he bashes down the door and she flees to the toilet with his phone.

Oops. Sorry. I must have been reading too fast.

Me too. We concluded the other day that he doesn't (for a variety of reasons). I'll dig them out later and post.

BIB - Ahhh, you've jogged my memory. I remember the posts now. So without wi-fi, airplane mode means he wouldn't have a signal, so no new messages would get through until it was deactivated.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Maybe I am misremembering the testimony but didn't they say those data connection might not have been human?

Of course I agree with you - by far the most likely explanation is that a human initiated a data transfer

I hadn't picked up on the always on aspect - so that would tend to indicate someone must have turned the data connection on.

I had misunderstood the evidence to be that was a data transfer at those times.

But your view seems to make more sense. GPRS is always on - and my phone is in fact talking to the servers all the time.

I contacted Moller to suggest that the evidence he gave to both Nel and Roux regarding GPRS may not have been entirely accurate if my understanding of how it worked was correct. I was told my information had been passed to Nel and was to be discussed with him. I was also asked to provide my phone usage analysis. I also provided details of my query regarding the Binge messaging exchange and the lack of any GPRS connection at the time. After that I heard nothing more.

 

[foxbluff]

i see what you are saying... it also fits in with a 'home made/unsophisticated' cover up - as the 'fake' whatsapp times match with a time where whatsapp messages could not have happened.!

binge gave a statement [exhibit e] at the bail? he is not on the witness list.
anyone seen this exhibit e?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1302/22/sp.03.html

If you're referring to Binge's Affidavit I can tell you where to find it on WS... If my PC&me were faster at surfing I would go and get it for you... sorry....

Links to Binge's affidavit (and the affidavits of Divaris, his gf Sam, and Alex) were kindly provided by @WilliamMunter here:

THREAD#48 - Pg. 47 - Post#1166

 

[mrjitty]

Moller seems to have screwed up - he gives the impression that as the GPRS connection for REEVA was maintained by the phone itself, therefore we can't assume a human.

But of course in the case of Oscar's GPRS - it seems he must have turned it on - its just the data is missing off the phone.

Roux asks Moller how it would be possible for Reeva’s phone to still have active GPRS activity after her death. In particular the GPRS connection that started on Feb 13, at 20:04:17 (while she was alive) and lasted for 41,029 seconds (11+ hrs), ending after her death.

He explains that one of the applications on the device was still open and connected to the network. I wonder if we’ll find out more about this. This is where Moller reminded the Judge that she could go back to the data report and find out specifically what Reeva was doing on her phone at the time.

He testifies there are also other reasons why smart phones connect to GPRS networks such as email updates, automatic cell phone updates, etc. It doesn’t necessarily require human interaction to activate GPRS. From billing records alone, you cannot specify human interaction. (But again, you can also look back to the data reports to find out if there was human interaction.)

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-15-state-rests/

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil, I have to say that this thought did occur to me, too, but I'm unclear on a few points:

1. How such an episode would tie in with Reeva's snacking

2. How long Reeva would have with OP's phone before passcode entry timed in

3. Which side of the bedroom door had been forced

4. Also, would Mrs Van der Merwe have heard Reeva if she were shouting at OP from the bedroom, through the bedroom door?

My impression is that Reeva raised her voice to communicate with OP because she was locked out or locked in somewhere. If she were in possession of the phone in the bedroom with him locked out, wouldn't she want to read the messages as quickly as possible rather than spend an hour arguing with him through the door?

I certainly feel that it is perfectly plausible that she ran into the toilet with his phone, but only if she hadn't had the chance to read the messages at that point.

1. The timing of eating is not an exact science. It is possible therefore that she ate something at, say, 11 whilst finishing off some work on her speech downstairs before coming up to bed. (OP mentions "when you come [up?], when you go to sleep" twice is his testimony). Perhaps she didn't eat all her dinner at dinner time and some was left and she was now hungry. During this time OP is perhaps upstairs ... and makes contact twice with whoever via WhatsApp.

2. Reeva grabs his phone from him as he is evasive when she questions him and she believes he is lying. From then on she can keep it activated for as long as she keeps touching the screen. Not sure what his timeout period would be.

3. According to OP he attempted to bash the secondary door down from the outside as he ran back upstairs from opening the front door. This is consistent with my theory. Reeva has locked him out of the bedroom.

4. She would hear Reeva screaming and shouting because the balcony door and the bathroom window are both open and Reeva is in the bedroom. Although these windows don't face EvdM's house, in the dead of night when there is little other sound Reeva's voice carries outside the house. But EvdM can't hear what is being said. Also Reeva doesn't necessarily have to be standing immediately on the other side of the door shouting at the door but perhaps deeper into the bedroom. [You could introduce the air rifle here e.g. it was outside the room at one point and he's threatening to use it, to scare her, so she moves away from the door but I'm not convinced. More likely he threatens to bash down the door so she stands away from it]. EvdM lives across the road. She wouldn't hear OP because he is on the other side of the closed bedroom door. The argument may go on for a long while before OP becomes so enraged that he thinks to bash down the door to get his phone back.

By this time she has already read enough to know that OP is cheating on her and she's mad at him. She isn't going to give his phone back whether it's locked itself again or not. He's mad at her because she has his phone and he wants both his phone back and her "the f out of his house". When Reeva runs and locks herself in the toilet he tries to shoulder barge that door too but it doesn't work. He can't pull it open either. He ultimately resorts to the cricket bat to bash down the door to get his phone. But Reeva is now threatening to call the police and, in his mad rage, he grabs his gun and shoots through the door 4 times to stop her. The crack through the bullet hole is caused when he then pulls out the first panel to get into the toilet.

 

[mrjitty]

I contacted Moller to suggest that the evidence he gave to both Nel and Roux regarding GPRS may not have been entirely accurate if my understanding of how it worked was correct. I was told my information had been passed to Nel and was to be discussed with him. I was also asked to provide my phone usage analysis. I also provided details of my query regarding the Binge messaging exchange and the lack of any GPRS connection at the time. After that I heard nothing more.

I hope I am not asking too many questions!

So when my phone has data on and establishes a GPRS data connection - that will then log as the connection opening when I first shake hands with the server, and not ending until i do something like turn off my data or turn off my phone?

And then in addition to that - my provider is going to log the volume of data during the period. This is often none. And other times data is pushed to me - like email. Or I initiate an app.

Other then that - the tower will no doubt routinely ping the phone to check if it still needs to allocate resources to it?

I think it is most unclear exactly what Moller is talking about.

With Reeva he definitely seems to indicate her data connection was simply on the entire time.

So I wonder why he did not make more of OP's data connection activating at 1.45am?

The phone cannot turn on GPRS by itself!

Puzzling

 

[foxbluff]

I contacted Moller to suggest that the evidence he gave to both Nel and Roux regarding GPRS may not have been entirely accurate if my understanding of how it worked was correct. I was told my information had been passed to Nel and was to be discussed with him. I was also asked to provide my phone usage analysis. I also provided details of my query regarding the Binge messaging exchange and the lack of any GPRS connection at the time. After that I heard nothing more.

I Bolded your entire message so that posters trying to do a quick thread update won't miss your post.

Way to go, Mr.Fos !! You must have made a good impression on them or they wouldn't have asked for a copy of your call analysis data. I find this very exciting.

Would it be a help to you in your research to contact @BarryBateman?

 

[Mr Fossil]

I hope I am not asking too many questions!

So when my phone has data on and establishes a GPRS data connection - that will then log as the connection opening when I first shake hands with the server, and not ending until i do something like turn off my data or turn off my phone?

And then in addition to that - my provider is going to log the volume of data during the period. This is often none. And other times data is pushed to me - like email. Or I initiate an app.

Other then that - the tower will no doubt routinely ping the phone to check if it still needs to allocate resources to it?

I think it is most unclear exactly what Moller is talking about.

With Reeva he definitely seems to indicate her data connection was simply on the entire time.

So I wonder why he did not make more of OP's data connection activating at 1.45am?

The phone cannot turn on GPRS by itself!

Puzzling

If you look at my Phone usage charts for Reeva's phone (5353) you will see that other than for a few seconds it has a GPRS connection for the entire day, not just over night. The connections are contiguous. I pointed this out to Moller.

When you switch your phone on (or take it out of Airplane mode) it makes a connection to the nearest cell tower with the strongest signal and ample capacity. The data connection remains in place in case you need to use it, or in push mode, someone needs to send you something. Most of the time the data usage is nearly zero (I can see mine throughout the day and when I know I'm doing nothing I see the odd packet being exchanged and that's it).

I think Moller misunderstood how GPRS work. Or maybe I do?

Exactly - the phone cannot activate GPRS itself. This means someone is awake and using his phone. GPRS does not mean the phone is either sending or receiving data. If you think about it, the amount of data Reeva's phone would have sent/received when it is connected all day would have been colossal, as would her bill! It simply can't work like that.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I Bolded your entire message so that posters trying to do a quick thread update won't miss your post.

Way to go, Mr.Fos !! You must have made a good impression on them or they wouldn't have asked for a copy of your call analysis data. I find this very exciting.

Would it be a help to you in your research to contact @BarryBateman?

Thank you. With all the deals that appear to have been done behind the scenes I begin to wonder if any evidence has any relevance and whether justice will truly be served. Nevertheless I remain determined to figure whatever I can from the meagre amount of data we can get hold of, and I remain convinced that the phone data tells us more than was covered in court. I heard BB and MW on Radio 702 earlier today and one of the things he said was that the exhibits (e.g. phone data) handed into the court are available to the public. I've written to BB to ask how one might obtain them. I don't think it's that simple. After all, giving out someone's phone records to all and sundry means you're giving a lot of other innocent people's phone details out too.