Post sentencing discussion

[mrjitty]

BIB
How? Why, the common cause timeline of course tested against common cause objective data. That is the call times wonder advocate Nel (i.e. the State) accepted as common cause. And since the State accepted Johnson's call time as common cause and accepted that the end of Johnson's call, i.e. 3:17, was indicative of the time of the 2nd volley while at the same it was trashing Stipp's 3:15:51 call as indicative for that 2nd volley, we can only presume that either there were central time records that the State agreed with the defence were correct and which we were not party to or the State was grossly negligent and/or foolhardy and/or plain dumb stupid. Simples!

On any view, the timeline does not explain the critical minute when OP was in bed and woke up through to the moment he "heard the noise"

On any view - that part of his evidence was falsified.

Thus on the classic approach to evidence, there is no reliable evidence of any mistake being made.

The evidential onus was on the defence to establish such a foundation for such a mistake.

Under the classic approach that Nel (and any rational prosecutor) would have been expecting, OP's evidence on the "mistake" should have been dismissed in toto as unreliable

So what are we left with?

Multiple witnesses hearing a woman scream which in fact was not rebutted by any specific evidential point.

The timeline has always been a giant red herring

 

[mrjitty]

I quite often say 'I think' too, FG! I'm going to have to stop using it!

Of course it can be used quite honestly!

I am quite conscious of this kind of word selection.

"I think" in my personal use tends to indicate I am not speaking 100% from experiential memory but am inferring something, or perhaps making a judgement based upon what I know.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I have added a document entitled 'Key questions' to further explore the supporting comments in 'Witness testimony analysis 2'

Questions included so far are:

1. What do the GPRS activations on Oscar’s phone tell us?
2. What is Airplane Mode and why does Oscar use it?
3. Why does the phone disappear?
4. What is the significance of the Cousin Binge WhatsApp exchange?
5. Why does Oscar call Security?
6. Is Charl Johnson’s call time correct?
7. Why is Dr Stipp’s unanswered call time to the Security landline so different to his account?
8. Could the first sounds heard by the Stipps be gunshots?

As always, additions, corrections, alternative views and questions are welcome.

 

[KarenUK]

Vansleuths, while I appreciate your research, links and sentiments, I believe you overlook three very critical factors (I’m sure there are others):

1) Two-parent households can be as damaging and dysfunctional as any mother-only (or father-only) household ... if not more so. Parental ‘quantity’ doesn’t insure parental quality.

2) Undue (if not sometimes wholly undeserved) importance is attached to the alleged positive influence of a father in the home, essentially taking the mother’s influence and impact completely out of the equation - as if the children’s fate depended totally on dad. Depending on the father, sometimes the best thing in a child’s life is that he’s gone.

3) There are MANY other vital, often very positive guiding influences in a child’s life other than parents, including an extended family, friends, teachers, etc.

Yes, it would be GREAT if all kids grew up in loving, stable, happy two-parent homes but reality is not like Leave It to Beaver or the Brady Bunch. The reality is that there are millions of happy, well-adjusted kids in mom-only homes (and dad-only) and too many miserable, messed-up kids in miserable, messed-up mom-and-pop homes.

Like they say, it takes a village to raise a child.

Which village that might be is less important than what kind of village.

:goodpost:

 

[Exchange973]

Maybe the second watch that disappeared? That would immediately throw suspicion on the police. Something he could use to infer the police were corrupt and therefore their evidence was not to be trusted.

This guy is clearly a criminal mastermind. Able to act distraught and at the same time deliberately stage the crime scene just minutes after murdering his gf. Then shortly after create a bail statement with a plausible defence that is (at least broadly) consistent with the evidence in the house and witness evidence (which he's yet to hear). Maybe this isn't the first murder this mastermind has committed? Yet he comes across as a bit dim. Must be those acting skills again.

 

[soozieqtips]

This guy is clearly a criminal mastermind. Able to act distraught and at the same time deliberately stage the crime scene just minutes after murdering his gf. Then shortly after create a bail statement with a plausible defence that is (at least broadly) consistent with the evidence in the house and witness evidence (which he's yet to hear). Maybe this isn't the first murder this mastermind has committed? Yet he comes across as a bit dim. Must be those acting skills again.

Perhaps you could tone down the unnecessary sarcasm?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I have added a document entitled 'Key questions' to further explore the supporting comments in 'Witness testimony analysis 2'

Questions included so far are:

1. What do the GPRS activations on Oscar’s phone tell us?
2. What is Airplane Mode and why does Oscar use it?
3. Why does the phone disappear?
4. What is the significance of the Cousin Binge WhatsApp exchange?
5. Why does Oscar call Security?
6. Is Charl Johnson’s call time correct?
7. Why is Dr Stipp’s unanswered call time to the Security landline so different to his account?
8. Could the first sounds heard by the Stipps be gunshots?

As always, additions, corrections, alternative views and questions are welcome.

Excellent summary of key questions in your analysis Mr Fossil .. Woww

And we have 7/24 caretaker brother Frank who is outside the house as Carice arrived and noone had entered the house from the ajar front door prior to her.. The security had just arrived and was out of the house , too.. My guess Frank rushed upstairs asap as he heard the shots and help cries of Oscar and maybe he was the one who broke the bedroom door to get in ..Then he could have gone downstairs and out of the house opening the front door to go back to his place but before he made to his place security and Carice arrived...Quite unreasonable for him standing out of the front door and not entering in whilst the door was open..

 

[Exchange973]

Perhaps you could tone down the unnecessary sarcasm?

Sarcasm is used against OPs version repeatedly on this forum. I didn't realise it was offensive?

 

[jay-jay]

Perhaps you could tone down the unnecessary sarcasm?

.. yes, all we are trying to do here is try to work out what happened that night .. if only Pistorius had told the truth, then we all wouldn't need to be doing this! People are posting their theories, and it's up to others (if they disagree or don't believe it is right) to say why they disagree, and what their alternative theories are .. it's as simple as that.

 

[jay-jay]

Sarcasm is used against OPs version repeatedly on this forum. I didn't realise it was offensive?

.. being sarcastic about a killer is not the same thing as being sarcastic towards other posters. Most people here are just genuinely interested in having an adult discussion in order to try to come to an agreement as to what happened that night. If you care to post some of your theories and how you've arrived at that, and the evidence to back it up, then it would be much better received.

 

[Sherbert]

I have added a document entitled 'Key questions' to further explore the supporting comments in 'Witness testimony analysis 2'

Questions included so far are:

1. What do the GPRS activations on Oscar’s phone tell us?
2. What is Airplane Mode and why does Oscar use it?
3. Why does the phone disappear?
4. What is the significance of the Cousin Binge WhatsApp exchange?
5. Why does Oscar call Security?
6. Is Charl Johnson’s call time correct?
7. Why is Dr Stipp’s unanswered call time to the Security landline so different to his account?
8. Could the first sounds heard by the Stipps be gunshots?

As always, additions, corrections, alternative views and questions are welcome.

Mr Fossil, I've listened again to Col Mikes Sale's evidence and am well and truly puzzled. Initially, we were informed by the press that Reeva's iPad might hold the key to the source of the argument. It was rumoured that OP had kicked off when Reeva received a message from her Ex, Francois Hougaard:

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-francois-hougaard-ex-boyfriend-reeva-steenkamp-under-scrutiny-oscar-pistorius-case-1093634

But, when Nel examined Col Sales, very disappointingly, there was absolutely no clarity at all. Nel didn't even ask who owned the iPads, whether they'd been synced with each other, whether it had been possible to recover the deleted history, whether Col Sales had interrogated the devices for iMessages. In fact, the whole exercise seemed to be totally pointless and lacking in substance.

My questions are:

1. What happened to Reeva's iPad?
2. Why did Col Sales not recover the material deleted from the iPads?

 

[akp]

This guy is clearly a criminal mastermind. Able to act distraught and at the same time deliberately stage the crime scene just minutes after murdering his gf. Then shortly after create a bail statement with a plausible defence that is (at least broadly) consistent with the evidence in the house and witness evidence (which he's yet to hear). Maybe this isn't the first murder this mastermind has committed? Yet he comes across as a bit dim. Must be those acting skills again.

Use as much sarcasm as you like, if that makes you feel any good.

However, you haven't been too far off the mark - except for the `previous murder' about which the present trial throws no information (and my inferences are all based strictly on what this trial has thrown up so far), he in fact did everything you say he did.

He is the only one who knows exactly what happened that night. It is only natural that he should be able to present a scenario that is consistent with the evidence. Of course it is another matter that he had to suppress quite a few things, and for that he had to make up a story that became internally inconsistent. Can something that contradicts itself be consistent with `the evidence in the house and witness evidence' as you put it (or for that matter with anything at all except the statement that he was lying)?

 

[Cherwell]

http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Healthy-you/How-to-spot-a-liar-20140409

Noncommittal phrases
A liar will use words such as "I think," "I believe," "to the best of my knowledge" or "kind of”. They try to keep the details of the story as vague as possible.

Oooohhhhh, I think, maybe I'm using the phrase "I think" here on WS a little too often ......

There's nothing suspect about "I think". But one that's not mentioned, and often used, is "to be honest", "in all honesty" and "I honestly ...."

These phrases are completely redundant when used by a person who is genuine and sincere. We expect them to be honest, and no one is questioning their honesty. I honestly think that it's used as a meaningless filler.

However, in other circumstances, these "honesty" phrases are another red flag that may indicate lies.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil, I've listened again to Col Mikes Sale's evidence and am well and truly puzzled. Initially, we were informed by the press that Reeva's iPad might hold the key to the source of the argument. It was rumoured that OP had kicked off when Reeva received a message from her Ex, Francois Hougaard:

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-francois...p-under-scrutiny-oscar-pistorius-case-1093634

But, when Nel examined Col Sales, very disappointingly, there was absolutely no clarity at all. Nel didn't even ask who owned the iPads, whether they'd been synced with each other, whether it had been possible to recover the deleted history, whether Col Sales had interrogated the devices for iMessages. In fact, the whole exercise seemed to be totally pointless and lacking in substance.

My questions are:

1. What happened to Reeva's iPad?
2. Why did Col Sales not recover the material deleted from the iPads?

The rumours in the press are probably just that, rumours. There were an awful lot of sensationalist claims made in the early days which we know not to be true.

Reeva's iPad was one of the devices collected from the scene and was also examined by Sales. It contained similar browsing history to OP's e.g. similar sites but at different times.

I too wonder why the browsing history wasn't recovered. Perhaps they didn't think it necessary at it was prior to the evening. I would have recovered it first and reviewed it before deciding whether it was necessary or not.

 

[Mr Fossil]

There's nothing suspect about "I think". But one that's not mentioned, and often used, is "to be honest", "in all honesty" and "I honestly ...."

These phrases are completely redundant when used by a person who is genuine and sincere. We expect them to be honest, and no one is questioning their honesty. I honestly think that it's used as a meaningless filler.

However, in other circumstances, these "honesty" phrases are another red flag that may indicate lies.

A phrase OP uses that I find suspect is when he prefaces his actions by saying "I would have ..."

 

[soozieqtips]

Sarcasm is used against OPs version repeatedly on this forum. I didn't realise it was offensive?

Which version? He had more than one. And that's not sarcasm. It's fact. Using sarcasm against a killer is not the same thing as directing it towards a poster - a poster who didn't gun down a defenceless person in a toilet and then repeatedly lie about it on the stand.

 

[Sherbert]

The rumours in the press are probably just that, rumours. There were an awful lot of sensationalist claims made in the early days which we know not to be true.

Reeva's iPad was one of the devices collected from the scene and was also examined by Sales. It contained similar browsing history to OP's e.g. similar sites but at different times.

I too wonder why the browsing history wasn't recovered. Perhaps they didn't think it necessary at it was prior to the evening. I would have recovered it first and reviewed it before deciding whether it was necessary or not.

BBM

Thank you. But do we know for sure that the second iPad belonged to Reeva? And if it did, why would the history pre Feb 13 be deleted?

I don't remember OP saying that they browsed together in unison on their ipads. Yet the history is the same. And, if Reeva continued to sit up and be awake in bed when OP went off to sleep, (as per his evidence), she would have been on her iPad, so there should be history on her device right up to the point where she went to sleep.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This guy is clearly a criminal mastermind. Able to act distraught and at the same time deliberately stage the crime scene just minutes after murdering his gf. Then shortly after create a bail statement with a plausible defence that is (at least broadly) consistent with the evidence in the house and witness evidence (which he's yet to hear). Maybe this isn't the first murder this mastermind has committed? Yet he comes across as a bit dim. Must be those acting skills again.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Mr Fossil]

BBM

Thank you. But do we know for sure that the second iPad belonged to Reeva? And if it did, why would the history pre Feb 13 be deleted?

I don't remember OP saying that they browsed together in unison on their ipads. Yet the history is the same. And, if Reeva continued to sit up and be awake in bed when OP went off to sleep, (as per his evidence), she would have been on her iPad, so there should be history on her device right up to the point where she went to sleep.

Sorry, my mistake, not sure that we do. It was an iPad 2. The one from which the browsing history was displayed was an iPad 3.

 

[mrjitty]

This guy is clearly a criminal mastermind. Able to act distraught and at the same time deliberately stage the crime scene just minutes after murdering his gf. Then shortly after create a bail statement with a plausible defence that is (at least broadly) consistent with the evidence in the house and witness evidence (which he's yet to hear). Maybe this isn't the first murder this mastermind has committed? Yet he comes across as a bit dim. Must be those acting skills again.

The bail statement was constructed days later with expert assistance and was 100% incorrect as to THE ONLY critical detail.

e.g. how was it that Reeva left the room without him knowing.

Then we saw the laughable idea presented in X that it was just something thrown together by his lawyers which he had no idea about.

ROFL

Those damn lawyers just sent and got the key details wrong and then I guess OP just swore to it without reading it! But it doesn't matter as its only a murder trial!

oh dear.

I have signed a statement before as a key police witness, not even for Court, and it took me days to prepare it, and I read it 10 times before signing and checked every fact.

And anyone who has worked as a lawyer knows how many drafts of these statements you go through working the angles.

So the idea that it was "broadly correct" is actually untrue because it is the key details that matter - not the broad lie.

Noticeably he left out all the key facts he would later rely on, and had to change the most important one of all.