Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[zwiebel]

'To be honest, we should have made his comment to us public. But we didn't. Criticizing Oscar was risky..'

http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...orius-disturbed-those-who-followed-his-career

 

[Interested Bystander]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

I would expect him to be on OP's witness list. If so Nel can have a go at him then. I am a little surprised the witnesses for the Defence have not leaked out yet or, at least, I haven't seen them. Anyone seen anything?

 

[Viper]

I would expect him to be on OP's witness list. If so Nel can have a go at him then. I am a little surprised the witnesses for the Defence have not leaked out yet or, at least, I haven't seen them. Anyone seen anything?

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/653008-forensics-key-to-oscar-pistorius-case.html

The all South African forensic team includes forensic geologist Roger Dixon, private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal, and gun experts Thomas Wolmarans and Jannie van der Westhuizen.

Reggie is OPs man! You can find print and video interviews of him discussing the case. I did a little research on him a year ago and I have an unfavorable opinion of him as a result.

 

[minor4th]

I particularly like this one - it lists exactly how far away all the witnesses were.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...es-case-against-oscar-pistorius/#.UzUyZMu9KSN

That is a very good rundown of the evidence and each witness.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I heard on Sky this morning that Nel andRoux have agreed that OP will be 2nd up on the stand. The Defence Pathologist seems to be 1st up. No reason given that I know of. I thought in SA law it was the who defendant had to appear first.

Maybe it is as simple as a scheduling conflict for the Pathologist.

 

[jay-jay]

And why did OP stress there were no burglar bars on the bathroom window when there are no burglar bars on any windows. I do so hope Nell and his team are on the ball with all these contradictions because one alone may not, but together they all add up to something not adding up!

One thing is for sure .. if I was as concerned about my security as OP proports to be, I would've made sure there were locks on all the windows, and windows such as in the bathroom would've been locked at night .. why would there even be a possibility there that an outsider could shimmy up a ladder and slide that window open?

When exactly did that window get opened anyway? Is that what he sneaked back upstairs to do after he brought Reeva downstairs .. in order to back up a quickly thought out version of hearing it slide open? Or is there evidence which shows it was already open before Reeva was shot? (although for the earwitnesses to have heard the screams I would imagine it must've been open, but it's possible some of the loud voices and screaming started off in the bedroom and emitted from the open balcony doors).

 

[steveml]

That is a very good rundown of the evidence and each witness.

It is. I did something similar, though not for all the witnesses and without the sideshow information.

I wish I'd have seen that earlier.

Doh...:facepalm:

 

[steveml]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

What would you ask him (for the prosecution)?

I'd want to ask him details regarding OP's telephone call, his demeanour and details regarding what he saw at the scene.

As OP's frame of mind is going to be crucial to this case, I think I'd rather have first stab at negating any potential bias/friendship between him and OP. As things stand, defense have the choice to do nothing, or have first go at grooming the correct answers from him.

It's just a preference really, but I think first eye-witness on the scene is generally perceived to be quite an important witness.

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/653008-forensics-key-to-oscar-pistorius-case.html

The all South African forensic team includes forensic geologist Roger Dixon, private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal, and gun experts Thomas Wolmarans and Jannie van der Westhuizen.

Reggie is OPs man! You can find print and video interviews of him discussing the case. I did a little research on him a year ago and I have an unfavorable opinion of him as a result.

I do now recall Reggie but not the others. I wonder whether the Americans will be on the list.

How many witnesses do you think the DT are going to have, fewer or more than PT and I wonder who they will call from the Prosecution Witnesses, no doubt poor old Botha. I hope someone has given him some help on how to deal with Roux.

 

[lisasalinger]

I'd want to ask him details regarding OP's telephone call, his demeanour and details regarding what he saw at the scene.

As OP's frame of mind is going to be crucial to this case, I think I'd rather have first stab at negating any potential bias/friendship between him and OP. As things stand, defense have the choice to do nothing, or have first go at grooming the correct answers from him.

It's just a preference really, but I think first eye-witness on the scene is generally perceived to be quite an important witness.

We've heard from Baba who arrived at the same time as the Standers and then Stipp who arrived next.

I think Stander could be a defense witness but it will be more telling for me if THEY don't call him, not the other way around. He is Oscar's trusted friend.. He has to be if he was the first person OP calls in the worst moment of his life.

Side note: per phone records, the Stander call was 24 seconds. He couldn't have told him much, I'm guessing just said get your butt over here asap... Maybe even said bring Clarice

 

[Cherwell]

I'd want to ask him details regarding OP's telephone call, his demeanour and details regarding what he saw at the scene.

As OP's frame of mind is going to be crucial to this case, I think I'd rather have first stab at negating any potential bias/friendship between him and OP. As things stand, defense have the choice to do nothing, of have first go at grooming the correct answers from him.

It's just a preference really, but I think first eye-witness on the scene is generally perceived to be quite an important witness.

OK, but it depends what the answers are going to be. Could be that they don't add much either way. And we don't actually know if there's any close friendship between Mr Stander and Pistorius. If he's testifying for the defence, Nel still has the opportunity to grill him.

 

[steveml]

We've heard from Baba who arrived at the same time as the Standers and then Stipp who arrived next.

I think Stander could be a defense witness but it will be more telling for me if THEY don't call him, not the other way around. He is Oscar's trusted friend.. He has to be if he was the first person OP calls in the worst moment of his life.

Side note: per phone records, the Stander call was 24 seconds. He couldn't have told him much, I'm guessing just said get your butt over here asap... Maybe even said bring Clarice

I agree. I've a feeling they will call him.

...I'll have more of a think about this once I've finished this cigar, and picked up my overcoat from the cleaners.

 

[G.bng]

Or is there evidence which shows it was already open before Reeva was shot?

Yes there is "evidence" it was open before Reeva was shot, well according to the defence at least, which consist of Roux immediately chirping in whenever the window is mentioned something to the effect, "we know it was open because we have a photograph". Yeah... a photograph by the photographer who they have accused of moving objects at the the crime scene along with others, and lying about another photographer being there also tampering with the scene. And all as if it couldn't possibly be that OP opened the window himself after he shot Reeva but before the police had even been called to the scene.

 

[jay-jay]

I agree. I've a feeling they will call him.

...I'll have more of a think about this once I've finished this cigar, and picked up my overcoat from the cleaners.

.. you'll be back in a couple of seconds to say 'oh, and another thing ..', I can promise you :tongue:

 

[G.bng]

That is a very good rundown of the evidence and each witness.

Thanks, yes very well laid out. And some intelligent posts too. A few that struck me:

1. When he found Reeva wasn't in the bedroom why did OP immediately conclude she was in the toilet and not downstairs or somewhere else. He had shouted "Reeva call the police" so he could assume she knew something was up so could have run downstairs and even out of the house.

2. Why didn't he shout to Reeva to press the panic button as well as the police... security was nearby, the police would take longer?
​

And that led to me wondering about a few other things, i.e.

3. How did OP get back into the bedroom when he went to find Reeva? If he carries a key when he sleeps then he wasn't "trapped" as he claims as he could have used it to get back in and call and wait for the police gun at the ready. If he doesn't carry the key and he had to get a spare, where was it, and why didn't he put it in his statement?

4. OP said nothing about the light not working when he saw the slumped body of Reeva and when he tried to manoeuvre Reeva out of the toilet.

5. If it was so dark, "pitch black" as OP claims, how come Reeva didn't put the bathroom light on to use the loo? I mean, who would lock themselves in a tiny loo in the pitch black in their bf's house when going to the loo? I mean, howdya see if the seat is up or find the toilet paper apart from anything else?​

 

[lisasalinger]

I agree. I've a feeling they will call him.

...I'll have more of a think about this once I've finished this cigar, and picked up my overcoat from the cleaners.

:websleuther:

 

[minor4th]

'To be honest, we should have made his comment to us public. But we didn't. Criticizing Oscar was risky..'

http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...orius-disturbed-those-who-followed-his-career

What a trashy, opportunistic publication - they don't make a comment public because it's not cool to criticize Oscar and now three years later they publish it because it's suddenly cool to criticize Oscar. What a bunch of crap!

Yes, Oscar is sensitive about his disability and sensitive about suggestions that he has an advantage and was rightfully sickened when the BBC broadcaster called him an inconvenient embarrassment.

I do not at all find his response in the linked article to be unusual or aggressive. It is a natural and expected response that Oscar would not want to give the publication further interviews if the result is a negative piece that suggests he's looking for an unfair advantage.

 

[steveml]

Thanks, yes very well laid out. And some intelligent posts too. A few that struck me:

1. When he found Reeva wasn't in the bedroom why did OP immediately conclude she was in the toilet and not downstairs or somewhere else. He had shouted "Reeva call the police" so he could assume she knew something was up so could have run downstairs and even out of the house.

2. Why didn't he shout to Reeva to press the panic button as well as the police... security was nearby, the police would take longer?
​

And that led to me wondering about a few other things, i.e.

3. How did OP get back into the bedroom when he went to find Reeva? If he carries a key when he sleeps then he wasn't "trapped" as he claims as he could have used it to get back in and call and wait for the police gun at the ready. If he doesn't carry the key and he had to get a spare, where was it, and why didn't he put it in his statement?

4. OP said nothing about the light not working when he saw the slumped body of Reeva and when he tried to manoeuvre Reeva out of the toilet.

5. If it was so dark, "pitch black" as OP claims, how come Reeva didn't put the bathroom light on to use the loo? I mean, who would lock themselves in a tiny loo in the pitch black in their bf's house when going to the loo? I mean, howdya see if the seat is up or find the toilet paper apart from anything else?​

The light not working is one of the things I have most difficulty with.

It's easy to explain away, but is it convincing?

There are certain parts of a house where a bulb could blow, or you wouldn't necessarily repair a faulty switch, however bathroom and toilet areas are ones where you don't put up with such an inconvenience for very long at all.

We're bordering on the realms of coincidence to say it just happened to go that day or very recently, and I never like that in a trial.

 

[lisasalinger]

Thanks, yes very well laid out. And some intelligent posts too. A few that struck me:

1. When he found Reeva wasn't in the bedroom why did OP immediately conclude she was in the toilet and not downstairs or somewhere else. He had shouted "Reeva call the police" so he could assume she knew something was up so could have run downstairs and even out of the house.

2. Why didn't he shout to Reeva to press the panic button as well as the police... security was nearby, the police would take longer?
​

And that led to me wondering about a few other things, i.e.

3. How did OP get back into the bedroom when he went to find Reeva? If he carries a key when he sleeps then he wasn't "trapped" as he claims as he could have used it to get back in and call and wait for the police gun at the ready. If he doesn't carry the key and he had to get a spare, where was it, and why didn't he put it in his statement?

4. OP said nothing about the light not working when he saw the slumped body of Reeva and when he tried to manoeuvre Reeva out of the toilet.

5. If it was so dark, "pitch black" as OP claims, how come Reeva didn't put the bathroom light on to use the loo? I mean, who would lock themselves in a tiny loo in the pitch black in their bf's house when going to the loo? I mean, howdya see if the seat is up or find the toilet paper apart from anything else?​

Points 1 and 2 are excellent. I totally agree with them.

For point 3, I think you may be confused about the layout. The bathroom is inside of the bedroom suite. It's just a hallway that separates the bathroom from where they were sleeping (no doors).

For points 4 & 5. From witness accounts (both Stipps) the bathroom light was on that night. When they heard the first set of bangs and looked out the window, the light was on.

Oscar claims the bedroom area was pitch black but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been a tiny bit of ambient light coming from the bathroom considering it was right down a short hallway.

As for the toilet room light, it was the first we had heard from the defense that it was broken (when Mrs. Stipp was on the stand). So we'll just have to wait and see what they have to say about that. Mr. Stipp testified that the toilet room light was not on. Mrs. Stipp testified that she thought it was on but it looked dimmer than the bathroom light.

The reason why the defense would want it to be broken is because if Reeva was in that room with the lights off and the door locked, it looks a heck of a lot more like hiding than anything else. Nobody goes to pee in a dark and locked room when they have easy access to a light.

 

[steveml]

What a trashy, opportunistic publication - they don't make a comment public because it's not cool to criticize Oscar and now three years later they publish it because it's suddenly cool to criticize Oscar. What a bunch of crap!

Yes, Oscar is sensitive about his disability and sensitive about suggestions that he has an advantage and was rightfully sickened when the BBC broadcaster called him an inconvenient embarrassment.

I do not at all find his response in the linked article to be unusual or aggressive. It is a natural and expected response that Oscar would not want to give the publication further interviews if the result is a negative piece that suggests he's looking for an unfair advantage.

'I walked away from that meeting believing that it had to take a special kind of person to achieve what he had achieved.
And despite everything that has happened in the last few days, I still do.'

Roughly translated as: 'we've been really opportunist here, and struck whilst the irons hot,
but you're a good lad really so we'll leave the door open should you want to do some interviews in the future.'

:whistle: