Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[delilah]

To the contrary, the Stipps' evidence is very beneficial to the defense because both Stipps heard the gunshots at 3:00 -3:10 ish and they also heard the cricket bat hitting the door at 3:17 like all the other witnesses.

If you accept that the Stipps heard gunshots at 3-310, you can't then just disregard their claim to have heard gunshots at 317 simply because it's not convenient, and doesn't fit OP's version of events.

However, I agree that the two sets of bangs need to be explained and a theory presented by the prosecution. How do we know for certain that the first and second sets weren't gunshots? We have evidence of four gunshots, not evidence that there were ONLY four gunshots.

But let's assume for a minute that the first set were shots and second the bat. What was OP doing for 10-17 minutes after the shots and before he broke down the toilet door? That's a heck of a long time to be doing not very much, when you've just shot someone four times and you've just realised it was your girlfriend. Even though he says he realised it must have been RS as soon as he found the bed empty, he still takes 9-16 mins to break the door down. He doesn't phone anyone in the meantime. All he's doing is screaming 'like a woman'. And when he does eventually drag her out of the toilet and carry her downstairs, over a minimum of 12 mins after the head shot, SHE'S STILL ALIVE?

 

[steveml]

When the witnesses did that, Roux grilled them over the coals for doing so. He implied they were lying or manufacturing new stories when they added things they had failed to mention in their prior statements.

He did, as the things had been amended and crossed out. Things had even been imagined.

Very little has changed from OP's original version, unless you build a huge story around the changes.

 

[shane13]

It is applicable to the 5th phone. Like I said, it's a very tedious explanation he gives but if you listen to all of it closely, Moller is talking about everything that he processed from the scene PLUS how he discovered there was an additional phone. This additional phone was tested via 3 different extraction methods (more than the other devices) including being brought to Apple in the US.

The 5th phone that somebody "hijacked" from the scene had the phone number ending in 0020.

Reeva had been primarily using this number for Oscar the evening of Feb 13, that is how Moller identified the phone number in the first place. But when he tried to match it up to the actual device that was seized in the house for Oscar, it didn't match. The phone seized at the scene for Oscar had a phone number ending in 4949.

Next... he looked at the Blackberries. Long story short, the Blackberries were old phones that Oscar hadn't used in months. He apparently had upgraded to two new iPhones. He did a sim swap where he swapped out the old larger Blackberry sim cards for smaller sim cards that would fit in to the iPhones.

All in all, Oscar only had 2 phones that he used - the 4949 phone that was seized at the scene. And the 0020 number that was in the possession of somebody other than the police (until February 26).

Reeva had one phone which was also seized at the scene.

Nel did say that the 0020 phone was turned over to the police on February 26, he said this at the very beginning of testimony.

There was no mention about the bail hearing situation during trial.

I understand your question about whether or not something pertaining to a stipulation had been cut out of all the online videos, and I'm really not sure. I have not seen or heard anything about that other than what you are saying.

There definitely was fishy bushiness going on with that phone. Nel did make a point though to bring it up in his presentation and he made a point to show in evidence that the phone was turned off sometime after 4am and left the scene around 8am that day according to phone records and pings. We will have to wait and see if it is addressed further. I agree that it absolutely should be!

I wasted time trying to figure out what he was saying, but it is in double-speak and not germane as I wrote to the 5th phone.

It is not merely “fishy”—it is a serious crime to remove evidence from a crime scene.

Anyone who wants to know “the full story of the 5th phone” can get the BH testimonies or summaries from several ways. After this shocking revelation at the BH, one reporter cornered Roux, and he replied something like “Yes the defense has that phone, but I can’t say anything more about it.” He was smiling a bit or smirking. This video seems to be gone now too. And no other reporter (on record) since has asked Roux and Co about the 5th phone—illegally taken from the crime scene.

That Nel made a thing about the 5th phone at the outset of Tuesday’s court session indicates it is a different phone that the witness had been speaking about. And even if the double-speak of that witness should somehow be taking about or around the 5th phone, it does not change the most crucial aspect of my discussion. Someone from, or related to, the DT committed a serious crime of removing that evidence from the crime scene. Furthermore I doubt they played ping-pong with it. If it was removed [and it was]—what was done with it likely had/has a sinister purpose. This remains my focus on this issue.

Also if anyone can find any other court day’s initial video record [“Session 1”] beginning with anything other than the people standing as the judge et al walk in, please send me. Tuesday’s session—due to the excision of crucial statements to the 5th phone issue—begins in mid-sentence of the witness.
WTH! Everyone should be exclaiming at this difference.

 

[shane13]

I think we can safely presume that if Nel hasn't raised further issue with court, the matter has been dealt with by all parties.
Irrespective of any TV feed editing, there were reporters tweeting live from court and there's been no mention of a problem with this.

The last thing we need in this case is a conspira... no, I'm not even going to say it.

BBM
Clearly my posts were about the fact that the matter was NOT dealt with.
Clearly there were no charges rendered against whoever committed this serious crime of removing crucial evidence from the crime scene. Clearly there wasn't even an investigation into this serious crime.

 

[Really?]

How/why did his story change from one fan to two.....oh yeah, to add time.

:jail:

 

[Really?]

Precisely. I hope everyone is scrutinizing witness statements to the same effect.
It's one thing to imagine hearing an intruder, however Mrs Stipp actually saw an imaginary figure walking across the bathroom.
But it's ok, she didn't really. She made it up and then changed it...so all's good :wink:

imo...the witnesses have nothing to gain/lose......however OP....well...that IS different. moo

 

[steveml]

Annette Stipp (and her husband) is the one who heard 6 gunshots (3+3 shots).

Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult yet woke up at 3:02 (somewhat conveniently) before the shots went off and could only remember 3 shots. Although 4 shots have been agreed by both DT and PT.

Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult, yet couldn't remember holding up the curtain so the photographers could get a clear view.
She even refused to accept it was her hand when it was pointed out. Probably those memory problems again. She said 'it looks like my hand', and had to be pushed. You know it's your hand silly woman, just say so. Why all the vagueness?

Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult, yet recalled a phantom figure in a window. And then didn't.


I would say it's hardly surprising that Nel doesn't want to push the 'more than 4' gunshot theory when Mrs Stipp's on your witness list. Would you?

 

[steveml]

imo...the witnesses have nothing to gain/lose......however OP....well...that IS different. moo

I agree with them having nothing to lose, but that doesn't ensure their recollections are good. Their statements need to be tested, and certain parts accepted or rejected.

If we are to believe that OP is guilty, this can only be achieved by ignoring/rejecting some part of the witness statements.

 

[Really?]

I really am not sure about the gunshots.....the number of......nor the sequence.

I think OP was swinging that bat around before he shot Reeva...hitting God knows what to the tune of bang bang bang.....

 

[Really?]

I agree with them having nothing to lose, but that doesn't ensure their recollections are good. Their statements need to be tested, and certain parts accepted or rejected.

If we are to believe that OP is guilty, this can only be achieved by ignoring/rejecting some part of the witness statements.

Forget about the witnesses testimony.........OP is guilty.

 

[steveml]

You are wrong.

The evidence presented shows that Reeva's phone access the internet continuously all night long, probably due to WhatsApp being connected.

The evidence also was presented that the killer's phone accessed the internet between 1:48 AM and 1:53 AM. Coincidentally, Van der Merwe, who lives across the street from the killer's home, testified to hearing an argument between a man and a woman starting at 1:56 AM.

So not only is it false that either Reeva's or the killer's phone did not access the internet, it was presented into evidence that both of their phones accessed the internet during the course of the night.

Estelle van der Merve indicated that she heard people taking in loud voices as if arguing. It's difficult to establish if it's an argument or not. She then makes us believe it can't have been very loud by claiming that she doesn't even know what language it was in.

 

[steveml]

The collective testimony of all 5 ear-witnesses was as follows:

• Man and woman arguing,
• Bangs
• Woman screaming,
• Woman's screaming climaxing in terror, followed immediately by
• Bangs
• Silence

The collective physical evidence is:

• 4 gunshots through toilet door,
• 3 shots hit Reeva,
• Cricket bat hit door,
• Wood panels were ripped out of door after shots.

Killer is asking judge to believe:

• All 5 witnesses who heard a woman scream/argue are wrong
• Witnesses heard killer screaming like a woman
• All 5 witnesses are wrong about hearing gunshots.

Killer is asking judge to believe that the killer shot and killed a woman in his bathroom, then replicated the exact sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death.

The reason the woman presiding over the case is called a Judge is because she gets to use her judgment and decide if a) a reasonable person would fear for his life when hearing his bed mate go pee, b) if a proportional response to hearing somebody pee in the next room is shooting them dead four times., and c) if the killer is lying about his story to keep from being convicted.

Evidence presented to suggest killer may be lying and will be asked to explain:

• blood on wall behind bed
• blood on duvet
• projectile hole in bedroom door
• broken bedroom door
• dent on tub
• blood on watches
• failing to tell security he shot Reeva
• failing at any time to call police
• failing to consider Reeva might have been using the bathroom
• claiming to be aggressor and move into the bathroom
• claiming to be aggressor and shoot at somebody in toilet stall
• cell phone internet access at 1:48 am
• Food ingested by Reeva an hour or so prior to shooting
• text messages contradicting killer's portrayal of relationship
• killer's history of irresponsible use of guns
• killer's history of disrespecting authorities
• killer's failure to use cell phone to call for help while killer claims to be screaming out the door for help
• killer's claim that he was trapped inside his own bedroom from which he left after killing
• killer's claim he felt vulnerable holding a loaded 9 mm gun
• killer's claim he didn't see Reeva missing from the bed until after he shot her
• killer's claim that he hit the toilet door with the cricket bat after he put on his prosthetics
• killer's claim that he called out to phantom intruder to leave his house when intruder was trapped in the bathrooom
• killer's claim he told Reeva to call police when in fact killer himself never called police after killing Reeva
• killer's claim he had to sleep on a particular side of the bed because of a shoulder injury
• killer's claim that he knew Reeva was in love with him and couldn't be happier
• killer's claim that he woke up at 3:00 am and moved two fans into his bedroom
• killer's claim he spoke to Reeva shortly before moving the fans into the bedroom
• killer's reason for calling property manager instead of police or ambulance service
• killer's reason for calling security but not speaking
• killer's reason for answering call from security and not telling security he shot Reeva
• killer's reason for going to open front door while leaving Reeva upstairs bleeding
• killer's claim that Reeva died in his arms 10-15 minutes after he shot her in the head
• killer's explanation for why this night was different from the dozens of other nights people who shared his bed got up to pee
• killer's explanation for why he felt trapped in his own bedroom when clearly he had the ability to leave the room
• killer's reason for why he had the tantrum Reeva referred to in her text message
• killer's explanation for why bedroom door was damaged
• killer's explanation for why his prosthetic leg was damaged
• killer's explanation for additional bruises found on Reeva's body
• killer's explanation for his order for a stockpile of additional weapons and ammo
• killer's explanation of event that Reeva referred to on the text message that she was trying to console him about
• killer's explanation for what Reeva was doing while he was watching *advertiser censored* on his iPad
• killer's explanation for why iPads were synced
• killer's explanation for what he told Netcare
• killer's explanation for why he shot the gun out of the sun roof of car
• killer's explanation for why he discharged gun in a restaurant and asked friend to take the blame
• killer's explanation for why he didn't check the bed to make sure it wasn't Reeva in the bathrrom
• killer's explanation for why he didn't ask the person in the toilet if it was Reeva instead of telling person in the toilet stall to leave his house
• killer's explanation for the moment he decided to kill the person in the toilet stall
• killer's explanation for report that he scored in a rugby match after his prosthetics were ripped off by a defender
• killer's reason for having possession of illegal ammo
• killer's explanation for broken window
• killer's explanation for jean on ground below bathroom window
• killer's explanation for why he slept with doors to the deck open if he feared intruders
• killer's explanation for why he saw ladders outside, knew ladders might be able to reach his deck, and yet did nothing to secure the ladders or secure his deck
• killer's explanation for the alleged times he was victimized by criminals and why he never reported these crimes
• killer's explanation for why his sister retrieved a watch from the bedroom the morning of the shooting

Yes, if killer can explain all these things and have the judge think he's being truthful, he may not get convicted of premeditated murder and only be convicted of murder.

Multiple questions on that list will be resolved by the answering of one, or by the determination made by the judge of OP's state of mind before and during the shooting.

I appreciate your hard work, but listing it like that doesn't determine any more/less guilt. You'll probably find that many of those questions won't even be entertained. Nel and Roux won't get bogged down and will focus on what they believe are the essentials in the case, as they have been doing throughout.

 

[Mango33]

I

snipped..

That Nel made a thing about the 5th phone at the outset of Tuesday’s court session indicates it is a different phone that the witness had been speaking about. And even if the double-speak of that witness should somehow be taking about or around the 5th phone, it does not change the most crucial aspect of my discussion. Someone from, or related to, the DT committed a serious crime of removing that evidence from the crime scene. Furthermore I doubt they played ping-pong with it. If it was removed [and it was]—what was done with it likely had/has a sinister purpose. This remains my focus on this issue.

Also if anyone can find any other court day’s initial video record [“Session 1”] beginning with anything other than the people standing as the judge et al walk in, please send me. Tuesday’s session—due to the excision of crucial statements to the 5th phone issue—begins in mid-sentence of the witness.
WTH! Everyone should be exclaiming at this difference.

This starts with Nel speaking, not a witness. At about 1:10 at the start of this video, Nel is explaining about how Mollar got the 5th phone on the 26th of Feb.HTH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMPYfZFquM0

 

[Trooper]

steveml;[/B]10391973]Annette Stipp (and her husband) is the one who heard 6 gunshots (3+3 shots).

Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult yet woke up at 3:02 (somewhat conveniently) before the shots went off and could only remember 3 shots. Although 4 shots have been agreed by both DT and PT.


Annette was awake, ( somewhat inconveniently for Oscar) when she heard shots then screaming.. and also saw the bathroom light on , in Oscars place...



Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult, yet couldn't remember holding up the curtain so the photographers could get a clear view.
She even refused to accept it was her hand when it was pointed out. Probably those memory problems again. She said 'it looks like my hand', and had to be pushed. You know it's your hand silly woman, just say so. Why all the vagueness?

Annette Stipp is the one who testified to the photographer holding back the curtains in the first series of pics.. the second series of pics were the ones Poor Kenny Oldwage tried to fool her into thinking it was the same series ,ie first . he was pulled up by Judge Masipa for this, . come on Kenny, you silly plonker, you know you cant get away with this silly ploy..



Annette Stipp - is the one who refuses to accept that memory recollection can be difficult, yet recalled a phantom figure in a window. And then didn't.

Annette Stipp is the one who went back the NEXT DAY and corrected and initialised and reaffirmed her oath on the figure in the window.. Oscar is the one who didn't hear Reeva, or speak with her from 10pm ever again in her life, in fact, Oscar never refers to her speaking after 6pm. Yet 5 people heard a woman screaming.. a terrified and anguished scream. Oscar waited months after evidence came, forcing him in to 'rectify' his statement..


I would say it's hardly surprising that Nel doesn't want to push the 'more than 4' gunshot theory when Mrs Stipp's on your witness list. Would you?

Annette Stipp is the one who Poor Kenny Oldwage, again, tried to fool. This was in reference to the ludicrous test the defence has tried to do, having people argue near Annette Stipps house.. Nel was able to get her take on that test. no dice. two men arguing, and then nothing familiarly like the woman she heard screaming.

But then Poor Kenny tries it on again. 'what about the dog barking?? you didn't hear a dog barking?? . No, says Annette.. no dog barking.. Oldawage. full of bombast.. WELL. he says THATS how your memory is not working. if you didn't hear a dog barking!!.. that's the 2nd time your memory has failed!!'


Nel objects.. if she didn't hear a dog barking, she is entitled to say so...

then Judge Masipa knocks Poor Kenny right back on his arse.. 'Mr Oldwage... WAS there a dog barking?? is this the defence position? you intend to place in evidence a dog barking now?? .'


Poor Kenny.. done like a dogs dinner, backs off completely, 'I'll move on, Judge'..

Judge Masipa.. ' save it for your summing up'... (in legalese.. that means a note has been taken re this mysterious dog, and Poor Kenny better have a barking dog produced from somewhere before his summing up process)

 

[Trooper]

while on the subject of Poor Kenny Oldwage.. he defended Carl Pistorius in his culpable homicide case re the running down of a female motor cyclist..


and also, he defended the bloke who ran down Nelson Mandela's granddaughter and killed her...


he won a not guilty for both these blokes..

 

[Really?]

What if....lets say....OP never retrieved any fans.

Never closed the drapes/doors/blinds.

He woke suddenly to the sound of something in the bathroom that sounded as if the window was being opened.

He forgot in his waking haze that Reeva was staying over......we know the rest.

Anyway.....would this be more believable..?

So many stories...embellishments and changes to what happened according to OP. First they went to sleep at 10PM...then, oh yeah thats it.....he had just spoken to her before retrieving the fan.....er.....I meant the 2 fans.

I put it to us that the "loud talking" heard one hour prior to the "incident" was a lovers quarrel that escalated to murder.

 

[Really?]

Multiple questions on that list will be resolved by the answering of one, or by the determination made by the judge of OP's state of mind before and during the shooting.

I appreciate your hard work, but listing it like that doesn't determine any more/less guilt. You'll probably find that many of those questions won't even be entertained. Nel and Roux won't get bogged down and will focus on what they believe are the essentials in the case, as they have been doing throughout.

BBM....personalizing......change first "you" to a "the" and the "you'll" to a "we'll". LOL

just a friendly fyi........:facepalm:

 

[steveml]

:clap::clap: you are doing great job ! I am just trying to justify OPs story but am having difficult time:

1. Some of the bedroom door damage can be prior (we have rental properties and several of them have major damage to the bedroom door especially around the lock -usually by couples who later separated or divorced Definitely, damage to the tiles seems to be in excess and probably the results of a significant force
2. Using the theory that the bat banging sounds the same as gun shots has a lot of holes ie it has not been scientifically proven and if proven, it still does not explain whether the shots were first or second.
3. And here the witnesses are coming to play. Can the judge completely discard the testimony of several witnesses hearing clearly a woman scream? If we assume that it was Oscar screaming like a girl, why would he stop the moment he bashed the door with the bat the last time, if that was the moment he finally saw Reeva on the floor - that is the moment for screaming (in my humble opinion) since until that moment he did not have a clue if she had been injured since she "did not even peep" during all the commotion. And then Reeva's defence position with her arms in front of her head when supposedly falling down???

And so on and so on.......I would really like to believe Oscar as I had a lot of respect for his athletic achievements in spite of his disability but things simply do not click together. I am inclined to agree that he got furious about something and went "ballistic". He is fortunate that he can go through fair (I hope) trial compared to Reeva, who does not have any chances any more. My heart goes to her parents.

I think Nel has tailored his case far too much on the presumption of an argument/fight/chase through the house, leading to the shooting. That was all he could suggest as a motive.
A damaged bedroom door, broken window and one or two other things are damage that could have happened at any time.
Nel has probably backed off from examining the bedroom door too much, as he's left with virtually nothing on the argument front.

 

[steveml]

BBM....personalizing......change first "you" to a "the" and the "you'll" to a "we'll". LOL

just a friendly fyi........:facepalm:

eh? It was her work, and was meant to be read that way.

 

[MeeBee]

What if....lets say....OP never retrieved any fans.

Never closed the drapes/doors/blinds.

He woke suddenly to the sound of something in the bathroom that sounded as if the window was being opened.

He forgot in his waking haze that Reeva was staying over......You know the rest.

Anyway.....would this be more believable..?

So many stories...embellishments and changes to what happened according to OP. First they went to sleep at 10PM...then, oh yeah thats it.....he had just spoken to her before retrieving the fan.....er.....I meant the 2 fans.

I put it to you that the "loud talking" heard one hour prior to the "incident" was a lovers quarrel that escalated to murder.

I'm not sure what the purpose would be of changing the amount of fans he brought in. I mean, if he did actually change it, since I haven't personally compared the two statements, I fail to see how this is particularly incriminating. If this is the only bit that's changed then it's really not much. If he wanted to shore up his story, he could have changed much more than that to make it more believable. So far, he hasn't. Versions have not morphed, no glaring inconsistencies, nothing that has been exaggerated. He added a fan...not much there.

So what about OP's story has changed/been embellished? Isn't he maintaining that they went to bed at 10 pm?