Trial Discussion Thread #15

[minor4th]

The only way I can see that the State can turn this around and make their own case stronger is by somehow revealing a major, significant flaw in Oscar's version during his cross examination.

When I proposed the mock cross examination yesterday, this is what I was getting at - I'm trying to figure out exactly where Nel can score some points and discredit Oscar's version. I don't think it will be something like the unexplained damage to the bedroom door or spots on the wall - because there's no way for Nel to predict what Oscar's answer will be or to refute it IMO

Putting myself in a prosecutor's shoes, the aspects of Oscar's story that I find most suspect are not the little discrepancies about one fan or two fans or going to bed at 10 or whatever because those can be explained away.

I'd focus on things that Oscar is committed to in his version - like bringing the fans in. Is there any way that Nel can show that didn't really happen? What about the blinds and sliding door being open/closed?

What window would Oscar have heard "sliding open"? Is that the little window in the toilet cubicle - because I don't think the big windows slide open. We really need to know whether that little window was open or closed. I thought both sides agreed that it was closed but then that begs the question - then what did Oscar hear sliding open?

I think OP said he was back in the bedroom with the fans in, blinds and doors and curtains closed when he heard the bathroom sound ..had he plugged in one of the fans before he heard the sounds and got his gun? If so this is a pretty big flaw because he claimed it was so dark he was virtually blind.

 

[jay-jay]

I've been toying with that, but it seems it would only be plausible if he had thrown her in there in the first place, then removed the key from the inside, then locked it from the outside, and then shot her.

Actually, that could be a reason why Reeva was standing facing the door like she was .. I seem to remember in the previous thread there was some discussion around why she would've been facing the door straight on and it could be that, if he locked her in, she was standing facing the door from the inside, and hammering on it screaming for him to let her out (and not realising at this point he had gone back to fetch his gun).

 

[jay-jay]

I would expect the key to the toilet door to be kept in the keyhole (on the inside) at all times, otherwise there's no point in having one.

Exactly, and this is why it is intriguing me as to why the key ever ended up on the floor. Why would it? Reeva wouldn't have needed to take it out of the door herself, had she either gone for a pee and locked the door, or if she had fled there for safety. In neither scenario would she need to take the key out of the keyhole on the inside of the door. So how did it end up on the floor? (if it really ever did?)

 

[minor4th]

In Pistorius' list of charges, he is charged with having "in his possession ammunition, to wit 38 x 38 rounds, without being the holder of a licence in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition"

What does wit 38 x 38 mean?

It's bullets for a .38 caliber pistol, and Oscar apparently didn't own that caliber pistol so he wasn't permitted to have the ammunition.

 

[Danta]

The Black Talon bullets open up or becomes the "talon" when it comes in contact with tissue or "other wet media" Black Talon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Viper]

I read this article, written before the murder, and in one of the photos of OP's prosthetic legs it shows them scratched, dented and missing pieces. It seems a lot of the damage already existed.

BIB. Hmm My eyes don't see all of that! But it does look like he bumps into things sometimes with his lower right leg; probably the coffee tables, happens to me all of the time. It is really good that you found that image though, it would be cool if someone could put side by side with one from the night of the murder to demonstrate the stark contrast.

Also, OP talked about the prosthetics being made out of some kind of metal; it was in a video conversation when he and Sam were on a beach holiday.

 

[vansleuths]

Exactly, and this is why it is intriguing me as to why the key ever ended up on the floor. Why would it? Reeva wouldn't have needed to take it out of the door herself, had she either gone for a pee and locked the door, or if she had fled there for safety. In neither scenario would she need to take the key out of the keyhole on the inside of the door. So how did it end up on the floor? (if it really ever did?)

This is from OP's affidavit on CNN. According to OP, it was on the floor:

" I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive."

 

[Gryffindor]

There's obviously a key lock on the outside of it, as the key was hanging there. Does an interior lock have to go all the way through a door for it to function?

Ooh, hang on, maybe Reeva did have it inside to lock herself in but he got a spare to get her out and left it hanging there and hid the original one Reeva had, when he nipped back upstairs for his mystery jaunt??

Gosh dunno . . .

 

[BabaJ]

The Black Talon bullets open up or becomes the "talon" when it comes in contact with tissue or "other wet media" Black Talon - Wikipedia, the encyclopedia

Thanks , I also found a discussion on facebook on this topic. It looks like it is a little bit more complicated than Wikipedia explains.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/593295097415730?stream_ref=10

 

[jay-jay]

This is from OP's affidavit on CNN. According to OP, it was on the floor:

" I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive."

Ah, thanks vansleuths .. that is exactly what I wanted to know .. i.e. was the key being on the floor something which OP had given in his affidavit. OK, in that case then I find it really difficult to believe him on that one, because I can't seen any earthly reason why Reeva would've taken that key out of the lock, once she was inside the cubicle and had locked the door (regardless of whether she'd gone for a pee, or if she was hiding from him) .. there is simply no reason for her to have removed it, so I don't believe it ended up on the ground as he states it did. MOO

 

[G.bng]

Bringing over quote by g.bang so I can respond.

I don't say fabricate in judgmental sense. It's just a fact she put something in her statement that was plain not part of her memory. She fabricated a memory. Sure she went back and corrected it which shows honesty, at the least. It still happened.

BBM: don't see how. I'm not writing her testimony off. I'm merely trying to be discerning about it. And, once again, feel my intentions are being misconstrued. I realized at the beginning of this trial that I had gone in with a presumption of guilt rather than innocence
and was not fairly weighing all evidence, writing off things that were actually corroborating Oscar's account, and trying to make everything fit into a the state's scenario, much like has been going on with other posters. I realized it wasn't rational and that I actually was having were real doubts and I was suppressing them because I still wanted him to be guilty. At some point, I couldn't deny my reasonable doubt anymore. There were things that I was trying to make fit and it didn't. I was trying to make 2+2=5. I just want to make sure I'm seeing and questioning everything from every possible angle and being true to myself, not making a square peg fit in a circle hole or making things fit into my view rather than being honest about what it shows. It's only fair.

I don't know if Oscar is telling the truth or not. I don't even know if I believe him. But I do know that I cannot say with any kind of certainty that he isn't. I have no confidence either way in guilt or innocence. And in the country I live in that would be a not guilty.

So, no, g that's not what's going on here.

First thanks for replying. However, if we start from the word fabricate as defined the by the Oxford Dictionary:

Fabricate = Invent (something) in order to deceive

I really don't mean to "misconstrue" you, but unfortunately I just cannot agree that your use of fabricate does not have an accusatory and judgemental sense, in the same way as when you use it again here in this post:

"She fabricated a memory"

or when you repeat,

"she put something in her statement that was plain(ly) not part of her memory"

both of which imo cleasly indicate you believe Mrs Stipp was deceitful, the first because that is exactly what "fabricate" means, the second, because as you say the detail was "plain(ly) not part of Mrs Stipp’s memory" you leave no option for her to have included it by mistake so that the only inference I am able to take is that you mean Mrs Stipp purposefully set out to deceive. Damning accusations without any evidence.

Witnesses very often do not coincide on details such as how many shots, screams, lights, etc., and can often recall insignificant details directly after an event with very important ones only coming back to them months later and by chance. It is reasonable to think they can also mistakenly include details they heard as their own, and that it could take quite an effort to sort it all out. Memory is not an exact science and plays tricks on us all. We have all mixed up our memories of an event with those of others, only to later realise the error with, "Ooops, tell a lie... it wasn't X but Y" without any intent, need, motive or reason to lie whatsoever. I "recall" events as a child that I clarify with, "I am not sure if I remember it or if I was told it by my mum, dad, brother, etc."

Now it may be you are using the words incorrectly, but by asserting Mrs Stipp "fabricated" or added a detail "plain(ly) not part of her memory" you deny her the same benefit of the doubt, that, you quite rightly expect for OP. Even if inadvertently, or unconsciously, you can I am sure see how it could smell of hypocrisy to be seeming to uphold one person’s rights while trashing another's.

And what proof is there that Mrs Stipp (and I could include here Burger, Johnson, Mr Stipp, the police, experts, etc.) "fabricated" or affirmed what she knew was "plain(ly)" untrue and that it was not an unwitting mistake which she quickly rectified? I am sure you agree that OP demonstrably has 15-25 years of reasons to lie, but, while Mrs Stipp may have many reasons we could "fabricate" and conjecture about, she has no motive we can affirm as a certainty in the same way. IMO, without hard evidence in contra, independent witnesses deserve an even higher presumption of innocence by a judge or jury than an accused with a life to defend (the prosecution by its very nature can't "presume" innocence otherwise they would not prosecute in the first place), so imo without evidence to the contrary, all witnesses should be presumed to be testifying as best they can, with errors, mistakes and contradictions, simply trying to fulfil their civic duty in the search for truth and justice, trying to help a court decide, after weighing up all the evidence, not just Mrs Stipps, whether or not a murder was committed so that if the judge determines it was then a person who could pose a threat to someone else’s daughter, yours, Mrs Stipp’s or mine, can be contained where they no longer can pose a threat to anyone, at least not for a time.

I have lived most of my life in Spain under a bench system and, as I am sure is the same in SA, (and even the same here in the UK with police, prosecutors, judges and juries, and insurance claim investigators), it is a known fact judges give much more weight to independent witnesses than to those close to an accused such as family, friends (or enemies!), business associates, etc., precisely because wherever there is an interest the likelihood of a hidden agenda is significantly enhanced, whether to favour or prejudice an accused.

So, what do you think could be Mrs Stipp’s hidden agenda for her to lie under oath and try to pervert the course of her nation’s search for truth and justice in respect of OP? And do you doubt OP likely has motives to lie, (even if he did kill Reeva by mistake which under SA law may not save him), contrary to those very same reasons?

 

[jay-jay]

There's obviously a key lock on the outside of it, as the key was hanging there. Does an interior lock have to go all the way through a door for it to function?

Any doors in my house which have locks like this go all the way through from one side to the other, and can be locked from either side (with the same key) .. and once they are locked, it's not that easy for the key to just fall out .. in the unlocked position the key comes out easily, but not so easily in the locked position (I'm just trying to think if the bashing on the door with the cricket bat may have made the key on the inside of the door fall to the ground .. otherwise the most likely place he would've needed to retrieve the key from would have been the keyhole on the inside of the door, not the floor <<- but he has stated in his affi that it was on the floor)

 

[Danta]

BIB. Hmm My eyes don't see all of that! But it does look like he bumps into things sometimes with his lower right leg; probably the coffee tables, happens to me all of the time. It is really good that you found that image though, it would be cool if someone could put side by side with one from the night of the murder to demonstrate the stark contrast.

Also, OP talked about the prosthetics being made out of some kind of metal; it was in a video conversation when he and Sam were on a beach holiday.

Don't know how to upload pics, but I did compare them. The photo from the article and a photo from Juror 13 http://juror13lw.wordpress.com and there is more damage to the right leg shown at the murder scene photo.

 

[G.bng]

And what I see is those on the firmly guilty side have many different theories about what happened, theories that don't even support the state's case. They themselves are confident in their theories but this is certainly a problem for me and has created even more doubt. If a clear picture of the state's case hasn't come through and a clear picture of what happened that night has not emerged that is a problem. At this point, it should be clearer what the state wants to say. That to me shows that state's case is not as strong as I initially thought it would be. So many unanswered questions yet so many are so convicted they have it all figured out.

Isn't that called "brain storming" and it's what an investigation team surely does each time they are faced with a possible crime. I mean if the police simply accepted the first thing a suspect said as absolute truth, never considered the possibility they could be lying, never questioned anything, never looked for contradictions, other evidence, didn't put forward other options until being able to rule them out, then we would certainly reduce our need for courts but there would be a h**l of a lot of dangerous criminals out and about... No?

 

[delilah]

Ah, thanks vansleuths .. that is exactly what I wanted to know .. i.e. was the key being on the floor something which OP had given in his affidavit. OK, in that case then I find it really difficult to believe him on that one, because I can't seen any earthly reason why Reeva would've taken that key out of the lock, once she was inside the cubicle and had locked the door (regardless of whether she'd gone for a pee, or if she was hiding from him) .. there is simply no reason for her to have removed it, so I don't believe it ended up on the ground as he states it did. MOO

Might it have fallen out during the bat bashing?

 

[Danta]

On the topic of statements: I have given statements to the police and an animal control officer and they both got the facts wrong. I was not trying to break up a fight I was holding my dog when the attack occurred.

In my case, statements were written by the agencies according to their interviews with me. On the other hand, I did not sign either of these statements. This reminds me that when I go to court I can state. "I did not sign these statements and I do not agree with them". I think Mrs. Stipp correcting her statement is a different than fabricating.

 

[G.bng]

Thanks for your post.

If I can just clarify the bullet situation. The Black Talon bullets used in the handgun were not illegal, I think you may be referring to the bullets in the safe.

There has been quite a bit of misinformation regarding the Black Talon bullets due to media speculation and twitter-talk. Black Talon was simply a brand-name made by a company called Winchester. A person went on a killing spree a while ago killing many people, therefore Winchester decided to re-brand the bullet, and for years have sold the same bullets, but re-named.
They had to change the name as they knew lawyers would have a field day in court.

This bullet is a type of hollow-point expanding bullet of which many variations are available today, the same type of which are used by Police forces.

I'll take away the brand name and give you the common name for the Black Talon bullet. It's called a dum-dum.

I think you'll agree, 'he loaded his gun with dum-dums and fired' doesn't sound nearly as sinister or dramatic.

According to the Wikipedia entry it appears that the SXT has notable differences from the original Black Talon despite the myth that they are the same. Further, IMBW, but from Mangena's testimony, OP had genuine Black Talon's which haven't been manufactured since 2000 and so are rare, costly, and difficult to find.

On the other hand, despite being from the UK where there is no real gun culture and being a complete ignoramus in respect of almost all gun paraphernalia, I had heard of "dum-dum" bullets and the incredibly destructive injuries they inflict from the days of our colonial wars in both India and Africa, where dum-dums may have won the brits the colonies but never the moral high ground!

 

[jay-jay]

Might it have fallen out during the bat bashing?

Well, I was wondering about that .. but I don't think a key that has been turned in the lock is that easy to fall out. One which hasn't been turned might do, but not one which has been turned (which is what we are led to believe happened .. i.e Reeva locked herself in from the inside, either while going for a pee, or in order to hide from OP).

There is something really quite fishy about the whole key thing.

 

[Val1]

Might it have fallen out during the bat bashing?

It's possible, if the door hadn't actually been locked and was just floating in the keyhole, but if the key had been turned to lock the door then the likelihood is much dimmer imo.

In my part of the world, our interior door locks do not use keys, any slender object(q-tip, bobby pin, etc.) can be inserted into the exterior knob through the hole to press the locking mechanism and while held down the door knob can be turned to open.

 

[Rumpole]

Just pure curiosity and probably stupid question :blushing: , which was probably discussed - it is said that the black talon bullets open up when hitting human flesh and break into pieces when hitting a bone. So if fired through a door or any other material don't they open up before hitting the body?

The State's ballistics guy covered that specific question in his testimony.
I can't give you an exact quote, but the gist of what he said was that the bullets would remain intact when passing through the door, but then expand and fragment when they hit flesh. It is not what I would have guessed intuitively.. but it does seem to have been what happened in this case.