Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[BritsKate]

Where oh where is MurphysLaw?

Murphy just solved this case.

The idea that Oscar may have locked her into the toilet has been bandied about before but I don't believe that's what happened because of the timeline.

First bangs and screams were reported at or shortly after 3am. I like 3:05 because Annette Stipp was already awake. Her clock runs 2-3 minutes fast and she reports 3:02 as the starting time. Had to be either Reeva screaming and Oscar beating on the door OR Oscar screaming and Reeva already dead. If it's the latter then the defence has to explain why he says he fired his gun at 3:12 instead and if she was shot at 3:05 why it took 15 minutes to phone netcare when he estimates five minutes to break down the door, put his legs on, held Reeva for 'some time', etc. If the first bangs were Oscar beating on the door, there was no reason to if he had the key.

What I'm getting so far, and to be fair the defence isn't done yet, is that they want to include the first bangs as shots and screams as Oscar's but ignore the 3am-ish that witnesses have testified to. In their version, the clock starts at 3:12 with Oscar's shots and the 2nd set of bangs, (they say at 3:17) are the cricket bat hammers to the door.

The 2nd set of bangs is what all the witnesses heard and what some called security over.

FTR: Johan Stipp called security at 3:15 and Charl Johnson rang the wrong security at 3:16. I believe there was another call at 3:16 too by Oscar's neighbour Mike who hasn't testified yet.

JMO

 

[emmavoberry]

That is correct - no mention of speaking to Reeva, or Reeva speaking to him in the bail application.
But he did mention it in the plea explanation.

Right. I recall that some of us posted, after reading the bail app., that his story sounded fishy in that there was no visual or audio in it for Reeva's part--and we said, in such an event, you'd say to partner "go hide, call the police, did you hear what I did?" etc.

Then he revised and wrote dialogue in which he talks to her, but she does not answer and he does not see her and never ascertains at the time of the shooting if she has done as he asked, called the police.

Now if Murphy'sLaw heard correctly (listened to vid. 3x), then this is an entirely revised story. In this new account, OP screams because he wnts to know why she is calling the police, which infers he is seeing her phoning on cell and believes she is calling police.

PS I find that when I try to reply to a post, that doesn't happen and the name of poster does not carry over and I haven't mastered the quote deal. I would like to give credit to the OP's whose comments I am taking up. That would be MURPHY'SLAW!

 

[molly333]

The idea that Oscar may have locked her into the toilet has been bandied about before but I don't believe that's what happened because of the timeline.

First bangs and screams were reported at or shortly after 3am. I like 3:05 because Annette Stipp was already awake. Her clock runs 2-3 minutes fast and she reports 3:02 as the starting time. Had to be either Reeva screaming and Oscar beating on the door OR Oscar screaming and Reeva already dead. If it's the latter then the defence has to explain why he says he fired his gun at 3:12 instead and if she was shot at 3:05 why it took 15 minutes to phone netcare when he estimates five minutes to break down the door, put his legs on, held Reeva for 'some time', etc. If the first bangs were Oscar beating on the door, there was no reason to if he had the key.

What I'm getting so far, and to be fair the defence isn't done yet, is that they want to include the first bangs as shots and screams as Oscar's but ignore the 3am-ish that witnesses have testified to. In their version, the clock starts at 3:12 with Oscar's shots and the 2nd set of bangs, (they say at 3:17) are the cricket bat hammers to the door.

The 2nd set of bangs is what all the witnesses heard and what some called security over.

FTR: Johan Stipp called security at 3:15 and Charl Johnson rang the wrong security at 3:16. I believe there was another call at 3:16 too by Oscar's neighbour Mike who hasn't testified yet.

JMO

The three first witnesses heard the bloodcurdling screams of a woman, that went on for 15 minutes or so [I wrote why did no one call police?] and then ending with the gunshots. They put the time at 300am for the gunshots.

Dr. Stipp hears two rounds of gunshots [he says] with a woman screaming in between.

One of my questions has always been--what was going on that she is screaming and screaming like that? And, this answers that question--he had locked her in the toilet room.

Again, is there a window inside that toilet room?

 

[Dr Mattus]

So Nel admitted it? I missed that.

Great to hear, but I have spotted several occasions where Nel is not only badgering.. but he is incorrect. I remain disappointed that either the Defence are not picking these things up, or else its the SA way to just let Prosecutor get away with it.

And surely there must be a limit to how many times that Nel can talk OP through the moments around the shots? Surely we are past that limit now.

The State has not yet offered THEIR version of events. I wonder how the details of that would stand up?

I don't get the SA system whereby the State have rested their case and yet have not even offered a version of events for the defense to respond to. I am sure that any version the State offers would have FAR MORE holes than OP's version.

Even if the State could discredit OP's version (in part) (which they have not IMO)... that in itself does NOT mean that ANYTHING else is automatically true, or even any better than OP's version. The State need a version that withstands the test of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"... Yet they have not offered a version???

This is not as much a reflection of the SA system as it is the nature of this case.. This "whydunnit" rather than "whodunit". The impression that the state has not argued their version as much as attacked OPs, it is only so little of the States case is disputed. They have demonstrated means, opportunity presented and taken. They have a murder weapon, a dead body, an admission by the killer that he pulled the trigger.

The act itself is not in dispute, and so is not argued. the only question is the motive and the plausibility if OPs defence version. It is therefore not surprising that the state has been focused and relentless in taking apart the defence. I had my doubts at first, but I think they have the right prosecuting attorney for this type f case.

 

[wb180]

It has nothing to do with telling the truth. It has to do with the style of interrogation.

Nel would prove you stated you salted your egg after you ate it.

I am sure Nel's style of interrogation is a factor but I think you are overly focused on it. Roux did the same with the other witnesses and those witnesses did much better. Why? Because they had nothing to hide.

Let's go back to the facts. OP gave different versions of events. Just look at the bail statement vs testimony. OP sat in the stand for 31 seconds when Nel asked him if he heard her scream. 31 seconds. That is a long time. The irony is it was Nel that came and save him.

It is obvious that OP is lying and when you have someone lying in court, I would want the barristers to use their years of experience (whether its going at them hard or not) to get the truth out of him.

 

[Viper]

the three first witnesses heard the bloodcurdling screams of a woman, that went on for 15 minutes or so [i wrote why did no one call police?] and then ending with the gunshots. They put the time at 300am for the gunshots.

Dr. Stipp hears two rounds of gunshots [he says] with a woman screaming in between.

One of my questions has always been--what was going on that she is screaming and screaming like that? And, this answers that question--he had locked her in the toilet room.

Again, is there a window inside that toilet room?

BIB Yes.

 

[HauntsForHope]

I think the attack started in the bedroom and she ran to the bathroom and locked herself in to keep him away. He heard her open the window in the bathroom as she screamed for help and he had to shut her up.

I was very interested in what Nel said today about the gunshots. How OP heard the first shot knock her down into the magazine rack and he adjusted the shots directly towards the rack. Great visual during testimony. The early banging noise was likely OP kicking the door and that metal cover that was bent.

 

[emmavoberry]

Can you recall in what day of the proceedings? I would like to go back and have a listen. Very interesting and as you say, quite a slip to make!

I didn't make the catch. Murphy's Law did awhile back. So sorry I am not adept at carrying over the quote and attribution to poster.

I agree with "another poster" here (sorry!) who said Murphy's Law might have the give away to this case!

 

[molly333]

BIB Yes!

well, there you go. She was screaming out the window.

I've always heard don't scream for help. Scream 'fire.'

People don't respond to a woman's screams for help for some reason.

This case proves it. Nobody called until they heard the gunshots, in spite of the fact the blood curdling screams woke them up!

 

[Rumpole]

The three first witnesses heard the bloodcurdling screams of a woman, that went on for 15 minutes or so [I wrote why did no one call police?] and then ending with the gunshots. They put the time at 300am for the gunshots.

Dr. Stipp hears two rounds of gunshots [he says] with a woman screaming in between.

One of my questions has always been--what was going on that she is screaming and screaming like that? And, this answers that question--he had locked her in the toilet room.

Again, is there a window inside that toilet room?

Umm.. you have the facts a bit muddled..

Burgers heard "blood curdling" scream.. then "shots" at 3:17

So almost certainly they heard Oscar scream then cricket bat


Estelle van der Merwe heard "voices" 2AM... and bangs at "3:0AM"
She did no doubt hear gunshots... at a time BEFORE Burgers heard anything

van der Merwe also heard "crying" AFTER the shots (she did NOT hear ANY screams).. she deferred to her Husband that that was Oscar.. which it must have been since it was after the shots and so after Reeva was dead.

The Stipps heard gunshots and then screaming and so with Reeva dead they heard OP as well. Of course they heard a second set of bangs which was cricket bat.

 

[Viper]

well, there you go. She was screaming out the window.

I've always heard don't scream for help. Scream 'fire.'

People don't respond to a woman's screams for help for some reason.

This case proves it. Nobody called until they heard the gunshots, in spite of the fact the blood curdling screams woke them up!

BIB I realize that. But you seem to be pro defense today, as opposed to pro prosecution over this past weekend. So I am confused at what your posts mean, today. Care to give me a clue?

 

[wb180]

I agree it's not a strong case.

And, whether OP whispered, or soft toned, or low toned the request is irrelevant. IF you could even make a distinction among those, how could you possibly remember it after a year? Or even after a day?

In that case, let's just not question OP because obviously his memory is going to be hazy with all his facts.

We seem to forget it was him that gave us all these different versions. No one forced him. If he was truthful like you, he should just say he can't remember if this was really just an insignificant point. But it wasn't. He specifically mentioned it.

On this point about whispering, let's just remind ourselves it was HIM that said if anyone said he whispered, that's not the truth (even though it was him saying it?!).

 

[miss glyss]

I think Nel's trying to say that as there was spatter on the carpet, then it must mean the duvet was on the floor too as there was spatter on that. OP is saying the duvet spatter could have came from him sitting on the bed but I didn't catch what else he was saying.

E.T.A OP says it was from when he went to get his phones.

Let's see O explain away the blood spatter above the headboard. . .

 

[molly333]

BIB I realize that. But you seem to be pro defense today, as opposed to pro prosecution over this past weekend. So I am confused at what your posts mean, today. Care to give me a clue?

I don't think either side has proven their case yet.

But, I would like to know a reasonable theory of both sides.

If prosecution doesn't prove their case, it goes to the defense.

 

[nastasya]

The entire trial changed today when this exchange occurred:

Nel: "Is it your defense that you fired at the perceived attacker?"

OP: "No. That's not mine."

Nel: "Good. Then, what is your defense?"

OP claims that he did not kill RS while he was firing at a perceived attacker. This is on the record now.

His defense is now that the gun went off accidentally. 4 times.

The judge must decide if his explanation is reasonable grounds for the killing of Reeva.

She must weigh his explanation that the gun accidentally went off 4 times against his changing stories, and 5 witnesses who heard a woman scream.

Oscar Pistorius >>>> :tantrum: >>>> :jail:

 

[molly333]

In that case, let's just not question OP because obviously his memory is going to be hazy with all his facts.

We seem to forget it was him that gave us all these different versions. No one forced him. If he was truthful like you, he should just say he can't remember if this was really just an insignificant point. But it wasn't. He specifically mentioned it.

On this point about whispering, let's just remind ourselves it was HIM that said if anyone said he whispered, that's not the truth (even though it was him saying it?!).

It is so easy to mess people up on the stand and in police interrogations, that people actually give false confessions. Something like 25 percent of the people freed by DNA have given false confessions. The rest were mostly ID'd by witnesses who couldn't remember anything, either.

 

[nastasya]

I think the attack started in the bedroom and she ran to the bathroom and locked herself in to keep him away. He heard her open the window in the bathroom as she screamed for help and he had to shut her up.

I was very interested in what Nel said today about the gunshots. How OP heard the first shot knock her down into the magazine rack and he adjusted the shots directly towards the rack. Great visual during testimony. The early banging noise was likely OP kicking the door and that metal cover that was bent.

Yes. That's what the evidence shows indisputably.

 

[Viper]

I don't think either side has proven their case yet.

But, I would like to know an reasonable theory of both sides.

If prosecution doesn't prove their case, it goes to the defense.

BIB But you do realize that OP has confessed to killing Reeva, don't you? Do you expect that this is a battle of whether or not "Mr. Pistorius goes free?"

 

[Panda]

Can you recall in what day of the proceedings? I would like to go back and have a listen. Very interesting and as you say, quite a slip to make!

I didn't make the catch. Murphy's Law did awhile back. So sorry I am not adept at carrying over the quote and attribution to poster.

I agree with "another poster" here (sorry!) who said Murphy's Law might have the give away to this case!

Thanks for that. I had missed it previously - found it now though.

 

[molly333]

BIB But you do realize that OP has confessed to killing Reeva, don't you? Do you expect that this is a battle of whether or not "Mr. Pistorius goes free?"

minor four said last night that he would probably be found guilty of CH because of SA law, but that the Judge had the discretion to give him no time.

So it sounds like the fight is over how much jail time, if any, unless the prosecutor can prove murder one.