Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Carol70]

BIB. No. Moving a corpse does not reverse its state of clinically dead to allow for "a last breath." A dead person is dead, no more breaths are physically possible.

I have just rejoined this thread. Why is that even an issue?

Sorry, its not I saw it being discussed elsewhere as to why OP maybe "heard her breathe"... so wanted a more formal opinion if anyone in the medical field knew. Obviously its untrue. Thanks.

 

[kaos]

I watched a few documentaries on the case last weekend. If the info is correct, Reeva left his house at 5:45pm (approx) and returned at 6:00pm on 13th Feb. He arrived home about 15 mins after Reeva returned, so possibly about 6:15pm.

They had exchanged a number of short phone calls prior to this, throughout the late afternoon.

That must then mean that she has a key and must know the security system.

 

[Magdalyn]

Maddening. My internet went down just after morning tea break and has only just come back. I missed Roux's examination of OP. Was it enlightening?

Off to read up now.

I've only been following along here, but apparently, with very few words, and only a few moments of the court's time, Roux completely debunked premeditated murder by the 'She Wrote I Love You So Oscar Could Never Have Murdered Her' defense.

:waiting:

ETA: Thank you, zwiebel, for all the trial transcription. You are the reason I wake up in the morning.

 

[aa9511]

I watched a few documentaries on the case last weekend. If the info is correct, Reeva left his house at 5:45pm (approx) and returned at 6:00pm on 13th Feb. He arrived home about 15 mins after Reeva returned, so possibly about 6:15pm.

They had exchanged a number of short phone calls prior to this, throughout the late afternoon.

Oh, well that's that. He is lying. There is no way she would get there at 6 pm and change into her pyjamas. Sorry, I am not believing that, Oscar. There were not a married couple or even having dated that long. They were still in the early stages of their relationship. Why would she come home in the EARLY evening and change into pygamas? No, she would have wanted to look good for him, IMO. It would make more sense if he said she was naked when he got home or something.

So b/c he's lying about it, means those jeans have some meaning and are a piece of what happened that night, so I'm going with Nel's theory that she was trying to put clothes on to leave.

I'm surprised Nel did not pursue the "pyjama lie."

 

[04009margaret]

My younger son is a geologist, I bet he didn't know he could do all that

All this guy's evidence is to try and discredit the previous evidence related to whether OP knew it was Reeva, i.e the ability of RS to scream and the witnesses that heard her screaming, whether OP was able to see or hear her go to the bathroom, whether witnesses (Stipps) saw him in the window on or off stumps, whether the bathroom and\or toilet light was on or off, re the door - which came first gun or bat and also the timing of shots (directly relates to screaming and also OP's version generally, inc him kicking the door).... as well as throwing the odd jibe in about the handling of the crime scene by investigators to discredit evidence collection\photos etc.

There's quite a bit to pick holes in though:
1) His assertion that RS's injuries to her back were from the magazine rack conflicts with OPs earlier allegation that it was in the corner of the room when he found her and that the police must have moved it.
2) The 'model' in the window was on his knees, which is not the same as OP on stumps and he was photographing from the ground and not from the same floor as the Stipps bedroom, hardly comparing like with like. Even when he was standing up, there was no reference made as to what height he was compared to OP.
3) He is still unable to say that all the bat marks were sustained before the shots, so some of the bat sounds could still have made either before or after.
4) Can OP only afford one expert? so had to have a jack of all trades? He may be very competent but really? No explanation of the equipment used for sound and light? and an indoor firing range replicates conditions where a indoor shot from a tiled room is heard outdoors?

They bought the duvet in this morning, so he's obviously going to be a blood spatter expert too.

I must confess I got a bit bored, so I'll wait for Nel to cross examine before I decide which bits are credible and which bits aren't.

Made me laugh so hard I spat my coffee out

 

[benn25]

I fully respect your view, even if I don't agree. As I said before I think Oscar is guilty, I just don't think it was an abusive relationship, or even that Oscar was less invested (based on the absence of a card

What needs to be determined then is whether OP sent cards to his other relationships OR how he showed he loved them. Whether it be on Valentines night or any other time of the year. Get that and you get his mindset around this nonsense.

 

[Val1]

Just for interests sake, or anyone with medical knowledge..is it at all possible that someone who dies in an unnatural position or sudden death gives out a last breathe as soon as they are moved?

Death rattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While death rattle is a strong indication that someone is near death,[3] it can also be produced by other problems that cause interference with the swallowing reflex, such as the case with brain injuries

http://jme.bmj.com/content/28/3/164.full

Gasping respiration in the dying patient is the last respiratory pattern prior to terminal apnoea. The duration of the gasping respiration phase varies; it may be as brief as one or two breaths to a prolonged period of gasping lasting minutes or even hours. Gasping respiration is very abnormal, easy to recognise and distinguish from other respiratory patterns and, in the dying patient who has elected to not be resuscitated, will always result in terminal apnoea.

 

[aoibhinn]

That must then mean that she has a key and must know the security system.

I'm a bit unsure of myself now as it appears others that have been following more closely think differently.

I watched at least one documentary that showed the security footage of Reeva arriving at the gates. It's a biometric ID system, requiring a thumbprint. Licence and Personal ID number are supposed to be recorded. Then, the documentary shows OP arriving a little later.

From their phone records on the day, it appears Reeva returned to OP's house (after leaving on the morning of the 13th) to get some work done. She texted him about this. He was in some meeting (financial) and not sure if it went very well. She texted him again saying she would return home, thinking it might want to spend the evening with family. A few phone calls passed between then, ending in her returning to the house.

I'm prepared to stand corrected on that but I'm sure I saw that information in a few articles/documentaries. Otherwise, my memory of it wouldn't be so specific...

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

 

[AlexUK]

Oh, well that's that. He is lying. There is no way she would get there at 6 pm and change into her pyjamas. Sorry, I am not believing that, Oscar. There were not a married couple or even having dated that long. They were still in the early stages of their relationship. Why would she come home in the EARLY evening and change into pygamas? No, she would have wanted to look good for him, IMO. It would make more sense if he said she was naked when he got home or something.

So b/c he's lying about it, means those jeans have some meaning and are a piece of what happened that night, so I'm going with Nel's theory that she was trying to put clothes on to leave.

I'm surprised Nel did not pursue the "pyjama lie."

I'm soooo confused after today!

Wasn't it said that she had changed into some of his clothes, rather than pyjamas, i.e. vest and shorts.

What was Nel going on about when he said she took her jeans off in order to leave???? I just do not get that!

Also from seeing the Valentines card Reeva had such neat and tidy handwriting I can't believe she was the sort to just drag off her clothes and leave them in a heap on the floor, especially with a disabled boyfriend.

Head hurtee now *holds head in hands Oscar stylee*

 

[04009margaret]

It's up to you how you look at it but I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
Simply, that it is proof of nothing other than that RS invested a lot more in the relationship than OP did and this significant imbalance is a primary reason for an argument to be triggered. It had happened before and on the eve of Valentines Day, it really exploded. You might have seen the results...
Funnily enough, The reveal of the card today actually strengthened my view on this.

Even his description of the whole evening made it sound more like a platonic relationship than a loving relationship

 

[Carmelita]

This was a reply to someone suggesting it backed up Oscars loving relationship claim, i didn't say a word about abuse.
My honest opinion is she was much more into him than vice versa, that is all.

I don’t believe Oscar and Reeva had a healthy loving relationship. I don’t believe that the card proves that they had a loving healthy relationship. What the card indicates to me is that on February 13th Reeva loved Oscar in spite of the red flags that she had seen in their relationship.

What I do believe the card gives credence to is that Reeva did not believe she was in a violent or abusive relationship. We are talking about a woman with a law degree, she was just on a television show, and her modeling career was taking off. She was not “stuck” in a relationship due to financial needs, children, social pressure, religious values, self-worth that had been meticulously and maliciously sapped out of her, lodging, any of the other reasons that many women through no fault of their own feel trapped by their abuser.

Reeva had a world of options, that she knew were viable, there is no indication that she was living fearfully under Oscar’s dominance and control.

Reeva loved Oscar she had hope for their relationship. That in and of itself is terribly sad.

And yes I know abuse can be insidiously hidden but that simply does not seem to be the case here. Not violent physical abuse.

 

[hetty]

What needs to be determined then is whether OP sent cards to his other relationships OR how he showed he loved them. Whether it be on Valentines night or any other time of the year. Get that and you get his mindset around this nonsense.

Yes, I agree, then it would be a fair conclusion to say he was less I to her than she was into him.

 

[aa9511]

O says he ripped off the bigger panel, the key was on the floor, he had to lean over to pick up the key. Describes Reeva;

O: She was sitting on her buttocks....right arm on top of the toilet bowl....her head was on her shoulder...

N: Let us just look at a photograph.

OP sighing loudly.

I don't think he could have done all of that so easily with his stumps.

Also, why would the key be on the floor if she was just going to pee? Wouldn't she have just turned the key (if she even wanted to lock it in the first place), left the key in the door, and then just turned key again, when done, to open it? That means key would still be in the door when Oscar broke the panels.

Key on the floor means she was holding the key in her hands to make sure there was no way Oscar could open the door.

 

[wb180]

Yes, I agree, then it would be a fair conclusion to say he was less I to her than she was into him.

I think OP shooting RS and giving a fake testimony sorta shows who he loves more. Himself

 

[Val1]

What needs to be determined then is whether OP sent cards to his other relationships OR how he showed he loved them. Whether it be on Valentines night or any other time of the year. Get that and you get his mindset around this nonsense.

You mean like this?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-nearly-died-car-1740073

Revealing his bizarre surprise for Vicky he said: “On Valentine’s Day in 2006 Vicky awoke to find that while she was sleeping I had been to her house to hang 200 coloured balloons (I blew up each one individually) in the trees, in her driveway and on her fence. I then took a can of spray paint and artfully wrote ‘I Love You, Tiger’ on the road in front of her gate. She was deeply touched.”

 

[sleuth-d-]

My problem is why shoot 4 times. Even if he heard someone in the toilet, wouldnt it be reasonable to fire a warning shot 1st maybe at the top of the door (for full effect - to show how serious he was) OR even shout and say I have a weapon.

The door was locked so he didnt hear any clicking of the door opening and even if he did the 1st shot would of determined his next move. He was reckless and imv INTENDED to kill whoever was behind the door or at the very least SEVERELY injure the person whether it was Reeva or not. Because 1 shot is a massive massive difference to 4. 1 promotes injury, 4, however, promotes a highly likely chance of death.

I just cant understand why there was no chat from him. He's been trained to use a weapon, so surely, human instinct, IF you want to frighten or warn someone is to talk. Tell them your intentions, tell them what you have, tell them that they're fooked. Not just blast off some shots in the hope you injure them or scare them away without giving them a chance. It doesnt make any sense.

Iv heard strange noises at night and being in the UK the best thing I have is a baseball bat. On 2 occasions, although no one was there in the end I had bat in hand ready to whip someones arse, BUT, on both incidents, I warned them. Giving them the opportunity (in my mind anyway) to scarper. OP has not mentioned anything of the sort. (Please correct me if im wrong).

Everything else that happened around the actual shooting isnt, imv, as important as his thought process in the bathroom, whether he thought it was a burglar or not. And for that reason, his reckless, irresponsible, cold, lunatic behaviour in firing 4 shots, with no warning shot (due to his lack of verbal) is INTENT to kill.

He said he was thinking about the warning shot and realised he didnt want to potentially harm himself with the ricochet of the bullet if he had shot into the shower cubicle, but what about straight up or at an angle towards the ceiling. Surely the bullet would go straight through or is the ceiling tiled aswell?

Just my thoughts.

totally agree that he is finding the shooting, and the four shots very difficult to explain, or explain away. he is really between a rock and a hard place at that point.

the gun is in his hand. pointing at the toilet door. he has heard something in the toilet. he does believe that there is someone in the toilet.


warning shot up, out of the open window would have been possible.
[if the window was indeed open]

 

[Mme Butterfly]

Only problem with the way you put it now, Lisa, is that anything done out of Court is not a stipulation, it is an illegal act. It is corruption and collusion. Certainly there was no stipulation at the BH. Rather the opposite, as Nel put Botha back on the stand (after Roux ambushed him with news of the 5th phone, and asked why he didn’t access what he didn’t even know existed or had in his possession); who then testified that he only learned of the 5th phone’s existence the afternoon before in Court. Is it proper to even make a “stipulation” well after the alleged data in that crucial piece of evidence has already been testified to in court?

And as I've detailed here numerous times, even at the BH that the matter of criminal crime scene removal of evidence seems quite proven. At BH, we heard Mag. Nair actually berate Det Botha for not getting records from the 5th phone that DT only told PT existed the day before, and which they would NOT surrender to Pros for another 11 days if my calculation is correct.

And MSM drops all mention of this. I saw one video a year ago, where a reporter cornered Roux after BH day in court, and he, with a smirk or smile said "the defense has it and that's all I can say about it." This too may be gone.

Furthermore I posted last week, from Wiki, standard jurisprudence procedure on "Chain of Custody” of evidence, at all times, from being taken from a crime scene to court aprearance for ALL items of evidence. And the standard being that if there is no Chain of Custody (signed or sworn to, at all points in time), the item must not be used as evidence in a trial. The DT would have insisted on inadmissibility, as they tried to do re the door--if they thought the Pros. did what they did with the 5th phone.

16 days is long enough to send the phone anywhere in the world and get it back. E.g., it could have been sent to the NSA or GCHQ. And those great cryptographers would laugh at a measly 4-digit code or such. [That's just an example. Many other good cryptographers and electronics experts abound.]

Once again the way that the media has excised the first 5 minutes of the first Session of Tuesday March 25 is telling. In contrast to the beginning of all other Session 1s that I have seen is also telling. (All other Session 1s begin with everyone standing as Judge walks in.)

Also telling is the unconstitutional way freedom of the press for SAns was quashed for perhaps the most crucial autopsy evidence. SA Constituon does not say the people have freedom of the press unless it’s about a victim of a crime allegedly perpetrated by a Pistorius or other “elite” person. You can be assured that everyday in SA courts more gruesome autopsy photos are not blocked from public viewing.

So this, along with cops also giving Carl, Aimee or Oldwage the .38 ammo after verifying that Oscar had no legal license to have that ammo. Curiously the Cops or Pros did get that back a short while later.

But they did not ask (or get) the 5th phone back (till DT apparently were done with it). Why did they need 16 days?? And there was no asking for an investigation by Pros or any of the Judges. And the records of that 5th phone are used as evidence in the trial when there is ZERO Chain of Custody for it. The only “stipulation” Nel gave is that he got it back some 16 days after the shooting. Perhaps covering himself, if someone later should investigate the crime of removing it from the scene. But we do not even have video of this admission.

Furthermore if cops on scene—all the way up to Colonels and a Brig General who is a “friend of the family” (and dare I say it: told Oscar everything was going to be fine [or such] who were there—someone gave Carl, Aimee or Oldwage the .38 ammo. This too should have been investigated and cops charged—all the way up to Cols or Generals. The fact that this did not happen indicates the likelihood that it was someone there of very high level who gave the .38 ammo to Oscar’s support team (after verifying he had no license for it) and who got to the scene very quickly. And furthermore, Aimee, Carl and Oldwage were allowed all over the scene shortly after the crime, by Col. van Rensburg by his own admission, and later stated to by Botha where he found Carl and Oldwage.

Unlike Oscar’s view, any untowards acts at the scene by cops were likely to the benefit of Oscar, and not to his detriment. And indeed if there was any terrible handling of evidence at the scene, such as Col. Motha shockingly not putting on his gloves sitting in his breast pocket before handling the gun—well that too looks like deliberate mishandling to aid the accused—should a Judge decide to use it that way. Much light is on this, so they can’t just toss it. We will see.

I like Oscar and his great triumphs over adversity. And perhaps even know the likely hidden problems he has, which is not offered as an excuse. But Reeva deserved to live out her life. And trials should be fair, and not have crucial items used as evidence that have NO Chain of Custody, and with evidence of possible collusion and/or corruption, and NO investigations.

“This one runs deep.”

Wow, Shane. I’ve been watching and reading here in SA about the killing of Reeva since the shooting. I have lurked at these WS threads since last February, so I know your awesome work on this case. I’ve been enthralled by your analysis that told people such things as the physics of gunshots and echoes, or early on about that homeopathic remedy testis whatever.

You’ve stuck your neck out about Carl, or Oldwage or someone at the crime scene taking that 5th phone and that Pros, and judges have not even ordered any investigation. And that 16 days is long enough to send that phone to places that could have changed things. You’ve implied its records should not be allowed as evidence. Your perseverance is as amazing as your logic. You deserve an award for investigative journalism!

I wish you were here in SA. Then again you probably wouldn’t last long. Unlike in the USA where “conspiracy” is considered a dirty word, we know better here. We’ve had heads of the police, even the president, charged with or convicted of crimes and conspiracy.

With this post, you’ve done it again, Shane! Trish should get you on her podcast show! You actually know this case backwards and forwards as well as the physics, the logic, and related health issues.

You are an “eerbare man” (a virtuous man) as we call it here in Afrikaans.

I only wish YOU had a blog or something. Thanks for explaining so much, so thoroughly. Please keep at it.

 

[aa9511]

He testified the other day that at this point Reeva wasn't breathing .. now he is saying "I heard her breathing"

:facepalm:

So he could hear her breathing, but he decided to take "some time" to just lay over her and do his kumbyah thing?

Then, he suddenly switches modes and is trying to get her out of there as quick as possible, by golly, doing everything he can to get her "help."

Even Jodi's story did not fall apart so quickly!

 

[hetty]

You mean like this?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-nearly-died-car-1740073

That is very fair, clearly then his feelings for Reeva were not as great as for this girl.

 

[Viper]

Nel must be chomping at the bit to get stuck into this guy tomorrow, seems odd to have a jack of all trades like this testify.

Dixon worked in the same capacity for the SAPS as Batman, exact same job. That Dixon has "geology" knowledge seems to be the only difference. And like Batman Dixon is drawing opinions based upon his investigation only, his opinions do not take in to account the other evidence, so many are obviously wrong.

What Dixon did explain quite well was the splinters in Reeva's right arm and the distance and position her arm had to be in behind the door to receive the splinters to her skin. According to Dixon's investigation Reeva was standing very close to the door and likely holding the door handle with her right hand, for safety just in case OP managed to open the lock or physically open the door open. I like that he did the tests to determine that, it gives a clearer picture.