Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[steveml]

So he shot her first... then why did it take nearly 20 minutes for the first call for help? I don't think that the PT has conceded anything in questioning and testing the witnesses. We will see in argument. I believe the gunshots were last.

We may never know is the only answer I can give. If the judge wanted an answer to this she would be expecting Nel to glean the information from OP. The DT don't need to explain this. There may be more unexplained gaps as we only have one eye-witness.

My personal view is that the PT had built there case around a few specific points. It could have been they were convinced that the cricket bat was used as a weapon, it could have been that they were hoping they'd manage to crack OP on the stand, and run with the argument scenario.

When Nel stopped pursuing the bedroom door damage, the air rifle, the cricket bat, the panel in the bathroom, the keys in the bathroom door, and did not challenge a single thing after the time that OP carried Reeva downstairs, it suggested to me that something major had affected the PT's case.

I could well be wrong, but Nel hasn't been finishing his cross-examinations with his usual gusto, and he seems a bit resigned to me.

Maybe he just needs a break and will be back on top form when he returns.

 

[jay-jay]

People about to testify in Court should avoid social media! But Dixon did not

Quote:
He wrote: 'Third day in court today. Let's see how much of my credibility, integrity and professional reputation is destroyed.
'It is difficult to get belief in those who will not listen because it is not what they want to hear. After that, beer!'

A picture of the message - apparently shown on a mobile phone screen - was posted on Twitter this morning.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aken-apart-Pistorius-trial.html#ixzz2z9bK3KUx

Those facebook (and twitter accounts posted earlier upthread) can't really be his, surely? The sound like someone having a bit of a joke to me .

 

[liesbeth]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pert-witness-taken-apart-Pistorius-trial.html

And another oops. If it's not a parody.

 

[DebinGA]

Thank you!!!

From your link:

Amputee gets life for killing wife

Jordaan sentenced Sengwane to three years for intimidation, 15 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm, three years for possession of ammunition, and life for murder.

The link said "the man earlier denied the charges against him. But when he gave evidence in mitigation, he changed his version completely."


Hmm... Would OP be willing to do the same? idk

 

[Emz73]

Yes, and now combine this with OP's testimony in which he described how the first hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

OP himself testified that he subsequently broke the panel by pulling it into the bathroom so it wouldn't hit Reeva.

Bat - woman screaming - gunshots - broken door panel

That's the sequence that fits all the witnesses' testimony.

Oscars version including earwitnesses evidence

Shots-hang around screaming for 17 minutes playing hide and seek with Reeva-bat-broken door panel.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Thank you!!!

From your link:

Amputee gets life for killing wife

Jordaan sentenced Sengwane to three years for intimidation, 15 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm, three years for possession of ammunition, and life for murder.

dixon, pathologist drops out, then this. really bad day at the office for oscar.


separate note:
i love coincidences
weird similarities to this op case...

 

[Viper]

Those facebook (and twitter accounts posted earlier upthread) can't really be his, surely? The sound like someone having a bit of a joke to me .

Open the link in my post. After the image of the message that is posted to FaceBook, there is a confirmation from Dixon to a reporter that it was posted by him.

 

[Britlaws]

Justice prevailed after the murderer's story didn't hold up. I wasn't privy to that trial's evidence, but from reading that article - wow!, what eerie similarities.

Thanks for the link.

and he was by all accounts a good husband, father and grandfather, but had a temper and suffered jealousy. So, for OP it looks like the attempt to trump with the valentines card wont make a jot of difference!

 

[jay-jay]

Yes, but demonstrating that they sound similar doesn't resolve any dispute about which sounds were heard first. It doesn't make the defence's version more likely than the prosecution's, and vice versa.

Exactly .. and surely, the more similar they sound, then the more easily the first set of bangs could've been cricket bat with the gunshots later. It would've been better for the defence had the sounds sounded more distinguishable but they didn't .. I got it totally wrong on the first lot of Dixon's cricket bat 'experiment' sounds they played because I thought the first ones were cricket bat and the second were gunshot, I was 99.9% sure that they were, and yet it turned out they were all cricket bat. So, by virtue the fact they sound so alike .. (and when you've just woken up at that unearthly time of the morning to banging sounds) .. it's just as likely it could've been cricket bat then gun as it could've been gun then cricket bat, or indeed cricket bat-gun-cricket bat. I don't think it strengthens the defence case at all.

 

[IfIMay]

You're making a different point now. Earlier you suggested it doesn't really matter if gunshots and bat bangs could have sounded similar. I think it does, and I gave a reason.

No. It shows how the defense case is tailored around the evidence. As it's been pointed out... not everyone heard the first noise (softer cricket bat sounds) but all the witnesses heard the second noise (gunshots) loud enough to testify to sequence... bang. pause. bang bang bang. Any music producer could make those sounds similar in a studio. Why didn't they play them for and ask the witnesses about them themselves when on the stand? And why didn't they replicate the conditions that night? I'm sure they could have found a small confined area with a window. They didn't want to. Why?

 

[minor4th]

The PT thanks Dixon.

It has now been established that a cricket bat sounds like gunshots but softer.

That explains the 3 a.m. loud noises heard by the Stipps (but not the other 3 witnesses who were further away).

It does establish that cricket bat sounds are similar to gunshots and were apparently mistaken for gunshots by the Stipps

Since the state's own expert testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door, then the earlier sounds were gunshots - not cricket bat.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Dr. and Mrs. Stipp testified OP's bathroom light was ON when they looked straight out into his bathroom within seconds of hearing the first bangs of whatever kind. I consider Dr. Stipp a true hero for going to that house to protect children he thought might be in serious danger, and I have no reason whatever to believe he or his wife lied or were mistaken about OP's bathroom light being ON when OP claimed it was pitch dark. OP's house of cards is wholly dependent on "the dark" to support his "panicked and terrified" lie. Thank God for the Stipps.

I agree.
bbm- all the ear witnesses for that matter, I believe OP may have walked away from this if not for them.

 

[TipDog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pert-witness-taken-apart-Pistorius-trial.html

And another oops.

I don't know squat about SA law, but shouldn't he get in trouble for talking about the trial while it's still going on? I think here in America, there'd be firestorm over his comments like that on social media as the trial is in process (perhaps not after a verdict was reached, but certainly prior to it). And at the very least, his reputation would be destroyed and he'd never be allowed near a courtroom again (in essence, fired).

What a dumb***. I know most people already thought that on here (and some of the funny posts about him are truly knee-slappers) but this kind of behavior on social media really shows how unprofessional he truly is. Yuck.

 

[minor4th]

If you don't mind minor4th, do you believe the Stipps testimony that they saw the bathroom light ON right after the first bangs? If so, is it possible that OP could have done the things he claims to have done before returning to the pitch black bathroom on his legs and only THEN turning on the light?

I believe they saw the light on in the bathroom, but I do not believe it was simultaneously with the gunshots or immediately after. And I believe that Mr Stipp saw Oscar in the bathroom with his legs on.

And yes it's certainly possible that Oscar did things in that time period that he has not disclosed.

 

[minor4th]

Old news maybe, its his reasons for refusing that would be interesting.

I don't think he refused - I think the defense decided not to call him.

 

[TipDog]

and he was by all accounts a good husband, father and grandfather, but had a temper and suffered jealousy. So, for OP it looks like the attempt to trump with the valentines card wont make a jot of difference!

Nor should it.

 

[DebinGA]

Not sure why you are responding to me about the bathroom light. Someone suggested it doesn't really matter if gunshots and bat bangs can sound similar. I was responding to that issue only.

My apologies.

 

[steveml]

they made an attempt!? They mislead the court by using a different height person and took photos from a different visual frame of reference. That clears it up. :eye roll:

No worries. All I can say is that it didn't deceive me as I presumed it was being used in conjunction with the standing man photo to show the proportional difference. I guess it's how you interpret it.

The most important thing is that nobody ended up deceived, and if you were for a few minutes, by the end of the session you should have grasped the idea that you wouldn't be able to see anyone in the top half of the window wearing prosthesis.

 

[IfIMay]

I don't think he refused - I think the defense decided not to call him.

because it wouldn't help them. why? hmmnn... the one they hired and sent to the autopsy.

 

[Britlaws]

I don't think he refused - I think the defense decided not to call him.

Well, the defence would never say that their expert refused to testify and a respected expert would not usually admit to a refusal to testify and/or the reasons, so it's all speculation I guess.