Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Really?]

OP's watch theft police report was the only verifiable indication that OP had ever been a victim of any crime whatsoever iirc.

Ya, the complex had 5 crimes(?) 4 by OP hence his charges.....and the whiny complaint of the theft of a cheap watch....by OP

 

[JuneBug67]

Here is the rest of the story. BTW, isn't this just a tired old thing now?:


Roux: When we look at this door, it is consistent, and I think it's conclusive in fact - if you disagree we can go through it - that when the shots were fired, the door was intact. It was not broken.

Vermuelen: That is true, Mi'Lady

Roux: What is your view? When was the door hit with the bat - before or after the shots?

Vermuelen: M'Lady, I would say the door was hit after the shots. ...if you look at the crack down here, it enters this bullet hole on the one side and then exits on the other side... so what this tells me is there had to be a hole in the door before this piece broke off, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through.

Nel: ...which happened first, the bullet shots or the bat. You said the hole was there before the panel was broken.

Vermeulen: That's correct M'lady.

Nel: Can you say scientifically - the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: M'Lady, scientifically I would not think it would be possible to say whether small mark on the side - I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

Nel: Do you know if the kicking happened before the shots, if it's a kick - that mark?

Vermuelen: That would also be very difficult to say, and I doubt one would be able to say that the kicking happened before or after the shots M'Lady.

Nel: Mr Roux put to you that the only reason why the accused would have kicked the door was to open it- remember that - get it open because it was locked.

Vermeulen: Yes ..

Nel: Could there be other reasons?

Vermeulen: I guess if we say other reasons, it might ...

Nel: Let us speculate, you're asked to speculate - could it have been to scare someone? Is it possible?

Vermeulen: If we speculate, it's possible.. (chuckle). We also cannot prove that that mark was caused during the unfortunate incident.



And here is a media reference:

Quote:
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked police forensic expert Johannes Vermeulen whether he could conclude that all four bullet holes appeared in the door before the dents made by the bat.

The question was aimed at testing the veracity of Pistorius's version of events, in which he fired four shots into the door then, after realising that Steenkamp was not asleep in bed, fetched a cricket bat to break down the door.

Vermeulen responded that he could not prove that this was indeed the case.

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/20...-shots-bashing

It's not remotely a 'tired old thing'. It's key. It certainly suggests that until pressed by Nel Vermeulen had indeed come to the logical conclusion that there was a discreet set of strikes and a discreet set of shots. This is also of course the only hypothesis that fits neatly with the sound evidence. It's key.

 

[DebinGA]

If you believe OP, which I don't, re the duvet or anything else, you must remember the prepositions he used to describe his "feeling around" for
Reeva post murder. He was in the bed, on the bed, under the bed, around the bed, inside the bed, across the bed, beside the bed, etc. After all that, the duvet should look like a crumbled hankie.

 

[BlueShoe]

I'm still way, way behind in reading here and trying to catch up.

At one point, people were hypthesizing about what Reeva would do, and why she was silent (if she actually was) when Oscar was pursuing the "intruder."

Here's my contribution. I'm Reeva, in the toilet, and I hear Oscar screaming "Get out of my house," and "Reeva, call the police!" I would shout out in return: "Oscar, help, there's a crazy woman in the house, and she's coming towards me!"

 

[Emz73]

the duvet cover is light blue.
the duvet goes inside this.

the rings you refer to are one half of the poppers at the open end of the duvet cover - used for closing the open end of the duvet cover once the duvet is inside. two more poppers can be seen above the jeans...

You can't see the silver ring? I can see black poppers. Its probably my eyes. I found a better pic online but can't post it. Ignore me, I'll probably start seeing orbs next!

 

[G.bng]

The Judges live there themselves. I'm sure they know how dangerous the place is. Seven times the murder rate of the USA.

Police investigators steal your personal property while investigating the crime scene.

Allegations of cover-ups and framing.

All they have to believe is that it was reasonably possibly true that he believed the same thing they know to be true from their own experience.

BIB 1. - Yes, but the overwhelming majority of the deaths are among the black community, black on black, and according to SA statistics only 2% of home burglaries result in death, often that of the burglar.

BIB 2. - Don't know if you are in the US but I've heard there is a lot of police corruption there, so as we say in Spain, "En todas partes cuecen habas" (they cook beans everywhere)

BIB 2. - Ditto with number 2, except that in this case HTF could there be police framing if they didn't even know OP's "version"?

BIB 4. - I believe the same as Viper said to you a few posts backs... it just ain't so easy because even if he escapes the intention to murder a burglar, which he may imo, for CH reasonableness is objective and OP will, according to SA lawyers around, likely be judged on the basis of a "reasonable gun owner" and no reasonable gun owner shoots blind through a door without having seen what is inside... and OP has already demonstrated himself to know the law as of his gun competency test: "Know your target and what lies beyond"

 

[Paysee]

There's plenty in this world who do and would even if he came out tomorrow and admitted he knew he was shooting at Reeva.
You just know he will receive many marriage proposal's when he is in prison, those woman are so damn creepy.

Even Charles Manson gets marriage proposals. :scared:

 

[sleuth-d-]

It's not remotely a 'tired old thing'. It's key. It certainly suggests that until pressed by Nel Vermeulen had indeed come to the logical conclusion that there was a discreet set of strikes and a discreet set of shots. This is also of course the only hypothesis that fits neatly with the sound evidence. It's key.

yes.
i believe the order of the two sets is key.

look at what nel says about using the bat to scare...
it sounds to me as if nel is working on bat to scare [i.e. bat strikes first]

 

[molly333]

Ok, I am going through what pictures I can find, looking for the alleged, non existent arterial blood spatter all over the house, and I am having trouble finding pictures.

Do we have access to all the pictures introduced in court?

If I were the conspiratorial type, which I am not for purposes of this trial, I would say she was killed elsewhere and placed in the bathroom after the fact, and Dr. Stipp really did hear two sets of gunshots. [second set shot into the toilet door to make it look like she was killed in the bathroom]

There is almost no blood in the toilet or the bathroom to speak of--certainly not what you would expect for her extensive wounds.

I wonder if that house has a basement...

 

[liesbeth]

Who was on the scene first? Van Rensburg or Maluleka and Sebetha?

I saw someone mention this earlier and thought they might find this transcript interesting.

Background:

In the YT link below Roux is reading carefully selected excerpts from Sebetha- and Maluleka's reports in an attempt to discredit Van Rensburg's testimony that Van R. was the first officer on the scene

It is significant that Roux does not "put" much to Van Rensburg during the readings, but just asks him to comment on the snippets. Putting it to a witness means that it is part of the defense's case and will be argued later as a fact. Not putting it to Van R. means Roux is fishing. If he had any real evidence he would most definitely have been putting it to Van Rensburg. Van Rensburg, as a seasoned policeman, knows this and is visibly amused by Roux's attempts. You can hear him quietly laughing at 43:55.

At 51:00 in the link Col. van Rensburg says that after a discussion with Maluleka, Maluleka withdrew from the investigation because he agreed that Van Rensburg was the first officer on the scene.

At 51:29 this happens:

Van Rensburg: (talking about Maluleka) He was not there before me. Sebetha and...I can't remember the other constable's name now...they was not standing off there before me. I was the first vehicle, with Const. Prinsloo, standing off there.*
And, very easy, I don't know if the investigation do it, each police vehicle's got the AVL system. And on the AVL system it indicates the correct coordinates...when, time frames, a vehicle is moving where. So the court is more than happy can request that type of evidence.

Roux immediately changes the subject.


*Direct translation from Afrikaans to English. The reason Van Rensburg and other Afrikaans speakers chose to testify in English during the trial is because the translator sounds as if she's from Cape Town and her English- and Afrikaans accents are particular to that region and so difficult to understand.

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

 

[minor4th]

Sorry, I'm on a mission now and moving to have all evidence thrown out and a mistrial declared based on tainted, tampered, and missing evidence.



Until Minor4th rules against me.

Overruled. Sorry.

A mistrial is not going to be declared and no evidence is going to be thrown out. Since it's a bench trial, the judge can hear all the evidence and give it appropriate weight without being unduly prejudiced for or against the accused.

Basically no evidence is totally excluded in SA.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks for the link .

I haven't seen the photo of people in the bathroom window . Is it available anywhere and has it been discussed in the trial ? If it has I must have missed it

TIA

I don't know if anyone caught a screen shot of it when it was shown during Roux' cross examination of Van Staden.

Maybe Lisa knows?

If it doesn't turn up I can find it and take a screen shot

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks for the response. Re your first point I do think they will carry much weight so we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

Re the downplaying of OP's ability to accurately recall, he was ADAMANT that the duvet was on the bed. He had to be, or else how did he avoid becoming entangled in it when he ran out on to the balcony? So it was by no means a case of a hazy memory: he was arguing with Nel over these things. Ervery change he made was needed to make his version possible, That's possible, not probable. So if that's where the fan and duvet were when the investigators first walked in then OP and his 'version' is gone on those two little things alone. OP got visibly upset when being pressed on all this. I think he may have cried. So IMO calling them 'little things' underplays their threat to OP - he certainly seemed to realise how much they matter.

My thinking about the issues of the duvet, the fan etc. is that they are not that critical to the truth. They are little things in a relative sense. It's possible to step/run over a blanket. It's possible to shuffle a pair of jeans over unwittingly on your way by. It's possible to step or dart around a fan. It's possible and maybe even probable that the items were disturbed by Oscar or by the police, perhaps more than once. If Oscar's account is true I don't trust that he is really in the position to recall with certainty the position and trajectory of every thing in that room. The problem then becomes with how adamant he was on the stand with Gerrie Nel and how he was drawn into being very specific. And that may simply be a function of Oscar's personality, his frustration and fear level by that time, and of the general vulnerability of a first time defendant against a skilled prosecutor building an arbitrary narrative. It hurt Oscar's credibility more than it hurt his story, if that make sense.

 

[minor4th]

Who was on the scene first? Van Rensburg or Maluleka and Sebetha?

I saw someone mention this earlier and thought they might find this transcript interesting.

Background:

In the YT link below Roux is reading carefully selected excerpts from Sebetha- and Maluleka's reports in an attempt to discredit Van Rensburg's testimony that Van R. was the first officer on the scene

It is significant that Roux does not "put" much to Van Rensburg during the readings, but just asks him to comment on the snippets. Putting it to a witness means that it is part of the defense's case and will be argued later as a fact. Not putting it to Van R. means Roux is fishing. If he had any real evidence he would most definitely have been putting it to Van Rensburg. Van Rensburg, as a seasoned policeman, knows this and is visibly amused by Roux's attempts. You can hear him quietly laughing at 43:55.

At 51:00 in the link Col. van Rensburg says that after a discussion with Maluleka, Maluleka withdrew from the investigation because he agreed that Van Rensburg was the first officer on the scene.

At 51:29 this happens:

Van Rensburg: (talking about Maluleka) He was not there before me. Sebetha and...I can't remember the other constable's name now...they was not standing off there before me. I was the first vehicle, with Const. Prinsloo, standing off there.*
And, very easy, I don't know if the investigation do it, each police vehicle's got the AVL system. And on the AVL system it indicates the correct coordinates...when, time frames, a vehicle is moving where. So the court is more than happy can request that type of evidence.

Roux immediately changes the subject.


*Direct translation from Afrikaans to English. The reason Van Rensburg and other Afrikaans speakers chose to testify in English during the trial is because he translator sounds as if she's from Cape Town and her English- and Afrikaans accents are particular to that region and so difficult to understand.

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

Very confusing

 

[molly333]

Overruled. Sorry.

A mistrial is not going to be declared and no evidence is going to be thrown out. Since it's a bench trial, the judge can hear all the evidence and give it appropriate weight without being unduly prejudiced for or against the accused.

Basically no evidence is totally excluded in SA.

What? How about on appeal?

What would happen if the situation was similar in the US?

How would you view this handling of evidence if you were the Judge?

 

[steveml]

surely this pic is after the police/photo dude spread it out for more photos, no?

if not.....what the h....e.....double toothpicks was that spread out for???

Nope,

Here's an attached pic of the duvet spread out.

The duvet does not appear to be in a natural position in the previous pic. Whether this is beneficial to PT or DT makes no difference to me.

Link

 

[Emz73]

Ok, I am going through what pictures I can find, looking for the alleged, non existent arterial blood spatter all over the house, and I am having trouble finding pictures.

Do we have access to all the pictures introduced in court?

If I were the conspiratorial type, which I am not for purposes of this trial, I would say she was killed elsewhere and placed in the bathroom after the fact, and Dr. Stipp really did hear two sets of gunshots. [second set shot into the toilet door to make it look like she was killed in the bathroom]

There is almost no blood in the toilet or the bathroom to speak of--certainly not what you would expect for her extensive wounds.

I wonder if that house has a basement...

Molly there was a whole discussion yesterday that said, there wasn't a lot of blood because she died instantly.
Why on earth would he pretend to kill her in the toilet if he killed her in a basement!
There is no secret pools of blood! This is so simple

He scares her by hitting the door with a bat
She screams blue murder
He shoots 4 times
He prises open the door through bullet hole d with bat and hands.


I said I wouldn't....

 

[Emz73]

Nope,

Here's an attached pic of the duvet spread out.

The duvet does not appear to be in a natural position on the previous pic. Whether this is beneficial to PT or DT makes no difference to me.

They've opened it to take pics. First one is how it was with the jeans on top.

 

[steveml]

They've opened it to take pics. First one is how it was with the jeans on top.

That's correct.

 

[G.bng]

Yeah. You hire security and the security people break into your house.

Forgive me if I wouldn't feel safe one day in that place.

Don't know where you live but if it's that land of the free where you can be shot with impunity simply for asking the way to a Halloween party, and that's when your not being massacred in a school, mall, or on a military base yet another nutter with freely available guns, or when you're not falling victim to some serial killer like Ted Bundy, or where your neighbour can shoot 2 trespassers running away in the back simultaneously informing the police on the phone of what they are going to do and then have a grand jury let you walk... sorry, but I think I may well chose SA!