Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[sleuth-d-]

So what does bug us?

I have a problem with the missing telephone and who took it.

i believe nel does too, it is one of the few things post-shooting that he has questioned about repeatedly.

[i have a problem with the netcare call made by op, amongst other things]

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Re the 2nd BIB -I am with you there. Thankfully the public won't get a say in this. If there had been a trial by jury as in the UK, there would have been the chance that the Standers may have scored a few points.

Funnily enough, much of the Stander's testimony was met with quite a bit of scorn here in SA.

The various tweets doing the rounds (and many were shown on the Oscar Channel 199 on our DSTV) were less than complimentary.

Most people found their testimony 'basically honest' yet supremely blown up with lots of hot air from the Oscar PR machine's pump.

Because their evidence did nothing to damage the PT's case, and very little to bolster the DT's - most felt it was a PR driven moment in the trial.

Much embellishing, with a huge dollop of tailoring and sympathy for Oscar's cause; nothing more than character witnesses for the DT - yet more than a few points scored for the PT I reckon?

Most in SA felt they were over the top sugary and therefore not as credible as they might have been had they stuck to the facts..............and ignored the 'poor Oscar' angle.

Of course there are the 'believers' who sobbed with the Standers...........(then again these are folk who believe Oscar managed to open and kick doors whilst brandishing a firearm in the dark etc etc etc etc)

 

[Interested Bystander]

i believe nel does too, it is one of the few things post-shooting that he has questioned about repeatedly.

[i have a problem with the netcare call made by op, amongst other things]

Yes the Netcare call is interesting. 60 seconds in length. It is possible he did not say anything but registered the call as part of his defence.

 

[Nausicaa]

I can't see how Mrs N could've heard OP shouting 'help, help, help' from his balcony and yet not hear the second set of bangs .. that doesn't make any sense to me (virtually all witnesses, including the accused himself, have said there were bangs after the 'help, help, help' whether they be cricket bat or gun shots)

Mrs N and Dr Stipp seem to agree that there was a triple cry of "Help!" after the final bangs. I see no reason to discount this evidence. It is not in direct conflict with evidence that there were cries of "Help!" before those final bangs .

 

[DebinGA]

BINGO. Going to add it to the list: .

Roux said that the defense would present evidence PROVING that :

1. RS never screamed because the headshot was the first shot

2. OP sounds just like a woman when he screams, and the screams the 5 witnesses heard were actually OP screaming

3. The sounds of the cricket bat are indistinguishable from the sounds of gunshots

4. Something about double taps...[he gave up on that already]

5. The police tampered with the photos and the crime scene

Any other promises he has left to prove before Tuesday?

That OP felt extremely vulnerable when he heard "the noise", because of his disability (legless at the time) and because of his personal history as a crime victim.

 

[44ALLAN]

I have to admit I'd like to know just who and what the two officers that were first on scene were doing... re Ms.Stander's testimony, I believe that was the thrust of that for the DT, the character buildup was just a bonus. However, there was that matter of her and OP's sister stealing RS's handbag from the crime scene...

and

then she had the audacity to say they wanted to keep it safe for Reevas mum !
Yeah rite !!

What about Reevas clothes and car etc? They didn't take them so why the bag?
That bag left the scene with more than a purse and some lipstick in it IMO

 

[DebinGA]

Yes the Netcare call is interesting. 60 seconds in length. It is possible he did not say anything but registered the call as part of his defence.

I think OP called Netcare and just cried what he considered a reasonable length of time and hung up, as he did with Mr. Baba the second time.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Funnily enough, much of the Stander's testimony was met with quite a bit of scorn here in SA.

The various tweets doing the rounds (and many were shown on the Oscar Channel 199 on our DSTV) were less than complimentary.

Most people found their testimony 'basically honest' yet supremely blown up with lots of hot air from the Oscar PR machine's pump.

Because their evidence did nothing to damage the PT's case, and very little to bolster the DT's - most felt it was a PR driven moment in the trial.

Much embellishing, with a huge dollop of tailoring and sympathy for Oscar's cause; nothing more than character witnesses for the DT - yet more than a few points scored for the PT I reckon?

Most in SA felt they were over the top sugary and therefore not as credible as they might have been had they stuck to the facts..............and ignored the 'poor Oscar' angle.

Of course there are the 'believers' who sobbed with the Standers...........(then again these are folk who believe Oscar managed to open and kick doors whilst brandishing a firearm in the dark etc etc etc etc)

BIB

That was what I thought may have swayed some weak jury members. In my experience juries tend include all levels of intelligence, even some people who believe in Astrology, which to me means they will believe anything! It would only take one or two to make a nonsense of the jury's decision.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

sounds to me like the actions of the narcissist. his main part in the trial is now over, and he is incapable of just sitting politely and being sidelined.

i would also imagine he is seething, watching his star witnesses take the stand [or not] one-by-one and doing nothing to help him.

it wouldn't surprise me if there were further, more petulant outbursts as he gets more frustrated.

I'm also certain that Barry and his minion Oldwage would have explained to Oscar that things aren't exactly going as planned.....

Oscar won't like this, and you are correct, I expect a few more outbursts - 'exposure of true self' moments ahead.

This is why his sister prays hypnotically in court, she is almost willing him/begging him/pleading with him to remain calm and not 'blow up'. She and Carl have spent their lives 'calming' poor Oscar I would imagine - and their work is far from done......

 

[Nausicaa]

That there is absolutely no proof she heard Reeva and Oscar arguing.

And in the same way there is no proof that any of the sounds heard by any of the ear-witnesses were made by either OP or Reeva.
But in the absence of any credible alternative explanations I think the obvious conclusion is highly likely to be drawn.
I imagine the defence budget would have stretched to making a very thorough search indeed for any couples within a few miles of the crimescene prepared to admit to having had an argument that night.

 

[BritsKate]

Does this help clarify:

"Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide."

http://criminallawza.net/

Despite this being posted many times, some are concluding that the judge has absolute latitude and while such a disability has never been considered before, it will be now. (In my interpretation of SA law, on the whole, it doesn't allow much room for mitigating factors.)

Just warning you ahead of time. :biggrin:

 

[Viper]

i believe nel does too, it is one of the few things post-shooting that he has questioned about repeatedly.

[i have a problem with the netcare call made by op, amongst other things]

Re Netcare, OP keeps saying the same thing about that call so I don't see a recording or an operator coming forward to directly refute what he and Roux keep telling the court.

The call lasted 66 seconds and that is a long conversation for OP on that night. I believe this much is possible: If OP were to call Netcare and he already had it in his mind that he was going to drive Reeva to the hospital, he could argue with the operator for 66 seconds very easily and get them so flabbergasted that they would, just to stop his yelling and screaming at them, finally release him at some point so that he could do whatever he was demanding that he was going to do with or without their consent.

Remember the reports of an Olympic roommate that had to move out of the room he was sharing with OP because OP was always yelling at people over the phone?

Just a theory. But plausible.

 

[DebinGA]

Is it just me or does OP look like he is aging rather rapidly. LOL!

I bet the actor who gave OP lessons knows a lot about stage makeup too. OP seems to have requested the "broken man" look.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Respectfully, nonsense. He was an amputee before he murdered. There are literally thousands of criminals that are amputees that are serving their sentences in prison right now. Just being an amputee is not a "get out of jail free card."

But he was as you say "vulnerable" or he felt that way and that is truly something unique, special if you will. Yup, he's going to get away with murder because he felt "vulnerable." I follow you there. LOL!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

BIB

That was what I thought may have swayed some weak jury members. In my experience juries tend include all levels of intelligence, even some people who believe in Astrology, which to me means they will believe anything! It would only take one or two to make a nonsense of the jury's decision.

No mistake. He has many supporters who refuse to concede even the most obvious frailties in his 'version', and these people are driven by emotion IMHO, not by reality.

A UCT (University of Cape Town) senior lecturer in public law, Kelly Phelps, is one of these 'believers' - and this is an educated soul (allegedly). She is a fan girl DELUX and seemingly oblivious. (She believes Dixon kicked butt on the stand - when every other legal professional in South Africa is still laughing at what transpired) All education and common sense is shoveled aside when high emotion comes knocking.

Some folk are unable to separate emotion from the matters at hand.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

and

then she had the audacity to say they wanted to keep it safe for Reevas mum !
Yeah rite !!

What about Reevas clothes and car etc? They didn't take them so why the bag?
That bag left the scene with more than a purse and some lipstick in it IMO

I believe 'sister' Pistorious was called whilst she was in the car, and told to go back and fetch Reeva's handbag.

No-one will convince me otherwise. As to what was in there, it could have been one of many things - including the 'phone' and any other damaging evidence.

 

[katydid23]

That OP felt extremely vulnerable when he heard "the noise", because of his disability (legless at the time) and because of his personal history as a crime victim.

Thanks---Going to add it to the list: .

Roux said that the defense would present evidence PROVING that :

1. RS never screamed because the headshot was the first shot

2. OP sounds just like a woman when he screams, and the screams the 5 witnesses heard were actually OP screaming

3. The sounds of the cricket bat are indistinguishable from the sounds of gunshots

4. Something about double taps...[he gave up on that already]

5. The police tampered with the photos and the crime scene

6. OP felt extremely vulnerable because of his disability and because of his personal history as a crime victim

Any other promises he has left to prove before Tuesday?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Thank you all 1000 x for providing infos to me, I didn't find on twitter!!!

:loveyou:

To what I have a problem, is Reeva's handbag: OP went upstairs to get her ID, returned with ID for the paramedics, but apparently also with the bag (?), which he never ever had "scanned" - promise! -, layed the bag on the kitchen counter (?) and later Ms Stander and Aimee took the handbag with them to "save the personal belongings for Reeva's mother".
Hence not only the phone has disappeared from crime scene, but also the bag.
I wonder .....

 

[thewagesofsin]

BINGO. Going to add it to the list: .

Roux said that the defense would present evidence PROVING that :

1. RS never screamed because the headshot was the first shot

2. OP sounds just like a woman when he screams, and the screams the 5 witnesses heard were actually OP screaming

3. The sounds of the cricket bat are indistinguishable from the sounds of gunshots

4. Something about double taps...[he gave up on that already]

5. The police tampered with the photos and the crime scene

Any other promises he has left to prove before Tuesday?

Nothing was promised but the minute book logging the break-in and binding of the woman Stander was talking about would be helpful. You'd think both attorneys would be all over that.

 

[soozieqtips]

Thank you all 1000 x for providing infos to me, I didn't find on twitter!!!

:loveyou:

To what I have a problem, is Reeva's handbag: OP went upstairs to get her ID, returned with ID for the paramedics, but apparently also with the bag (?), which he never ever had "scanned" - promise! -, layed the bag on the kitchen counter (?) and later Ms Stander and Aimee took the handbag with them to "save the personal belongings for Reeva's mother".
Hence not only the phone has disappeared from crime scene, but also the bag.

BBM - I'd like to know what right non-family members thought they had to remove Reeva's private and personal belongings from the scene instead of handing them straight over to the police. They should be charged with crime interference. How dare they take Reeva's bag when she had just been murdered and the whole place was a crime scene. Nothing should have been taken without the express permission and acknowledgement of a senior police officer - and even then, why on earth would a police officer say 'No problem. Of course you can take the deceased's bag'??