Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[Nausicaa]

I've invented nothing, and I'm not the one bending anything to fit a hypothesis. There is no reason to get angry because I'm not willing to consider speculation that has not even been alleged by the State, is not supported by any evidence, and is not the state's case.

Not one witness testified that they heard two separate cries for help from Oscar. So, yes, I do reject that Oscar yelled "help, help, help" before 3:17 and again after 3:17. That's why I say my opinion is based on the evidence we have actually heard and seen - and not some alternative theory that I have made up to fit a preconceived notion. Again, that's the evidence, and that is what I'm basing my opinion and discussion on.

We have five witnesses who heard Oscar yelling "help, help, help" before the final bangs at 3:17 - Burger, Johnson, Mrs Stipp, Carice Stander, and Mrs N. Dr Stipp is the only one who said the "help, help, help" was after the last sounds at 3:17 - he did not say he heard those yells both before and after the 3:17 bangs. To me this indicates that Dr Stipp was simply mistaken about the timing of those yells since it is contrary to what 5 other witnesses heard.

If Nel is now going to argue that the "help, help, help" was after the 3:17 bangs, then it goes against 3 of his own witnesses who heard it before 3:17.

<modsnip>

In the latest you surpass yourself. You say:

Not one witness testified that they heard two separate cries for help from Oscar. So, yes, I do reject that Oscar yelled "help, help, help" before 3:17 and again after 3:17.

I.e. you reject what no one has claimed or suggested - that Oscar called for help twice.

Let's try again very slowly...in chronological order.

1. First set of bangs.
2. Reeva utters bloodcurdling screams and cries for help.
3. Second set of bangs.
4. Oscar yells and cries for help.

I am not asking you to accept that this is what happened. I am just pointing out that it is physically possible and maximizes the credence we can extend to all witnesses.

You have specifically stated that you believe that some of Dr Stipp's testimony is factually erroneous. You have also claimed that interpreting Mrs N's bang as belonging to the second set contradicts prosecution witnesses. You have also repeatedly stated (though not recently) that if a scream was heard after bangs this proves that Reeva did not scream before being shot.

All of these theories of yours are based on the assumption that witnesses recounting approximately similar events (bangs, cries) must all be recounting the same events even if we have to make major adjustments to their timelines and details (number of bangs) to harmonize them.

I have no abjection to your finding that the most credible interpretation. But I do object to pretending that it is not an interpretation at all. And I do object to your erroneous claim that there is no scenario capable of reconciling the substance of all witness statements and leaving intact the testimony of Dr Stipp who is by far the most credible witness on the spot, possessing all relevant competence and the only person who stayed calm, acted by the book and clearly has no axe to grind.

 

[liesbeth]

I am not quite following you. They discussed it in public - they referenced the last numbers of the callers' phone numbers rather than reading out the whole phone number, if that's what you mean.

Yes, we are going by the testimony we heard in court about the times of the calls. But there was no disagreement about what the records showed.

I'll try to explain.

During Mrs Nhlenghetwa's cross Nel puts it to her that, based on Dr Stipp's evidence, it was the last set of bangs that woke her. Roux keeps objecting. He says it cannot be put because they have the 03:16 call. But then Nel tells him the call can be argued and Roux immediately stops objecting and sits down.

This puzzled me. Stipp's call was at 03:15:51 and it is a fact. So how could Nel argue a fact? And why would Roux accept that this can be argued?

I found my answer during Roux's cross of Baba.

During Baba's cross examination Roux tells Baba that Stipp's 03:15:51 (16 seconds) call must have been the call that went through to security. So I accepted the time of the call as a fact. Which it was because it was not disputed by Nel.

My mistake was that I also accepted Roux's opinion that this "must have been" the call that went through to security as a fact. Nel can not object to an opinion. But he can argue it later.

Remember that Dr. Stipp said he'd made more than one call to security before he heard the final set of sounds? So there is at least one call in the records that is a mystery to us.

I've used the time of Stipp's call in my timeline. But I'm no longer sure of the time. Because I can no longer assume that Stipp's call at 03:15:15 was the one that went through to Baba. Could there have been an earlier call?

Let us look at what Mrs Stipp said. She looks at her clock and sees 03:17 (but the clock is about 3-4 min fast) then she hears shots. So she puts the final shots at between 03:13 or 03:14. So an earlier call by Dr Stipp fits this scenario.

And this also means that Mr Nhlengethwa's call at 03:16 was about two minutes AFTER the last shots. Which also fits.

Edit: I mentioned in my other post that the phone records (exhibits Q, R and T) were not made public. So, as far as calls and times are concerned, we (the public) only have what was said in court.

Edit 2: And the Burgers did not phone Silverwoods security. So we don't have their phone records. So it is very possible that the time on their cellphone was incorrect. Like the Stipp's alarm clock. And Motha's camera.

I hope this helps?

 

[Cymbaline]

Frank Chiziweni

http://abcnews.go.com/International/pistorius-housekeeper-inside-home-shooting/story?id=23602899

 

[ColonelMustard]

bbm~

Really???? Your best friend is rubbing off on you I think!

DEFINTELY!!! That's the FIRST thing she would have noticed and I can't say, in this case, that she wouldn't be wrong. Maybe not "right," but definitely not wrong.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I've only seen the Italian dance show. Is there a video of the SA one?

I think so but I couldn't tell you where. I haven't seen it, only a still pic of him and his partner dancing in the fancy garb.

 

[jay-jay]

Wrong I think - the way I see it is the people who testified today heard Pistorius crying, wailing whatever AFTER Reeva Steenkamp was dead or dying. They said it was definitely a man. The state witnesses, who were awake BEFORE any of today's, claim to have heard both RS and OP - her before the shooting, him after. That's why most of the commentators (bar Kelly Phelps) are saying Nel spent little time on them because everything they heard was after the fact so he isn't really concerned with their testimony.

Agreed. There seemed to me to have been some quite deliberate muddying of the waters going on with all that yesterday.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I've only seen the Italian dance show. Is there a video of the SA one?

I think I was wrong to assume it was SA. Probably was the Italian one but my point should still hold.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Well, therein lies the force of subjective interpretation - it sounded "blood curdling" to me. What exactly is the definition of blood curdling anyway?

Yes, I agree that it was partly for the purpose of hearing a high pitched scream, but I think it was also intended to give the judge an idea of just what was meant by "loud crying" - those demonstrations by the witnesses were informative IMO because those sounds could definitely be described as wails or screams or "crying out." It was definitely not just ordinary "crying."

Of course Roux is not going to ask the state's witnesses to demonstrate a scream or cry - Nel could have asked if he wanted to get it on the record what the screams sounded like to his witnesses.

I don't think the judge "saw through it" because what is there to see through? Nothing IMO - they were not pretending to scream just like Oscar. They were describing (in their own voices) what it sounded like.

The biggest omission of course was Roux not asking Oscar to scream. I wonder why not. The answer seems fairly obvious to me. If he was going to ask the two women to scream the "audience" would soon appreciate the difference between a male and a female.

 

[Estelle]

What about Frank? Maybe Frank is like The Wolf in Pulp Fiction.



Nel: Thank-you my lady. There is still 2 issues that I have to deal with.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:53 AM

Nel: Do you know if the accused house is fitted with an alarm?
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:53 AM

Stander: Yes, twice. When he would ask me to look after the house, he would give me the remote to activate and deactivate.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:54 AM

Nel: You said that the deceased stayed at his house for a period of time?
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:54 AM

Stander: That is correct.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:54 AM

Nel: December 2012.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:54 AM

Nel: And that was also, you also met the deceased in December 2012 and she stayed alone at the house for what period?
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:55 AM

Stander: I don't know the exact period, could have been a week. I think.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 1:55 AM

So why didn't Frank look after the dogs while OP was away?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Opened the curtains, opened the doors with cocked gun in one hand, and shouted from the balcony for help.

Actually, he fought Nel on that characterization. He said that didn't "open" the curtains, he "parted" them.

 

[liesbeth]

I think it proves that the witnesses who thought they heard a woman screaming - actually heard Oscar wailing, loud crying, or whatever you want to call it.

Those witnesses were sure they heard a woman screaming. Then gunshots. These witnesses are sure they heard a man crying. Then security arrived.

Two different events, no? So how does one prove the other?

 

[jay-jay]

Oh yeah, totally. I'd have loads more respect for her too if she didn't bother reporting that a man on trial for killing her friend was speaking to her in a sinister tone, that was unwelcome, and that left her extremely disturbed. :facepalm:

She's not the one on trial. And the fact that defendants are advised not to speak to prosecution witnesses, so they can't be accused of witness intimidation, doesn't apply? It really is this idea, that people who are victimised should simply 'buck up' and take one on the chin, that allows abuse to propagate. From domestic violence cases to schoolyard bullies...no one who feels intimidated or threatened by another human being should be criticized for speaking out against it or for not tolerating such behaviour - especially when done by someone accused of murder!

:goodpost: Well said, couldn't agree more.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Unexplained holes in bedroom door... Unexplained holes in reevas back unexplained housekeepers silence
Hmmm explain yourself Oscar....

I may add:

... unexplained damages all around the home
... unexplained survive (RS) for min. 20 minutes
... unexplained missing calls re. rescue
... unexplained disappearing of safe content
... unexplained disappearing of white shirt
... unexplained disappearing of phone
... unexplained disappearing of bag
... explained disappearing of a watch
... unexplained consumerist of alcohol
... unexplained consumerist of drugs
... unexplained spending hours between 10pm and 3am
... unexplained everything important to know

 

[james83]

I'll try to explain.

During Mrs Nhlenghetwa's cross Nel puts it to her that, based on Dr Stipp's evidence, it was the last set of bangs that woke her. Roux keeps objecting. He says it cannot be put because they have the 03:16 call. But then Nel tells him the call can be argued and Roux immediately stops objecting and sits down.

This puzzled me. Stipp's call was at 03:15:51 and it is a fact. So how could Nel argue a fact? And why would Roux accept that this can be argued?

I found my answer during Roux's cross of Baba.

During Baba's cross examination Roux tells Baba that Stipp's 03:15:51 (16 seconds) call must have been the call that went through to security.

So I accepted the time of the call as a fact. Which it was because it was not disputed by Nel.

My mistake was that I also accepted Roux's opinion that this "must have been" the call that went through to security as a fact. Nel can not object to an opinion. But he can argue it later.

Remember that Dr. Stipp said he'd made more than one call to security before he heard the final set of sounds? So there is at least one missing call.

I've used the time of Stipp's call in my timeline. But I'm no longer sure of the time. Because I can no longer assume that Stipp's call at 03:51:15 was the one that went through to Baba. Could there have been an earlier call?

Let us look at what Mrs Stipp said. She looks at her clock and sees 03:17 (but the clock is about 3-4 min fast) then she hears shots. So she puts the final shots at between 03:13 or 03:14. So an earlier call by Dr Stipp fits this scenario.

And this also means that Mr Nhlengethwa's call at 03:16 was about two minutes AFTER the last shots. Which also fits.

Edit: I mentioned in my other post that the phone records (exhibits Q, R and T) were not made public. So, as far as calls and times are concerned, we (the public) only have what was said in court.

I hope this helps?

I think you are right looking at the transcript.

Stander: I went back inside and phoned security. There was no answer and it rang for a long time. I then dialled 10111, It sounded like it was out of order. It gave a funny message. While I was on the phone, I heard more shooting. I told my wife to get down.

Nel: Why?

Stander: Because there was shooting and I was scared it would come our way.

Nel: What then? by Sky News court reporter March 6 at 10:25 AM

Stander: I then got hold of the security and they said they would send some-one. I was walking around when I heard a man's voice screaming three times, HELP, HELP, HELP. The security arrived and I told them that I heard gunshots.


Appears that Stipp heard the 2nd set of shots whilst trying to get through the first time and not when he did get through at 3:15:51

 

[james83]

So why didn't Frank look after the dogs while OP was away?

He appears to be deaf and blind, i wouldn't want him looking after my dog either to be fair.

 

[Cherwell]

Not so. After Roux made it clear we were standing in the street, he said "if you face Mr. Pistorius's house, is your house on the left, or to the right?" And then we proceeded to John Cleese and Michael Palin.

OK, fair enough, but that's not what was quoted in the post.

 

[Budgie]

Here we have OP saying he was a vulnerable, disabled guy, trapped in his bedroom. But there was actually a male employee right downstairs. Surprises the heck out of me that he didn't call Frank's cell and warn him about the intruders, and ask for some back up.

And why would OP call an old man who lived blocks away, for help lifting Reeva? He had Frank, his man servant, already on the premises. That blows my mind that Nel hasn't questioned the DT about that.

It really is odd and there is more to it than we have heard yet. imo

Wouldn't Frank be the perfect witness for Roux to dispel the rumors that OP and RS were arguing loudly that night? Why wasn't he put up there to debunk that?

Even if Frank did say he didn't hear anything, which has been reported; several ear witnesses who didn't hear gun shots and who arrived at Oscar's home after the event have given their account on the stand.

This "I see nothing" Sargent (Frank) Schultz was present the entire time, albeit, supposedly asleep. Even if he wasn't there, he could possibly testify as to what Reeva and Oscar were like at home behind closed doors in the days/weeks leading up to the murder v. unintentional and now purported by Oscar, accidental killing of Miss Steenkamp . He did after all have a room off the kitchen.

This case is bizarre. Gripping yet bizarre.

 

[Cymbaline]

He appears to be deaf and blind, i wouldn't want him looking after my dog either to be fair.

Barry Bateman tweeted this.

#OscarTrial The sum of Frank Chiziweni’s statement to the police was - I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I know nothing. BB



Frank was outside with security when the Standers arrived. I guess he woke up and went outside for no reason.

JMO

 

[liesbeth]

I think you are right looking at the transcript.

Stipp: I went back inside and phoned security. There was no answer and it rang for a long time. I then dialled 10111, It sounded like it was out of order. It gave a funny message. While I was on the phone, I heard more shooting. I told my wife to get down.

Nel: Why?

Stipp: Because there was shooting and I was scared it would come our way.

Nel: What then? by Sky News court reporter March 6 at 10:25 AM

Stipp: I then got hold of the security and they said they would send some-one. I was walking around when I heard a man's voice screaming three times, HELP, HELP, HELP. The security arrived and I told them that I heard gunshots.


Appears that Stipp heard the 2nd set of shots whilst trying to get through the first time and not when he did get through at 3:15:51

I keep confusing Botha and Dixon. I think you got your Standers and Stipps mixed up, but I fixed that for you.

Thank you so much for this. I was about to go back and listen to Stipp's evidence again. You saved me a lot of time. Thanks again.

 

[james83]

Barry Bateman tweeted this.

#OscarTrial The sum of Frank Chiziweni’s statement to the police was - I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I know nothing. BB



Frank was outside with security when the Standers arrived. I guess he woke up and went outside for no reason.

JMO

Lol yeah ,he was just going for his usual 3.20am walk and wondered out into all that chaos that was going on.
It stinks to high heaven this Frank business, at the very least i want to know how he came to be outside at that time, who or what woke him?.