Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[james83]

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.

No worries.
Didn't notice that said Stander, that is a sky news transcript that i copied and pasted so i'm blaming them.

 

[liesbeth]

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

Bateman spoke to John Webb from the Oscar Trial 199 TV channel the day before yesterday. I have it on PVR.

Bateman told Webb that a reliable source had said that Frank did have something to offer at one time, but suddenly Frank clammed up and said he knows nothing.

Frankly I don't believe him. (no pun intended)

 

[44ALLAN]

I heard them both and wouldn't agree they were 'blood curdling' wails though I wouldn't want to hear such sounds in the middle of the night. I just don't see how two female witnesses for the defence demonstrating what they heard proves ANYTHING about the noises Pistorius may or may not have made. Now had the chap given a loud drawn out wail that might have been different but he didn't, only the two women did.

I find this dilemma (for want of a better word) quite easy to bypass in the big scheme of things.
It's quite simple in my mind.

OP is facing life in prison.
If he knows it was him screaming and sounding like a woman he would be doing it in court in full view of the judge,the cameras and the millions watching worldwide to prove that it was him all the ear witnesses heard.
The very fact he isn't says it all.

 

[james83]

Bateman spoke to John Webb from the Oscar Trial 199 TV channel the day before yesterday. I have it on PVR.

Bateman told Webb that a reliable source had said that Frank did have something to offer at one time, but suddenly Frank clammed up said he knows nothing.

Frankly I don't believe him.

I can't help but think that Frank was potentially the smoking gun :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[christee]

Jumping into the fray to make my 1st OP post on, of all people, the mysterious Frank. If he happens to sleep as soundly as my son he could legitimately say he heard nothing but I don't think this is the case.
My DS used to lock his BR door while he slept. For some reason (can't remember why) we tried to wake him up. He slept through our yelling his name and pounding on his door and finally DH had to take the door off the hinges.

 

[james83]

Jumping into the fray to make my 1st OP post on, of all people, the mysterious Frank. If he happens to sleep as soundly as my son he could legitimately say he heard nothing but I don't think this is the case.
My DS used to lock his BR door while he slept. For some reason (can't remember why) we tried to wake him up. He slept through our yelling his name and pounding on his door and finally DH had to take the door off the hinges.

Welcome.
You have to remember that Frank was outside talking to security at around 3:22-3:24am, so something or someone 100% woke him up.

 

[Trooper]

I think we can forget Frank.. no doubt he is currently on a dhow in the Mozambique Channel calling himself Mboya Mgoner. A man who says he heard nothing , knows nothing, saw nothing, isn't coming back.

 

[liesbeth]

Minor is a male and a verified attorney. I have been posting with him on several other cases here at WS. We don't often agree but I have great respect for him.

Thank you, katydid23. I feel exactly the same.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

I don't really think there is any way this can be considered actual proof. The most you could say is that it is your opinion there is a possibility that the witnesses were hearing Oscar rather than Reeva.

 

[crasshopper]

Mr Fossil, I think you're under an illusion about how long Reeva survived. I have bolded the relevant part in two of your recent posts:


I know the forensics man referred to arterial spurts, but the word "spurt" was a clear mistake for "spatter". We have now had pretty good pics of the blood marks in question and none of them shows spurting arterial blood pattern.We also have pathologist Saayman's statement that vital functions would have ceased almost immediately upon the masssive brain injury and Dr Stipp's evidence that Reeva's eyes were already veiled when he examined her. There was a long and sometimes lively dispute about this between Viper and the other medics but Viper's view cannot seriously be challenged now that we can examine the pics ourselves and we have had Stipp's evidence.
<snipped>

I hate to revisit this debate but I respectfully completely disagree.

Personally I will not dispute the PT's expert on blood spatters findings until another expert with compelling evidence testifies.
Odd that one would accept a googled image of gross arterial gush/spurt and make a determination that the spatter in question is not arterial.

Just because a pea sized lump in the breast doesn't look like or feel like the large exophytic tumors depicted extensively in old medical books (and current ones as examples of advanced disease, now much less common) at first glance or exam, doesn't mean it's not cancer. Sophisticated histology and staining answer/determine that. From what I read arterial spatter would lack the pathognomonic "tails" of cast off, the only other option, even though cast off can result in an arc.

Do provide a link if possible to a report of Dr. Saayman's statement that "vital functions would have ceased." I would be surprised if he used that language.

Often a physician's expert testimony is simplified to minimize confusion by lay people, to emphasize the main points. IMO Dr. Saayman wanted to emphasize that the GSW to the brain was last. This together with the bullet trajectories decimates the DT contention that the GSW to the head was first and Reeva never uttered a whimper, much less screamed while going down. Dr. Saymaan's testimony does not preclude the heart beating weakly or erratically for a few minutes.

I doubt Nel would elicit what could appear to be 'contradictory' testimony from his experts without having a purpose. Roux would also have exploited this to discredit Saayman or the blood spatter expert to weaken/discredit their testimony IF it could possibly do that.

Mrs Stipp's testimony also supports screams& gunshots last -> ending the screaming; all of which support premeditated murder.

No one who believes OP to be guilty believes OP was carrying a 'dying' Reeva to save her or get real help, she was already dead. He was reacting to the enormity and finality of what he'd just done. The bargaining with God was to save himself. The remorse and stories the "but I didn't mean it/I didn't really do it" of someone who's really, really caught.

So self centered, his 'version' came first with every contact that morning "I thought she was an intruder" .... well I put to everyone that a reasonable person who just accidentally shot a loved one would be screaming to 911 'get here now' or 'Reeva needs help,' 'I need some help for Reeva' throwing in I shot her but it was an accident in there at some point, but NOT making it the primary focus.

:cow:



Also unclear about the use of the term 'medics', it can be broad.

 

[wb180]

Man, if the news articles are to be believed, Frank lives in his own quarters next to the kitchen!

This really changes the whole dynamic of OP's story to me!

Articles are saying he was asleep through the whole ordeal (i.e. during 1.5 hours where there were male/female screaming, gunshots, cricket bats as loud as gunshots, OP crying, etc). He would have been the perfect witness for OP...

 

[Bazinga]

^^^^This. I think expert witnesses are trying to distance themselves from this circus. I know it was reported that the forensic pathologist (Perumal, I think) will not be testifying. Of course, the DT put their own spin on this, and said it was a scheduling conflict. Hmmm.

I agree, I'd be jumping ship too after Mr Dixon's utter shellacking! But I also wonder if this is one of the problems with a televised trial. A big cost to all witnesses. I'd say for most of the expert witnesses the cost (exposure, loss of privacy and possible ridicule, risk to reputation, accusations of lying) is not worth the fee for service. I also really feel for the PT witnesses with the loss of privacy and anonymity. Testifying means a life changed. Forever on the internet linked to this trial.
Confusing for me as I'm interested in the trial but I perhaps think justice is better served if it's not televised.
These thoughts are probably sacrilege for a websleuther!!! :scared:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Overnight I have been giving thought to why the witness testimony sometimes seems confusing to me when put together with other witnesses that I feel are honest and upstanding people .
I then remembered a UK programme that i watched as a child called "the generation game "
To win prizes people would have to watch general household items go past on a conveyor belt afterwards they would be allowed to keep all the items they could remember.
Often people would remember the first 3 or 4 items in the exact order that they had been shown and would then take time to remember the other items in no particular order.
Then there were other people that would as they were watching the items pick out the items that they liked and wanted so would remember those first .
Thinking of this game and the witness testimony has helped me to see things a little more clearly so I am now less doubtful of someone's testimony if an odd thing is out of cinque .
So if someone's says they heard help help help before gun shots but everyone else heard it after the gunshots it still means I can take their testimony as a whole and not discount it out of hand because of one small thing .
Also the same applies with Mrs Stipp's and the figure at the window IMO

 

[liesbeth]

Thank you so much for clearing that up. I was wondering if it was used as a title of respect for an older gentleman - as I know of other communities that use "uncle" in this way. That fits with Stander acting as a "mentor" in some respects with Oscar. That is the impression I get from Stander's testimony.

I think Stander is a loyal friend. And a good father. A good man. If I'm ever in trouble I'd like to have someone like him at my back.

I just think his loyalty is perhaps misplaced. And that it could possibly come back and hurt him at sometime in the future.

 

[Cymbaline]

I'll tell you another thing. Whether I read it here, read it somewhere else, heard it myself in his testimony, or had a dream about it, I THINK OP said at one point that he "kneeled down." It was hard for me to follow all of his goings this way and that along the passage, along the wall, along wherever. But I picture it in my mind that he was close the edge of where one wall is opening into another space. He kneeled and paused before making his next move.

For me, that raised the question of his legs. Can he kneel from his stumps? Can he kneel from his legs? Why would he leave his legs on RS side of the bed unless he wanted to make an excuse for why he didn't slip them on right away - IF indeed he wasn't wearing them. If not, why say "kneel" unless it's just a figure of speech like a blind person saying, "I saw that."

Is this what you're looking for?


Nel: Then you got to the entrance of the bathroom and you kept quiet?
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:27 AM

OP: Yes, my lady. I wanted to peer around the corner. I wasn't sure if the person was waiting for me. I was kneeling down.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:27 AM

Nel: Okay, you are kneeling down and what happened?
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM

OP: It was splits seconds. Someone could have run up and attacked me or stuck his hand around the corner and fired at me.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM

Nel: That is not true OP, that is a lie.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM


On Page 11

http://news.sky.com/story/1240765/oscar-pistorius-trial-court-transcript

 

[katydid23]

This is what blows my mind about Frank. We have spent weeks comparing all of the neighbors 'ear witness' testimony. Did Reeva ever Scream? Did they fight that night? Was Oscar screaming like a frightened woman? And we are relying upon people in various neighborhood homes to answer those questions.

And yet, we now discover that there was an adult male, apparently sleeping downstairs, right off the kitchen. How could we not want him to weigh in on those questions. Surely he would know if they were having a loud argument that night. Or if Reeva was screaming in terror? How could 5 others in the neighborhood hear what sounded like loud blood curdling screams, loud enough to awaken them, but a guy in the downstairs bedroom heard nothing?:Bennymonkey: :Bennymonkey: :Bennymonkey:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

On the edge:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/in-one-mo...-lurking-behind-the-smile-20131129-2yh2k.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...enced-to-18-years-for-fiancees-murder/5251168

 

[Gbtaketwo]

This is what blows my mind about Frank. We have spent weeks comparing all of the neighbors 'ear witness' testimony. Did Reeva ever Scream? Did they fight that night? Was Oscar screaming like a frightened woman? And we are relying upon people in various neighborhood homes to answer those questions.

And yet, we now discover that there was an adult male, apparently sleeping downstairs, right off the kitchen. How could we not want him to weigh in on those questions. Surely he would know if they were having a loud argument that night. Or if Reeva was screaming in terror? How could 5 others in the neighborhood hear what sounded like loud blood curdling screams, loud enough to awaken them, but a guy in the downstairs bedroom heard nothing?:Bennymonkey: :Bennymonkey: :Bennymonkey:

I agree.
I try to give the benefit of the doubt on this one,but really if Frank does not testify for the defence it would be very hard not to read anything into it .
It just seems incredible that he couldn't have heard anything at all whilst being on the premises.
I did wonder whether the prosecution did any sound tests around his accommodation to see if he could be telling the truth and maybe they believe him. Although he heard enough to be around when the other people first arrived.

 

[Estelle]

Is this what you're looking for?


Nel: Then you got to the entrance of the bathroom and you kept quiet?
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:27 AM

OP: Yes, my lady. I wanted to peer around the corner. I wasn't sure if the person was waiting for me. I was kneeling down.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:27 AM

Nel: Okay, you are kneeling down and what happened?
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM

OP: It was splits seconds. Someone could have run up and attacked me or stuck his hand around the corner and fired at me.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM

Nel: That is not true OP, that is a lie.
by Sky News court reporter April 11 at 3:28 AM


On Page 11

http://news.sky.com/story/1240765/oscar-pistorius-trial-court-transcript

I have often thought even before the trial that OP could have been on his prosthetic legs and knelt down when he fired those shots rather than being on his stumps. Also, I do not think they went to bed that night so he was not on his stumps IMO.

 

[Jake18]

I hate to do revisit this debate but I respectfully completely disagree.

Personally I will not dispute the PT's expert on blood spatters findings until another expert with compelling evidence testifies.
Odd that one would accept a googled image of gross arterial gush/spurt and make a determination that the spatter in question is not arterial.

Just because a pea sized lump in the breast doesn't look like or feel like the large exophytic tumors depicted extensively in old medical books (and current ones as examples of advanced disease, now much less common) at first glance or exam, doesn't mean it's not cancer. Sophisticated, histology and staining answer determine that. From what I read arterial spatter would lack the pathognomonic "tails" of cast off, the only other option, even though cast off can result in an arc.

Do provide a link if possible to a report of Dr. Saayman's statement that "vital functions would have ceased." I would be surprised if he used that language.

Often a physician's expert testimony is simplified to minimize confusion by lay people, to emphasize the main points. IMO Dr. Saayman wanted to emphasize that the GSW to the brain was last. This together with the bullet trajectories decimates the DT contention that the GSW to the head was first and Reeva never uttered a whimper, much less screamed while going down. Dr. Saymaan's testimony does not preclude the heart beating weakly or erratically for a few minutes.

I doubt Nel would elicit what could appear to be 'contradictory' testimony from his experts without having a purpose. Roux would also have exploited this to discredit Saayman or the blood spatter expert to weaken/discredit their testimony IF it could possibly do that.

Mrs Stipp's testimony also supports screams& gunshots last -> ending the screaming; all of which support premeditated murder.

No one who believes OP to be guilty believes OP was carrying a 'dying' Reeva to save her or get real help, she was already dead. He was reacting to the enormity and finality of what he'd just done. The bargaining with God was to save himself. The remorse and stories the "but I didn't mean it/I didn't really do it" of someone whose really, really caught.

So self centered, his 'version' came first with every contact that morning "I thought she was an intruder" .... well I put to everyone that a reasonable person who just accidentally shot a loved one would be screaming to 911 'get here now' or 'Reeva needs help,' 'I need some help for Reeva' throwing in I shot her but it was an accident in there at some point, but NOT making it the primary focus.

:cow:

Along these lines, as well, is that Prof Saayman testified that Reeva's heart and liver were pale, "from blood loss".

Dr Stipp's eye findings are not actually contradictory to those of the blood splatter experts who states that she died on the stairs. If the shot to the head was 3:16 ish and Dr Stipp arrived at 3:26 (and to be fair he likely took some seconds introducing himself before he examined Reeva) there's ample time for her to bleed (pale heart and liver), followed by possibly weak and erratic cardiac activity accounting for the characteristic blood splatter on the stairs followed by full cardiac arrest. The head shot would have already lead to respiratory arrest, there wouldn't have been cardiac activity for long. According to the wiki reference the corneal changes can occur after only a few minutes. The pupil changes (fixed and dilated) would have occurred after the head shot.