Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[Cherwell]

But Oscar puts a cricket bat against his door at night or did he do this at the child's home?

I haven't heard any story about a child. If you are talking about Mike Azzie's son, he is a grown man, not a child.

I believe your correct he did this at home... As the live in handy Frank slept downstairs he also turned on the alarm with his key fob, does that mean Frank can't move as the alarm would go off???

As with so much, the only source for using a cricket bat to block the door is Pistorius himself. I suspect this is just another elaboration to explain the presence of the cricket bat in the bedroom.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

carise is one brave* girl.
3am. based on JUST hearing helphelphelp from 200 metres, and JUST her father's one line call from oscar which mentions shooting reeva, she gets dressed, drives over in her silver mini, [what colour was reeva's mini?], and then... walks up to a slightly open front door and walks inside the house first.

wouldn't it have been safer to let the two security guards take a look first?



*reckless? or did she know a little more when she reached the door?

bbm- But how could she hear screams from "that" far away when the prosecution witnesses could not have possibly heard it????

very brave indeed considering how scared she was when safely tucked in her own house when she heard the noises.

 

[Viper]

Do you think they washed her black vest/tank top before they took the photos in evidence?
Where's all the blood?

Good question! I ask that very same question a lot here, to those who believe her heart was pumping blood for ~8-10 minutes after all of this, but I never get a straight answer. LOL!!!

The shirt was noted to have tissue and bone fragments, presumably from the bullet that created that massive hole in her right arm, nearly amputating it; and I do see that in the photo that was posted at Lisa's blog. Nest said her long hair and her shorts were heavily soaked with blood though, from the wounds to her head and hip, respectively.

 

[steveml]

"blood curdling"? To me they sounded like baying hounds, wounded baying hounds.

I think it was just a ruse by Roux to try to get the idea of "high pitch" into people's minds.

Roux never asked M. Berger or Mrs. Stipp to give it a whirl nor any men. It was lame to ask these two women to do that. I feel confident that M'lady saw right through it - maybe she even secretly cringed inside both because it was ridiculous but also if they were both black. If they were, Roux asked them to make fools of themselves but didn't ask any of the white women to.

It's quite important to remember that the oft-used terminology 'blood cur[FONT=&quot][/FONT]dling' only came from one witness. The description given by the same witness to Captain Mike Van Aardt when he visited to take the statement was... 'I heard the woman scream'.

 

[Val1]

Relax, Minor, I'm not angry at all. In fact I find your posts hilariously amusing.

In the latest you surpass yourself. You say:



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.

bbm - Just trying to clarify, didn't one of the earlier witnesses claim they had also heard a man's voice at that time repeating the woman's call for help and when pressed to speculate under cross she had suggested it may have been in mocking?

 

[Cymbaline]

bbm - Was he silent? Iirc OP had told the police that he and RS were the only two in the house.... I believe that was in OP's testimony as well as VR's. I know some don't think highly of this paper, but I'm too lazy atm to go searching for the relevant video link.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-recap-updates-3391035

You are right.


Two spots on the video.

21:15

OP: Another officer asked if there was any one else in the home. I motioned to him that there wasn't. He went up stair. At times I couldn't stand, I would just sit there.


28:28

OP: At that stage Col. Van Rensburg said because I was the only person in the house at the time, they were going to arrest me. I walked with Mr. Labuschagne to the vehicle.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM

 

[DebinGA]

Here's a very interesting conversation [bottom one] that lithgow1 posted earlier, featuring retired SA judge Chris Greenland re Roux's "time wasting" lack of ready witnesses this week:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 29


Judge Greenland is a very temperate, careful fellow, but I think he's suggesting something fishy is going on with the defense. Asked by the host re Roux scheduling the three OP neighbors instead of the expert witnesses on the DT, "Is there a strategy?", Greenland answers, "Not that I can see." Roux told m'lady he expected to rest his case the middle of next week. He's called 8 witnesses so far, out of his earlier 14-17 witness estimate. Hmm.....

 

[jay-jay]

Absolutely! People using the testimony from yesterday are all steadfastly ignoring that what they heard was AFTER the shooting so therefore these high-pitched wails were obviously Pistorius, though I doubt he sounded like yesterday's demos. Kudos to whoever it was that said they sounded more like a ewe calling for her lamb than blood curdling screams - funny because it's true!

I don't think people not hearing a woman's screams while they are asleep will outweigh people hearing them while awake. And again it bears repeating that other than Ms Phelps-Pistorius, all experts say it did little to advance the defence case. The most I've heard is that the defence will use it to say his anguish runs against the idea that he had just committed a cold-blooded killing but then they qualify that by saying it is not at all unknown that anger quickly turns to anguish on realising all the implications of what has just taken place.

Have also heard a few US journos commenting on how could he so quickly come up with the intruder story when he rang Stander - I don't see at all how you couldn't think 'I know, I'll say ...' in a matter of seconds as soon as what you have done sinks in -which would be swiftly IMO. Seems more obvious than ingenious.

As I've said time and time again on here, I think some people would be absolutely astonished by how quickly some abusive/manipulative/pathological liar types can come up with their lies .. I know I always used to be when I knew mine. Add to that, as you say, the intruder one is an extremely obvious one to go for .. it wouldn't exactly need a huge amount of effort for someone of that ilk to dream up.

 

[JudgeJudi]

If OP is found guilty of murder or a lesser charge and in addition found guilty of, say, 2 of the gun charges, is it likely that the sentences would run concurrently but that he would be given a longer sentence for the major charge?

 

[liesbeth]

Do you think they washed her black vest/tank top before they took the photos in evidence?
Where's all the blood?

Good point. I'll see if I can find a hi-res image to see if there are darker stains on her top.

As for the blood? Apparently her head bled into the toilet and her hair. Her arm onto the floor. And her hip wound did not have an exit wound so it could only bleed through the small entrance wound.

 

[liesbeth]

I think someone has mentioned this but it's worth repeating in relation to the last couple of days. It's my understanding I can't quote people from other forums (and rightly so) so I'm going to paraphrase:

According to a Professor James Grant, the Standers' evidence relating to Pistorius' state of anguish is inadmissable because it is 'evidence of a previous consistent statement'. Apparantly, had Nel cross-examined on this it would have become admissable so he didn't, leaving it to the judge to 'ignore them'. Any legal minds know much about this aspect? TIA

Just added - the other poster has further clarified by saying that Roux was likely wanting Nel to cross-examine on this to make it admissable but he didn't take the bait, leaving Roux in the lurch both in terms of admitting the evidence and having no other witnesses lined up. Was also suggested that this whole issue was why Nel and M'lady wanted to see each other post-proceedings.

Thank you so much. Very interesting link. Prof Grant has some interesting articles on his blog. Thanks to K.T. for the link

http://criminallawza.net/

 

[aoibhinn]

Quote: Gunshots/bangs & screams reported to security on 14th Feb

1:56am - Mrs. van der Merwe (very loud woman's voice over an hour)

3:00am (approx) - Mrs. van der Merwe (gunshots/bangs)
3:00am (shortly after)- Security guard on bike. (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mrs. Burger (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mr. Johnson (gunshots)
3:04am - Dr. Stipp. (gunshots)
3:04am - Mrs. Stipp (gunshots)
3:16am (before) - Mr Nhlengethwa (gunshots)
-----------
Can someone add the time that Dr Stripp heard 2nd round gun shots

Hi curiousjo :seeya: that's a list that I made and I should have made the title clearer. This is better:-

Timings*** of gunshots/bangs & screams that were reported to security on 14th Feb

1:56am - Mrs. van der Merwe (very loud woman's voice over an hour)

3:00am (approx) - Mrs. van der Merwe (gunshots/bangs)
3:00am (shortly after)- Security guard on bike. (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mrs. Burger (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mr. Johnson (gunshots)
3:04am - Dr. Stipp. (gunshots)
3:04am - Mrs. Stipp (gunshots)
3:16am (before) - Mr Nhlengethwa (gunshots)

***Timings are approximate due to differing individual clock times and witnesses sometimes unsure of the precise time that they occurred. I have included a note in brackets to account for this, eg. approx, shortly after, before...

 

[Viper]

also, if the alarm was on... when did op pick up the remote and his keys to switch it off and unlock the front door?

and, why after the shooting, did he even need to switch it off? he has shouted for help from the balcony; for help by phone from stander; but didn't allow the alarm to shout for help???

which suggests to me that the alarm was never on. they never went to sleep. etc, etc, etc.

It is assumed by all of the testimony that the alarm was on, I am assuming that too. The thing that bothers me is that OP could open the patio door and moments later someone else could open the bathroom window and yet the alarm, though armed, did not go off. I guess OPs system could have his bedroom disarmed while the rest of the house is armed, but it does not make sense for a security conscious person to do that, even if it could be done.

 

[JuneBug67]

I'll admit that at this stage of the game I find it almost impossible to be 'fair minded'. I just don't believe him but in any case I'm not talking about deliberately shooting RS - I believe he did but that's besides the point. I am talking about his 'version' of what led to his accidental killing of her. IMO, even if he was 100% sure it was an intruder, all the actions he took suggest a man who was prepared to kill someone. How do you see him 'confronting' the intruder when he didn't know who was in the toilet and shot them before even trying to find out at a point where he was under NO immediate threat. I'd of thought to confront someone you have to SEE them, not shoot them through a door.

Re the 'fair minded' - I have yet to see a post from you JuneBug where you have seriously questioned any of his actions - it's all been justifications, excuses even, so I'm pretty confident we're both as set in our views: they are just polar opposites.

I do get not being much invested in expending a lot of energy for 'fair mindedness' at a certain point in a trial. I've certainly felt that way before in other trials. It's always worth reminding ourselves though that principles of fairness are the foundation of a the court system in a civil and just society and then when we're no longer particularly interested in giving it much of our time in any given legal situation it's worth recognizing this as handicap of sorts. I've felt that way, but I also acknowledge it as a bias with the potential to cloud and filter my thinking.

The only thing at issue for me in terms of my involvement in these discussions is whether he pursued and shot Reeva deliberately knowing it was her in the bathroom. I've probably not been at all clear on that, and have probably made assumptions about posters' words based on that - so I will make an effort to distinguish the issues when I write and when I read. Thanks for that reminder. To the point of his actions generally it is not only important that justice be done in this case, but that it is seen to be done. Because of the high profile nature of this case Judge Masipa has the additional burden of trying to ensure that South Africans aren't made unnecessarily cynical about their system of justice and that they have some pride in it as the world watches. To that end I see very little possibility of Oscar escaping punishment for shooting through a closed door. I mean that just can't responsibly be a legal precedent for anything other than "You can't do that". I do have some empathy for his state of mind in the dark in the middle of the night in South Africa, but to me that is a mitigating factor at best, and certainly not an exculpatory one.

When I joined this forum more than a year ago I thought Oscar was guilty of targeting Reeva. I reserved judgement in that formal sense that we all do, but I thought this was a domestic violence incident and my posts and musing reflected that. None of that changed until the evidence started to roll in. The evidence doesn't tell just one story as the divide on this forum highlights. ALL of us, no matter what side we lean to at this point, have contradictory evidence we must incorporate into a cohesive narrative of what we believe happened. If one wants to characterize that as 'making excuses' or 'justifications' for one side, I think one should be prepared to apply the same characterization to the other side too. Personally those aren't the words I'd primarily choose for anyone.

 

[Val1]

Frank Chiziweni

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

Too bad this reporter didn't also include the info about OP having been trying to sell his house and move to JB long before he even met RS. :/

 

[liesbeth]

I've just done a quick 'at a glance' table showing witnesses testimony regarding the scream/talking/crying/help sounds. Feel free to use this for reference or modify as required.

I've erred on the side of caution and included a tick against Estelle Van der Merwe for both Reeva and OP's crying sounds, as she thought it was Reeva but her husband told her it was OP.

Thank you, steveml. Technically Dr Stipp heard OP cry, but I understand why you didn't tick that box.

 

[Cymbaline]

Good question! I ask that very same question a lot here, to those who believe her heart was pumping blood for ~8-10 minutes after all of this, but I never get a straight answer. LOL!!!

The shirt was noted to have tissue and bone fragments, presumably from the bullet that created that massive hole in her right arm, nearly amputating it; and I do see that in the photo that was posted at Lisa's blog. Nest said her long hair and her shorts were heavily soaked with blood though, from the wounds to her head and hip, respectively.

It's odd.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

That's a really novel way of looking at the concept of remembering things.

There's a lot of truth in it, and it's quite common to remember aspects of a situation and to be unsure about the order in which they were occurred.

...I really hope I don't see a cuddly toy on one of the PT's crime scene photo's, as that may just freak me out :wink:

Aww don't you like teddy bears
It may have been an unconventional thought process that lead me to see the light so to speak but I am fine with the result .
With this case though I really can't guarantee that you won't be freaked out as anything seems possible .It does seem like the twilight zone at times.

Also I don't know why ( and it is not that I think the case needs a smoking gun ) but I do have a feeling there is more enlightenment to come from the prosecution during closing arguments and equally there may be more surprises from the defence .
Not long to wait now either way .

 

[jay-jay]

This is why paranoid people should not own guns. This was not the first time he went looking for a target to shoot :hills:

It's mind boggling to me that he now wants to use that as an excuse. He knew the laws and now he needs to accept responsibility for his actions.

I don't believe he is paranoid though .. he has just been trying to instill that into everyone that he is, in order for his 'fear of intruders' thing to stick.

 

[Cherwell]

bbm - Just trying to clarify, didn't one of the earlier witnesses claim they had also heard a man's voice at that time repeating the woman's call for help and when pressed to speculate under cross she had suggested it may have been in mocking?

Yes. Michelle Burger.

Another possibility is that he had already decided to shoot her, and added his "help" cries to reinforce the intruder story.