Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Interested Bystander]

bbm - I would have to review Mangena's testimony as I don't recall that, unless you have a link where he says that? In the meantime, here are the official videos from sabc. Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.

Session 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ
Session 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only the portion of the door with the crack that the witness identified the bullet hole as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6...id=P-14bhKWdfY

BIB I am not sure that is what you meant to say.

I don't have a lot of time today but I do think I may have misquoted the expert witness as Mangena rather than Vermeulen. I found this article but will watch Session 3 this evening.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/13/oscar-pistorius-trial-bad-wielding-moment-crucial

“Vermeulen did endorse Pistorius's account that the shooting through the door came before the bat was used, a boost for the defence's timeline.”


I have always agreed (and posted) that I think the bat hits were before the shots. I am just qualifying the point that the state has not refuted what was said in V's testimony, by inference, that the gunshots came before the bat hits. This, I think, is what Minor 4th feels and I am stating I can see why.

As far as I recall the witness testified that he thought the crack had to have happened after the bullet hole was made due to the nature of the split in the wood. I think we would both agree that as the shots were fired in quick succession the only inference that can be drawn from that (assuming, as Vermuelin stated, the crack appeared after the shot and all the shots happened within seconds) the shots came before the bat hits. This assumes, of course, that testimony that the two separated sets of noises the Stipps heard is correct. As far as I can remember the State has not refuted the Defence's claim of the bat hits being after the shots.

I think there has to be another explanation but, as it stands, it looks to me as though this is still the state's position. I am quite happy to be completely wrong as I have been quite surprised that the state did not make more of the possibility of the bat hits being before the shots and that this split could have happened in other circumstances.

 

[turaj]

I was wondering if the time was really 9am till 5pm and there was just a mix up in the times?

BUT I don't think it's fair that someone would get preferential treatment to become a 'day patient' for a referral like this. From what Dr. V. said - OP is DANGEROUS with a gun - he probably has access to one in his uncle's house.

They shouldn't have different rules just because someone is a celebrity and it's being televised. I see that's what the link is saying.

I just don't think the judge seems to know what she should about these things suggesting that he could be an outpatient.

This goes to exactly what I talked about in my post above...I am frankly skeptical of this whole process and the outcome and wonder if this is everyone's (ie the court) way of settling this so as not to convict a national hero and Uncle Arnold's (a powerful man in his own right...note how confident he holds press conferences and sits in court) nephew. I am confident that Roux knew exactly how this witness's testimony would lead to this...and he wanted it. I think he faked being against it...I almost feel like I am watching a staged play in the last days of this "trial".

 

[turaj]

As I read some of the past posts carefully analyzing testimony with the bat and the shots and this and that...would it not be bizarre if the results of this evaluation halted this whole trial and he did some therapy and went on his way? I'm not so sure I could not happen for reasons I have outlined above in posts. I sure hope I am wrong. Gerri Nel has done an excellent job in tearing apart the defense "version" but if OP is declared to any any sort of mental illness it is over.

 

[Val1]

BIB I am not sure that is what you meant to say.

I don't have a lot of time today but I do think I may have misquoted the expert witness as Mangena rather than Vermeulen. I found this article but will watch Session 3 this evening.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/13/oscar-pistorius-trial-bad-wielding-moment-crucial

“Vermeulen did endorse Pistorius's account that the shooting through the door came before the bat was used, a boost for the defence's timeline.”


I have always agreed (and posted) that I think the bat hits were before the shots. I am just qualifying the point that the state has not refuted what was said in V's testimony, by inference, that the gunshots came before the bat hits. This, I think, is what Minor 4th feels and I am stating I can see why.

As far as I recall the witness testified that he thought the crack had to have happened after the bullet hole was made due to the nature of the split in the wood. I think we would both agree that as the shots were fired in quick succession the only inference that can be drawn from that (assuming, as Vermuelin stated, the crack appeared after the shot and all the shots happened within seconds) the shots came before the bat hits. This assumes, of course, that testimony that the two separated sets of noises the Stipps heard is correct. As far as I can remember the State has not refuted the Defence's claim of the bat hits being after the shots.

I think there has to be another explanation but, as it stands, it looks to me as though this is still the state's position. I am quite happy to be completely wrong as I have been quite surprised that the state did not make more of the possibility of the bat hits being before the shots and that this split could have happened in other circumstances.

bbm - Sorry, I must have copied it wrong.. I did go back and fix the link and my poor explanation.. :/

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 The witness clearly states that it was only a specific crack on the door as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified bat marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

As for how that happened, my brain tells me it was from that panel being pushed or pulled out, since OP has told us that after he'd whacked the door he could see RS through the chunk that had broken through. Easy enough to have whacked the door a few times to scare her and when she wouldn't shut up/give in/whatever, he went and got his gun. After killing her he just pushed/pulled the broken panel out and the rest would have been even easier. As far as the crack itself, if you look closely it's possible the bullet itself could have caused it, especially if the panel had already been whacked a few times and weakened the wood.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/op-pic-door.jpg

Session 3:
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

 

[Dphil]

This goes to exactly what I talked about in my post above...I am frankly skeptical of this whole process and the outcome and wonder if this is everyone's (ie the court) way of settling this so as not to convict a national hero and Uncle Arnold's (a powerful man in his own right...note how confident he holds press conferences and sits in court) nephew. I am confident that Roux knew exactly how this witness's testimony would lead to this...and he wanted it. I think he faked being against it...I almost feel like I am watching a staged play in the last days of this "trial".

BIB - me too!

As I read some of the past posts carefully analyzing testimony with the bat and the shots and this and that...would it not be bizarre if the results of this evaluation halted this whole trial and he did some therapy and went on his way? I'm not so sure I could not happen for reasons I have outlined above in posts. I sure hope I am wrong. Gerri Nel has done an excellent job in tearing apart the defense "version" but if OP is declared to any any sort of mental illness it is over.

BIB agree Gerri Nel has been an excellent prosecutor - and - imo - has done his best to get justice for Ms. Steenkamp. I just don't see OP going to jail and I think he will walk away from this and get on with his life.

 

[BritsKate]

Watch the redirect when you have time, IB, and all will be clear.

Vermeulen wasn't a good witness on cross because, its apparent, he's basing his opinion on the account of the accused (that the bat brought down the door) in cross.

In redirect, Nel cleans up the mess and clarifies the sequence.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Sorry, I must've copied it wrong, plus I fixed the very poor explanation of what I was saying.. :/

Apologies, I found your next post after I had posted why I thought the State has not refuted that the bullets were fired before the bat hits. Thanks for the video link. I had managed to track a copy down before I made my latest comment.

 

[CriLondon]

Thank-you for posting this. I'd never seen it and found it fascinating on many levels.

Watching it, my gut reaction was, that at the time this interview was filmed, just 3 months after OP killed Reeva, Uncle Arthur sincerely believed Oscar's story.
?

Snipped by me for relevance.

I agree , he looks quite honest (imo a bit "prepared" but it's a staged interview so one expects that).
The only "crack" i've noticed that's quite glaring (to me at least) is at 1:22-1:26
when he's stating how OP is grieving all the time.
Now , take the sound out of that portion of video and look at the slight head-shake "no" movement.
It can be inferred that uncle's feeling something is not quite right there, or , uncle would have expected to see a bit more in that respect that OP was showing at the time.

Also when the journalist begins to address the alleged lack of grief shown by OP outside the courtroom (question begins around 0:55), uncle (at 1:04-1:08)
instant response is ever-so-slightly pressed lips (very slight anger) that turn into a pushed smile and again right after ,at 1:06-1:07 ,head-shake no.

There's another bit i'm going through later in that interview but i'm still trying to figure out.

JMO

 

[Interested Bystander]

bbm - Sorry, I must have copied it wrong.. I did go back and fix the link and my poor explanation.. :/

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 The witness clearly states that it was only a specific crack on the door as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified bat marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

As for how that happened, my brain tells me it was from that panel being pushed or pulled out, since OP has told us that after he'd whacked the door he could see RS through the chunk that had broken through. Easy enough to have whacked the door a few times to scare her and when she wouldn't shut up/give in/whatever, he went and got his gun. After killing her he just pushed/pulled the broken panel out and the rest would have been even easier. As far as the crack itself, if you look closely it's possible the bullet itself could have caused it, especially if the panel had already been whacked a few times and weakened the wood.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/op-pic-door.jpg

Session 3:
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

I agree. My point was that I thought that the State had not refuted what he had said but I can see now Britskate has also posted and directed me to Nel's redirect which will explain the state's opinion. I am off to watch that now.

When points like this come up I begin to realise there are times I must have been distracted or not necessarily present during some witness testimony. I definitely remember the point I raised and even when I look at the replay I still feel Roux has managed to get Vanmeulen to agree the bullets came before the bat, even though V. did, as you say, mention the specific crack.

My own opinion (posted often before now) is that poor Reeva was locked in the toilet and subjected to the frightening experience of having OP hit the door very hard indeed which made her scream. This would explain the extended screaming before the shots. I think I posted when last I touched on this subject that I also think the door was weakened and therefore the bullet "finalised" the crack.

 

[patCee]

Snipped by me for relevance.

I agree , he looks quite honest (imo a bit "prepared" but it's a staged interview so one expects that).
The only "crack" i've noticed that's quite glaring (to me at least) is at 1:22-1:26
when he's stating how OP is grieving all the time.
Now , take the sound out of that portion of video and look at the slight head-shake "no" movement.
It can be inferred that uncle's feeling something is not quite right there, or , uncle would have expected to see a bit more in that respect that OP was showing at the time.

Also when the journalist begins to address the alleged lack of grief shown by OP outside the courtroom (question begins around 0:55), uncle (at 1:04-1:08)
instant response is ever-so-slightly pressed lips (very slight anger) that turn into a pushed smile and again right after ,at 1:06-1:07 ,head-shake no.

There's another bit i'm going through later in that interview but i'm still trying to figure out.

JMO

Hi Cri I'd love to know your thoughts on this one of Uncle Arnold, if you get some time. It's the one when he spoke to the press outside court, after the last day hearing re mental health evaluation. To me he seems very agitated. It's very short so might not give too much else away.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/620626281349278

 

[Giles]

There are many 'unusual' say we say claims in just the first few minutes of his version:

1. He awakens in a room with the curtains open and the balcony light on and yet only sees the shape of her legs under the duvet, nothing else. Must be a low wattage bulb on that balcony.

2. He originally said he went out on to the balcony then changed it to the fan and then fans were in the doorway. Why make such changes? Saying he went out onto the balcony is unambiguous so he couldn't have been misunderstood.

3. Why say in his bail application that she was asleep when he went to get the fans and then later change that to the brief conversation he claims they had. The last words spoken between them would be significant so why first say she was asleep?

So there IMO are three odd things that have taken place according to his version within moments of him waking up. It's strange that some argue that PT witnesses changing any aspect of their initial statements is suspicious whereas OP gets a pass. Confirmation bias perhaps?

Just to correct point no. 3. OP never said Reeva was asleep in his bail statement.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

On what grounds?

I'm really racking my brain why, it could be it's inaudible and needs enhancement (this could be a problem), maybe it's prejudicial to the accused in that he didn't describe the injuries to Netcare, could be prejudicial to Netcare because they can't defend their advice to OP because he didn't describe injuries correctly. Judge decided not necessary for trial watchers to hear call for some obscure reason.

It's hard to know how to handle this because a Judge can listen to 911 call and decide whether it's admissible for a jury to hear if the DT objects, but how does it work when it's a Judge only trial? I haven't a clue.

But it sure as hell will prove whether he lied about the call, lied about their advice for him to drive her to hospital which of course is absolutely reprehensible. He should NEVER have moved her body. :banghead:

I would suspect that if Nel had anything to go on with on the subject, he most definitely would have. My opinion is , the call wasn't recorded.

This could be true and not surprising, even though Netcare claims on their site that they do record calls.

IMHO

 

[lithgow1]

Just to correct point no. 3. OP never said Reeva was asleep in his bail statement.

Thanks for that and you are correct - I'll go back and amend it. He mentions her thrice in the relevant part of the statment:

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.

and

On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police.

and

It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

 

[CriLondon]

Hi Cri I'd love to know your thoughts on this one of Uncle Arnold, if you get some time. It's the one when he spoke to the press outside court, after the last day hearing re mental health evaluation. To me he seems very agitated. It's very short so might not give too much else away.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/620626281349278

Hi Pat.

Thank you for the link , i watched it.
Unfortunately when i expand it to full screen , being not exactly HD, the image becomes a bit blurry and it's not exactly the best when you are looking for muscle movement.
Having said that , i can confirm that he is indeed nervous , he swallows quite a few times (i draw that from the fact that he's been in front of cameras quite a few times so i exclude that as a probability).

Of particular interest 0:08 (it is very fast , blink and you miss it sort of..) slightly pressed lips that indicate mild anger.

at 0:35-0:37 he swallows after making a statement on trusting the SA justice system . (Again he does swallow a lot through that whole statement, if he didn't i'd be inclined to think that there wasn't much confidence in the previous statement )

But mostly (and it is usually a bad feeling to have )0:41 , after he states there will be no question, slightly raised left corner of his mouth (asymmetrical smile): contempt

That (not too sure about that as he turns towards his right) was preceded by pressed lips as in containing slight anger/frustration.

Again , with micro-expressions it is crucial to keep in mind that an emotion that is noticed , without elaboration and follow-up questions is just what it is: an emotion. You can say it's there , not why.
That becomes a whole different matter .

For example i would definitely ask why the contempt, who was that for?
You can see it's there , but you don't know who it is felt for.
Was it towards a journalist there? Was it towards Masipa's decision?

JMO

Thanks!

 

[Giles]

Thanks for that and you are correct - I'll go back and amend it. He mentions her thrice in the relevant part of the statment:

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.

and

On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police.

and

It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

Thanks, and the point you make is still valid. He never mentioned that Reeva was awake in his bail statement. This is a crucial detail he omitted for some reason!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Snipped by me for relevance.

I agree , he looks quite honest (imo a bit "prepared" but it's a staged interview so one expects that).
The only "crack" i've noticed that's quite glaring (to me at least) is at 1:22-1:26
when he's stating how OP is grieving all the time.
Now , take the sound out of that portion of video and look at the slight head-shake "no" movement.
It can be inferred that uncle's feeling something is not quite right there, or , uncle would have expected to see a bit more in that respect that OP was showing at the time.

Also when the journalist begins to address the alleged lack of grief shown by OP outside the courtroom (question begins around 0:55), uncle (at 1:04-1:08)
instant response is ever-so-slightly pressed lips (very slight anger) that turn into a pushed smile and again right after ,at 1:06-1:07 ,head-shake no.

There's another bit i'm going through later in that interview but i'm still trying to figure out.

JMO

OMG!! I thought exactly the same thing! The Uncle isn't telling the whole truth.

I recently watched The Lying Game - the Crimes that fooled Britain. Pretty sure they brought up these kinds of giveaways.

I look forward to reading other discrepancies you find in these vids. I find it really fascinating.

 

[DebinGA]

In some video of Uncle Arnold posted upthread he claims Reeva was the first woman OP ever brought home to meet the family, and then only once. Arnold seems like a type A, take-charge guy who's likely micromanaging the defense, with Roux reduced to following UA's inexpert orders. I don't know who hired Roger Dixon, maybe Outwage, but that person has a lot to answer for. Ever since the Dixon debacle, the defense has been reeling and rudderless. The last minute addition of Dr. V indicates desperation, not calculation imo.

 

[CriLondon]

This could be true and not surprising, even though Netcare claims on their site that they do record calls.

IMHO

That's true i've read that , somebody posted that article (was it you?:blushing: lol).
I think Nel showed during this trial that , even without much to go on, he "attacks" even a hint of a possibility if it can bolster his case.
I truly believe he had nothing there and didn't even cover it because Netcare did not record the call , or lost it .
The question i have is , why didn't the operator testify? Surely you'd remember if OP called. I mean , i remember all the celebs i've met in my line of work(not personally apart from a couple of musicians, just seen them pass by...i mean one would remember!)

 

[patCee]

Hi Pat.

Thank you for the link , i watched it.
Unfortunately when i expand it to full screen , being not exactly HD, the image becomes a bit blurry and it's not exactly the best when you are looking for muscle movement.
Having said that , i can confirm that he is indeed nervous , he swallows quite a few times (i draw that from the fact that he's been in front of cameras quite a few times so i exclude that as a probability).

Of particular interest 0:08 (it is very fast , blink and you miss it sort of..) slightly pressed lips that indicate mild anger.

at 0:35-0:37 he swallows after making a statement on trusting the SA justice system . (Again he does swallow a lot through that whole statement, if he didn't i'd be inclined to think that there wasn't much confidence in the previous statement )

But mostly (and it is usually a bad feeling to have )0:41 , after he states there will be no question, slightly raised left corner of his mouth (asymmetrical smile): contempt

That (not too sure about that as he turns towards his right) was preceded by pressed lips as in containing slight anger/frustration.

Again , with micro-expressions it is crucial to keep in mind that an emotion that is noticed , without elaboration and follow-up questions is just what it is: an emotion. You can say it's there , not why.
That becomes a whole different matter .

For example i would definitely ask why the contempt, who was that for?
You can see it's there , but you don't know who it is felt for.
Was it towards a journalist there? Was it towards Masipa's decision?

JMO

Thanks!

Thanks so much Cri. To me he's the head of the family and a significant role model. I had a feeling that he was saying one thing to the camera, but was feeling something else, perhaps in recognition this could be getting worse, looking down and shaking his head throughout. I can see what you mean re anger. Must be so traumatic for the family, made more so by all the press lingering. :seeya:

 

[lithgow1]

This goes to exactly what I talked about in my post above...I am frankly skeptical of this whole process and the outcome and wonder if this is everyone's (ie the court) way of settling this so as not to convict a national hero and Uncle Arnold's (a powerful man in his own right...note how confident he holds press conferences and sits in court) nephew. I am confident that Roux knew exactly how this witness's testimony would lead to this...and he wanted it. I think he faked being against it...I almost feel like I am watching a staged play in the last days of this "trial".

IMO it wasn't an elaborate bluff by Roux - he argued too passionately against it, to the point where it could of backfired by M'lady choosing to support his arguments over Nel's.

I'm more in line with the 'tried to sneak it in but got caught out' theory. I also think it's very important that whatever comes out of this will not matter if the court chooses to disregard OP's version of events. Once this is done and dusted, assuming that he's found fit to resume and there's been no indications that he hasn't been through his testimony, it will all go back to the two competing versions and I've confidence that his will be rejected.

All it will take is one photo - the bedroom in the morning - to stand as evidence and his version is proven to be a lie. So until the defence bring witnesses to disprove that image then I'm not too worried. So far in terms of disproving elements of the state's case they've shown themselves to be all talk and no recreations.