Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[Canadian4]

Guess I should go back to bed. Happy July 4th to all my American friends.

 

[HauntsForHope]

No court today. Court has adjourned until Monday.

Thanks!! Have a great Weekend! :loveyou:

 

[Interested Bystander]

:happy4th:


Happy 4th July to all our American members.

 

[eimajjjj]

And who's to say anyone opened it at all, only OP. Just something to make him hear a noise to use for his alibi. This what he said in his bail application.

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open" - no mention of hearing it slide open or hit the frame. How can he notice that it was open when he's said he already heard it open and hit the frame.

"I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I didn't see anyone in the bathroom". He's testified that he heard the toilet door slam, so it has to be closed, right?

"I heard movement inside the toilet." Intruders/burglars don't noisily open windows, bang them into the frame, enter a toilet and slam the door shut. It could only have been Reeva.

Have you just pretty much copied, edited and pasted my post from before (below) or is ths mere coincidence?!

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/ were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet."

1) I noticed that the bathroom window was open.

During his testimony, the ambiguous 'noise' in the bathroom from the bail affidavit became a very clear window opening and crashing into the frame. There was no doubt in his mind it was the window.

Thus, why do you just 'notice' something implying it's the first time he's seen it rather that it confirming what he's already heard.

2) I realised that the intruder/s was/ were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.

Again, contradicts his testimony that the reason he thought people were in the toilet was NOT because he saw 'the toilet door was closed', but because he heard it slam shut. So he 'realised intruders were in the toilet' why? because he sees the door closed or because he heard it shut?

3) I heard movement inside the toilet.

Although Nel starts to corner him regarding this mistake, I feel he stopped one step too short to really trap him, and this is due to OP's craftiness: After OP starts to say that he thought the movement was 'the door opening' and then 'in retrospect that must have been the magazine rack', Nel rightly asks how 'movement' implies this wood movement/door opening and not people moving. From here on though, notice OP starts to refer to his 'movement' in the bail affadavit as a movement. Nel doesn't pick up on this and it allows OP to waffle on about how he meant a movement was the wood moving/door opening. All Nel has to say after he's got this far is 'No, you said 'I heard movment, not a movement, so how does movement refer to a sound of the door opening'?

 

[whiterum]

I think we are saying the same thing - the judge must first accept OP's version

But which version could the Judge possibly accept as OP appears to have several ever-changing versions, obviously tailored to try fit in with the evidence as it is presented.

This was blatantly evident during Nel's cross of OP and IMO an experienced Judge will have no trouble in determining tailoring and lying, especially when it is comes directly from the horses mouth.

 

[Ncl1968]

The Joanna Yeates murder was how I discovered this website. The forum I posted on wouldn't allow people to talk about the case the minute somebody had been charged (which of course is correct in UK law) but they wouldn't even allow for stuff that was already public domain. Plus of course there was an army of forum members who'd pontificate about the 'armchair detectives' whilst forgetting that they themselves had became 'armchair lawyers' when they'd recite the sub judice law.

My post about *advertiser censored* wasn't really intended to make out that there was a sexual element to the case just more of a general curiosity as to why it hadn't been made more salacious for trial purposes. If there was a chance that Reeva spotted his viewing history then it could have led to an argument giving the state a motive - which is still what's missing in this case.

I agree that if the *advertiser censored* was a violent type or gay *advertiser censored* then yes further inquiry should be made but since both defense and prosicutor are ignoring it then I don't think it was a trigger

 

[JudgeJudi]

wah wah wah......were is the trial ????

mornin peeps

Adjourned until Monday morning. Nel had to spend several hours consulting with psychologist at Weskoppies today.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Have you just pretty much copied, edited and pasted my post from before (below) or is ths mere coincidence?!

Sorry if it appears that way to you, but no, I never copy, edit and paste anybody's posts. I'm always researching and have dozens of pages of notes that I've put together from all the data I collect. If somebody posts something that I agree with but want to add something, like everybody else I quote them. If you've been here for any length of time you'll have noticed that I post every day.

ETA I was in fact quoting from the bail application, and obviously were too, so obviously the parts I have in quotation marks are taken from the BA. You can check it yourself if you like.

page 6 paragraph 16.11

 

[eimajjjj]

Sorry if it appears that way to you, but no, I never copy, edit and paste anybody's posts. I'm always researching and have dozens of pages of notes that I've put together from all the data I collect. If somebody posts something and I agree with but want to add something, like everybody else I quote them. If you've been here for any length of time you'll have noticed that I post every day.

Guess it's just the equivalent of two independent witnesses hearing female screams!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Guess it's just the equivalent of two independent witnesses hearing female screams!

With the greatest respect, you don't appear to have been following this trial for very long if you think there are two independent witnesses who heard screams.

 

[eimajjjj]

With the greatest respect, you don't appear to have been following this trial for very long if you think there are two independent witnesses who heard screams.

No, I'm fully aware there are five. However, there are just two of us that have reported the same findings, nearly verbatim. I was being facetious.

 

[Jake18]

N: You don't want the court to take into account accountability....what was your brief?

D: Pause...to detail my experience with OP over 6 yrs...anything that might be relevant...

N: 'Detail my experience'. That wld be a character witness, not an expert witness.

re BIB :

DT : Thank you for being a witness, doctor. We're still looking for a psychiatrist to state that Oscar has some form of anxiety disorder but we'll hopefully find one soon so anything you can come up with along that line would be great...
And, obviously, try to tie it in with his disability...
Oh, and, um, things haven't been going so well for him lately so if you can sound learned and convincing that would be great. Maybe coin together a new medical term and add some pointless data.

Dr D : Don't worry, I am very very clever and I have a 57 page CV. There's no way Nel will be able to unsettle ME!

 

[eimajjjj]

Here's a link to shed some light on what Nel will be talking about with the state's psychiatric evaluator today:

http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfr...d-out-what-Gerrie-Nel-is-doing-today-20140704

Also, anyone know what the next process in the trial is after Derman is finished with (literally) by Nel on Monday? Assuming the psychiatrist isn't called to the stand will there be a break for closing arguments to be made? And if so, how long does that usually take?

 

[Cherwell]

My post about *advertiser censored* wasn't really intended to make out that there was a sexual element to the case just more of a general curiosity as to why it hadn't been made more salacious for trial purposes. If there was a chance that Reeva spotted his viewing history then it could have led to an argument giving the state a motive - which is still what's missing in this case.

It could, but there are all sorts of other factors that might have created friction leading to a row, and of course nobody other than OP can ever know the truth. The State can't really do any more than enter it into evidence, along with the text messages and other bits and pieces, so that the judge and assessors are aware of them. There's no obligation to prove a motive, but there's plenty to choose from without focusing on any in particular.

 

[Viper]

I agree that if the *advertiser censored* was a violent type or gay *advertiser censored* then yes further inquiry should be made but since both defense and prosicutor are ignoring it then I don't think it was a trigger

As I understand it OP clicked on to that website and viewed that one homepage only, for just .30 seconds.

With OP avoiding gorgeous women left and right and staying with one partner or no partner at all for long stretches of time, it seems to me that he had a fairly low labido, sex drive in life.

Maybe just seeing a *advertiser censored* homepage was all he intended to see for a few moments that evening, or he just changed his mind. He wasn't watching *advertiser censored* before or after that data so this seems unimportant.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Caramel eater would be a good member to do this for you, she managed to explain the whole trial to a lawyer friend of hers in about 10 mins a few weeks back, anyone know if she is still a member?.

Carmelita is described as a former member.

 

[AJ_DS]

As I understand it OP clicked on to that website and viewed that one homepage only, for just .30 seconds.

With OP avoiding gorgeous women left and right and staying with one partner or no partner at all for long stretches of time, it seems to me that he had a fairly low labido, sex drive in life.

Maybe just seeing a *advertiser censored* homepage was all he intended to see for a few moments that evening, or he just changed his mind. He wasn't watching *advertiser censored* before or after that data so this seems unimportant.

It was not just the homepage… OP went past the homepage to ‘...videos/5/1/1/6/’

I don't know were the "only 30 seconds of watching *advertiser censored*" comes from but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

The history on the iPad started on 13 February 2013 at 18:29 with the *advertiser censored*… there was nothing before that… I suspect his iPad was configured to only keep 24 hours worth of history.

It does however seem strange that at the beginning of sexual relationships with a sexy model girlfriend, Oscar would choose to watch *advertiser censored* instead of making the beast with 2 backs with Reeva…. especially on the eve of Valentine's Day… extra special sex is implied

The *advertiser censored* is not probative in regards to the murder charge… but it certainly could be insightful to the type of relationship OP had with real woman.

 

[AJ_DS]

I would not be surprised that IF Nel reopens the State's case, that he decides to explore the character evidence that has been led by the Defence, namely that he was very much in love with Reeva and that he treated his girlfriends well.

 

[Coldpizza]

WEBSLEUTHS will be offline in about 1 hour for a software upgrade, should last approx. 2 hours. You can get updates about the upgrade during that time on Twitter via #websleuths.

https://twitter.com/search?q=websleuths&src=typd

The search feature will not be fully operational for a couple of days after the upgrade, due to the amount of information on our site. It takes awhile to get that data back online.

 

[buntspecht]

I agree with Jake, I don't think the *advertiser censored* thing is a particularly big deal. And I really can't agree with the BIB above. "Deviant behaviour"? It's really very common for people to look at *advertiser censored*. Even before the internet made it so readily available, there were the "top shelf" magazines that my brother used to keep hidden under his bed :wink: Very popular and commonplace.

even if its common, I don't know a single woman who wouldn't be repelled(?) by the fact that her partner is watching *advertiser censored* while she is at home.