Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[Ncl1968]

Video done with Nike sponsorship in plain view. One last sponsorship duty maybe

 

[Jake18]

Does anyone from Australia know from which territory in Oz Channel 7 is broadcast ? The time differences vary between 8 and 11 hours, depending on territory. So UK time we are looking at somewhere between 9.30 am to 12.30pm tomorrow morning. I have been trying to find a link from which I can watch the program but have been totally unsuccessful. It may, of course, be impossible and I shall have to wait for Yahoo to upload it.

I'e just checked and it's on at 8:30 pm in QLD, so it'll be the same in NSW and ACT and VIC. Western Australia is two hours behind.

I'm amazed by the video. I cautiously think it's a huge bonus for the PT - it seems to show both tailoring and more mobility on stumps than the DT have testified to - however without knowing the motive of whoever released it I'm wary. "Hopefully" it's just money.

 

[Giles]

You should try to read the page using an iPhone! I'm getting everyone's avatars memorized though, that helps. I may have to download and try the TapaTalk app.

The TapaTalk app is excellent IMO. I prefer it to using my computer and use it almost all the time. I would certainly recommend giving it a go.

 

[foxbluff]

Witnesses have told the court the paralympian was unable to run on his stumps without holding on to something for stability, but the preview footage shows him running unaided.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...p-shooting-in-extraordinary-leaked-video.html

Can't Nel refer to this video clip?

After all, it's absolute proof that he doesn't need to hold onto something in order to move around. But I seem to remember reading that so long as he's moving, he has balance - but once he stops, he needs to hold onto something. I don't know any more. I'm lost with all the changes to his version versions.

I'm guessing that the video was made in good lighting? If so, I expect that the DT will counter the vid with OP's lack of Proprioception (which allows able-bodied people to balance even when they can't see).

OP, of course, claimed that he was moving around in pitch darkness the night he killed RS... thus they might say he couldn't have been running around on his stumps that night... moo.

 

[AJ_DS]

The further I cogitate on the matter, the more I'm convinced that the leak originated in the DT with OP's assent.

– The Evidence Room is a company with a worldwide reputation… their entire business model is predicated on helping PT and DT in their cases... leaking the video of one of their clients would mean no more business for them.

– The Evidence Room surely had to sign a non-disclosure contract prohibiting them from disclosing or even discussing the matter with anybody.

– The Evidence Room is probably not even the owner of any material they work on, as per the contract with their clients… so selling the rights of something they don't own is theft.

– The Evidence Room would be sued into the stone-age for such a breech of contract.

– If an employee of The Evidence Room leaked the footage… they could easily be traced… fired from their job… sued for millions… and charged criminally for theft and who knows what else.

… the ONLY group that could do it and profit from it without any fear of legal repercussion is OP

I suspect the Newsgroup who purchased the video had to sign a non-disclosure agreement that stipulates they cannot disclose who sold them the video and for how much.

Would the Newsgroup risk paying big bucks for a video without being 100% sure that the individual selling it had indeed the right to do so ?

The Newsgroup certainly has a team of attorneys to make sure they could never be sued on that purchase.

All the outrage from the DT in the media is just for show !!

I would not be surprised that the contract with the Newsgroup also stipulated that the seller would decide when the video would be aired.

 

[DoubleFelix]

Be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jake18]

My boyfriend's mother was a R.N. in the U.S. Army during WWII. She related a story of having to handle a corpse that apparently "exhaled" as she moved it, giving her quite a fright. I hope some other medical types can help out here, but I believe it is possible for the lungs to retain air that could be expelled if the lungs are compressed, as might have happened with Oscar moving Reeva in the toilet cubicle, picking her up and carrying her downstairs.

Absolutely! Like old fashioned bellows.

It may well be that a lot of "loose ends" are tied up in Nel's closing. I'm personally hoping for information as to exactly what happened with OP's internet connection at 0146 for five minutes. The DT established that some internet connections are automatic but we never actually learned what the internet was connecting to at that time or whether it was manual or not. IIRC Nel made an issue at the time of showing it to the judge - if it was a manual connection then that's damning because he shouldn't have been awake in his version.

You know, I'm increasingly annoyed by this video - I always thought he was guilty but the blatant tailoring is just awful. And having someone (Aimee?) "pretending" to be Reeva is hideous. Alioop - and I respect that SA law is different - what do you think? Is this admissible? if it's not some obscure knights move from the DT I'm sure they're trying to ensure that this video is NOT shown to the judge.

 

[G.bng]

One more post before bed.....He sure likes tiled floors LOL


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

And what to expect in hot countries, carpets?

In Spain carpets and rugs, those bacteria friendly floor coverings, which are the norm in the UK, are almost unheard of. And the UK tradition of carpet in the loo! And the worst of even the worst, those twee mats cut to fit around the toilet base, as far as I can deduce invented so men can dribble and spatter their urine as they please without regards to anyone else since it sinks to the bottom of the pile out of sight even if not out of smell... too lazy to aim properly, too arrogant to consider what is nice for others, and too insecure to sit down like a woman and direct their detritus into the correct place so as to avoid their partners having to wipe up after them as if they were still babes in arms dependent on mummy to wipe their bottoms! Sorry but I'll go with tiles any day since for me carpets are gross... and parents allow their babies to crawl around on them... Ugh!

And an interesting experiment. With the men's public urinals awash with urine everywhere but where it should be a Dutch local Council had painted, transferred or whatever, an extremely realistic fly in the centre of each urinal, and lo an behold the volume of urine outside the bowl dropped almost to zero as the men aimed their status symbols with its unhealthy ammunition to hit the fly!
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR.

 

[G.bng]

It will definitely now be more fascinating to find out when this was recorded. Why on earth would he re-enact pulling her out of the toilet struggling along on his hands and knees when he's testified he had his prosthetics on to bat at the door before he even got into the toilet area? It now means he was trying to find the best way to create a version that would be believable but at some point somebody has changed their mind about what his testimony was going to be and obviously decided not to show this video!

I don't think the DT know about this video. It's just too damning and if they paid to get this filmed, they'd have kept the recordings so they'd never have found their way into the PT's hands.

BIB
Maybe to demonstrate he could not have done it that way since all the blood would have been smeared over him and the floor.

 

[kaos]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-lawyer-to-take-legal-action-over-video-20140705

 

[Val1]

Derman's Whoswho listing. http://whoswho.co.za/wayne-derman-1263157

He's younger than I thought he would be. Is it just me or does it look like he MIGHT be one of the guys in that video?

I was thinking the young lawyer on the DT looked a lot like the one guy standing at the left through most of it, though honestly, it could be OP's brother too, tall, dark hair, slim, looks like possible wearing glasses though the fogging out of the faces makes it next to impossible to verify unless you were there or saw the unfogged tape.
@1:25:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHScuFgtO10

 

[Interested Bystander]

The further I cogitate on the matter, the more I'm convinced that the leak originated in the DT with OP's assent.

– The Evidence Room is a company with a worldwide reputation… their entire business model is predicated on helping PT and DT in their cases... leaking the video of one of their clients would mean no more business for them.

– The Evidence Room surely had to sign a non-disclosure contract prohibiting them from disclosing or even discussing the matter with anybody.

– The Evidence Room is probably not even the owner of any material they work on, as per the contract with their clients… so selling the rights of something they don't own is theft.

– The Evidence Room would be sued into the stone-age for such a breech of contract.

– If an employee of The Evidence Room leaked the footage… they could easily be traced… fired from their job… sued for millions… and charged criminally for theft and who knows what else.

… the ONLY group that could do it and profit from it without any fear of legal repercussion is OP

I suspect the Newsgroup who purchased the video had to sign a non-disclosure agreement that stipulates they cannot disclose who sold them the video and for how much.

Would the Newsgroup risk paying big bucks for a video without being 100% sure that the individual selling it had indeed the right to do so ?

The Newsgroup certainly has a team of attorneys to make sure they could never be sued on that purchase.

All the outrage from the DT in the media is just for show !!

I would not be surprised that the contract with the Newsgroup also stipulated that the seller would decide when the video would be aired.

If you are correct the DT will be laughing up their sleeves at this point.

However, how can it be advantageous to show a video, even a snippet, that demonstrates that OP and the DT witnesses have been lying and may put OP at risk of a longer term of imprisonment. What am I missing here?

 

[AJ_DS]

If you are correct the DT will be laughing up their sleeves at this point.

However, how can it be advantageous to show a video, even a snippet, that demonstrates that OP and the DT witnesses have been lying and may put OP at risk of a longer term of imprisonment. What am I missing here?

That's the bit that worries me… something is afoot legally speaking… don't know what

Will have to wait for Monday to see what develops… would NOT be surprised that Roux has an application for Masipa on Monday morning.

 

[Giles]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-lawyer-to-take-legal-action-over-video-20140705

Oh dear, wouldn't it be awful if we don't get to see it?

 

[delilah]

Does anyone from Australia know from which territory in Oz Channel 7 is broadcast ? The time differences vary between 8 and 11 hours, depending on territory. So UK time we are looking at somewhere between 9.30 am to 12.30pm tomorrow morning. I have been trying to find a link from which I can watch the program but have been totally unsuccessful. It may, of course, be impossible and I shall have to wait for Yahoo to upload it.

Looks like it's aired at 2040 tomorrow evening in Sydney, which equates to 1140 BST. It'll be on at 2040 local time in other time zones, but that will be later than Sydney time. I think that's right : )

 

[Greater Than]

I'm guessing that the video was made in good lighting? If so, I expect that the DT will counter the vid with OP's lack of Proprioception (which allows able-bodied people to balance even when they can't see).

OP, of course, claimed that he was moving around in pitch darkness the night he killed RS... thus they might say he couldn't have been running around on his stumps that night... moo.

BIB - OP: "I didn't have any way of defending myself without my prosthetic legs on so I ran for my firearm."

2:28:00 http://youtu.be/eBvvA4cL5Zc

 

[Harmony 2]

My understanding is that the judge banned the psychological report from publication and stated she would hold anyone that does so in contempt. Therefore, I have unapproved the links to it for now.

 

[Onlyamum]

AJ_DS

That would make sense hence my apprehension about the comment above the video stating

"The never before seen footage of Oscar Pistorius re-enacting the night he killed Reeva that convinced a top forensic expert he is innocent"

which made me think there is more to this video than meets the eye....... as from the clip, he doesn't look 'innocent', the clip seems to contradict everything the DT have been trying to make us believe with regards to his mobility on stumps... curiouser and curiouser uch:

 

[kaos]

BIB
Maybe to demonstrate he could not have done it that way since all the blood would have been smeared over him and the floor.

He was willing to test something that he was never accused of that involved the handling of a stand-in girlfriend in a way he never described doing in the first place? If his version is the how it happened, he wouldn't have to come up with demonstrate anything other than the truth.

 

[Jake18]

If you are correct the DT will be laughing up their sleeves at this point.

However, how can it be advantageous to show a video, even a snippet, that demonstrates that OP and the DT witnesses have been lying and may put OP at risk of a longer term of imprisonment. What am I missing here?

Last year I read all the Harry Potter books to my eldest daughter. And this makes me think of Mrs Weasley admonishing Ginny after she engaged with Tom Riddle's diary to "never trust anything unless you can tell where its brain is kept" (not an exact quote, btw).

I agree it looks awful for the DT but maybe it's a last ditch attempt to engage in some legal wrangling???