Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[AJ_DS]

I can't help but think that their going to try and use the 'inept' witnesses, for the defence, as a means of appealing too ( if their allowed to?).

I mean, c'mon, the majority of them didn't even have a report fgs !.
Would OP be able to appeal on the grounds that his own expert witnesses didn't do their job properly and jeopardized his defence?

I just don't think that they could all be that carp it seemed a bit contrived to me.

My guess is that the unheard reluctant DT witnesses will be used as a consequence and prejudice to a fair Trial caused by Judge Mlambo's landmark decision to televise the proceedings.

The argument will be :

"Which is more important, the right of the accused to a fair Trial or the publics interest in seeing that Justice is done ?"

"How can one claim Justice is done if the accused did not have the benefit of a fair Trial ?"

 

[AJ_DS]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Good post !

The problem IMO, is that you apply detached, hindsight, rational and logical reasoning to live emotionally driven behaviors which are by definition illogical and irrational.

RS had stayed because OP had a $h!tty day and OP had insisted
RS went shopping and cooked him dinner
RS was going to prepare OP a romantic dinner for Valentine's Day
RS had put a lot of though into her Valentine's Day gift to OP
RS was saying to OP, for the first time, "I love you"
etc...

RS was infatuated with OP despite the obvious problems… she wanted to pursue a relationship with him

RS was emotionally conflicted

A few hours later, RS was due to give a speech to young high school girls about abusive relationships, how to spot the tell tale signs of such relationships, how and why to avoid them or get out of them.

The dichotomy in her own relationship was emotionally and psychologically untenable.

By confronting OP, yelling at him, RS was desperately trying to resolve the paradox… she was yelling and arguing with herself just as much as with OP.

 

[Val1]

I'm a little confused here. Which "exact fans" is he referring to? The ones pictured?

When he talks about the "scene", does he mean OP's house? If they had access to it, why did they do the "reconstruction" that we saw on TV somewhere else?

I doubt we'll ever know for sure since he seems to believe every word OP ever told him, no matter that his story has changed quite a bit since then. As for why he would do another reconstruction as we saw on a set, because that's the only way for them to map it out properly to do their animation I would think. I honestly don't know, but when someone says at the scene when talking about an alleged crime, that usually refers to where the crime happened so unless he too has a habit of "misspeaking"... ?

 

[east2west]

I doubt whether he would get jail for the gun offences as he has no misuse of guns history. I think he is likely to get a very hefty fine instead and be banned from ever holding a gun again (not that I think that would work - I am sure he would find a way). I can see him being out on bail for the next 2 years unless his appeal (which is sure to come) is fast tracked. Even if Masipa thinks another judge would come to the same conclusion and disallows an appeal he still has a higher court he can use and surely will if it comes to it.

What exactly are the 3 Firearm charges broken down? Is the illegal possession of ammo included in the 3 Firearm charges? TIA.

 

[AJ_DS]

What exactly are the 3 Firearm charges broken down? Is the illegal possession of ammo included in the 3 Firearm charges? TIA.

Illegal possession of .38 ammo

Discharge of firearm in Tasha's restaurant

Discharge of firearm through the sunroof of a car on public highway

 

[Val1]

What exactly are the 3 Firearm charges broken down? Is the illegal possession of ammo included in the 3 Firearm charges? TIA.

Hopefully this helps you.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/185695401/Full-document-Oscar-Pistorius-indictment

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judi, where did you get the $250/day figure from? In the U.S. expert fees vary based on experience, but all charge well over $250/day.

The forensic pathologist hired by the defense in the Zimmerman trial charged $2,400 USD for his work before testifying, which was actually a low fee because he said that particular case was not forensically complicated at all. That same expert was hired by the defense in the Phil Spector trial and charged over $25,000 USD in consulting fees.

An expert witness must have qualifications with specific scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. They are experts in their field. If they fear risk to their reputation by testifying in a trial, then they're probably not competent to begin with.

Roux's claim of witnesses who wouldn't testify because the trial was televised were definitely not experts. True experts write books, scholarly journal articles, give speeches, etc. They share their expertise publicly; that's what experts do. Any expert the DT hired but didn't call to testify was because they would hurt their case (the star forensic pathologist whose post-mortem findings supported the PT, the forensic investigator who made the animation which contradicted aspects of OP's version).

The only potential witnesses the DT could have called who allegedly refused to testify because it was televised would be neighbors who probably claimed they either heard nothing or didn't hear a woman scream. As I said yesterday, if the DT truly felt these so-called witnesses were crucial to their case, they would have explained the circumstances to milady and requested that the TV cameras and audio be turned off for their testimony. She did not allow TV or audio during the state pathologist's testimony due to the sensitive nature of it, so I don't see her refusing to do the same for civilian DT witnesses had they requested it.

I couldn't find the rates for South African experts but I can show you where I got my figure from (NSW, Australia). Fees for attending in court to give expert testimony have nothing to do with what is charged to a client prior to trial.
Please see paragraph (b) at the foot of column 2 of the attached link. You'll note that my figure was in fact higher than that shown and that was because these rates were applicable in 2011.

http://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/2011/jul/witnesses.pdf

I certainly don't need to be informed of what an expert witness is or what's been happening in this trial.

 

[Cherwell]

The only potential witnesses the DT could have called who allegedly refused to testify because it was televised would be neighbors who probably claimed they either heard nothing or didn't hear a woman scream. As I said yesterday, if the DT truly felt these so-called witnesses were crucial to their case, they would have explained the circumstances to milady and requested that the TV cameras and audio be turned off for their testimony. She did not allow TV or audio during the state pathologist's testimony due to the sensitive nature of it, so I don't see her refusing to do the same for civilian DT witnesses had they requested it.

That is a very good point in answer to the suggestion that it might be used as grounds for appeal. I had forgotten that Prof. Saayman's testimony had not been broadcast at his own request. (I still think that was wrong, as there was nothing in it that wasn't shown or described in other evidence, but that's by the way.)

 

[AJ_DS]

That is a very good point in answer to the suggestion that it might be used as grounds for appeal. I had forgotten that Prof. Saayman's testimony had not been broadcast at his own request. (I still think that was wrong, as there was nothing in it that wasn't shown or described in other evidence, but that's by the way.)

That will be the PT's position and arguments to refute the DT's claims.

 

[Cherwell]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

To return to this. I didn't want to reply to every point because I think anyone with a little imagination can think of plausible reasons why and how an argument might have been sparked off. I also found some of the exaggerated and clichéed phrasing offensive, and misrepresentative.


I just want to comment on this line that I missed.

"d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?"

An obvious explanation could be that she couldn't get at her car keys. She might reluctantly leave without other belongings, but without car keys she couldn't leave at all.

Wasn't this the situation with Cassidy Taylor Memmory? Having been chased out of OP's house with her friends, the reason why she was at the door trying to come back in was to retrieve her bag containing her keys. (Her account, obviously, but it has the ring of truth to me.)

 

[Viper]

I couldn't find the rates for South African experts but I can show you where I got my figure from (NSW, Australia). Fees for attending in court to give expert testimony have nothing to do with what is charged to a client prior to trial.
Please see paragraph (b) at the foot of column 2 of the attached link. You'll note that my figure was in fact higher than that shown and that was because these rates were applicable in 2011.

http://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/2011/jul/witnesses.pdf

I certainly don't need to be informed of what an expert witness is or what's been happening in this trial.

Thanks for sourcing that! I think a lot of experts that are asked to take the day off and come to testify for the State are provided a small stipend to cover expenses and their loss of salary for the day or days of work they lose. For example I'm thinking of a nurse or a doctor perhaps that attended to a party involved in a crime and is asked to come before the court to testify during the subsequent trial. But for "hired guns" like Dr. D, Wollie, Dixon, and that sound guy, I believe that they charge the defense substantially more per day as it is their sole business, providing expert testimony that is.

 

[Viper]

From JudgeJudy's link, quote:

Grounds for appeal

"In all appeals, possible grounds include the introduction of new evidence favourable to the accused or proof that prosecution witnesses were not telling the truth.

Alternatively, an accused may believe that the judge or magistrate misinterpreted the law and that the sentence was excessive for the offence or that personal circumstances were not taken into account. Occasionally an accused may simply believe that the court made the wrong decision on the evidence and that a higher court might come to a different conclusion as to whether the crime has been proved."

<snipped>

"The general rule is that 'leave to appeal should not be granted unless the applicant will have a reasonable prospect of success on appeal' (Rex v Baloi, 1949)."


I would be shocked if after hearing Roux claim that he could not get witnesses to testify that Masipa did not address that in her reading of the verdict, and equally shocked if she granted an appeal based on that frivolous claim. Both the Court and Roux know that the witnesses could have been compelled to testify and that the prosecution would have assisted in that process if Roux had requested it. Not to mention that Masipa would have granted a blackout of their voices if Roux had requested it. This is not a winning point for an appeal. BTW, Roux will have to disclose exactly what evidence the witnesses would have brought before the court had they testified, and it would have to have merit as to a different verdict.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=6400430

 

[pandax81]

Ha, my partner just saw me catching up on a court session where someone's phone went off.

She said if you receive that much wrath from the Judge just for not checking your phones off before entering court, imagine what she's going to do with someone who didn't check it was their girlfriend before shooting them dead!

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

- RS had only stayed because OP had insisted so much on it
- RS had enough and she gave OP a piece of her mind
- OP was taken aback by this novel situation : i.e. RS standing up to him
- OP switched tactics and began giving excuses… RS was not going to have any of that this time
- RS had held back on a lot of stuff until that night… but this was the last straw
- RS gave OP hell… one sided argument between 2AM and 3AM
- Things escalated at got out of hand

This is incorrect. They'd both originally made other plans and weren't going to spend the evening together. I always felt that OP couldn't have cared less whether or not she stayed. "The athlete told her: "Stay tonight if you like."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-prosecution-rests

 

[TorisMom003]

Actually it is not "incorrect". It is unknown. OP admitted himself that he rarely sent text messages and preferred to talk on the phone to the person instead. Reeva was planning on going home that night and something/someone did change her mind. Just because OP sent a text that said "stay tonight if you like" does not mean that he did not call her also to talk her into staying. At this time we simply do not know.

MOO

 

[AJ_DS]

<Respectfully snipped>

This is incorrect. They'd both originally made other plans and weren't going to spend the evening together. I always felt that OP couldn't have cared less whether or not she stayed. "The athlete told her: "Stay tonight if you like."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-prosecution-rests

Perhaps you should take a look at the timeline of Whatsapp messages and phone calls before stating incorrectly that posters are wrong about something.

It's rather obvious that Reeva did NOT want to stay at Oscar's and that Oscar insisted that she stay.


12:12:05 &#8211; Whatsapp
REEVA : " Baba I hope u don&#8217;t mind but I came back to the house to work a bit and do some washing. It will help me a lot to get stuff done and relieve some stress. I&#8217;ll go through to Jhb at like 3 "

Reeva was stressed and had to get some work done (perhaps her speech). Being alone without distractions was her intended goal to get &#8216;stuff done&#8217;. Reeva tells Oscar her plan : leave around 3PM and return home to Joburg.

Although Reeva&#8217;s message reads like she is already at Oscar&#8217;s house, she is NOT. From the detailed billing info, Reeva arrived at Silverwoods between 12:45 and 13:02:52

13:02:52 &#8211; Oscar calls Reeva (4 m. 1 s.) &#8211; he whines about the &#8216;$h!tty thing&#8217; that happened to him. Conversation until 13:06:53

About 4 minutes after that conversation Reeva sends Oscar this message

13:10:48 &#8211; Whatsapp
REEVA : " It&#8217;s a difficult thing to try to console you baba because it&#8217;s a $h!tty thing and you&#8217;re a nice guy. I guess these things happen and we can just hope they work out for the best. You are an amazing person with so many blessings and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far outweigh this hurdle I can promise you that "

13:40:54 &#8211; RS 5353 &#8211; Silverlakes tower &#8211; GPRS (2 h. 2 m. 20 s.) &#8211; Uninterrupted until 15:43:14 &#8211; Reeva initiates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:21:40 &#8211; Whatsapp &#8211; Reply to the 13:10:48 message from Reeva
OSCAR : " Thank you so much my angel. you don&#8217;t have to my angel. Stay tonight if you would like. "

15:21:52 &#8211; Whatsapp
OSCAR : " I&#8217;m just finishing off at Ryan "

Although Reeva has already stated that she will be going home to Joburg at 3PM and it&#8217;s now 20 minutes past 3PM, Oscar hints that she could stay the night at his house.

15:23:09 &#8211; Whatsapp
REEVA : " Thank you baba. Let me know if you&#8217;d like to spend time with M or Carl. I&#8217;m sure you maybe feel like some family tonight. "

Not wanting to tell him &#8216;No&#8217;, Reeva diplomatically suggests that Oscar should seek comfort and consolation from family members (Aimee or Carl). Reeva obviously gets that Oscar would like her to stay but she can&#8217;t accommodate him tonight.

15:41:54 &#8211; Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 33 s.) &#8211; Conversation until 15:43:27

One can clearly infer the subject of this conversation from Reeva&#8217;s Whatsapp message that follows in 2.5 minutes at 15:46:10. Oscar is being insistent about having Reeva spend the evening with him.

15:43:14 &#8211; RS 5353 &#8211; Silverlakes tower &#8211; GPRS &#8211; Reeva terminates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:46:10 &#8211; Whatsapp
REEVA : " Angel I&#8217;m going to go home at like 6. Please stay and do whatever it was you were gonna do "

Reeva re-conveys her firm intent to go home to Joburg and pleads with Oscar for him to forget her for tonight. Her tone reads like a loving but exasperated mother that has to deny her son something he wants right away.

Reeva has to give a speech the very next morning in Joburg. The drive from Silverwoods to Joburg is a 1-hour drive without traffic. Driving in the evening, Reeva would be going in the opposite direction of weekday rush-hour traffic. In the morning, Reeva would be going in the same direction of weekday rush-hour traffic.

15:54:27 &#8211; Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 53 s.) &#8211; 8 minutes after Reeva reaffirmed that she did not want to stay. Oscar insist again and manages to convince Reeva to stay that evening.

 

[AJ_DS]

<Respectfully snipped>

This is incorrect. They'd both originally made other plans and weren't going to spend the evening together. I always felt that OP couldn't have cared less whether or not she stayed. "The athlete told her: "Stay tonight if you like."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-prosecution-rests

BiB&#8230; Yes... Reeva had made plans to go home to Joburg !! As for OP's plans, we only have his word for what his plans were&#8230; nobody corroborated anything OP has stated in Court&#8230;. in fact most of them contradicted OP !

As for what YOU personally feel were OP's feelings about RS staying or not&#8230; everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even if unfounded.

 

[Sherbert]

Perhaps you should take a look at the timeline of Whatsapp messages and phone calls before stating incorrectly that posters are wrong about something.

It's rather obvious that Reeva did NOT want to stay at Oscar's and that Oscar insisted that she stay.


12:12:05 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Baba I hope u don’t mind but I came back to the house to work a bit and do some washing. It will help me a lot to get stuff done and relieve some stress. I’ll go through to Jhb at like 3 "

Reeva was stressed and had to get some work done (perhaps her speech). Being alone without distractions was her intended goal to get ‘stuff done’. Reeva tells Oscar her plan : leave around 3PM and return home to Joburg.

Although Reeva’s message reads like she is already at Oscar’s house, she is NOT. From the detailed billing info, Reeva arrived at Silverwoods between 12:45 and 13:02:52

13:02:52 – Oscar calls Reeva (4 m. 1 s.) – he whines about the ‘$h!tty thing’ that happened to him. Conversation until 13:06:53

About 4 minutes after that conversation Reeva sends Oscar this message

13:10:48 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " It’s a difficult thing to try to console you baba because it’s a $h!tty thing and you’re a nice guy. I guess these things happen and we can just hope they work out for the best. You are an amazing person with so many blessings and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far outweigh this hurdle I can promise you that "

13:40:54 – RS 5353 – Silverlakes tower – GPRS (2 h. 2 m. 20 s.) – Uninterrupted until 15:43:14 – Reeva initiates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:21:40 – Whatsapp – Reply to the 13:10:48 message from Reeva
OSCAR : " Thank you so much my angel. you don’t have to my angel. Stay tonight if you would like. "

15:21:52 – Whatsapp
OSCAR : " I’m just finishing off at Ryan "

Although Reeva has already stated that she will be going home to Joburg at 3PM and it’s now 20 minutes past 3PM, Oscar hints that she could stay the night at his house.

15:23:09 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Thank you baba. Let me know if you’d like to spend time with M or Carl. I’m sure you maybe feel like some family tonight. "

Not wanting to tell him ‘No’, Reeva diplomatically suggests that Oscar should seek comfort and consolation from family members (Aimee or Carl). Reeva obviously gets that Oscar would like her to stay but she can’t accommodate him tonight.

15:41:54 – Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 33 s.) – Conversation until 15:43:27

One can clearly infer the subject of this conversation from Reeva’s Whatsapp message that follows in 2.5 minutes at 15:46:10. Oscar is being insistent about having Reeva spend the evening with him.

15:43:14 – RS 5353 – Silverlakes tower – GPRS – Reeva terminates the Personal Hotspot on her phone

15:46:10 – Whatsapp
REEVA : " Angel I’m going to go home at like 6. Please stay and do whatever it was you were gonna do "

Reeva re-conveys her firm intent to go home to Joburg and pleads with Oscar for him to forget her for tonight. Her tone reads like a loving but exasperated mother that has to deny her son something he wants right away.

Reeva has to give a speech the very next morning in Joburg. The drive from Silverwoods to Joburg is a 1-hour drive without traffic. Driving in the evening, Reeva would be going in the opposite direction of weekday rush-hour traffic. In the morning, Reeva would be going in the same direction of weekday rush-hour traffic.

15:54:27 – Oscar calls Reeva (1 m. 53 s.) – 8 minutes after Reeva reaffirmed that she did not want to stay. Oscar insist again and manages to convince Reeva to stay that evening.

I found this timeline very helpful indeed.

Any ideas as to why Reeva would imply she was at the house when she wasn't?

 

[foxbluff]

I am sure this is significant. IIRC the Internet data was submitted as evidence but the details of the 0148 connection on Oscar's phone weren't made public. On cross it was agreed that phones CAN make automatic connections and after Nel didn't expand media reports speculated that this 5 min connection wasn't manual and eventually this came to be "true". But we actually have no idea whether it was or wasn't. I agree it seems like too much of a coincidence for there to be Internet activity just before the sounds of an argument was hoping Nel would bring it up in OP's cross. However, he's built a very sound case without it and if it turns up in his closing it will be the veritable "icing on the cake". I view the jeans, damaged tiles etc in the same way.

Ty Jake... great explanation !! You've provided the finer details to something that has nagged at me for a l-o-n-g time.

 

[eimajjjj]

Can the PT introduce anymore incriminating evidence or contradictions in OPs story (breathing/not breathing) etc. in the closing arguments or are they limited to what's already been said? In which case, if they did, when and how and who to could the DT bring up an objection to the closing argument when it's submitted on 30 July?