Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[Interested Bystander]

BBM - You're a hoot! I expect you're right about Nel. However, regardless of how hard Nel squeezed, I don't believe he would have gotten anymore than "I don't know. I was asleep." And upon waking up "I didn't hear anything."

The police who interviewed him said they thought he was lying. I just feel Nel would have tied him in knots. I am not too sure he would have got away with that he didn't know, was asleep or didn't hear anything but we shall never know.

 

[AJ_DS]

Isn't this the photo that was labeled as OP being on his stumps?

For months I thought it was mislabeled. Apparently, I wasn't alone in my opinion for the photo came up for discussion later on. The general consensus here was that the photo does indeed show OP on his stumps.

1. OP was on his prosthetics when he brought RS downstairs… he never took them off according to OP and Police investigators

2. The photo's description does NOT mention "stumps" nor "prosthetics"… what mislabeling are you referring to ??

3. One can clearly see the 'feet' and socks of the prosthetics… even the blood stains on the sock of his right 'foot'






___________ Never mind LOL

 

[Interested Bystander]

Seriously ?… General consensus ?!?... or is this statement just to solicit 'interesting' debate ?

1. OP was on his prosthetics when he brought RS downstairs… he never took them off according to OP and Police investigators

2. The photo's description does NOT mention "stumps" nor "prosthetics"… what mislabeling are you referring to ??


3. One can clearly see the 'feet' and socks of the prosthetics… even the blood stains on the sock of his right 'foot'


View attachment 54703

View attachment 54704

I think the Original Poster made a mistake. See post 559 above.

 

[Susza]

I totally agree. Although in the last sentence I would add two words: "where he could again hurt AND KILL someone".

Hello to all of you. I have been following quite regurlarly your communication here (and also the trial) and I'm glad to finally having succeeded in joining you. I really enjoy the way you're exchanging thoughts and knowledge.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to participating in an interesting way as I am not at all into "law affairs" neither able to express myself well in english. I am German living in the french part of Switzerland.

 

[AJ_DS]

I totally agree. Although in the last sentence I would add two words: "where he could again hurt AND KILL someone".

Hello to all of you. I have been following quite regurlarly your communication here (and also the trial) and I'm glad to finally having succeeded in joining you. I really enjoy the way you're exchanging thoughts and knowledge.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to participating in an interesting way as I am not at all into "law affairs" neither able to express myself well in english. I am German living in the french part of Switzerland.

:welcome2:

BiB… LOL… yes I see how that could be a problem for your english… but don't worry about it and post to your heart's content !

Good luck in the Cup finals !!

 

[Susza]

Does anyone know when arguments start.Thanks to Everyone who responds.

They are planned for august 7 and 8.

 

[foxbluff]

Sorry for this dumb question but I have to ask..
OP is on his prosthesis legs on the photos taken in his garage but still his height is as if on his stumps abt 1.50-1.55 mt.. What am I missing lol ? View attachment 54678

Hi MURDERER_SERVANT. To quote an old adage "there are no dumb Qs, just dumb answers." :blushing:

I don't think you're missing anything! Even though the photo was identified as OP on his prosthetic legs, I kept thinking it was mislabeled, because he looks so short. Apparently, others here thought the same way. It came up for discussion and the final conclusion was that he was indeed shown on his prosthesis.

The angle at which the photo was taken is, imo, an awful choice. I can't imagine why the photographer elected to stand on another officer's shoulders in order to take the pic. <just kidding>

 

[foxbluff]

The police who interviewed him said they thought he was lying. I just feel Nel would have tied him in knots. I am not too sure he would have got away with that he didn't know, was asleep or didn't hear anything but we shall never know.

BBM - Woooo... I didn't know that! I mean, I was pretty sure that's what they thought, but hadn't realized they had been quoted.

I know so little about Frank. I don't know anything about his age, level of education, etc. If he's not a "worldly" (for lack of a better word) individual, I suppose you're correct that Nel might have been able to wring some answers from him. If so, I fear that would have ended up being bad for Frank's future. moo

 

[Susza]

:welcome2:

BiB&#8230; LOL&#8230; yes I see how that could be a problem for your english&#8230; but don't worry about it and post to your heart's content !

Good luck in the Cup finals !!

Thank you!
I am so sorry for what happened to Brazil ;-)

 

[Viper]

I agree. I thought his eye contact was not constant with the interviewer/camera, which can happen when somebody lies, though it does not always indicate this. A shifty individual IMO. There was something about his body language that wasn't quite right.

Now where is the member who has trained in FACE. This is micro expression evaluation. I am sure she would be able to throw some light on the guy.

Last I read from her she was evaluating the image of OPs facial expressions as a two year old toddler, the cute picture of him with blonde hair and his legs dangling down. Incredibly, she was finding early identifiable indications of his future evil deeds. :floorlaugh:

 

[Val1]

BBM - Woooo... I didn't know that! I mean, I was pretty sure that's what they thought, but hadn't realized they had been quoted.

I know so little about Frank. I don't know anything about his age, level of education, etc. If he's not a "worldly" (for lack of a better word) individual, I suppose you're correct that Nel might have been able to wring some answers from him. If so, I fear that would have ended up being bad for Frank's future. moo

This is about as much info as you're likely to find on him... if he'd been working for OP for at least a couple of years and from the sounds of it was one of those "temporary foreign workers" that get sent home(deported) when their job is done, makes sense that he won't talk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10809123/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Malawian-housekeeper-was-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html

http://www.jeromestarkey.com/post/84867999193/i-slept-through-it-all-and-heard-nothing-says-oscars

Mr Pistorius, 27, used to refer to his manservant as &#8220;Frankie&#8221; and &#8220;Brother&#8221;, and he carried the athlete&#8217;s prosthetic legs to him, according to an interview published in 2011.

A family spokesman said that he was a gardener. Other reports referred to him as a caretaker. Yet the athlete, who spent five days in the witness box before the trial was adjourned for two weeks, had made no mention of Mr Chiziweni; nor did he call him for help after the shooting, when he said he struggled to lift Ms Steenkamp&#8217;s body and carry her downstairs.

 

[Viper]

I'm still interested in the subject of whether or not OP can get bail after his conviction while his inevitable appeal proceeds, provided of course that Judge Masipa agreed to whatever is in his appeal. I'm not finding a lot of people being afforded this, despite that some people claim it is customary and is no big deal in SA.

A very close case is Jub Jub, because he was convicted of murder, and because he is a wealthy and famous South African. His application for bail pending appeal was denied.

I found another example. A geologist had another man murder his wife, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years. He appealed and applied for bail. Interesting thing here is he has children, presumably adult children, that rely on him for support; and he has very strong ties to his community. He also has cancer, although it is in remission, and he is ~66 years old. His application for bail was denied, and the judge hearing his appeal said:

"[Judge] Mavundla said Prinsloo needed to &#8220;take his medicine with a smile&#8221; and could not use the interests of his children as an excuse to stay out of jail. - Sapa".

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...ait-appeal-behind-bars-1.1524075#.U8Bnbr-9LTo

 

[Sherbert]

Thanks for the useful info Sherbert !

I wonder what OP believed "face timing" to be ?? LOL

OP probably did not appreciate being made fun of by RS, on Twitter, on New Years Eve !! :hilarious:

If RS tweeted OP on New Years Eve, that means they were not together ?!?

Must make an effort to sleuth on Twitter… great source of info !

As for the timeline, my reasoning is the following :

- RS's hotspot on her phone was still active (possibility she forgot to turn it off)

- One must be awake, hungry and have access to food to eat… so RS was all of those

- Pr. Saayman estimated RS had eaten approximately 2 hours prior to TOD… so around 1:15AM… but this could easily be about 1:00AM or about 1:30AM

- OP's personal phone make a very long GPRS connection at 1:48AM after a lengthy (about 3 hours) absence of all communication on it

- EDVM hears a woman arguing at 1:56AM… EDVM can only hear what is happening at front of OP's house : kitchen / living room area

- EDVM hears a woman arguing until about 3:00AM ...the row moves from the kitchen / living room area to the bedroom

- OP shoots RS at 3:15AM

- OP's personal phone made another GPRS connection at 3:18AM after a lengthy (about 1.5 hours) absence of all communication on it… seconds before OP called Stander


The interesting "coincidence" is that OP's personal phone makes a GPRS connection ONLY when something important is happening… First time, when RS has eaten and the arguing begins… Second time, when OP kills RS and calls his buddy !

Hi AJ!

Yes, that tweet provides an interesting insight into the dynamics of the relationship: Oscar is unlikely to have appreciated being teased; and, poor unsuspecting Reeva, being the warm, fun-loving woman that she appeared to be, probably had no idea that he wouldn't see the funny side...

Regarding your helpful timeline, I agree that Oscar is unlikely to have switched back to airplane mode during the quarrel. Unless, of course, he checked his messages first and then switched airplane mode straight back on because he was anxious to ensure that no other female called/text in Reeva's presence. IMO such anxiety would be prompted if, when he checked his phone, he discovered that another woman had been trying to contact him and was likely to try again.

Unfortunately, we'll never know if incriminating data was wiped when the phone went AWOL.

Another possibility, of course, is that, the handset automatically activated when he went downstairs, the phone rang and he refused to answer it. An unanswered call at that time of the morning might well cause a row.

So, if I understand correctly, the real issue is what event in the house caused the phone to make a connection at that time, rather than whether it was in flight mode or had a DND app. installed.

 

[Sherbert]

Foxbluff - thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement yesterday - I really appreciated them.

 

[AJ_DS]

Thank you!
I am so sorry for what happened to Brazil ;-)

Thanks&#8230; Germany was very kind to us in the second half&#8230;otherwise it could have ended 12 - 0 or something like that.

I'm rooting for Germany for the finals&#8230; Brasilians despise Argentinians.

 

[Val1]

bbm - While we take this break until final arguments, I reviewed some of the articles I've bookmarked and came across this one which I thought would make for a good discussion on whether any of you feel OP's DT has convinced you of all or enough of their plea explanations that you think OP should walk as a result or even get a lesser sentence due to them.

Personally, I think they were all proven to be smoke and mirrors explanations ... either makes no difference or were proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the PT, just so you know where I stand.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/03/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-begins

When proceedings began, Nel read out the charges and Pistorius pleaded not guilty to each of them, which included a charge of murder and three other gun-related charges.

Speaking via Oldwage, Pistorius denies murdering Steenkamp in the strongest terms saying at the time of the “tragic accident” they were in a loving relationship.

"I mistakenly believed that Reeva was an intruder, and posed an imminent threat to me and Reeva."

He also disputes a neighbour’s claims that she could hear an argument between him and Steenkamp.

Pistorius submits that the state has conceded on certain facts related to his location in the bathroom and whether he was on his stumps.

Pistorius says the scene was contaminated, disturbed and tampered with.

He says his legal counsel will object to the state’s attempt to lead inadmissible character evidence.

He also believes the state will attempt to admit evidence in an attempt to assassinate his character.

Oldwage concluded, entering the plea explanation into the record and Pistorius confirmed what was read.

 

[AJ_DS]

I'm still interested in the subject of whether or not OP can get bail after his conviction while his inevitable appeal proceeds, provided of course that Judge Masipa agreed to whatever is in his appeal. I'm not finding a lot of people being afforded this, despite that some people claim it is customary and is no big deal in SA.

A very close case is Jub Jub, because he was convicted of murder, and because he is a wealthy and famous South African. His application for bail pending appeal was denied.

I found another example. A geologist had another man murder his wife, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years. He appealed and applied for bail. Interesting thing here is he has children, presumably adult children, that rely on him for support; and he has very strong ties to his community. He also has cancer, although it is in remission, and he is ~66 years old. His application for bail was denied, and the judge hearing his appeal said:

"[Judge] Mavundla said Prinsloo needed to &#8220;take his medicine with a smile&#8221; and could not use the interests of his children as an excuse to stay out of jail. - Sapa".

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...ait-appeal-behind-bars-1.1524075#.U8Bnbr-9LTo

Could the cancer diagnosis have been a factor in that decision ?

&#8230; something like the guy had already a death sentence, therefore he had nothing to loose by skipping on bail.

 

[geevee]

I totally agree. Although in the last sentence I would add two words: "where he could again hurt AND KILL someone".

Hello to all of you. I have been following quite regurlarly your communication here (and also the trial) and I'm glad to finally having succeeded in joining you. I really enjoy the way you're exchanging thoughts and knowledge.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to participating in an interesting way as I am not at all into "law affairs" neither able to express myself well in english. I am German living in the french part of Switzerland.

Guten abend! I only speak a tiny bit of Deutsch lol good to have you aboard Susza!

 

[Jake18]

I agree. I thought his eye contact was not constant with the interviewer/camera, which can happen when somebody lies, though it does not always indicate this. A shifty individual IMO. There was something about his body language that wasn't quite right.

Now where is the member who has trained in FACE. This is micro expression evaluation. I am sure she would be able to throw some light on the guy.

I thought he was lying but I doubt he'd ever ever say that one of his clients was guilty publicly. Terrible PR and it might have legal implications.

 

[AJ_DS]

Hi AJ!

Yes, that tweet provides an interesting insight into the dynamics of the relationship: Oscar is unlikely to have appreciated being teased; and, poor unsuspecting Reeva, being the warm, fun-loving woman that she appeared to be, probably had no idea that he wouldn't see the funny side...

Regarding your helpful timeline, I agree that Oscar is unlikely to have switched back to airplane mode during the quarrel. Unless, of course, he checked his messages first and then switched airplane mode straight back on because he was anxious to ensure that no other female called/text in Reeva's presence. IMO such anxiety would be prompted if, when he checked his phone, he discovered that another woman had been trying to contact him and was likely to try again.

Unfortunately, we'll never know if incriminating data was wiped when the phone went AWOL.

Another possibility, of course, is that, the handset automatically activated when he went downstairs, the phone rang and he refused to answer it. An unanswered call at that time of the morning might well cause a row.

So, if I understand correctly, the real issue is what event in the house caused the phone to make a connection at that time, rather than whether it was in flight mode or had a DND app. installed.

BiB 1 &#8230; Great point !! Hadn't thought about that&#8230; thanks

BiB 2 &#8230; The issue is finding a correlation (not necessarily a causation) between the activity on OP's phone and the evidence, so we can infer what truly happened in that house.

The problem is that, to be valid, the inferences must be founded on things that are possible but also probable.

I believe the Airplane mode is certainly possible but not that probable, mostly because of the hassle.

Whereas the DND app SBSchedule (or another similar one) is both possible and probable.