Trial Discussion Thread #48

[Cherwell]

As for watching videos of the live stream, I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to say no. I believe they can only view the exhibits that were entered into evidence, the record, and the notes they took during the witness' testimonies. I could be wrong though.

BiB… I would think you are correct… media recordings of the proceedings are off-limits

I can't see why they couldn't be used as part of the official court record. It seems a waste otherwise. As this is the first televised case in SA, there is no precedent.

 

[jay-jay]

Thanks !!

So 'Fritz' is the name of a person who is an estate agent AND the nickname of his business.

It wasn't a birthday party but the 10th anniversary party of the business

- Do we know if the party was held in the Fritz offices or somewhere else ?

If we can locate Divaris's office and the location of that party, we could possibly establish a better timeline

No, the company name is 'Firzt'! (I spelt it wrong as well!)

 

[Cherwell]

So 'Fritz' is the name of a person who is an estate agent AND the nickname of his business.

NO! :banghead:

The name of the business is FIRZT. Not "Fritz".

There is nothing and no one called Fritz.

 

[jay-jay]

I posted a link to their website upthread ..

http://www.firztonline.co.za/

Firzt is the name of the real estate company (the company that was celebrating 10 years), Ryan is the name of the person who worked for them and who OP was dealing with, with regard to his house purchase, presumably.

 

[AJ_DS]

No, the company name is 'Firzt'! (I spelt it wrong as well!)

NO! :banghead:

The name of the business is FIRZT. Not "Fritz".

There is nothing and no one called Fritz.

Thanks !!

So do we know if the party was held at the Firzt offices ?

Could Ryan be an estate agent who works at Firzt ?

 

[jay-jay]

I posted this upthread, AJ_DS

No idea what this 'Ryan's' surname is, but this one was working for Firzt Reality Company in 2013 http://za.linkedin.com/pub/ryan-chaitowitz/73/131/705

 

[Interested Bystander]

OT A little Levity (apropos the feeling we have that money talks)

The Heavenly Banker

Following a distinguished financial career in the City, a man arrived at the Gates of Heaven, accompanied by the Pope who had the misfortunate to expire on the same day. The Pope was greeted first by St Peter, who escorted him to his quarters. The room was somewhat shabby and small, similar to that found in a cheap two-star hotel. The banker was then taken to his room, which was a palatial suite including a private swimming pool in a garden and a terrace overlooking the Gates.

The banker was somewhat taken aback and told St Peter, “I’m really quite surprised at these rooms, seeing as how the Pope was given such grotty accommodation.”

St Peter replied, “Popes are two a penny; we’ve got over a hundred of them here but we’ve never had a banker before.”


Mods please remove if unacceptable

 

[eimajjjj]

I'm re-watching the chaos surrounding OP when he declares he 'deactivated the alarm' and then changed it to 'he must have deactivated the alarm'. Two things:

1. Notice how Masipa says to him 'Are you making all these mistakes because you're tired' he immediately goes into petulance/attack mode to tell Masipa 'he made a misake' (not mistakes) as if he thinks he can manipulate her opinion in the matter. He does it twice actually, acts the feeble tired man but then the minute she says 'all these mistakes' you can here his aggressive demeanour emerging to make sure she knows it was just the mistake, and instead of answering her question about being tired, he consistently ignores it and tries to clarify his 'one' mistake (much to Masipa telling him that's not the issue here).

2. Surely, there must be a central registry of an alarm being activated or deactivated. I'd love it if that was the trump card Nel pulls in closing arguments but sadly I think it would have been admitted by now as evidence to trip OP already.

 

[jay-jay]

François Moller's testimony in chief-examination (the cellphone expert) :

Moller is being led by Nel to explain exhibit ZZ-3 : Reeva's phone detailed billing chart of 13 February

NEL : " Now, if one would use application like Whatsapp and/or Facebook how would that be indicated on the detailed billing ? "

MOLLER : " M’Lady all the social media communications will take place by means of the GPRS connections. "

… Moller goes on explaining various incoming and outgoing calls featured in ZZ-3 …

Moller skips ahead and explains the very last GPRS connection which started at 20:04:17 on 13 February and was uninterrupted until 7:28:06 on 14 February.

Nel asks Moller to skip back and explain the GPRS connection immediately before that last one.

Moller explains that the second to last GPRS connection started at 20:04:00 and lasted 17 seconds.

NEL : " Now to establish if this was a Whatsapp or what this was, one could refer back to the download report of her handset ? "

MOLLER : " That is correct M‘Lady, one would have to go back and have a look in the download report if one can actually find any application that made use of the internet for communication and mostly, in this case that she was a regular user on Whatsapp, one will have to go and look at the Whatsapp messages. "

NEL : " So if there’s a Whatsapp message at the same time that would indicate this connection with the internet ? "

MOLLER : " That is correct M’Lady. "

Reference : Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday, 25 March 2014, Session 1 – starting at 17:53


Nel was very insistent on this particular and very brief GPRS connection… he basically invited Judge Masipa to look in the download report, in the Whatsapp messages, at the specific time of 20:04:00.

I may be wrong but I just can't imagine Nel would say all this if nothing relevant or useful to his case was to be found there.

.. also, don't forget, we have still to find out who the 'mystery man' was, one of whom's messages with a pic flashed up on the screen as they were going through Reeva's final What'sApp messages ..

 

[jay-jay]

.. there's supposed to be another image attached to that post but it only uploaded one .. this was the other one, from that same message



.. all this was entered as evidence.

 

[liesbeth]

BBM - THANK YOU! This is exactly why the proper order in which to evaluate the state's case versus the defense's case has had me so conflicted - because each side has its own burden of proof.

I personally find it easier in my mind to prove OP's guilt by disproving his version and his defense. For example, OP claimed he thought an attack was imminent when he heard wood movement because he associated that wood-moving sound with the door opening, but that is disproved by the forensic evidence that Reeva was standing in front of and close to the door. She was nowhere near the magazine rack to bump it and make a wood-moving sound. We could easily do this with almost every element of his version. So in my view, when his version and defense are disproven, the state's case is simultaneously and automatically proven. Add in the eye witnesses' evidence that the bathroom light was on before the gunshots, and the ear witnesses' evidence that there was an argument and that Reeva was heard screaming before and during the gunshots, not only does this further prove his guilt, but it's also possible proof of premeditation.

I still may be completely backwards with how I'm looking at this but IMO, any way you slice it, OP is guilty.

BBM. Indeed.

Let's look at the State's case first.

We know the State will argue that Pistorius's version "is not reasonably possibly true and it is our case that if rejected by the court, the objective facts will prove the murder with direct intent of the deceased."

So if the judge rejects Oscar's version then...

1) ...the testimony of other witnesses like Dr Vorster (Youtube at 46:07 minutes) who based their testimony on what Oscar told them, will be rejected. So no (or very little) outside support for PPD from the defence witnesses.

2)...there will be nothing, or very little, left from the defence witnesses that will dispute the testimony of the State's witnesses.

3)...there is the problem of S v De Oliveira, another PPD case in SA, where the court found “that no reasonable man in the circumstances in which the appellant found himself would have believed that his life or property was in imminent danger." The court based this on the fact that De Oliveira did not testify in his own defence. If Oscar's version, his PPD, is rejected what is left?

I'm with you that I may be completely backwards with how I'm looking at this but IMO, any way you slice it, OP is guilty.

 

[AJ_DS]

I posted this upthread, AJ_DS

Thanks Jay[SUP]2[/SUP]

Certainly not ironclad evidence but its a nice coincidence

But the timeline still does not match

Late lunch, Firzt party, Divaris office, call to Reeva… something is WAY off… to surprising though

 

[AJ_DS]

.. also, don't forget, we have still to find out who the 'mystery man' was, one of whom's messages with a pic flashed up on the screen as they were going through Reeva's final What'sApp messages ..

View attachment 55124

.. there's supposed to be another image attached to that post but it only uploaded one .. this was the other one, from that same message

View attachment 55125

.. all this was entered as evidence.

Thanks… all entered into evidence but Nel did not insist on that one…unless the one I'm referring to IS this one

That guy is a model who works for Equipmodel as per the metadata of the photo

Perhaps they had met on a casting set and exchanged contact info

 

[eimajjjj]

Interesting article about the jail OP may face (after years of appeal no doubt!)

"Laurie Pieters, an offender profiler and criminologist, has described prison in South Africa as "notoriously a very dangerous place" and believes Pistorius would be targeted for his disability as well as his notoriety. "Everybody knows who he is. You are going to have one lot targeting him for money and then maybe even others offering him protection for money,"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Pistorius-inside-Pretoria-Central-Prison.html

 

[liesbeth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1014


16:55 - 17:03 'I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police'

Is this an insight into what actually happened? Did anyone else notice this? I would have loved Nel to have picked this up and grilled Oscar like he did when he said 'I checked the balcony'. So many slip ups on this day of the trail, an excellent day for the prosecution IMO. I just hope the judge notices these when reviewing the record.

Good catch. Thank you!

Oscar's talking about how he moved from the bathroom to the bedroom after he had shot Reeva. He said he scr-shouted out for Reeva. Nel picks up on this and asks if he was shouting or screaming. Oscar says he was screaming. Nel asks why Oscar would scream? Then Oscar says: "I was scared. I wanted to...ask Reeva why-if she was phoning the police...etc."

Oscar swallows his words. He starts a word and immediately changes it. He did this often when he got upset. I think he said why-if. But look at Nel's body language right after he said it. Very interesting. Thanks again.

 

[vansleuths]

In regards to this recent altercation that OP got into with Jared Mortimer, I read an attorney say that OP did not violate his bail conditions by being drunk or being in a night club.

However, he went on to say that if Mortimer was to file an assault charge, OP could be in violation and potentially could have his bail revoked.

I wonder if this incident is now a closed case or if it will go any further?

 

[liesbeth]

I totally agree that disproving OP's PPD case brick by brick is MUCH easier than constructing the State's case for murder and evaluating if it achieves the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

However, I'm not sure if that methodology is legally possible.

I agree that logically if one disproves PPD than what remains is murder

The legal conundrum I have is the following :

Is disproving PPD beyond a reasonable doubt equivalent to proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt ?

Is disproving the accused innocence equivalent to proving the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ?

I agree. Disproving PPD does not prove murder. But doesn't it discredit Oscar's testimony? And the testimony of all the witnesses who based their testimony on what Oscar told them?

What's left is the State's witnesses with their facts undisputed by the discredited defense witnesses. So the judge will have to decide if it is murder based on these facts/witnesses.

I'm guessing the judge will consider Oscar's version before (edit: not before, but when!) when she decides on his reliability and credibility. I understand that she will not be considering a conviction on PPD at this time. But surely she must consider his version before she can reject it?

English not my first language either, so just to avoid confusion: to my mind his version is "I shot Reeva. I thought it was an intruder" and this is his defence, a putative private defence.

I'm very open to correction on this because I would like to understand.

 

[kezown]

Good catch. Thank you!

Oscar's talking about how he moved from the bathroom to the bedroom after he had shot Reeva. He said he scr-shouted out for Reeva. Nel picks up on this and asks if he was shouting or screaming. Oscar says he was screaming. Nel asks why Oscar would scream? Then Oscar says: "I was scared. I wanted to...ask Reeva why-if she was phoning the police...etc."

Oscar swallows his words. He starts a word and immediately changes it. He did this often when he got upset. I think he said why-if. But look at Nel's body language right after he said it. Very interesting. Thanks again.

Ahh I missed the 'if' in that sentence, thanks for your reply. What is disturbing is his spontaneous answers to Nel's questions, whether it's a little bit of the truth coming out or to suit the states case. I strongly believe that Reeva was threatening to call the police/security before he killed her. As far as Oscar was concerned whatever happened between them that night could NOT get out to the public, just like the other gun charges against him.

 

[jay-jay]

Thanks… all entered into evidence but Nel did not insist on that one…unless the one I'm referring to IS this one

That guy is a model who works for Equipmodel as per the metadata of the photo

Perhaps they had met on a casting set and exchanged contact info

... a model??

 

[jay-jay]

I can't find an agency called 'Equipmodel', either ..