Trial Discussion Thread #48

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I found the metadata on that first image .. Equipmake and Equipmodel relate to the camera/equipment used to take the image .. it has nothing to do with a modelling agency!
 
kezown said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. I agree. It's all speculation of course because we may never know for sure, but what you say makes so much sense.

I also think Reeva was threatening to phone the police. Oscar later said he'd screamed and shouted:"Get out of my f@$king house!" and "Call the police!" but I suspect it was really Reeva who screamed and shouted that she would call the police. I think Oscar wasn't sure what the witness/es had heard, so he incorporated Reeva's part of the dialogue into his version.

As for those disturbing spontaneous answers? I've heard it too. When he gets emotional his mind spills out of his mouth. Right in the beginning of his cross-examination he gets more and more upset. He says: "I've taken responsibility. By me waiting...pause...and not wanting to live my life, but waiting for my time on this stand to tell my story for the respect of Reeva and for myself. I've taken responsibility." No wonder Roux objected asap.

Welcome to the forum!

MOO.

Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a64lZAxqzI at about 07:25. Warning: Graphic image on scree.
 
kezown said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's like when he said "I retrieved my gun from n... from under the bed". It was pretty obvious he was about to say 'next' to the bed (which is where it normally was) and quickly corrected the word to 'under'. He's made a few slip ups like that, which is natural I guess, when you have to try and remember so many lies.
 
kaos said:
That now makes more sense as to why OP called Stander first.

Going back to the animation video made me think about Reeva's position in the toilet. Somebody had to brief the 'dream team' about OP's version for them to create the scenario that Reeva was cowering in the toilet and as the forensics proved she was closer to the door during the trial, I'm inclined to believe that at some point OP knew she was cowering in the corner.

I'm on to Dr Stipp's testimony now and forgot just how sarcastic Roux was with him - even to the extent of implying that if Reeva was so scared and terrified that she had time to open the toilet window to shout for help. Effectively blaming her for not being able to scream her way out of her own death.

Remember the 'screaming' tests that were also done outside the Stipp's house where OP's DT tried to catch out the Stipps? Shouldn't those tests have been submitted as evidence?
Click to expand...

BIB - Absolutely. It would make sense for her to be cowering in the corner when he was beating on the door with the bat. I think reflex and instinct would force anyone to back away from and to attempt to protect themselves from the source of the amplified noise and vibration that bat must have caused in that small tiled toilet cubicle.

I feel certain when he broke off a piece of the door panel with the bat he had a clear view of her cowering in the corner. Berger heard her screaming and also heard her cry for help, followed by a man crying for help three times. Johnson also heard both a man and a woman cry for help and said the fear in the woman's voice contrasted with a very monotone man's voice. He said his perception was that the man almost sounded embarrassed to be calling for help. Was OP mocking her? Or was he already formulating the intruder story? Who knows, but that's when he dropped the bat and went to get his gun.

While he was away she stood up and moved closer to the door...maybe to try to escape?...maybe to try to reason with him?...maybe pleading with him to stop?...we'll never know. Then upon his return with the gun, he raised it and pointed it at her. That's the very moment Berger heard the "bloodcurdling" scream. She said it reached a "climax," and the fear in her voice was indescribable. Johnson and Dr. Stipp also heard her scream, and Mrs. Stipp heard her screams intermingled with his screams. Reeva saw that gun, and she was literally screaming for her life. Then Berger, Johnson, Van der Merwe, Dr. Stipp, and Mrs. Stipp all heard the gunshots.

Roux tried relentlessly, but none of the ear witnesses would even entertain the thought that they mistook bat strikes for gunshots. Nor would they accept that the frightened female's screams they heard possibly have come from a high-pitched anxious male.

He scared the crap out of her when he banged on that toilet door repeatedly with the bat. He knew she was screaming and cowering in fear. He heard her. He saw her. And then he executed her.

MOO
 
liesbeth said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would be grossly over-speculating if I attempted to venture an opinion into the realm of this legal procedures minutia.

Sorry I could not be of more help :(
 
Val1 said:
Do we know for a fact that he even needs prescription glasses? I did some searching and all I found were pics of him wearing sunglasses from one of his now ex sponsors and only one pic before the court case where he's wearing a pair of what appear to be regular glasses, worn for his apology after being a poor loser... , although they could have been one of those newer sunglasses that change hue depending on the light. If there's no proof he actually needs a prescription, I'm betting he's just wearing reading glasses to make it easier to see his texts and/or notes while he sits in court all day(although I've seen at least one court pic where he appears to be wearing them quite high on his nose and looking under them at whatever it was) and that it makes him look more vulnerable(aka nerdish) certainly doesn't hurt since that's basically his defense...
Click to expand...

I have just found this which suggests he may wear contact lenses.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...Oscar-Pistorius-trial-day-7-part-1-20140311-2

OP Contact Lenses.JPG
 
Val1 said:
Wow, just went to check something in those two bottom links and it looks like someone has scrubbed them already.... we have a mole!! :/

Gee, maybe they should scrub this one too, just in case Roux decides to use his timid witnesses to appeal...

http://uk.onlinenigeria.com/latest-...lood-spattered-bathroom-could-wreck-case.html
Click to expand...

OMG... Scrubbed!?!? A mole!?!? Wow... How do we fight this... will posters who provide a link now have to save a screenshot of it's content?

I don't know how I missed seeing your post yesterday. I so wish I had. Spent so much time trying to re-open the capitalbay site to refresh my memory before replying to your post to me re: CM and monkey

Regarding the monkey business post I didn't make: going by memory, I think CM was actually quoted as referring to the monkey as "Oscar's and Reeva's beloved pet."

Now, of course, we might have to take that with a grain of salt as the reporter referred to CM as being OP's best friend. lol
 
AJ_DS said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

BIB - I say yes to both. This isn't a case of "whodunit." We know who did it. He's admitted he shot and killed Reeva. The question to be answered is why.

He claims the reason is because he was acting in PPD - that he intentionally fired the lethal shots because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

The state claims the reason is because he intentionally murdered - that he fired the lethal shots because he wanted Reeva dead.

It has to be one or the other. If the judge accepts one, it means she rejects the other.

It's only after if she rejects intentional murder and accepts PPD that she would then apply the objective reasonable man test to determine, even though she accepted that OP genuinely thought he acted lawfully when used lethal force, if the reasonable man in the same circumstances would have also believed an attack was imminent and would have also used the same deadly force OP did. If the answer is yes, she will find him not guilty. If the answer is no, she will find him guilty of CH.

Not the specific topic of our discussion, but him stupidly changing his defense on the stand will probably have implications too. Saying he didn't intend to shoot proves negligence, at the very least, to me. It may also be viewed by milady as yet another discrepancy in his versions, decide he's not credible at all, dismiss his entire version thereby accepting the state's version, and convict him of murder.

MOO
 
Just to clarify that again .. under the photo it shows the filename of the photo, the format/type of file (JPEG), the size of the file, and then the metadata underneath that says:

EquipMake
EquipModel

^^ this is information with regard to the make and model of the camera/phone camera used .. nothing to do with modelling agencies!


mystery man.png
 
Cherwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it's not part of the official court record. The court doesn't even own the rights to it, the media houses do. The application submitted to the court to broadcast the trial live was brought by media applicants.

Although I do think it would be helpful for the judge to be able to listen to testimony again as opposed to reading the written record, regardless of the fact that it's the property of the media and not the court, I just don't see how it would be permissible for this case, when it's not even an option for other cases. Listening a second time could potentially benefit either side, so another defendant whose trial was not broadcasted wouldn't have that same opportunity of their judge viewing testimony a second time. For fair and equal justice within the SA court system, I would think judges could only rely on prosecutor/defense submitted exhibits, the written record of the court transcripts, and any notes they took to assist in reaching a verdict.

Like I said, I could be wrong. But if (read when ;)) OP is convicted, we already expect an appeal on the grounds of an unfair trial because it was broadcasted. If the broadcasted footage was also used in reaching a verdict, I just think it may give the DT more weight with their appeal.

MOO
 
Lux et Veritas said:
Oscar Mystery #9,675 - Fact: OP wears glasses (one must assume he wears contacts when he’s without glasses). Fact: Police crime scene photos show OP 1) standing in the garage and 2) being taken away to the police station. In NO photos is he shown wearing glasses. WHY?
Click to expand...
<respectfully snipped>

Good catch! I hadn't thought about that before, but agree with you.

My belief is that neither of them went to sleep that night, if so, OP could still be wearing contacts when police arrived.

Or perhaps he wears the type of contacts lenses that you can sleep in... the type you can keep in your eyes for days at a time?
 
THIS is how &#8220;brokenhearted&#8221;, &#8220;depressed&#8221;, &#8220;anxious&#8221;, &#8220;agoraphobic&#8221; and &#8220;suicidal&#8221; Oscar Pistorius really is!

THIS is where he went on July 12 2014. The VIP Room. Take a look at the &#8220;den of social inequity&#8221; Oscar partied at that night. Slick. Seductive.

Introducing The VIP Room Sandton Jun 25, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94Q7JEroefA

&#8220;The VIP Room introduces a new Era of exclusivity, set to alter the landscape of Johannesburg's nightlife.
A combination of bold style, laid back glamour and the chicest entertainment.
This is the new den of social inequity, a haven for the cities most beautiful and high profile movers and shakers.&#8221;

Wait, what?!! Where&#8217;s the Bible-Prayer Meetings, Oz?!!

(Remember <modsnip> wailing, puking and clutching his rosary beads in court?)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/06/article-2574536-1C143D1200000578-18_634x423.jpg

Appears that OP was prowling for some female action - or hellz, any action. Let the ladies, liquor and good times roll! Hallelujah!

But dang it, he just could not help himself - aggressive, lying, insulting people just piss him off invading his privacy and solitude so, of course, he was vulnerable and terrified and had to get in their face! But it totally was NOT his fault - he was choking on that blasted "GAD" and had to wash it down with lots of Grey Goose Vodka! Threats! Fights! Just like old times! Oscar Pistorius never backs down! Oscar Pistorius always wins!

Ugh - come Sunday morning and the freaking media, it was public penance time - post Three Mea-Culpa Hail Marys on @OscarPistorius.
I&#8217;m a very good boy.
Amen.
 
eimajjjj said:
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. :(
Click to expand...

1. I remember that episode during his testimony. Masipa wanted to make it absolutely clear on the record that she gave him the opportunity to say he was too tired to proceed to ensure he was receiving a fair trial. His mistakes and discrepancies were so brilliantly called out on by Nel so they would not go unnoticed by Masipa and the assessors.

2. You're right, Nel would have already entered any alarm records into evidence if they existed. He can't bring any new evidence into his closing argument. He can only argue evidence already submitted to the court. I'm looking forward to hearing him tie it all together though!
 
AJ_DS said:
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
Click to expand...

Jay squared :floorlaugh:
 
liesbeth said:
Yes, absolutely. I agree. It's all speculation of course because we may never know for sure, but what you say makes so much sense.

I also think Reeva was threatening to phone the police. Oscar later said he'd screamed and shouted:"Get out of my f@$king house!" and "Call the police!" but I suspect it was really Reeva who screamed and shouted that she would call the police. I think Oscar wasn't sure what the witness/es had heard, so he incorporated Reeva's part of the dialogue into his version.

As for those disturbing spontaneous answers? I've heard it too. When he gets emotional his mind spills out of his mouth. Right in the beginning of his cross-examination he gets more and more upset. He says: "I've taken responsibility. By me waiting...pause...and not wanting to live my life, but waiting for my time on this stand to tell my story for the respect of Reeva and for myself. I've taken responsibility." No wonder Roux objected asap.

Welcome to the forum!

MOO.

Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a64lZAxqzI at about 07:25. Warning: Graphic image on scree.
Click to expand...

BIB - I was convinced from the get-go that he shouted, "Get the F out of my house!" to her in the midst of their argument, but it just occurred to me reading your post that most likely when she threatened to call the police on him, he retorted, "Call the police!" As in, 'Go ahead, call the police, be my guest.'

Little did she know her threat to call the police would be her death sentence.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 2,195 (members: 174, guests: 2,021)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
2,021
Total visitors
2,195
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,490
Messages
18,109,435
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top