Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

I'm sorry I must have missed this testimony. Can you give a link for his/her evidence.

It was when Dixon was being re-examined by Roux. At the shooting range Dixon had just struck the door with the bat and the range master appeared because he thought there was shooting before the range was clear,

Here at 1.03.35
[video=youtube;nlUQPyZ3xz8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlUQPyZ3xz8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlUQPyZ3xz8[/video]

 

[Trotterly]

Certainly, but before I move on from this, permanently, let me allow you the last word.

Quoted from Post 444, thread 16, 4.01.2014 at 10.42am
Trotterly:

"How's this for a theory:

Oscar and Reeva argue in the bedroom earlier in the morning starting before 2am

Estelle van der Merwe is woken at 1.56am by the noise of a fight.

It is hard to make out but she hears a woman's voice, but does not know where it is coming from

She tries and eventually gets back to sleep

At some time the bedroom door may have been damaged

At some point the arguing calmed down only to begin again later

Oscar picks up or threatens to pick up the cricket bat

Reeva starts to feel scared. She runs from the bedroom up the corridor to the bathroom

(She may have even opened the window thinking about getting out)

(Oscar may have argued with her in the bathroom and thrown her jeans out of the window)

She locks herself in the toilet.

The toilet is dark

He hears the door lock and is furious that he cannot confront her directly

The light in the toilet was broken so she could only see by the far away street lights

She does not have time to phone for help

Mrs Stipp has a bout of coughing which wakes her up

She looks at her clock which says 3.02. (Clock was fast - actual time about 2.58)
(She will look at her clock again at 3.17 actual time about 3.13)
The clock is now running and the defence must account for how OP used up this time an did not confirm to himself that he shot Reeva for another 15 minutes.

Oscar comes into the bathroom with the cricket bat. The light may already be on or he may now switch it on

He may or may no be on his prosthetics.
The damage shows the angle of the cricket bat in the door is consistent with being hit by a shorter person standing in a natural position
The damage is also consistent with a taller person leaning into the hit, putting their body weight into the blow to use maximum force.
After the defence case it is unlikely that this will be reliably decided.

Reeva sees the light go on, she may scream which is not heard due to the locked toilet or
does not scream so as not to escalate the situation.

Mr Stipp is woken by 3 loud bangs
Mrs Stipp is fully awake and hears 3 "gunshots" as OP hits the door with the cricket bat and moments after a woman screaming
Roux tries to make out that Mrs Stipp slept through the first "shot" by first lying to the court about her being "asleep" when cross examining Mr Stipp
She has line of sight to the bathroom window from her bed.

The "shots" are OP hitting the door breaking it. There are only 3 hits

The cricket bat has broken out a piece of the door along the weakest line of the joint at the right edge of the top inner panel
It runs almost the complete height of the panel and parts of it are the splinters lost from the door exhibit
Only the Stipps heard these "shots"

At this point OP may break away some other part of the panel. Now the panel is broken parts may be relatively easily lifted out

(Note: The toilet and bathroom windows are frosted. The toilet window is separate to and to the left of the bathroom window. The bathroom window has 3 sections, the left section was open. The Stipps could see straight in through the open section where the bathroom light appeared bright)

Mrs Stipp see's the bathroom light on and crucially LIGHT IN THE TOILET almost as bright as behind the closed part of the bathroom window.
She described it as a "light on in the toilet"
Mr Stipp said he ALSO SAW "LIGHT" IN THE TOILET. but it was not as bright as in the bathroom window - it would certainly not have been as bright as the light from the open part of the bathroom window.
He did at one point say he didn't see a "light on" in the toilet as he thought it was not bright enough for this.
The defence sought to confuse and negate this evidence. It appeared as if the Stipps disagreed about there being light in the toilet, which they did not. It was a difference in description only.
The fact that the Stipps had not colluded to clarify and strengthen this evidence is telling
THE STIPPS SAW THE BATHROOM LIGHT THROUGH THE HOLE OP MADE IN THE TOILET DOOR
If both Stipps saw light in the toilet straight after the first sounds which OP said were only gunshots then OP must have been lying.
Roux had already told the court that OP said the toilet light was broken.

Reeva's screams could now be heard clearly through the hole and out through the open bathroom window (Stipp said the screams were clear and unmuffled)
Roux argued Monday 4 March, Session 3 at 28.00min in support of MB hearing OP screams that should be easy to hear through same open window at the distance

The Stipps go quickly to their small balcony, they hear a woman/female screaming.

They say the screams were "moments" after the shots.

At about 3.03 (2.59 actual time) "just after 3" the Bergers are woken by Reevas screams. (They did not hear the door being hit)

Mr Berger very roughly estimates there is 2 minutes before the cries of "help"

After 3/4 min the Stipps move to their big balcony for a better view

Mr Stipp goes in and spends some time during the following events calling:
Silverwood Security No answer
Called 10111 - not in service

Its is now about 3.05/3.06 (3.01/3.02 actual time)
Reeva screams help help help
Oscar shouts help, help, help mocking her. He may have been in the bedroom at this point as Mr Stipp said the helps were muffled.

The Bergers call security

There is continued screaming some of which may not have been heard as the witnesses were busy getting dressed/phoning

Oscar goes to get his gun.

Reeva can see out through the hole in the door and she knows Oscar is coming with the gun

Her screams intensify. Mrs Berger says "to a climax"

Mr Berger is on his balcony and hears the same

Mrs Stipp hears this as screams coming closer as if along the road

He then hears "2 /3 loud bangs". Thinks it is shooting

The Bergers hear shot....shot shot shot taking
The shots lasted 3.5 seconds with a longer approx 1.5 second pause between shot 1 and 2

Mrs Stipp hears a man screaming just before the shots, she cannot make out words then hears 3 shots.

Mrs Stipp has just looked at he clock. It says 3.17 (actual time 3.13)

For a short time it was together with the woman screaming. There was differences in the pitches at the same time.

Estelle van der Merwe and her husband now both hear bang bang bang bang, her husband says they are gunshots

OP now angry beyond control comes into the bathroom
As he does so he raises his gun and fires four shots, moving towards the door and to the right as if to try to see Reeva through the long narrow vertical hole in the door
He may be on his stumps and firing with the gun raised to his eye although as he is moving this would seem odd
He may be on his prosthetics firing from the hip. He had a trapped easy target so as he was moving at the time this would seem more likely
The bullet holes are not tightly grouped and not consistent with double tapped shots.

Reeva fell back onto the magazine rack where a ricochet hit her

The next two shots hit her in the arm and head, She screamed as long as she could but it died away after the last shot.

The screams dying away after the last shot were heard by the Bergers and Mrs Stipp

Estelle van der Merwe describes silence after the shooting

When Mr Stipp goes back on the balcony and hears a man shouting "help" "help" "help"

Security arrive and talk to the Stipps on their balcony

Mr Stipp again went to the other balcony and watches Security leave

Mr Stipp sees a light coloured figure moving from right to left through the bathroom window

Mrs Stipp initially reported the same but retracted this when she realised it was her husbands recollection.
She also "remembered" the event before the final shots not after

Mr Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Mrs Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Oscar with prosthetics now on, probably realising the terrible truth of what he had done, pulled out the rest of the panel, got the key and dragged her out.

It was as he was breaking down the rest of the panel that the bullet hole that the bat man expert pointed out caused a crack in the wood to deviate.

It was only 1 hole that showed this effect. It has been heavily assumed including by me, maybe wrongly, that all the shots preceded all the bat hits.

Oscar horrified at what he has done picks up Reeva and carries her downstairs where he is met by Security and later Dr Stipp."

I think you can safely say that you have proved one of your points after all.

This was my theory before the defence case began and I have changed my opinion since that time.

So to repeat my question, what do you mean by "MO"?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This was my theory before the defence case began and I have
since that time.

So to repeat my question, what do you mean by "MO"?

1. What a pity and whyyyyyyy??????????????????? I think you were right and not the experts and Roux and judge.

2. "My Opinion"?

 

[mrjitty]

It was when Dixon was being re-examined by Roux. At the shooting range Dixon had just struck the door with the bat and the range master appeared because he thought there was shooting before the range was clear,

Here at 1.03.35
[video=youtube;nlUQPyZ3xz8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlUQPyZ3xz8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlUQPyZ3xz8[/video]

i.e. hearsay evidence

 

[mrjitty]

I think you can safely say that you have proved one of your points after all.

For a long while I lived above a domestic abuser.

It was a very nice warehouse conversion and all the tenants were nice people apart from this one who was a known cocaine dealer.

He routinely threatened people in the house, or was abusive towards them.

At some stage he got a young 19 year old girl pregnant and she moved in.

Mainly there fights occurred in the weekend, when drink and drugs were involved.

The fights would go on for hours starting in the early evening and flaring up any time in the middle of the night or early morning.

There were breaks in between - sometimes it would stop - or it would escalate to smashing stuff up - things that sounded like blows being struck.

Sometimes she would have obvious bruising.

We always rang the police immediately - as I was very worried that girl (or her baby) would end up dead - like so many other kiwi women who suffer at the hand of brutes.

The police would never do anything of course.

One of my best friends works for refuge and I discussed this case with her.

In her opinion such a transaction is relatively typical. The elongated fight. The damage in the house. Seeking refuge in the toilet. Anywhere you can get away.

Abusers don't appear from nowhere - they have a track record of this.

But there is always that first time that they injure the victim so badly that their violent nature can no longer be concealed.

The Pistorious case unfortunately perpetuates the myths of domestic violence (he loved her!) - ironic given the judge.

 

[Trotterly]

1. What a pity and whyyyyyyy??????????????????? I think you were right and not the experts and Roux and judge.

2. "My Opinion"?

Maybe I am right but I don't think it is possible to prove it with the available evidence. To be fair to OP that means in my eyes he is not guilty of murder.

 

[Trotterly]

i.e. hearsay evidence

In a UK court I cannot see how it could not be hearsay and presumably would not be normally allowed. However it would appear that in the SA system things are a little different. The most critical "hearsay" evidence is that of Mr VDM and that seems to have been the trigger for Masipa's doubt about the female screams. The judge may be able to include such material in the interests of justice or an agreement about the evidence was reached prior.

 

[mrjitty]

In a UK court I cannot see how it could not be hearsay and presumably would not be normally allowed. However it would appear that in the SA system things are a little different. The most critical "hearsay" evidence is that of Mr VDM and that seems to have been the trigger for Masipa's doubt about the female screams. The judge may be able to include such material in the interests of justice or an agreement about the evidence was reached prior.

A judge does not need to be protected from hearsay evidence as the judge is presumed to be able to recognize it as such.

However clearly what the range master heard must come from the primary source in order to be accepted.

As regards hearsay in general - a witness is allowed to say "my husband told me that he thought he heard gunshots"

This is proof of the conversation that the witness had, and thus for instance might help with the overview of what that witness then did or how they acted.

However it would not be proof of what the husband in fact heard.

ETA: if the defence had really wanted to do this properly - it would have been childs play for them to have conducted these tests under realistic conditions and produce appropriate witnesses

Why they didn't do that, is a question you might concern yourself with

 

[Trotterly]

For a long while I lived above a domestic abuser.

It was a very nice warehouse conversion and all the tenants were nice people apart from this one who was a known cocaine dealer.

He routinely threatened people in the house, or was abusive towards them.

At some stage he got a young 19 year old girl pregnant and she moved in.

Mainly there fights occurred in the weekend, when drink and drugs were involved.

The fights would go on for hours starting in the early evening and flaring up any time in the middle of the night or early morning.

There were breaks in between - sometimes it would stop - or it would escalate to smashing stuff up - things that sounded like blows being struck.

Sometimes she would have obvious bruising.

We always rang the police immediately - as I was very worried that girl (or her baby) would end up dead - like so many other kiwi women who suffer at the hand of brutes.

The police would never do anything of course.

One of my best friends works for refuge and I discussed this case with her.

In her opinion such a transaction is relatively typical. The elongated fight. The damage in the house. Seeking refuge in the toilet. Anywhere you can get away.

Abusers don't appear from nowhere - they have a track record of this.

But there is always that first time that they injure the victim so badly that their violent nature can no longer be concealed.

The Pistorious case unfortunately perpetuates the myths of domestic violence (he loved her!) - ironic given the judge.

I don't have any experience of DV but I do have plenty of experience of the stresses that can build up in a relationship!

But I don't understand what could have driven OP to such extreme lengths with such a new relationship. In your example with co-habiting and child involved the opportunity for stress building up is much greater. OP could have walked away at any time. Further OP had no record of violence against persons. Of course it could have just been a personality clash, Reeva being more assertive than his other girlfriends. But the evidence for a prelude to murder is very weak. Of course it could fit into your pattern and OP started off on the record with a murder. I think it more likely that there would be some other rough stuff before that. What fits better is that out of nowhere he just completely lost it on the night. But as has been pointed out before this is unusual where alcohol or drugs are not involved. Not impossible, just unusual.

OP has given the impression that the relationship was very serious and that he was thinking about marriage etc. Again it is difficult to think of a way in which this situation could have caused him to feel that murder was the only way out.

We will never know what was going on in his head and can only speculate on the inconclusive evidence. Taking the holistic/mosaic approach and considering only evidence which has passed the test I cannot allow the relationship/DV evidence to feature in my deliberations.

 

[Trotterly]

A judge does not need to be protected from hearsay evidence as the judge is presumed to be able to recognize it as such.

However clearly what the range master heard must come from the primary source in order to be accepted.

As regards hearsay in general - a witness is allowed to say "my husband told me that he thought he heard gunshots"

This is proof of the conversation that the witness had, and thus for instance might help with the overview of what that witness then did or how they acted.

However it would not be proof of what the husband in fact heard.

ETA: if the defence had really wanted to do this properly - it would have been childs play for them to have conducted these tests under realistic conditions and produce appropriate witnesses

Why they didn't do that, is a question you might concern yourself with

Much of the activities of the defence expert witnesses seemed to have been "on the hoof." Why that is I do not know. One can speculate that it was for want of better witnesses, money, resources, an inconsistent accused whatever. But it's only really what happens in the court that matters.

I do find it interesting that some appear to put more weight upon things gleaned from the media, social media etc than on hearsay in the court.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Maybe I am right but I don't think it is possible to prove it with the available evidence. To be fair to OP that means in my eyes he is not guilty of murder.

If you'd (I mean the judge) see the big picture, everything would be clear.

Honestly, how "fair" would you have been in case of an unknown perp with the same past and the same character?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...t-hired-by-Oscar-wont-testify-report-20140417

Top pathologist hired by Oscar won't testify, report

A star pathologist hired by Oscar Pistorius told AFP on Thursday he will not testify at the athlete's murder trial, another blow for his defence after a week of savage cross-examination.
Private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal - who joined Pistorius's hand-picked team soon after Reeva Steenkamp was killed on Valentine's Day morning 2013 - will not take the stand, amid suggestions his post-mortem findings support key parts of the prosecution's case.

Perumal has appeared in many high-profile cases in South Africa, where a private pathologist can cost upwards of R20 000 a day.

He was hired by Pistorius in time to attend the model's autopsy.

When asked if he would testify, the Durban-based pathologist told AFP "no, ma'am".

"I think you're aware that I can't say anything right now."

Perumal's absence from the witness box casts further doubt on the believability of Pistorius's story, after a week which saw the Paralympian and one of his hired experts torn to shreds by prosecutor Gerrie Nel.


Trotterly, what about this? The prozedure planted further doubts as to OPs innocence. Of course I don't know why the prosecution pathologist had not the same results ... The judge was totally unimpressed and was going on.

 

[Mr Fossil]

On the subject of whose jeans were on the floor in the bedroom, Mrs F has taken a look and suggests that the sewn pockets are normally to be found in female jeans. I shall stick with them being Reeva's for now.

 

[Trotterly]

On the subject of whose jeans were on the floor in the bedroom, Mrs F has taken a look and suggests that the sewn pockets are normally to be found in female jeans. I shall stick with them being Reeva's for now.

It looks to me if the photo I saw has not been reversed that the waist button hole is on the left which is the male way where I come from.

 

[Trotterly]

If you'd (I mean the judge) see the big picture, everything would be clear.

Honestly, how "fair" would you have been in case of an unknown perp with the same past and the same character?

If you're suggesting that OP's celebrity has influenced me then you're barking up the wrong tree. I had no idea who he was until the trial other than he was "a famous disabled sprinter." If anything I would say my personal opinion of him is more negative than positive. From what I have seen in the media since the trial I would expect to meet a polite and somewhat reserved man. However his fascination with guns I find repulsive.

 

[Trotterly]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...t-hired-by-Oscar-wont-testify-report-20140417

Top pathologist hired by Oscar won't testify, report

A star pathologist hired by Oscar Pistorius told AFP on Thursday he will not testify at the athlete's murder trial, another blow for his defence after a week of savage cross-examination.
Private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal - who joined Pistorius's hand-picked team soon after Reeva Steenkamp was killed on Valentine's Day morning 2013 - will not take the stand, amid suggestions his post-mortem findings support key parts of the prosecution's case.

Perumal has appeared in many high-profile cases in South Africa, where a private pathologist can cost upwards of R20 000 a day.

He was hired by Pistorius in time to attend the model's autopsy.

When asked if he would testify, the Durban-based pathologist told AFP "no, ma'am".

"I think you're aware that I can't say anything right now."

Perumal's absence from the witness box casts further doubt on the believability of Pistorius's story, after a week which saw the Paralympian and one of his hired experts torn to shreds by prosecutor Gerrie Nel.


Trotterly, what about this? The prozedure planted further doubts as to OPs innocence. Of course I don't know why the prosecution pathologist had not the same results ... The judge was totally unimpressed and was going on.

BIB What do you mean by this, was this Masipa?

I don't know if the difference of opinion between the pathologists at this stage was just the stomach content evidence or not.

I would expect any pathologists who appeared as experts to be able to reach essentially the same conclusions about what they have witnessed of a body. However interpretation of these facts is another matter and can vary wildly. The important thing is that what has been witnessed can be interpreted convincingly within the context of the individual case.

Obviously the defence would be more interested in the opinion that stomach content was an inexact science. Leaving aside the possibility that Reeva could have eaten later: The leading reference work says that stomach content cannot be relied upon and is no longer routinely used as an indicator. Really that should be the end of it but the temptation to still use the stomach content is strong as there seemed to be such a large amount of relatively undigested material present. If I was going to buck the advice of the leading reference work on the subject I would have least examined more of the alimentary tract to get a better picture of what had gone on.

Rather than use the stomach content as low quality evidence considered in a holistic approach to a mosaic of circumstantial evidence I would have rejected it.

The pathologist also testified to the wounds and ability of Reeva to cry out after the head shot. The latter obviously fits equally well into either version. The other wounds are more interesting. I think the theory about there being a pause between shots does fit with Mangena's version but it depends entirely on how fast Reeva fell down after the first shot which cannot be determined. A simple calculation proves that a dead weight would have fallen the necessary distance in around 0.3sec, more than fast enough for Reeva's body to have fallen into the path of the shots to give the wounds shown.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It looks to me if the photo I saw has not been reversed that the waist button hole is on the left which is the male way where I come from.

Do you mean on the left of the photo or of the actual jeans please? Also the jeans were inside out. If they were his jeans I wonder why OP would lie and say they were Reeva's? I think someone should/would have picked that up at the time and he would have been seen to have been lying which would have greatly hurt his case.

Interestingly, if you Google Reeva's Jeans and hit Images you will see a large number of photos of Reeva in jeans and, unless those photos have been flipped, the zips do look to me in the usual male format. However, I don't know whether SAs differentiate as we do in the UK.

We do have a female SA visiting this thread. ApplesInMyBra may be able to help.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Do you mean on the left of the photo or of the actual jeans please? Also the jeans were inside out. If they were his jeans I wonder why OP would lie and say they were Reeva's? I think someone should/would have picked that up at the time and he would have been seen to have been lying which would have greatly hurt his case.

Interestingly, if you Google Reeva's Jeans and hit Images you will see a large number of photos of Reeva in jeans and, unless those photos have been flipped, the zips do look to me in the usual male format. However, I don't know whether SAs differentiate as we do in the UK.

We do have a female SA visiting this thread. ApplesInMyBra may be able to help.

I guess it depends on how you look at the jeans. If you are wearing them and you look down, the button will be on the right side of the zipper for woman's jeans. If you are not wearing the jeans and you look at them from the from the front, the button will be on the left.

Here is a shop in South Africa that sells women's jeans: http://www.woolworths.co.za/store/cat/Women/Clothing/Jeans/_/N-1z13s4o

 

[Trotterly]

Do you mean on the left of the photo or of the actual jeans please? Also the jeans were inside out. If they were his jeans I wonder why OP would lie and say they were Reeva's? I think someone should/would have picked that up at the time and he would have been seen to have been lying which would have greatly hurt his case.

Interestingly, if you Google Reeva's Jeans and hit Images you will see a large number of photos of Reeva in jeans and, unless those photos have been flipped, the zips do look to me in the usual male format. However, I don't know whether SAs differentiate as we do in the UK.

We do have a female SA visiting this thread. ApplesInMyBra may be able to help.

I've just had a look at Reeva-in-jeans pics also and it doesn't look very conclusive.

Nel seemed to accept they were Reeva's jeans but as OP so quickly said why would she remove jeans to leave? Further, why would she remove them at all during a protracted argument?

Why would he lie and say they were Reeva's? If he murdered her and then had to make it look like he was asleep.

I don't think that Reeva's tidiness in relation to the jeans means anything. The jeans over the duvet is more interesting.

Although from relatively early on I thought it strange that a duvet would end up that way as a result of an argument between a couple who had never gone to bed. Unless it started as an argument over bedding.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I've just had a look at Reeva-in-jeans pics also and it doesn't look very conclusive.

Nel seemed to accept they were Reeva's jeans but as OP so quickly said why would she remove jeans to leave? Further, why would she remove them at all during a protracted argument?

Why would he lie and say they were Reeva's? If he murdered her and then had to make it look like he was asleep.

I don't think that Reeva's tidiness in relation to the jeans means anything. The jeans over the duvet is more interesting.

Although from relatively early on I thought it strange that a duvet would end up that way as a result of an argument between a couple who had never gone to bed. Unless it started as an argument over bedding.

I agree, on looking again, the images are not conclusive and I have always thought they were Reeva's. It would be such a stupid lie to tell. I don't buy that the jeans mean very much at all with respect to a fight. Maybe she was wearing jeans and she pulled them off to change into something cooler when she got back from shopping. We know it was hot that night.

The only thing odd about the jeans being in the story at all, for me, is OP trying to place them over an LED; an LED that must have been just as bright every night. Sam Taylor could have confirmed, or not, that he normally covered the light, unless it was new equipment. Nobody queried this and I think his story was incredibly feeble. I think they were the nearest item of clothing that he could use to attempt to create his storyline. He needed a reason not to be looking down the corridor and to include some time wasting to allow Reeva (in his story) to reach the bathroom but it was all a complete fabrication IMO.