Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[Marfa Lights]

Correct, there is no record of any 3.17 call until "Stipp's attempted call to 10111" in the DT's HOA.

Re: the time of the 10111 call-- I know 3:17 was the time that Roux outlined in his HOA timeline, but were you ever able to find a primary source for the actual time of Stipp's attempted to call to 10111? I tend to agree with your earlier post below that it would seem impossible for this call to have been at 3:17 when Dr. Stipp and his wife both testified he tried to call 10111 BEFORE he succeeded in reaching security at 3:15:51.

From your post #246 in previous thread #61 dated 6/2/2015 asking GR_Turner:

Do you know where the evidence for Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call comes from?

In his court testimony Stipp said that he tried 10111 before he got through to security at 3.15.51. AFAIK he said nothing about another call to 10111 after the 3.15.51 call.

This was GR_Turner's response (Thread 61, #247) to your post :

Roux said it was at 3.17. I assume they must have had the 10111 call records and it wasn't contradicted by the state.

Yes, that's the problem with Stipp's testimony. The phone times don't match up with what he said. That's why it's better to go with Johnson's phone times. But in each case, the only phones evidence apparently submitted to the court was the security phones times which is why some prefer to use those and ignore the other times. The state put their shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's call so they must be sure it's right.

I, for one, am not willing to accept Roux's statement as definitive and assume they had the 10111 call records if that was not introduced into evidence. And since neither the State nor the Defense produced official call records for Johnson either, then we are still left wondering why the State ever would have accepted the 3:17 time for the final shots. What a mess!

 

[lithgow1]

bbm

I think, Aimee is a smart educated young woman. Then she would have known that there is a !!!crime scene!!! where lawyers, friends, relatives, neighbours, manager, head of police psychologists, last not least POLICE etc. etc. are running around excitedly, where a young woman lies dead in her blood with a perforated head and where it is known by all present in that home, that her brother O had been the shooter.

And Carice Stander is an attorney and currently works as a legal adviser. I had forgotten about that until I read your post.

I also think her mother`s comment at the scene about hoping it didn`t get into the papers is both incredibly naive and offensive. A young woman is lying dead in the foyer and she worries about media coverage. Well it definitely got into the papers Mrs Stander.

 

[aftermath]

Re: the time of the 10111 call-- I know 3:17 was the time that Roux outlined in his HOA timeline, but were you ever able to find a primary source for the actual time of Stipp's attempted to call to 10111? I tend to agree with your earlier post below that it would seem impossible for this call to have been at 3:17 when Dr. Stipp and his wife both testified he tried to call 10111 BEFORE he succeeded in reaching security at 3:15:51.

From your post #246 in previous thread #61 dated 6/2/2015 asking GR_Turner:

Do you know where the evidence for Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call comes from?

In his court testimony Stipp said that he tried 10111 before he got through to security at 3.15.51. AFAIK he said nothing about another call to 10111 after the 3.15.51 call.

This was GR_Turner's response (Thread 61, #247) to your post :

Roux said it was at 3.17. I assume they must have had the 10111 call records and it wasn't contradicted by the state.

Yes, that's the problem with Stipp's testimony. The phone times don't match up with what he said. That's why it's better to go with Johnson's phone times. But in each case, the only phones evidence apparently submitted to the court was the security phones times which is why some prefer to use those and ignore the other times. The state put their shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's call so they must be sure it's right.

I, for one, am not willing to accept Roux's statement as definitive and assume they had the 10111 call records if that was not introduced into evidence. And since neither the State nor the Defense produced official call records for Johnson either, then we are still left wondering why the State ever would have accepted the 3:17 time for the final shots. What a mess!

I don't believe that the state would not contest a key defence claim about timings of phone calls if there was no data proof. I also don't believe the defence would risk lying about something so important, in the hope that the state wouldn't notice. Roux said the phone data proved an attempted call at 3:17. The state did not contest that- therefore it is taken as correct. ...

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't believe that the state would not contest a key defence claim about timings of phone calls if there was no data proof. I also don't believe the defence would risk lying about something so important, in the hope that the state wouldn't notice. Roux said the phone data proved an attempted call at 3:17. The state did not contest that- therefore it is taken as correct. ...

So, we have a case that hinged on timelines and whether or not a woman or a man's screams were heard before or after certain calls were made-- and there is not an official record of all relevant phone calls entered into evidence as an exhibit from either side?

 

[aftermath]

So, we have a case that hinged on timelines and whether or not a woman or a man's screams were heard before or after certain calls were made-- and there is not an official record of all relevant phone calls entered into evidence as an exhibit from either side?

Do we know for sure that no official record was entered into evidence?

 

[cottonweaver]

@ Marfa

re Stipp's calls

Maybe if I play coy I can pop over to photocopy his withheld HoA Annexure A pertaining to the Stipp evidence.

Seriously though, i googled it briefly and just came up with Mr Fossil on Digital Spy running through the Rouxisms on Stipps call timings.
Fossil is about half way down

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1982917&page=466

Myself I'm way too far away from that in 2015 to be able to recollect the fine detail now without being inaccurate.

 

[Trotterly]

Re: the time of the 10111 call-- I know 3:17 was the time that Roux outlined in his HOA timeline, but were you ever able to find a primary source for the actual time of Stipp's attempted to call to 10111? I tend to agree with your earlier post below that it would seem impossible for this call to have been at 3:17 when Dr. Stipp and his wife both testified he tried to call 10111 BEFORE he succeeded in reaching security at 3:15:51.

From your post #246 in previous thread #61 dated 6/2/2015 asking GR_Turner:

Do you know where the evidence for Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call comes from?

In his court testimony Stipp said that he tried 10111 before he got through to security at 3.15.51. AFAIK he said nothing about another call to 10111 after the 3.15.51 call.

This was GR_Turner's response (Thread 61, #247) to your post :

Roux said it was at 3.17. I assume they must have had the 10111 call records and it wasn't contradicted by the state.

Yes, that's the problem with Stipp's testimony. The phone times don't match up with what he said. That's why it's better to go with Johnson's phone times. But in each case, the only phones evidence apparently submitted to the court was the security phones times which is why some prefer to use those and ignore the other times. The state put their shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's call so they must be sure it's right.

I, for one, am not willing to accept Roux's statement as definitive and assume they had the 10111 call records if that was not introduced into evidence. And since neither the State nor the Defense produced official call records for Johnson either, then we are still left wondering why the State ever would have accepted the 3:17 time for the final shots. What a mess!

No, I haven't made any progress with this. As you say....a mess!

 

[Interested Bystander]

And Carice Stander is an attorney and currently works as a legal adviser. I had forgotten about that until I read your post.

I also think her mother`s comment at the scene about hoping it didn`t get into the papers is both incredibly naive and offensive. A young woman is lying dead in the foyer and she worries about media coverage. Well it definitely got into the papers Mrs Stander.

Carice sounds a bit like mum as her biggest concern was trying to get back to sleep after hearing someone shouting for help. How selfish is that! it seemed not to occur to her or her parents to ring the police immediately. Stander did not ring the police, the ambulance, or the guards immediately. Really strange family.

 

[cottonweaver]

Carice sounds a bit like mum as her biggest concern was trying to get back to sleep after hearing someone shouting for help. How selfish is that! it seemed not to occur to her or her parents to ring the police immediately. Stander did not ring the police, the ambulance, or the guards immediately. Really strange family.

I agree, Birds of a feather flock together. ( Remember the female owner of Tasha's saying saying about Carl & Aimee too , but that's by the by..)

But remember in her breathless testimony she goofed up when she recalled first hearing the commotion before her father got a call, with the "where's the lady.." quip but was never pulled up on it.

And this is how the neighbourhood diagram far away Standers live
https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/op-neighborhood.jpg

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think anyone is saying that the witnesses didn't hear any screams. It's who they heard screaming where the dispute lies. *
Couldn't the sound of screams getting nearer equally be explained as pistorius moving from the bedroom to the bathroom, on realising the dreadful error he had probably just made?
ETA * and where the screams were coming from

BIB

Only if one has an overly vivid imagination and also proof that OP screamed like a woman which he singularly failed to give. Roux promised to introduce this into evidence - so what happened there? It went the same way as the bat sounds, etc.

Roux was very unreliable but I suggest these points were thrown into the mix to endeavour to sway the Judge and Assessors. The Stipps and Burgers heard male and female voices and even VdM was sure she heard a woman arguing. It is their words against OP's and I know who I think told the truth. Never trust a known liar. OP was out to save his skin and his fabrications were obvious to me and to the PT and almost everybody else.

 

[GR_Turner]

Do we know for sure that no official record was entered into evidence?

I have read that that's the case but I'm not actually sure. However, as you said we know that Roux mentioned it Stipp's cross and I think that's the point at which he even said something like 'I can assure that Mr Nel would not just sit there and let me tell you the time was 3.17 if he knew it wasn't' or something to that effect so there's no way the state were just napping at this point. I think we must assume this time is correct.

Incidentally, if we think about it the evidence must have come from the state and it must either be from Stipp's phone records or from the 10111 phone records. In both instances it should be possible to cross check other times to be sure that the 3.17 time is not inaccurate. ie we have the time of Stipp's calls to security on the one and OP's calls to security on the other.

You'd have thought all this would have been examined properly by the state and that it should have led to a clear conclusion about the timeline. I can't understand why this wasn't done.

 

[cottonweaver]

Screaming like a woman?

Even the Defence's own sound expert conceded that in MOST cases a male scream and a female one could be differentiated. Scientifically it couldn't be 100% of course, but it was in fact common sense.

 

[GR_Turner]

BIB

Only if one has an overly vivid imagination and also proof that OP screamed like a woman which he singularly failed to give. Roux promised to introduce this into evidence - so what happened there? It went the same way as the bat sounds, etc.

Roux was very unreliable but I suggest these points were thrown into the mix to endeavour to sway the Judge and Assessors. The Stipps and Burgers heard male and female voices and even VdM was sure she heard a woman arguing. It is their words against OP's and I know who I think told the truth. Never trust a known liar. OP was out to save his skin and his fabrications were obvious to me and to the PT and almost everybody else.

BIB1: We don't need any imagination at all in fact and there is evidence from Mrs VdM and from the Stipps' housekeeper via Mrs Stipp's testimony that OP crying sounded like female crying and also that female screaming and female crying were heard at the same time by different witnesses in the same house. If you are going to say that Roux promised a tape and didn't deliver, then I'd just say that the above evidence is better and a tape couldn't have replicated the situation in any reasonable way so would have been useless. And yes, Roux shouldn't have promised the tape but it doesn't change the above.

BIB2: yes a woman a long way away, angry sounding like in an argument. No man arguing however. And the defense HoA point out that she looked out in the opposite direction from OP's house to locate those sounds while on the screams test night that the defense did she looked out that way and towards OP's house.

 

[GR_Turner]

Screaming like a woman?

Even the Defence's own sound expert conceded that in MOST cases a male scream and a female one could be differentiated. Scientifically it couldn't be 100% of course, but it was in fact common sense.

ie it's not impossible and we do have evidence that suggests that that is what happened that night so it doesn't matter whether it's improbable or not.

 

[GR_Turner]

@ Marfa

re Stipp's calls

Maybe if I play coy I can pop over to photocopy his withheld HoA Annexure A pertaining to the Stipp evidence.

Seriously though, i googled it briefly and just came up with Mr Fossil on Digital Spy running through the Rouxisms on Stipps call timings.
Fossil is about half way down

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1982917&page=466

Myself I'm way too far away from that in 2015 to be able to recollect the fine detail now without being inaccurate.

Mr Fossil is referring to the way in which Roux puts the 3 helps after the 3.27 phone call but this says nothing about the key timings around 3.15 or 3.17

 

[GR_Turner]

No, at least according to Mr. Fossil's timeline, Dr. Stipp's last call to security (Pieter Baba) was recorded at 3:15:51.

Stipp's calls to security were at 3.15 and 3.27 and Roux said in Stipp's cross that his call to 10111 was at 3.17. Stipp said he didn't get through the first time he called security so called other numbers including 10111 at which point he heard 3 bangs (the second bangs). A bit later he got through to security and told them what he'd heard. This isn't what the phone times indicate. They show that he got through at 3.15 on the first go and phoned 10111 at 3.17 (the evidence must have come from the state and wasn't challenged at any point). So either the second bangs were a minute or so before 3.15 or they were at 3.17 according to his evidence and the phones evidence. Hence the confusion.

Re Johnson: the state never said they doubted the timing of the 3.16 phone call which puts the second bangs at 3.17. Posters on forums have suggested this may be the case but the state never suggested it or produced the evidence to show it was wrong which they could surely have obtained easily.

It's messy and also very odd that the state chose not to put all this evidence together properly. I can't see why they didn't as if they were right they would certainly have got their conviction no matter what OP said as the court would have had no reason to doubt that the screams were Reeva's if the state had shown the second bangs were at 3.14ish.

 

[cottonweaver]

Mr Fossil is referring to the way in which Roux puts the 3 helps after the 3.27 phone call but this says nothing about the key timings around 3.15 or 3.17

oops yes you're right - i have pasted the wrong page up.


as for the screams concession from Lin point: What posters here choose to believe can't be helped.
Pigs can fly after all Masipa demonstrated that she could comfortably ignore ballistic, pathology , crime scene evidence at the same time believing a man she thought was a liar, discard an exGF as tainted by motivation but not a killer whose testimony may be tainted by self-interest, discarding the whole of B & Johnson as collusive........it just goes on and on.

 

[GR_Turner]

oops yes you're right - i have pasted the wrong page up.


as for the screams concession from Lin point: What posters here choose to believe can't be helped.
Pigs can fly after all Masipa demonstrated that she could comfortably ignore ballistic, pathology , crime scene evidence at the same time believing a man she thought was a liar, discard an exGF as tainted by motivation but not a killer whose testimony may be tainted by self-interest, discarding the whole of B & Johnson as collusive........it just goes on and on.

I think we have approached this from different directions. I looked at the objective evidence and concluded that it leads towards OP's version being possible and then re-examined OP's evidence to see whether it was as bad as it looked on first sight. I concluded that there were possible explanations for it even though that might look like reaching to some. Let's not forget where the burden of proof lies.

I suspect most posters have approached it from the other direction and thought that the screams evidence pretty much proved it and then that OP's evidence made it 100% but then stopped hearing the defense evidence. I don't understand dismissals of key evidence like the 3.17 phone calls (two not one) and the evidence from neighbours who didn't hear female screaming and one who heard OP as female. Comments like 'its obvious' or 'it's common sense' do nothing to explain away this evidence and just serve to show that there is no logical response I'm afraid.

 

[soozieqtips]

If Aimee had taken the bag to the police station and crashed and died on the way, I don't think that a friend of Aimee's who turned up would we prosecuted for taking the bag for Aimee's mother.

Why are you comparing two completely different situations? Unless your Aimee scenario has the friend's brother mowing her down, I don't see the connection. Reeva was shot dead in a toilet by OP, remember? She didn't die in a car crash.

 

[cottonweaver]

looking back - am re-posting this for the retrospective view:

the very famous DA Robert Shapiro on reasonable doubt & defendant credibility, just before the start of the OP trial.
( Remember he had defended OJ and lots of celeb athletes),US top list lawyer etc etc ...and getting it wrong- for "the SA context" as people like to say

"Although the burden is never [usually] on the defence to prove innocence, in a self-defence case, the burden does switch, and in this case, the burden does switch. We've talked before about reasonable doubt, well, in a self-defence case, when somebody testifies on their own behalf, then reasonable doubt goes out the window, because then it becomes a credibility issue ... who do you believe, rather than, has the prosecution proven this beyond a reasonable doubt."

"It's a self-defence claim. You have to testify. ... No judge is going to rule in your favour unless they hear you reiterate your self-defence claim. The judge will think, now I have certain facts, I have an affidavit, and i'm going to judge it so ... it will be imperative he take the witness stand"

Q: Do you think Oscar would be better served if there were a jury in this case?

A: If I had this choice between it being heard by a judge or jury, that would be one of the easiest decisions I would ever make. I would take a jury every day of the week. With a judge, there's no hung jury. You're either going to get found guilty, or acquitted, or a lesser included charge. And it's a very very tough thing to do. The other thing is this. Judges are professionals. Who has a greater motive to lie than someone accused of murder. A judge is going to look Oscar Pistorius in the eye, is going to hear all the forensic evidence, and if she comes up with one thing that they conclude was a lie, this case is going to have a very bad result for Oscar Pistorius.

:shame: