Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Yes, there are, but none in the trial itself. With the exception of the reference to Johnson's noted waking at 03:12, other references to 03:12 in the HoA appear to be speculative conjecture based on Roux's timeline. It is clearly an approach which, like it or not, worked for his client but it is possible to fit other plausible scenarios to the timeline in a similar manner. Indeed, I understand the defence came up with some 40+ possible timeline variations before settling on the one put forward and I'm not surprised. I was just wondering if you were aware of any other sources for the time. I'm not aware of any.

Sorry, no. Wish I could be of more help.

 

[cottonweaver]

Sorry, no. Wish I could be of more help.

That "no". Does that not concern you or lead you to surmise anything?

 

[aftermath]

That "no". Does that not concern you or lead you to surmise anything?

Not sure what you mean... There was a discussion about a perceived 15-20 minute interval between first shots and second sounds (of the bat). I mentioned that this timespan is not the defence's version- that they place the shots at nearer to 3:12, reducing the gap to five minutes. The reason for this adjusted time is explained clearly in the heads of argument...

 

[soozieqtips]

BIB no you wouldn't

Well, you did. You've now tried to make out he may have perceived the noise as louder than it really was, so that you can make out Reeva didn't in fact slam the door very hard... (in her effort to keep quiet after slamming the door). However, OP clearly states he heard the door slam - and doors do not slam quietly - so either you've dismissed what he said, or you've gone inside his head to determine what he thought he heard as opposed to what he said he heard?

 

[lithgow1]

Well, you did. You've now tried to make out he may have perceived the noise as louder than it really was, so that you can make out Reeva didn't in fact slam the door very hard... (in her effort to keep quiet after slamming the door). However, OP clearly states he heard the door slam - and doors do not slam quietly - so either you've dismissed what he said, or you've gone inside his head to determine what he thought he heard as opposed to what he said he heard?

There`s a lot of that happens. Maybe next time they can ask him why he told so many lies if his version was the truth.

 

[Interested Bystander]

If the shots were at around 3:12 as the defence heads suggests, there would only be an approx five minute space between firing the shots and breaking the door with the bat.

Unfortunately, to me, the Defence HOA reads like a massaged alibi for OP. Their timings are all over the place and their specialist information very weak. It was shot down during the trial but regurgitated in the Heads. Having said that, I don't think Nel did a brilliant job with his Heads. I think he failed because he was a bit too sure of himself and during the trial didn't cover some specialist areas that would have provided a more definitive report about the affects of weather conditions/temperature on acoustics. Whether this is because that is the general standard of trials in SA I know not. This trial result fell over, from my viewpoint, because of confusion about screaming. If there was a lady screaming at anypoint, OP was guilty, and I happen to believe the Stipps and the Burgers were honest citizens trying to help. I do wonder how they feel about it all now.

 

[aftermath]

Well, you did. You've now tried to make out he may have perceived the noise as louder than it really was, so that you can make out Reeva didn't in fact slam the door very hard... (in her effort to keep quiet after slamming the door). However, OP clearly states he heard the door slam - and doors do not slam quietly - so either you've dismissed what he said, or you've gone inside his head to determine what he thought he heard as opposed to what he said he heard?

No. I said that it was possible that Reeva slammed the door by accident (same post as the bit you have taken issue with). I also said it was possible that that fight -flight response made him more tuned into the sounds of the perceived intruder. This isn't to say he didn't hear a door slam- that's what he might have perceived, so not dismissing his words at all. These are suggested possibilities only- obviously that's all they can ever be...

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes, there are, but none in the trial itself. With the exception of the reference to Johnson's noted waking at 03:12, other references to 03:12 in the HoA appear to be speculative conjecture based on Roux's timeline. It is clearly an approach which, like it or not, worked for his client but it is possible to fit other plausible scenarios to the timeline in a similar manner. Indeed, I understand the defence came up with some 40+ possible timeline variations before settling on the one put forward and I'm not surprised. I was just wondering if you were aware of any other sources for the time. I'm not aware of any.

Where did you hear that about the 40+ possible timelines, just out of interest? I can well believe this. It makes it all the odder that the state didn't produce even one.

 

[GR_Turner]

So she walks to the toilet, presumably using the phone to light her way, and then puts it down outside the cubicle? Why on earth would she do that and not keep it in her hand? BTW, he did`nt go quiet after he reached the bathroom. On his evidence he says he did as he got to the bathroom and then starts screaming again after he has looked into it. So there he is, a few metres from her, screaming, and she says not a word? Total BS.

PS IIRC the light in the toilet was broken. So she uses her phone to get to the bathroom and when she reaches it takes the time to open a window but doesn`t bother to turn on the light? And then goes into the toilet and leaves the phone outside on the floor. Doesn`t sound logical at all.

My guess is that she didn't need the phone for light either to go into the bathroom or once in the bathroom because OP had the curtains open in the bedroom when she got up and there was street light in the bathroom and in the toilet from the windows. I think she might have wanted to check messages after she'd been to the loo or she might have wanted to use the light on the phone to find her way back to bed in the dark bedroom once the curtains were closed.

I don't think it's odd that she didn't shout out even once OP was in the bathroom as the same as earlier would still apply. She wouldn't have known where the intruder was so letting the intruder know where she was might make her a target.

 

[Mr Fossil]

What do you think about Estelle Van der Merwe's timing of 4 noises around 3am. Did she make a mistake? Is around 3am near enough to 3.15am 'ish. It seems quite a long time to me. I don't know what to make of Dr Stipp's call.

RSBM

Going back to your BIB. A good example of the vagueness of someone reporting a time is Baba who is wide awake at the time. He testifies that Ndimande returns at 'around, after 3' to report rifle shots and then 'after a few moments' he receives calls from Dr Stipp and Nhlengethwa. Given the first call is at 03:15:51, either 'a few moments' means about 15 minutes or 'around, after 3' means perhaps 03:15? So EvdM's reference to around 3am can easily be taken to mean any time between 03:00 and 03:15 just based on this example.

 

[Colin de France]

My guess is that she didn't need the phone for light either to go into the bathroom or once in the bathroom because OP had the curtains open in the bedroom when she got up and there was street light in the bathroom and in the toilet from the windows. I think she might have wanted to check messages after she'd been to the loo or she might have wanted to use the light on the phone to find her way back to bed in the dark bedroom once the curtains were closed.

I don't think it's odd that she didn't shout out even once OP was in the bathroom as the same as earlier would still apply. She wouldn't have known where the intruder was so letting the intruder know where she was might make her a target.

......in the toilet there's a closed blind in front of the window .................

 

[Colin de France]

...............the intruder who slams doors ........!

 

[Mr Fossil]

Where did you hear that about the 40+ possible timelines, just out of interest? I can well believe this. It makes it all the odder that the state didn't produce even one.

Unusually for me, I can't find the reference. It was something I vaguely recollect someone close to the defence team saying off the record. I will find it and then I'll give you the reference unless someone else recalls it and posts it first.

 

[Colin de France]

My guess is that she didn't need the phone for light either to go into the bathroom or once in the bathroom because OP had the curtains open in the bedroom when she got up and there was street light in the bathroom and in the toilet from the windows. I think she might have wanted to check messages after she'd been to the loo or she might have wanted to use the light on the phone to find her way back to bed in the dark bedroom once the curtains were closed.

I don't think it's odd that she didn't shout out even once OP was in the bathroom as the same as earlier would still apply. She wouldn't have known where the intruder was so letting the intruder know where she was might make her a target.

.............how would it make her a target if she was in the WC with a locked door what would that change for her if she cried out.......

 

[Interested Bystander]

RSBM

Going back to your BIB. A good example of the vagueness of someone reporting a time is Baba who is wide awake at the time. He testifies that Ndimande returns at 'around, after 3' to report rifle shots and then 'after a few moments' he receives calls from Dr Stipp and Nhlengethwa. Given the first call is at 03:15:51, either 'a few moments' means about 15 minutes or 'around, after 3' means perhaps 03:15? So EvdM's reference to around 3am can easily be taken to mean any time between 03:00 and 03:15 just based on this example.

It does make a bit of a nonsense when timing is so important, doesn't it?:thinking:

 

[GR_Turner]

Unusually for me, I can't find the reference. It was something I vaguely recollect someone close to the defence team saying off the record. I will find it and then I'll give you the reference unless someone else recalls it and posts it first.

Thanks. I expect you are right about the source.

Do you think it's odd that the state didn't produce a timeline? What do you make of the decision to accept Johnson's phone time as correct (which basically destroys the screams as state's evidence) and the apparent decision not to get all the phone records?

 

[Colin de France]

What do you make of the decision to accept Johnson's phone time as correct (which basically destroys the screams as state's evidence)

....another sweeping statement from someone who only awnsers questions selectively..........in the bat/scream/shot version the times more or less coincide with Johnsons version.......without doubt Mr Johnson heard the screams and the shots afterwards and may well of woken up because of the bat............Ah....if we all had a memory as good as Mr Johnson ....!

 

[cottonweaver]

My guess is that she didn't need the phone for light either to go into the bathroom or once in the bathroom because OP had the curtains open in the bedroom when she got up and there was street light in the bathroom and in the toilet from the windows. I think she might have wanted to check messages after she'd been to the loo or she might have wanted to use the light on the phone to find her way back to bed in the dark bedroom once the curtains were closed.

I don't think it's odd that she didn't shout out even once OP was in the bathroom as the same as earlier would still apply. She wouldn't have known where the intruder was so letting the intruder know where she was might make her a target.

Sorry have I misunderstood BIB in your scenario? She anticipated his curtain drawing- in advance- thus took her phone to assist later once he had drawn the curtains? how does she know what he is going to do next?

per se i don't have an issue with speculating people may take their phone torch but that scenario strikes me as "strange "

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thanks. I expect you are right about the source.

Do you think it's odd that the state didn't produce a timeline? What do you make of the decision to accept Johnson's phone time as correct (which basically destroys the screams as state's evidence) and the apparent decision not to get all the phone records?

Personally, yes I do, but I understand how difficult it was to produce (Roux's is full of holes and statements of 'fact' which are merely supposition) and have also seen others of a legal bent state that it was not necessary. That said, Masipa seems to have thought it was in her Judgment because she remarks on the absence of it.

For a long time I thought the issue was Johnson's phone time (and it may well still be), indeed Johnson did too. I no longer do, other than to state as a fact that if his phone did show a call at 03:16 then it could have been at any time between 03:16:00 and 03:16:59 because of the truncated seconds. For a bat then gun scenario (see my early two posts on page 18) the issue becomes the Burger/Johnson sequence of events, which I argue is incorrect. If this is accepted, everything falls into place (it requires that the shots they hear are moved to before the helps). I have produced a simple schematic to help me visualise all the witness testimony based on this which I will post soon as a picture and then supply a link to the document at a later time with a full explanation, relevant witness testimony etc.

I am surprised that any evidence, such as phone calls, is put into court without appearing to have been properly investigated. Phone records cannot be difficult to obtain.

 

[Colin de France]

Sorry have I misunderstood BIB in your scenario? She anticipated his curtain drawing- in advance- thus took her phone to assist later once he had drawn the curtains? how does she know what he is going to do next?

per se i don't have an issue with speculating people may take their phone torch but that scenario strikes me as "strange "

...i missed that one...very good ..;