Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Here's my thinking, pretty much as I typed it (so no comments please about grammar or semantics if you know what I was intending!) on How did Oscar's version come about? This is based on the premise that the bat then gun scenario is what actually happened.

It's very much a work in progress but I'm happy with the gist of it. I thought it through literally as I typed it then made a couple of changes. You can even see my thought process at the end when I explore why he didn't check the bedroom door (I know this isn't in the bail statement but his (lack of) thinking when checking the bedroom affects the additional steps he has in his version).

Comment etc. all welcome.

I think you still have the problem of the helps not being in the right place with Johnson/Burger though - I know you addressed this before but I didn't really see how you could argue this successfully. Both of them, at least while giving evidence, were clear about when they heard the helps and what they thought at the time when hearing them. Given that putting them there actually makes no sense on the state's version, and Burger at least was sure the state was right, I'd be less inclined to think that they got this wrong.

And depending on how you take Stipp's evidence, the helps could have been after the successful call which would place them at around 3.16 as well, also before the bangs at 3.17 (by his 10111 call). All very unclear however.

In general, I think you given OP too much credit in coming up with a version that then just happens to come out right - because neighbours got their phone times and the placing of the helps wrong (if they did). It's just so lucky if it's all made up.

 

[Mr Fossil]

It seems unlikely to have been just a minute or two - none of the witnesses to the screaming seemed to think it was that short a length of time though I can see there's room for debate. I'd dispute that we can place the timing of the second bangs before Stipp's successful call to security as it doesn't fit in with Stipp's other phone times though it does fit in with what Mrs Stipp said about seeing her clock. However there is also the 10111 call at 3.17 (which puts the second bangs at 3.17) which I simply don't think could have come from anywhere other than the state's evidence, though where exactly is unclear.

Yes, he does have a history of aggression - against inanimate objects for the most part. There's no history of deliberate physical attacks that I've heard of. I'm sure some posters will want to argue that the Taylor-Memmory incident was deliberate but it sounds to me more like a drunken accident that got blown out of all proportion.

Why do you dispute placing the timing of the second bangs before Stipp's successful call to security? It is their evidence.

What call to 10111 at 03:17? The time was made up by the defence. Firstly Stipp says it was before the successful call to security (and the other 082 number he tried). Secondly, the 03:17 time for the Stipps is really 3-4 minutes earlier. And thirdly why would Stipp call 10111 anyway after successfully getting hold of security (this is only in Roux and Masipa's version), it doesn't make sense?

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm exploring bat/gun/kick not bat/gun/prise (just to be pedantic). Vermeulen suggests prise but he didn't consider kick as being the method of getting the first, smaller panel out.
.

rsbm

thanks. No, it’s essential to be pedantic with the details.
I found it hard to work out why Oscars Prosth sock would get varnish in it if he had only walked on the door fragments as Vermeulen at one point suggested - but then I don't know the details of the varnish particles etc.

Will have to wait to read your link and come back to it shortly.

Pity that the blog batgunkick is long gone now.just cause it had some handy diagrams of that woman’s particular theory.

 

[Colin de France]

In general, I think you given OP too much credit in coming up with a version that then just happens to come out right - because neighbours got their phone times and the placing of the helps wrong (if they did). It's just so lucky if it's all made up.

............after having tried to blow the door open and having killed Reeva, Pistorius had to come up with an explanation....what choice did he have.?.........to tell the truth "i was trying to open the door, it was an accident, i wasn't thinking" or does he weigh up the risks that version represents and decide to lie...........that was the option decided.... having had previous knowledge of the intruder version it was just a case of applying that to his own situation.....once he had gone down that road it was impossible to turn back, but imagine they find him guilty of murder at the appeal he's going to have to come out with the truth .........interesting times ahead...

 

[Mr Fossil]

I think you still have the problem of the helps not being in the right place with Johnson/Burger though - I know you addressed this before but I didn't really see how you could argue this successfully. Both of them, at least while giving evidence, were clear about when they heard the helps and what they thought at the time when hearing them. Given that putting them there actually makes no sense on the state's version, and Burger at least was sure the state was right, I'd be less inclined to think that they got this wrong.

And depending on how you take Stipp's evidence, the helps could have been after the successful call which would place them at around 3.16 as well, also before the bangs at 3.17 (by his 10111 call). All very unclear however.

In general, I think you given OP too much credit in coming up with a version that then just happens to come out right - because neighbours got their phone times and the placing of the helps wrong (if they did). It's just so lucky if it's all made up.

I think my argument is stronger than Roux and Masipa's for moving the time of the Stipps's call to before the second sounds, which seems pretty arbitrary (i.e. there is no justification for it). My justification is as I have stated. Would you like me to restate this?

I've addressed 10111 in my last post.

 

[GR_Turner]

Why do you dispute placing the timing of the second bangs before Stipp's successful call to security? It is their evidence.

What call to 10111 at 03:17? The time was made up by the defence. Firstly Stipp says it was before the successful call to security (and the other 082 number he tried). Secondly, the 03:17 time for the Stipps is really 3-4 minutes earlier. And thirdly why would Stipp call 10111 anyway after successfully getting hold of security (this is only in Roux and Masipa's version), it doesn't make sense?

So you think that Roux made up the 3.17 10111 call time and Nel just sat there and said nothing? And that Roux did the same again in the heads and Nel just thought, oh I'll just ignore this blatantly made up evidence?

It's also in Stipp's evidence that he tried to call security and failed, then called 082 and 10111 when he heard the second bangs, then some time after he successfully called security. However, there's no evidence of the first call to security (a wrong number?) and I can't see how Nel didn't object vociferously to Roux making up times for the 10111 call, even assuming Roux would risk his reputation like that.

Stipp's reasoning in his evidence makes sense. But then again if we take that the phone times are right and Stipp is wrong, maybe he continued to call for help because he was continuing to hear the screaming and wanted to get help asap even though he'd already called security. I don't think, in short, that we can just ignore the fact that Stipp's evidence doesn't match his phone times.

 

[Trotterly]

So you think that Roux made up the 3.17 10111 call time and Nel just sat there and said nothing? And that Roux did the same again in the heads and Nel just thought, oh I'll just ignore this blatantly made up evidence?

It's also in Stipp's evidence that he tried to call security and failed, then called 082 and 10111 when he heard the second bangs, then some time after he successfully called security. However, there's no evidence of the first call to security (a wrong number?) and I can't see how Nel didn't object vociferously to Roux making up times for the 10111 call, even assuming Roux would risk his reputation like that.

Stipp's reasoning in his evidence makes sense. But then again if we take that the phone times are right and Stipp is wrong, maybe he continued to call for help because he was continuing to hear the screaming and wanted to get help asap even though he'd already called security. I don't think, in short, that we can just ignore the fact that Stipp's evidence doesn't match his phone times.

You'll never get on with Roux's times of that day

'til you have had sight of his Annexure A

 

[Mr Fossil]

So you think that Roux made up the 3.17 10111 call time and Nel just sat there and said nothing? And that Roux did the same again in the heads and Nel just thought, oh I'll just ignore this blatantly made up evidence?

It's also in Stipp's evidence that he tried to call security and failed, then called 082 and 10111 when he heard the second bangs, then some time after he successfully called security. However, there's no evidence of the first call to security (a wrong number?) and I can't see how Nel didn't object vociferously to Roux making up times for the 10111 call, even assuming Roux would risk his reputation like that.

Stipp's reasoning in his evidence makes sense. But then again if we take that the phone times are right and Stipp is wrong, maybe he continued to call for help because he was continuing to hear the screaming and wanted to get help asap even though he'd already called security. I don't think, in short, that we can just ignore the fact that Stipp's evidence doesn't match his phone times.

When asked by Masipa if Roux's timeline is common cause he said only the phone data is. This cannot be construed to mean calls for which there is no data e.g. Stipp's failed calls (it's one of the reasons I dropped them from my schematic but will use them in the accompanying dialogue).

 

[GR_Turner]

When asked by Masipa if Roux's timeline is common cause he said only the phone data is. This cannot be construed to mean calls for which there is no data e.g. Stipp's failed calls (it's one of the reasons I dropped them from my schematic but will use them in the accompanying dialogue).

There's a distinction between Nel not fully arguing against the defence timeline and his acceptance of Roux's time for the 10111 call. The timeline is an interpretation of the evidence whereas the timing of a specific call is either based on evidence or just plain made up. You didn't say whether you believe roux just made it up and why Nel wouldnt object in your opinion. I can't see any reason either for roux to make this up or for Nel to let him.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Here's a link to the Carte Blanche item "Oscar Trial: evidence overlooked?" shown on Sunday for those that haven't seen it. http://carteblanche.dstv.com/player/909544

It seems to be based on the toilet flushing evidence in Behind The Door.

Interesting to see Lt Col Van der Nest re-enacting Oscar's movements with Reeva.

 

[Mr Fossil]

There's a distinction between Nel not fully arguing against the defence timeline and his acceptance of Roux's time for the 10111 call. The timeline is an interpretation of the evidence whereas the timing of a specific call is either based on evidence or just plain made up. You didn't say whether you believe roux just made it up and why Nel wouldnt object in your opinion. I can't see any reason either for roux to make this up or for Nel to let him.

I think Roux is mistaken. If you look at the HoA he uses the 03:17 time in reference to the Stipps's evidence without acknowledging that the clock is fast (and yet his acknowledges it in respect of the 03:02 time). Nel never presents an alternative timeline which is a shame. Probably because he couldn't figure one. So the best he does is to say he only agrees the phone data in Roux's timeline.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here's a link to the Carte Blanche item "Oscar Trial: evidence overlooked?" shown on Sunday for those that haven't seen it. http://carteblanche.dstv.com/player/909544

It seems to be based on the toilet flushing evidence in Behind The Door.

Interesting to see Lt Col Van der Nest re-enacting Oscar's movements with Reeva.

Thank you for the link. Interesting that it could be advantageous to both sides. I know you are busy at the moment with other aspects but would be interested in your and others' comments on how it could have affected the outcome one way or the other. I suspect the split will remain roughly the same, ie 97% versus 3%.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thank you for the link. Interesting that it could be advantageous to both sides. I know you are busy at the moment with other aspects but would be interested in your and others' comments on how it could have affected the outcome one way or the other. I suspect the split will remain roughly the same, ie 97% versus 3%.

My initial thoughts and questions.

1. Assuming the experts are correct and the toilet was flushed prior to Reeva being shot, that flushing occurred within about 18 seconds of her slumping over the toilet bowl and it is not possible to flush the toilet accidentally:

1.1 Reeva went to the toilet (or at least flushed it), which is consistent with OP's version. Or was this after the bat strikes?
1.2 Why didn't OP hear the toilet flush?
1.3 Why would Reeva flush the toilet if OP is shouting and screaming for the intruders to get out and Reeva to call the police and she is scared (e.g. she doesn't tell Oscar where she is)?

2. Or could the experts be wrong and it was OP who flushed the toilet?

2.1 The blood flow would have continued from Reeva after this
2.2 The spinters of wood in the bowl could have fallen from Reeva as he moved her
2.3 Why would OP flush the toilet with Reeva still slumped over the toilet?

 

[cottonweaver]

Really enjoying reading the link Fossil - but only got through to page 2 before postponing it due to commitments today.Plus it's meticulously put together so I want to read it properly.

Definitely a worthwhile exercise but I can't "feedback" yet. As for the TV progr won't be able to watch that til tomorrow hopefully either - intrigued to find out how the experts went about investigating and proving anything regarding toilet flushing.

 

[Mr Fossil]

There's a distinction between Nel not fully arguing against the defence timeline and his acceptance of Roux's time for the 10111 call. The timeline is an interpretation of the evidence whereas the timing of a specific call is either based on evidence or just plain made up. You didn't say whether you believe roux just made it up and why Nel wouldnt object in your opinion. I can't see any reason either for roux to make this up or for Nel to let him.

Further to my previous answer I've done some more research. Roux questions Stipp about the time of the 10111 call. 03:17 is what he wrote in his statement and agrees to this repeatedly in his cross examination. Not once is there any reference to his clock being fast that I can find but I would suggest that his point of reference can only have been the observed clock radio time or his wife told him. It's a mystery. His call sequence only works if it is based on the observed time, since his call to security is timed at 03:15:51. Nevertheless, Roux put this all to good use. I suspect had he asked Stipp, he'd have been put right. Why Nel didn't pick this up I don't know.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

rsbm

thanks. No, it’s essential to be pedantic with the details.
I found it hard to work out why Oscars Prosth sock would get varnish in it if he had only walked on the door fragments as Vermeulen at one point suggested - but then I don't know the details of the varnish particles etc.

Will have to wait to read your link and come back to it shortly.

Pity that the blog batgunkick is long gone now.just cause it had some handy diagrams of that woman’s particular theory.

You can still view/read it on the web archive site, but unfortunately the images do not show up.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140608010627/http://batgunkick.blogspot.com.au/

 

[Mr Fossil]

You can still view/read it on the web archive site, but unfortunately the images do not show up.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140608010627/http://batgunkick.blogspot.com.au/

Thanks for the link - I remember this and it is the same scenario I'm exploring, though I suspect the pivotal time was earlier than 03:17.

I wonder why all the blogs and Facebook page were removed.

One thing is for sure. Unless you add some more gunshots in you have to accept that the witnesses' recollections of the time are poor. This is why I've gone with the sequence only (except in the case of when Burger/Johnson shots occur for reasons given) and phone data only where it helps correlate events.

 

[Colin de France]

You can still view/read it on the web archive site, but unfortunately the images do not show up.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140608010627/http://batgunkick.blogspot.com.au/

....thanks........i came to form my own opinion about the bat/screams/shots version by studying the evidence over time, it's the only version to me which is plausible and feels right..... having said that i just can't make the jump to murder, it seems too much for the moment unless something new comes up, if that is the case then fair enough, what counts above all is finding the truth........for the time being i see the gun as an extension of the bat and i also think he loved Reeva and so i don't think he intended to kill her............thanks for the link.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

My initial thoughts and questions.

1. Assuming the experts are correct and the toilet was flushed prior to Reeva being shot, that flushing occurred within about 18 seconds of her slumping over the toilet bowl and it is not possible to flush the toilet accidentally:

1.1 Reeva went to the toilet (or at least flushed it), which is consistent with OP's version. Or was this after the bat strikes?
1.2 Why didn't OP hear the toilet flush?
1.3 Why would Reeva flush the toilet if OP is shouting and screaming for the intruders to get out and Reeva to call the police and she is scared (e.g. she doesn't tell Oscar where she is)?

2. Or could the experts be wrong and it was OP who flushed the toilet?

2.1 The blood flow would have continued from Reeva after this
2.2 The spinters of wood in the bowl could have fallen from Reeva as he moved her
2.3 Why would OP flush the toilet with Reeva still slumped over the toilet?

And if it was him who flushed the toilet immediately after entering the WC? Blood away - murder not done, maybe his motto. Perhaps he had also attempted to flush the cartridge case, one had yet found later?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....thanks........i came to form my own opinion about the bat/screams/shots version by studying the evidence over time, it's the only version to me which is plausible and feels right..... having said that i just can't make the jump to murder, it seems too much for the moment unless something new comes up, if that is the case then fair enough, what counts above all is finding the truth........for the time being i see the gun as an extension of the bat and i also think he loved Reeva and so i don't think he intended to kill her............thanks for the link.

Maybe OP loved Reeva but only if easy to care for, otherwise maybe he was angry and jealous (character, beauty, mind) and anyway too self-centered, in addition very very capricious. I think, on this day 13.2. there everything came together. Surely he feared she would leave him and would have a wonderful life without him, in front of his nose. Surely he feared something acute (super bad press because of ....DV.... we will never know). In this situation, this evening, it was certainly a thought of seconds: if she would just disappear, it would be easiest.