Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

Forgive me for forgetting exact timings (it's been a while) but the whole timeline debacle rests with two errors - easily spottable to anyone and everyone except Masipa and her "assistants".

1: Stipp's 2/3 calls to security.

He thought he'd made two calls to security...one after the first bangs, one after the second.

The security call log showed that he did make two calls....the first at 3.15 which lasted some seconds as he talked to Mr Baba and the second at @3.27 (registering 0 seconds) when he was already at OP's house.

Roux made MUCH of this, and basically called this professional doctor, who'd never met OP before, a liar who wanted to help the state.

I don't think Dr Stipp is a liar. I think he did try to call security soon after the first bangs and couldn't get an answer. Either he accidentally misdialled or security weren't there to answer. In the latter case, no ansaphone kicked in, so no connection of any kind was made in order to show up later on the official logs. That's why there was no record of it. Although, there possibly would have been on Stipp's phone, but no one (including Stipp) checked.

The 3.27ish call was obviously a pocket dial - or an inadvertant pressing of last number redial as he stood on the forecourt with Stander. Possibly, voicemail was then on the security line which captured the fleeting 0 second call.

In any event, Roux used this confusion to try and prove that the 3.15 call happened after the first bangs. "Yes, Dr Stipp, you did make two calls. Your first, you say, was made after the first bangs. And since the first call we see you making is at 3.15, then the first bangs must have been just before then. And you say your second was just after the second bangs? Well, you were already at OP's house when that aborted call happened...so you, Dr Stipp, are a big fat liar".

Clearly, Stipp's first call went astray - but I do believe he made it and it was soon after the first bangs. The second bangs occured while he was still frantically trying to get through to someone - managing to at 3.15. He made no further calls after that, as he had no reason to.

If you accept his evidence, then this is proof that all the bangs were over by 3.15.

2) There was never any independent verification of the time of Johnson's call. He said he made his call at 3.16 (?) and heard shots moments later.

If this was actually true, then it contradicts the closer Stipp who said the last bangs were shortly before 3.15.

The thing is, he could only provide this time from his own log. It was not from any official record and had not been synched with anything - so could have very easily have been wrong. He said that HIMSELF on the stand - he specifically asked Roux (who avoided answering) whether the time had been checked with a central server. Not only that, he was unable to say whether the time he gave represented the beginning or the end of the call....quite significant given that he was on the ohone for a while having called the wrong security office.

All it would take is for Johnson to be one minute out and the whole jigsaw puzzle fits together in terms of times and bangs.

Stipps hear bangs
Stipps and Johnsons hear female screams and man shouting
Johnsons hear man AND woman screaming help
Stipp tries to call security
Johnson calls wrong security
Stipps, Johnson, Mr Mike and VderM hear bangs
Stipp reaches security at 3.15
Mr Mike calls security at 3.16
Stipp hears male "help" coming from left of where screams were earlier coming from
Everyone hears a male crying loudly (Mrs VderM thinks it's female NO ONE ELSE DOES)
VderM calls security (must have been after this) shortly before seeing vehicles pull up

It must have happened like this.

If not, then we have to ask why Dr Stipp heard bangs and female screams and did NOTHING until the second bangs...some minutes later. The same Dr Stipp who risked his life 15 minutes later by going alone into the house did NOTHING when he heard a female screaming, "out of her mind in terror"? He just stood on the balcony scratching his head, did he?

No, he grabbed his phone and started calling. If you believe him on this, then you HAVE to believe that the second bangs were at 3.15. Which proves that Pistorius is a murderer.

Yes - I agree with all this.

The only timing that can work for Stipp AND Mike N is if the 2nd shots are just moments prior to 3:15:51 - per the security log.

The first shots should have been found to be around 3.02 - per Stipp's uncontradicted evidence.

There are some matters we could clear up 100% if only we had exhibit Q and any other phone exhbits

1. The timing of Stipp's call to 10111
2. Whether the timing of Charl Johnson's call was corroborated from central logs.

Personally I doubt there are exhibits for the Stipp's calls, nor Johnson - as I would have expected Counsel/Judge to reference them.

Note this wording carefully:

In any event, one can safely use the phone records which were
made between 03:15:51 and 03:17 as a base to arrive at the
approximate times when the shots were fired, when the screams were
heard as well as when the sounds of the cricket bat was striking against
the door were heard. In addition, the accused’s phone records are also
available

So this would appear to mean the Judge relies on only two exhibits "as a base" to guess the other times

1. The Security phone log
2. The accused phone records

The timing of the 10111 call is pure speculation and contrary to the witnesses own evidence - the Court is simply not entitled to do that.

Charl Johnson's call time is hearsay evidence and unreliable. I really despair that any weight was placed on it.

It actually is beyond belief these records were not in evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

Still gobsmacked by this wild speculation

Hence, as counsel for
the defence correctly admit, it is unlikely that Ms Stipp would take as
long as 13 minutes before she and her husband could respond to the
emergency.

 

[LemonMousse]

I remember Mr Stipp first called a wrong (former) security (which exactly, I don't know), then he noticed the mistake. That security must have had his call on the log - too late now.

I may be wrong, but I am pretty certain it was Johnson who called the wrong security office. It was from where they used to live - and it seems to have been quite a convoluted call because the guards didn't initially understand what he was saying.

(But you are absolutely right...the wrong security office phone log would have a record of that call. So would Johnson's provider. Infuriating that the police/Nel didn't check).

Stipp called the right security which rang and rang for a long time. He then called a number which gave him a strange signal then 10111, then security again which was answered at 3.15. Was 10111 engaged? Can't recall what happened with that...but if it was, there was no connection so it would not show up on any log.

(I think).

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes - I agree with all this.

The only timing that can work for Stipp AND Mike N is if the 2nd shots are just moments prior to 3:15:51 - per the security log.

The first shots should have been found to be around 3.02 - per Stipp's uncontradicted evidence.

There are some matters we could clear up 100% if only we had exhibit Q and any other phone exhbits

1. The timing of Stipp's call to 10111
2. Whether the timing of Charl Johnson's call was corroborated from central logs.

Personally I doubt there are exhibits for the Stipp's calls, nor Johnson - as I would have expected Counsel/Judge to reference them.

Note this wording carefully:



So this would appear to mean the Judge relies on only two exhibits "as a base" to guess the other times

1. The Security phone log
2. The accused phone records

The timing of the 10111 call is pure speculation and contrary to the witnesses own evidence - the Court is simply not entitled to do that.

Charl Johnson's call time is hearsay evidence and unreliable. I really despair that any weight was placed on it.

It actually is beyond belief these records were not in evidence.

Agree with the speculation re: the 10111. No evidence from anyone was presented to show what time that was....none at all. Disgraceful that Roux got away with asserting a time for this.

But regarding Charl Johnson...the closest we have to knowing whether there was a check is the exchange between Roux and him.

I really can't be bothered trawling through to check, but I have done before and I know that when Roux started laying out his "theory" about bangs = cricket bats, Johnson queried it by specifically asking whether the time of his call had been "checked against a central server". I remember that, because it struck me that this is how an IT pro (as he is) would phrase it. Roux said something like, "Yes, yes, we have it. You gave us the time..." etc - thereby sidestepping the question.

If it had been checked and the times accorded, there's no way Roux wouldn't have stressed that. The time of Johnson's call was absolutely essential to his (fictitious) timeline.

 

[mrjitty]

Agree with the speculation re: the 10111. No evidence from anyone was presented to show what time that was....none at all. Disgraceful that Roux got away with asserting a time for this.

But regarding Charl Johnson...the closest we have to knowing whether there was a check is the exchange between Roux and him.

I really can't be bothered trawling through to check, but I have done before and I know that when Roux started laying out his "theory" about bangs = cricket bats, Johnson queried it by specifically asking whether the time of his call had been "checked against a central server". I remember that, because it struck me that this is how an IT pro (as he is) would phrase it. Roux said something like, "Yes, yes, we have it. You gave us the time..." etc - thereby sidestepping the question.

If it had been checked and the times accorded, there's no way Roux wouldn't have stressed that. The time of Johnson's call was absolutely essential to his (fictitious) timeline.

Yes I agree with that analysis - purely for technical reasons.

If the exhibit of "the central server" time (i.e from the phone company) were in evidence, then we can surely have expected one or both counsel to have referenced it, once this issue arose from Johnson's notes. Johnsons note of the time is strictly hearsay - so we would have expected counsel to confirm whether he had the time right or wrong by referencing the exhibit number. We saw this kind of examination with Baba where exhibit Q was produced. I am actually a bit surprised Nel did not redirect on this issue - but maybe the issue was that SAPS was so rubbish they had bothered to get these records.

I agree about Roux's trick - Judge should not have allowed this.

Also I agree that if you were Roux at that point - you would have produced the exhibit to triumphantly confirm the call time.

Altogether this was one of the weirdest aspects of the case.

I felt Nel was strong in many areas but the technical evidence was much weaker than it could have been.

This is probably simply a reflection on the quality of SAPs investigation

My guess is they simply didn't realise any of this would matter.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes I agree with that analysis - purely for technical reasons.

If the exhibit of "the central server" time (i.e from the phone company) were in evidence, then we can surely have expected one or both counsel to have referenced it, once this issue arose from Johnson's notes. Johnsons note of the time is strictly hearsay - so we would have expected counsel to confirm whether he had the time right or wrong by referencing the exhibit number. We saw this kind of examination with Baba where exhibit Q was produced. I am actually a bit surprised Nel did not redirect on this issue - but maybe the issue was that SAPS was so rubbish they had bothered to get these records.

I agree about Roux's trick - Judge should not have allowed this.

Also I agree that if you were Roux at that point - you would have produced the exhibit to triumphantly confirm the call time.

Altogether this was one of the weirdest aspects of the case.

I felt Nel was strong in many areas but the technical evidence was much weaker than it could have been.

This is probably simply a reflection on the quality of SAPs investigation

My guess is they simply didn't realise any of this would matter.

Without Roux at the Defence helm this might well have been an open and shut case. Given that such a very high percentage of legal eagles and the public who watched the whole trial felt there was no doubt OP was guilty, it has to be that the PT did not have all the evidence that was going to be needed. I really do think, though, that Nel thought he had it in the bag. I find Roux creepy in the sense that one knows he is being dishonest but he does it with a smile on his face whilst looking at the judge. I am sure you remember the comments on here about how she obviously favoured the smarmy Roux.

I was very disenchanted with the sound engineer (specialist??). There is so much science on this subject of sound but he did not touch on it at all. Very basic information was produced. If I knew about it surely Nel and the Sound Engineer should have. Had all the possibilities been introduced it would have fixed OP.

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes I agree with that analysis - purely for technical reasons.

If the exhibit of "the central server" time (i.e from the phone company) were in evidence, then we can surely have expected one or both counsel to have referenced it, once this issue arose from Johnson's notes. Johnsons note of the time is strictly hearsay - so we would have expected counsel to confirm whether he had the time right or wrong by referencing the exhibit number. We saw this kind of examination with Baba where exhibit Q was produced. I am actually a bit surprised Nel did not redirect on this issue - but maybe the issue was that SAPS was so rubbish they had bothered to get these records.

I agree about Roux's trick - Judge should not have allowed this.

Also I agree that if you were Roux at that point - you would have produced the exhibit to triumphantly confirm the call time.

Altogether this was one of the weirdest aspects of the case.

I felt Nel was strong in many areas but the technical evidence was much weaker than it could have been.

This is probably simply a reflection on the quality of SAPs investigation

My guess is they simply didn't realise any of this would matter.

For the record (and because I am a bit bored), I found the exchange:

(March 5, session 1, from 55.18)

Roux is telling Johnson that OP called Stander for help about 2 minutes after he (Johnson) made his call. He makes some silly remark about how it's unlikely that OP smashed down the door, stuck it back together with duct tape then shot through it.

Roux: .........that it could only be, we have the times, it could only be it exactly coincides that minute the breaking down of the door.

(Roux being inarticulate, not bad reporting from me).

Johnson: Milady, can I ask with reference to the times, were they taken from my statement or were they taken from a central time server which I would assume the cell phone provider would have available?

Roux: (Patronising little sigh) Mr Johnson, I'm curious about it, because you explained to us, and we know your cellphone data, we know it's the central data, we know you put it in your statement, you know you would not lie to the policemen and say 3.16 and the duration's 58 seconds - you said to us that you checked it, that's why I'm saying to you and we received.....let me help you....we received it from the police, the time calls made by the accused. The exact time calls.

So, the answer to Johnson's question was actually, "Yes, we took that from your statement and no it has not been checked".

Bottom line....Roux's timeline relied on an unverified time that even the man who provided it queried.

It is odd that Nel did nothing at all to try and refute Roux's timeline. All he had to say was, "X & Y times are unverified so no reliance should be placed on them" - then Roux's little fantasy goes "poof".

 

[Tortoise]

Can anyone remember what Nel said at the end of closing arguments about the phone times. I think Masipa asked if they were common cause and I can't remember his answer. It may have been something along the lines of only the calls in the phone logs entered into evidence?

 

[LemonMousse]

Just to say...while I am here...that I was thinking the other day about something said in an article someone posted a few weeks ago. It really stuck with me. (You've probably all discussed it, so sorry).

When Nel asked Pistorius why Reeva would lock herself in the toilet (or why she didn't call out) and he answered that maybe she could hear the danger coming towards her.

As the author of the article pointed out, what an extraordinary statement that was. He's identifying himself as the danger.

If he was telling the truth, he would acknowledge that the only thing Reeva would hear was him screaming and coming closer to the toilet. He'd say something like, "She was probably terrified of me screaming, wondering what was going on and wanting to hide from whatever was making me scream".

But no....she "probably heard the danger coming towards her". The only thing, in either version, that was coming towards Reeva, making a noise she could hear, was Pistorius....the danger.

He really did give himself away with that.

Anyway...see you all when there's a verdict. Fingers, toes, legs, arms and eyes crossed that there's finally some justice for that poor young woman and her family.

 

[lithgow1]

Just to say...while I am here...that I was thinking the other day about something said in an article someone posted a few weeks ago. It really stuck with me. (You've probably all discussed it, so sorry).

When Nel asked Pistorius why Reeva would lock herself in the toilet (or why she didn't call out) and he answered that maybe she could hear the danger coming towards her.

As the author of the article pointed out, what an extraordinary statement that was. He's identifying himself as the danger.

If he was telling the truth, he would acknowledge that the only thing Reeva would hear was him screaming and coming closer to the toilet. He'd say something like, "She was probably terrified of me screaming, wondering what was going on and wanting to hide from whatever was making me scream".

But no....she "probably heard the danger coming towards her". The only thing, in either version, that was coming towards Reeva, making a noise she could hear, was Pistorius....the danger.

He really did give himself away with that.

Anyway...see you all when there's a verdict. Fingers, toes, legs, arms and eyes crossed that there's finally some justice for that poor young woman and her family.

The above, along with the `I wanted to ask Reeva why is she ... is she calling the police' and the 'Get the f$#% out of my house' are a few moments when nuggets of truth were mixed in with the big lie IMO. Great phone times post BTW. As you say, Dr Stipp was not the type to stand on his balcony dithering. I still think Pistorius' little dig at the man who risked his own life to try and save a stranger's was one of the more scumbaggish things he did. That and the aside to Gina Meyers showed the kind of man he is. Hope all the crossing works!

 

[soozieqtips]

What's so awful is imagining poor Reeva running away from a raging OP, scared out of her wits and trying to keep him at bay by seeking refuge in the toilet. One can only imagine her growing fear as she realised what he was about to do, and knowing how powerless she was to stop it. It did occur to me that maybe the reason she didn't use her phone was because she was shaking too much to dial. That's if her phone actually made it into the toilet with her or got dropped outside. The other thing is that the timeline is so short, in between her running to the toilet and OP being 'alerted' to a noise, that she'd almost have to have passed the invisible intruder on her way to the toilet.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...-for-oscar-s-neighbour-1.1657840#.VlX4b3Yve00

Pointed questions for Oscar’s neighbour

March 7 2014 at 11:02am

Stipp then said he heard a woman's screaming, intermingled with a man's shouting. He then heard three noises, but Roux was not interested in the time delay between them.

Stipp said he was under the impression that these second sounds were gunshots, but Roux said that it was common cause that there were only four shots fired.

Roux said that, even though Stipp was sure on the stand that he heard three shots upon waking up, his statement said he had heard “two to three” shots and this showed he was unsure about exactly what he had heard.

I'm searching another excerpt, but want to post this also before losing it ...

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/world/story/1.2561981

Oscar Pistorius murder trial hears doctor's testimony

Roux said Johnson's testimony and statements to police were manipulated to match those of his wife, who testified on the opening day, and were an attempt to "incriminate the accused."

Nice. Who had manipulated what.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I may be wrong, but I am pretty certain it was Johnson who called the wrong security office. It was from where they used to live - and it seems to have been quite a convoluted call because the guards didn't initially understand what he was saying.

(But you are absolutely right...the wrong security office phone log would have a record of that call. So would Johnson's provider. Infuriating that the police/Nel didn't check).

Stipp called the right security which rang and rang for a long time. He then called a number which gave him a strange signal then 10111, then security again which was answered at 3.15. Was 10111 engaged? Can't recall what happened with that...but if it was, there was no connection so it would not show up on any log.

(I think).

You are right with Johnson, my mistake, sorry! I looked at Mr Fossil's timeline now (after searching the news for Stipp and wrong call ).

 

[Marfa Lights]

For the record (and because I am a bit bored), I found the exchange:

(March 5, session 1, from 55.18)

Roux is telling Johnson that OP called Stander for help about 2 minutes after he (Johnson) made his call. He makes some silly remark about how it's unlikely that OP smashed down the door, stuck it back together with duct tape then shot through it.

Roux: .........that it could only be, we have the times, it could only be it exactly coincides that minute the breaking down of the door.

(Roux being inarticulate, not bad reporting from me).

Johnson: Milady, can I ask with reference to the times, were they taken from my statement or were they taken from a central time server which I would assume the cell phone provider would have available?

Roux: (Patronising little sigh) Mr Johnson, I'm curious about it, because you explained to us, and we know your cellphone data, we know it's the central data, we know you put it in your statement, you know you would not lie to the policemen and say 3.16 and the duration's 58 seconds - you said to us that you checked it, that's why I'm saying to you and we received.....let me help you....we received it from the police, the time calls made by the accused. The exact time calls.

So, the answer to Johnson's question was actually, "Yes, we took that from your statement and no it has not been checked".

Bottom line....Roux's timeline relied on an unverified time that even the man who provided it queried.

It is odd that Nel did nothing at all to try and refute Roux's timeline. All he had to say was, "X & Y times are unverified so no reliance should be placed on them" - then Roux's little fantasy goes "poof".

Thanks for the transcript LemonMousse. It is painful to read it and recall how skillfully Roux manipulated Johnson's testimony while both Nel and Masipa sat by mute.

I think this was when Roux really seized control of the case with his distorted timeline.

I will never understand why Nel agreed to a 3:17 time for the last shot sounds without a thorough investigation of all call logs.

.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Can anyone remember what Nel said at the end of closing arguments about the phone times. I think Masipa asked if they were common cause and I can't remember his answer. It may have been something along the lines of only the calls in the phone logs entered into evidence?

Important to know - also for me!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

When I see/read our discussion, I'm always hoping for retrial. Does is make sense or will the mistakes remain forever uncorrected?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can anyone remember what Nel said at the end of closing arguments about the phone times. I think Masipa asked if they were common cause and I can't remember his answer. It may have been something along the lines of only the calls in the phone logs entered into evidence?

Important to know - also for me!

Whilst I haven't been able to track down the video of this, it was brought up again when the State appealed the sentence in December 2014. Here is a link to the Saffli document.

On page 1, scroll down to 2 paras above the chronological list of events “When I asked State Counsel if the timelines were common cause” you can read what was said. Tabulated below that is Masipa’s peculiar timeline.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2014/793.html

 

[foxbluff]

Holy-Moly... you guys are gonna crack this case wide open yet!!!

 

[lithgow1]

There has been discussion on DS over the adjectives Masipa used to describe Pistorius' evidence and how she never actually said 'unreliable'. That's true, but she used some that are just as damning, if not more so. Someone posted the handy synonyms for 'unreliable' and 'evasive' from a legal dictionary, which I've pasted in below. I started bolding the 'evasive' ones I thought applied to him and his evidence to see how their cumulative weight should, would add up to 'unreliable' to all bar the most pig headed. But I undid it all, as I was bolding just about all of them and thinking of various examples as I did. The ones that fit most aptly to Pistorius are also the most damning. As someone pointed out on DS, 'evasive' is markedly more negative than 'unreliable'. As for 'tergiversating', it's a new one on me but it sounds like the sort of thing he would do.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/


Evasive


adjective ambiguus, ambivalent, artful, beguiling, clandestine, concealed, covert, crafty, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, delusive, elusive, elusory, equivocating, feigned, fictitious, furtive, guileful, hedging, hypocritical, in disguise, misleading, misrepresentative, mysterious, perfidious, scheming, secluded, secretive, seeking to avoid, seeking to elude, seeking to evade, shifty, sleightful, slippery, sneaky, stealthy, surreptitious, tending to evade, tricky, truthless, untruthful, unveracious, unwilling, using evasion, vague

Unreliable

adjective capricious, changeful, deceitful, faithless, fallible, false, fickle, inconstant, insecure, perfidious, precarious, shifty, tergiversating, treacherous, two-faced, undependable, unpredictable, unsound, unstable, unsteady, untrue, untrustworthy, vacillating, wavering

Looked it up: to make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate. That's him.
2.
change one's loyalties; abandon a belief or principle. Well the deceitful, guileful, misleading, shifty, slippery, sneaky and truthless words he spoke, having sworn to his god on his holy book to do just the opposite seems to take care of that one.


"The legal dictionary also incorporates The People's Law Dictionary, by renowned authorities Gerald and Kathleen Hill. It includes definitions, context, and usage for more than 3,000 terms. Regarded by scholars, jurists, leading attorneys and reviewers as one of the most practical works of its kind, The People's Law Dictionary is a comprehensive source of meanings and use for thousands of today's most common legal terms. It has gained widespread praise for its scope and clarity"