Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Interested Bystander]

It is so bad he was allowed to remove a phone from the crime scene .

I don't think he was allowed. I think there might just be something incriminating on it and it was nowhere to be seen when the police turned up. Whether he gave it to one of his family to "look after" we shall never know. At some stage he handed it to his Defence Team who brought it up at the Bail Hearing which unfortunately made Botha look rather silly.

 

[MissJ]

She didn't live long enough to die downstairs with those wounds. JMO

 

[Insp.Dots]

Ok someone help me. Mangena said RS was sat on top of magazine rack on 3rd/4th shot. Her hands up in defensive stance. THEN Van Der Nest says the head shot must have been with her head somewhere in front and level with the toilet seat???? Confused.com.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Yes, probably is quite thin metal - but it will have been held in place by some heavy duty screws - and they have come away at the bottom, indicating quite some force.

I am very interested to know what Nel has to say too!

Ah fair point I can't see close up very well 're screws so thanks

 

[Viper]

I have been following that Facebook website which is where I first read about the extended adjournment but didn't know how to cut and post a link .
Will be watching the phone expert tomorrow for sure .
With regard to the extended adjournment,does anyone know how normal this is ? It seems odd that the trial is going to run for a while longer and then break ,why not just adjourn now ?

My immediate thought is that something substantial has just been revealed to both sides and it is admissible, so they both need time to prepare their arguments and witnesses to testify. I do not believe, in this first ever live television high profile murder trial, they wound reschedule adding such a large break in testimony right in the middle of the trial if it were not a major new development. My hunch is that it is something related to the phone.

 

[steveml]

I see your point but it is only an access panned to the bath so it could well be made of a thin metal perhaps. I DO think we have one check of a lot of unanswered questions to all aspects...here's hoping next week brings the answers !

I'm wondering who they may question regarding the strength of a bath panel if the state wished to pursue this line. There can't be many expert witnesses left if Nels finishing as quickly as he's suggested. I'd want it examined if I was going to argue the nature of the damage. From personal experience, most bath panels I've come across are notoriously flimsy. They're normally just dust covers, and are attached/lined against the edges of the bath frame.

 

[Cherwell]

As I've asked previously, how much weight can you really put on this testimony? Trying to report a crime is not the same as reporting a crime. We have no evidence of a call made to the wrong security company, this is only witness testimony. OK, they realise it's the wrong security company, the logical next step is...you phone the correct security company. Ah, problem here, the couple don't have the number of the security company where they live. Why? Were they abroad or at work or somewhere they would not be expected to have the number? No, they were in their house, the most reasonable place you would be expected to have the number.

I put it to you, that if Reeva died as a result of OP claiming that he phoned an ambulance that didn't turn up, how much weight would you give to his testimony if his reply was, 'well I did phone an ambulance, but I phoned one from where I used to live by mistake'. Ah, but presumably you immediately then phoned the correct one? 'Well er no, I just left it'.

I'm not convinced that Ms Burger didn't hear anything that night. But I'm also far from convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did.

Were they asked about this specifically? Did counsel pursue the matter, or was it just left?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Ok someone help me. Mangena said RS was sat on top of magazine rack on 3rd/4th shot. Her hands up in defensive stance. THEN Van Der Nest says the head shot must have been with her head somewhere in front and level with the toilet seat???? Confused.com.

My understanding was that she fell with her back against the back wall facing the door after the hip shot and then slumped forward onto the toilet as she died .
Poor Reeva .

 

[Interested Bystander]

As I've asked previously, how much weight can you really put on this testimony? Trying to report a crime is not the same as reporting a crime. We have no evidence of a call made to the wrong security company, this is only witness testimony. OK, they realise it's the wrong security company, the logical next step is...you phone the correct security company. Ah, problem here, the couple don't have the number of the security company where they live. Why? Were they abroad or at work or somewhere they would not be expected to have the number? No, they were in their house, the most reasonable place you would be expected to have the number.

I put it to you, that if Reeva died as a result of OP claiming that he phoned an ambulance that didn't turn up, how much weight would you give to his testimony if his reply was, 'well I did phone an ambulance, but I phoned one from where I used to live by mistake'. Ah, but presumably you immediately then phoned the correct one? 'Well er no, I just left it'.

I'm not convinced that Ms Burger didn't hear anything that night. But I'm also far from convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did.

Sorry, that does not work for me. Whilst I agree that the did not pursue finding the correct number (as far as we know). I think it perfectly feasible that if she searched for Security on her phone she may have picked the wrong one. There are some people in this world who do not wish to become embroiled in this type of problem. I think she also thought, given where they are situated, that there had to be witness closer to hand. I certainly don't think you can throw her testimony out because she did not make a call you thought she should have made.

On the other hand, OP seems already to have lied and I think anyone might doubt what he has said.

Burger came across as a good witness whose only fault IMO was to, on occasion, obstruct Roux a little who, in turn, was extremely aggressive and rude because he knew this witness would be 'dynamite'.

I think she was being absolutely honest about what she heard and all the fuss about she and her husband discussing the event got way out of hand. As they didn't offer to be witnesses until after the Bail Hearing of course they would have discussed it. I would defy anyone not to have done so. It would have been very odd not to have done so. Therefore their statements would have been very similar because they would have relived the event several times before the Bail Hearing and come to some sort of conclusion in both their minds as to what happened.

You say you are not convinced Ms Burger heard anything that night - what happened to her husband's testimony then? You are inferring both of them lied. I think not. Are you refusing to accept the fact that he called for help but did not ring the right number too?

 

[LemonMousse]

She didn't live long enough to die downstairs with those wounds. JMO

I know what you mean, but the forensic evidence suggests that there were arterial spurts as she was being carried down the stairs and these happen because the heart is still pumping blood..

Difficult to define "death" though. She was almost certainly beyond any help, but her body was shutting down.

Sorry to ask such an unpleasant question, but Stipp says he checked her eyes and the iris was milky and had begun to dry out indicating that she had died. Does anyone know how long this takes after death? I've Googled, but can't find an answer.

 

[Cherwell]

My immediate thought is that something substantial has just been revealed to both sides and it is admissible, so they both need time to prepare their arguments and witnesses to testify. I do not believe, in this first ever live television high profile murder trial, they wound reschedule adding such a large break in testimony right in the middle of the trial if it were not a major new development. My hunch is that it is something related to the phone.

The current adjournment is just one day, excluding the bank holiday weekend.

I don't know the reason for the later adjournment :

"The court in Gauteng province said that the trial would continue until 4 April, then adjourn for one week before resuming until 16 May."

but I thought that had already been announced. I'm sure I remember it being discussed, and it being suggested that it was the Easter break, but Easter is later in April this year.

 

[LemonMousse]

I'm wondering who they may question regarding the strength of a bath panel if the state wished to pursue this line. There can't be many expert witnesses left if Nels finishing as quickly as he's suggested. I'd want it examined if I was going to argue the nature of the damage. From personal experience, most bath panels I've come across are notoriously flimsy. They're normally just dust covers, and are attached/lined against the edges of the bath frame.

In which case, why didn't it fall off completely? This issue is less how thick the panel is, but how strong the screws holding it in place.

The whack was strong enough to pull screws out and leave a huge dent - on a flimsy dust cover lined up against the edges of the bath frame, this would have been enough to make it fall off completely.

I am truly flummoxed that anyone can look at that panel and think a falling plank of plywood could do that. The depth of the dent itself, perfectly centred proves that force was aimed squarely at the middle. This is inconsistent with a bit of wood falling from above.

 

[Lyra500]

As I've asked previously, how much weight can you really put on this testimony? Trying to report a crime is not the same as reporting a crime. We have no evidence of a call made to the wrong security company, this is only witness testimony. OK, they realise it's the wrong security company, the logical next step is...you phone the correct security company. Ah, problem here, the couple don't have the number of the security company where they live. Why? Were they abroad or at work or somewhere they would not be expected to have the number? No, they were in their house, the most reasonable place you would be expected to have the number.

I put it to you, that if Reeva died as a result of OP claiming that he phoned an ambulance that didn't turn up, how much weight would you give to his testimony if his reply was, 'well I did phone an ambulance, but I phoned one from where I used to live by mistake'. Ah, but presumably you immediately then phoned the correct one? 'Well er no, I just left it'.

I'm not convinced that Ms Burger didn't hear anything that night. But I'm also far from convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did.

Barry, is that you?

 

[Suthrnqt]

Marking.

 

[Viper]

Barry, is that you?

It really is funny to see the argument framed that way, as it is always the other side that points out "it is not fair to say what you or some reasonable person that was not OP would do, you don't know how he felt and why he did things or didn't do things, so what he did or didnt do was in fact reasonable!"

 

[MeeBee]

I'm wondering who they may question regarding the strength of a bath panel if the state wished to pursue this line. There can't be many expert witnesses left if Nels finishing as quickly as he's suggested. I'd want it examined if I was going to argue the nature of the damage. From personal experience, most bath panels I've come across are notoriously flimsy. They're normally just dust covers, and are attached/lined against the edges of the bath frame.

I suspect the only person he can and will ask about the panel is Oscar. It's a very curious thing. There's no evidence the damage even happened that evening though, seeing as Oscar is prone to fits of rage. I agree, it does look quite a flimsy piece of metal.

 

[LemonMousse]

I do think that there's an odd sense, not just in this thread but others I've read around the place, that if OP's account can be made to fit at all, then he must be found not guilty.

This is not true at all - not in this case, or any other. If it did, then no one would ever be found guilty of anything because all you need to do is look at the evidence and design a story around it so that everything "fits"

No, the entire narrative will be looked at in conjunction with the physical evidence.

So far, in order to believe OP, we have to believe that a forensic pathologist with 30 years experience doesn't know what he's talking about, same goes for a ballistics expert. We also have to believe that four ear witnesses did not hear what they said they did (all four of them) - and in one case, believe that she is apparently lying through her teeth. All because their stories do not fit with OP's version of events.

Something fascinating happens if you do one very, very simple little thing - assume that this accused murderer might be lying in his affidavit.

Guess what happens if you do this?

The forensic evidence, the ballistic and blood spatter evidence, the ear evidence suddenly makes sense and creates a pretty neat narrative. They all fit together. Coincidence?

The only thing so far unexplained is the first set of bangs. Nel says he can explain that...if he can do convincingly then I think OP is going to prison for 25 years.

 

[AlexUK]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

 

[Insp.Dots]

It really is funny to see the argument framed that way, as it is always the other side that points out "it is not fair to say what you or some reasonable person that was not OP would do, you don't know how he felt and why he did things or didn't do things, so what he did or didnt do was in fact reasonable!"

Apparently the Defence will argue that OP is not 'a reasonable person'. IMO this may well be a tactic of mitigation in the hope of a lesser sentence. It's going to be an interesting week!

 

[delilah]

Ok someone help me. Mangena said RS was sat on top of magazine rack on 3rd/4th shot. Her hands up in defensive stance. THEN Van Der Nest says the head shot must have been with her head somewhere in front and level with the toilet seat???? Confused.com.

I haven't heard Van der Nest's testimony but the BBC quoted him as describing the damage to hair on RS' head:

' "It is in keeping with a significant particulate event near the toilet, with the head of the deceased coming into contact with the toilet," Van der Nest said, speaking loudly and clearly.'

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Steenkamps-head-wound-discussed-20140319

Mangena's testimony:

"After the wound was inflicted to the head, she dropped immediately," he said. "She was in a seated position on top the magazine rack and she just dropped towards the right hand side, whereby the head ended up on top of the toilet seat and the upper body was between the head and the magazine rack."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Reeva-Steenkamp-gave-her-time-to-scream.html