Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Insp.Dots]

Estelle van der Merwe testified she was awakened by a man and woman arguing at 1:56 am.

So killer access internet for 5 minutes, from 1:48 am to 1:53 am. Three minutes later Van der Merwe wakes up to sounds of an argument.

But that's not all.

Van der Merwe said the argument kept her awake for an hour and heard "bang bang" sounds.

Unless killer is also a time traveler and went back to 1:56 to scream like a woman, Van der Merwe's testimony, combined with other witnesses and internet access at 1:48 am, ALL contradict killer's alibi.

BUT....the internet access was likely just automatic updates/emails etc. Witness said he downloaded every bit of data, he surely that would have been found as with last physical access was OP looking at cars?
Unless Nel does know more and can only use when OP is on the stand.
As for Van Der Merwe's evidence...DT will say others were closer and didnt hear the same argument timings and security said all was quiet when they did their rounds.
I think it may come down to who has the best experts.
If Defence bring in witnesses who say OP was paranoid and very scared of attack and fear to over....he was unable to think in a rational.manner, they may get away with Murder/culpable ms.
I do agree 4 shots is murder in SA law.
I can wait to see OP on the stand that's for sure!

 

[Interested Bystander]

That's my blog. I am Juror 13

What a brilliant blog. Thank you. I have reached saturation point and have started to misremember so from now on I will have to check absolutely everything.

Apropos your comment about there being no blood on the sole of the socks that OP was wearing in the photographs. Unless he changed them, which of course we don't know, to me it indicates he did not have his prosthesis on when he knocked down the door or the sole of the socks would have become blood soaked when he retrieved RS from the toilet cubicle. I wonder whether Nel will bring that up.

Maybe he did change them but surely someone would have checked his home for clothes that may have been worn earlier at the scene. He may only have put on the clothes he was wearing in the photos prior to bringing RS downstairs.

 

[Carol70]

They removed the rubber handle covering for forensics testing x

Thanks so much, just saw a clear close-up pic of the bat and saw that it appears to be a used bat with tape where the rubber should have been!

 

[Interested Bystander]

No. The Judge only blacked out the Medical Examiner because of the graphic nature of the injuries. We should be able to hear Oscar, but I'm guessing he probably won't want to be on camera. It may be like the private witnesses who chose not to have their face shown. Not sure if the Judge would grant this or not.

I'll be very bummed if we cannot watch his face during this.

So will I. I want to see his expression as he faces questions from Nel that he may not have been prepared for by his counsel .

 

[weeeva]

From CNN's article on today's proceedings: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/




dafuq?!?!? ASKED HIM if she could wear this or that? What kind of crazy controlling relationship was this?

It depends on the context of the question. She could be merely asking for his opinion, not his permission. There is a big difference here.
Maybe Reeva was like a lot of women when it comes to animal print clothes, it can be dodgy. I know women who have never worn animal print and who never will, because they believe it can look cheap and nasty. Many women are aware of this and are reluctant to wear it. Not that Reeva would have looked cheap and nasty in anything she wore, but she would be aware of other peoples opinion of it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

When I heard this, I presumed it was him protecting her from him.

This type of sentence is called syntactic ambiguity, and occurs when a piece of text can be read in more than one way.

It's quite interesting, and shows a classic example of how most of us would probably select the preferred meaning to suit our desired outcome.

Well spotted Gryffindor. :thumb:

So what's with the Avatar change? Are you trying to tell us that you have been posting as two different characters.

 

[G.bng]

3rd shot had to be right elbow area with final shot being head. As she was no longer able to maintain protective hand on head position after the 3rd one, hence open shot to head last :-(

Thanks for posting that. I concluded the same except I have been trying to work out why Mangena didn't conclude the same too, and as he didn't I thought maybe there is another explanation that I was not seeing. But it seems right. How could Reeva maintain arms up with hands over head if head-shot came before arms unless she got the nick to in-between her two fingers on her left hand from another of the bullets. And for the bullet to the elbow/arm Mantega's opinion was that it was up for that shot too and he lined it up with chest bruising.

I don't understand how some opine the defence doesn't need to prove anything and that the prosecution case has not been proved. IMO the ballistics and screams have in effect proved the prosecution's case. Now the defence expert will have to give an overwhelmingly convincing alternative to show that the head-shot came first because otherwise OP is totally ****** for the screams.

But it doesn't end there, because, if the head-shot came first and Reeva was standing, then, with a fulminating head shot, how, from leaning forward towards the door as the defence is forced to argue for a head-shot to tally with bullet hole heights, fall backwards to land with her back on top of the magazine rack where it is bruised but still with the head raised above toilet pan level so that, by then devoid of any voluntary movement after the head-shot, the upper torso can fall again so as to end with the head tantamount to down the toilet and while at the same time receiving a bullet to the right hip which, if the back is on top of the magazine rack, would on or just above floor height, as well as and another to her right elbow by then limp and hanging, as well as a nick in-between two fingers on her left hand also by then limp and hanging.

And all of this without OP hearing any noises. No noises of a body falling to the floor nor the clatter of it crashing onto the magazine rack, no thud as the head falls on the toilet seat, no moans, grunts, gurgles, thuds or splats. So unless OP testifies between vomits and howls either that he did hear noises and describes them in full, that would leave his defence with a somewhat noisy but invisible intruder/burglar (he heard a window latch from the bedroom and noises in the loo when he entered the bathroom) but a completely silent falling and crashing agonising Reeva. Just not credible.

 

[MeeBee]

I think I may have found a picture of the famous leopard dress:

http://www.eonline.com/news/388309/...o-know-about-the-murdered-south-african-model

 

[Insp.Dots]

I want to run through the timeline of the final moments. For right now I'm using the Stipp's ear witness testimony since they were the closest plus phone records.


2:59am - Approximate time of first 3 bangs according to the Stipp's clock. Clock said 3:02am, but it runs about 3-4 minutes fast. Defense theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva

3:14am- 3 more bangs are heard according to the Stipps. I am basing this on Mrs. Stipp's clock saying 3:17, but it's 3 to 4 minutes fast. Prosecution theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva. Defense believes this is the bat

3:15:51am- Dr. Stipp gets thru to Baba to report shots heard, 16 second phone call. We know he tried calling 10111 first and didn't get thru, so there was a little bit of lag time between shot being heard and him getting thru at this time.

3:19am - Oscar calls Johan Stander. Under the defense theory, this is about 19 minutes after the shots. Under the prosecution theory, this is about 5 minutes after the shots

3:20am - Oscar calls Netcare

3:21am - Oscar calls, and receives a call, from Baba. Oscar's outgoing call likely a mistake, only crying/no words. Baba gets thru to Oscar, speaks to him and Oscar says "everything is fine"

3:24am The Standers and Baba are on the scene. They may have arrived a minute or two sooner?

Thanks for doing that it's good to have the 2 versions on one page!

Thinking about it. The pools of blood in the toilet were quite big....I know the injuries were horrific. But if as with PT version there was on my a slot of around 2 mins after shots were fired to getting Reeva out and then downstairs by the time we know help had arrived. Looking at the pics it makes more sense (to me) that she was shot earlier and later noise was OP getting her out. MOO

 

[james83]

It depends whether or not a case can be made that OP's behaviour that night was due to his vulnerability as a man with a severe disability, a man at much greater disadvantage than an able bodied person.

IMO, Oscar's action's if his story is to be believed don't come across as this deep fear and terror that he talks about, to me they come across more like this is his opportunity to use his gun for real.
I don't buy his story, but if i did i wouldn't buy into this fear and terror business.
And it doesn't depend on anything, it is murder however you look at it, 4 bullets is murder.
JMO.

 

[G.bng]

Sorry, I was not thinking in legal terms.
He could be innocent of knowing that Reeva was behind the door. This is the major question.

Time will tell but in this case under SA criminal law I do not think it is a major question WHO was behind the door, only,

a) whether if was lawful for him to shoot at an intruder/burglar he never saw nor knew whether they were armed

b) was it lawful for him to plug 4 shots into a door of a reduced space behind which he knew there was a person and without knowing whether that person was armed,

c) whether by shooting he intended to kill that person behind the door,

and if he it cannot be proved that he did intend to kill the person behind the door

d) whether it death was a foreseeable possibility, i.e. that by shooting 4 times blindly through the door of a reduced space was it foreseeable that the person inside could be killed.​

 

[Insp.Dots]

You do know that the accused is an olympic athlete who won against other olympic athletes that were not amputees? So imo, does not even factor in, emotional maturity otoh may.

I don't think it can be said a confident athlete in a sports arena or in a pub can be used to rate confidence he would feel when faced with a potential intruder/attacker. Very different set of circumstances.

 

[Mango33]

I think I may have found a picture of the famous leopard dress:

http://www.eonline.com/news/388309/...o-know-about-the-murdered-south-african-model

Thanks and for the record, the last photo on the page suggests RS has a rabbit costume too!


(And I swore to stop wondering what the mysterious RS text mention "It's like I see rabbit things in your house, and when we go places you take pics of them..." was!)

 

[MeeBee]

Thanks and for the record, the last photo on the page suggests RS has a rabbit costume too!


(And I swore to stop wondering what the mysterious RS text mention "It's like I see rabbit things in your house, and when we go places you take pics of them..." was!)

I still have no idea what that meant. Like, not even a clue, ha.

 

[G.bng]

I don't think it can be said a confident athlete in a sports arena or in a pub can be used to rate confidence he would feel when faced with a potential intruder/attacker. Very different set of circumstances.

He went towards the danger not away from it.

IMO under SA law the questions will be whether that was a reasonable response. Then whether it was a reasonable response to shoot blind 4 times into a door and whether it was reasonable to assume it was an intruder, and whether it foreseeable that shooting 4 times through a door knowing a person was on the other side could possibly cause death.

 

[james83]

Sorry i just don't see these mitigating circumstances that some speak of.
In his own words He chose not to wake his girlfriend and escape downstairs, he chose not to stand his ground, he chose not to put on his prosthesis but to go into the dark on his stumps, he chose not to identify who was in the toilet, he chose to fire 4 times instead of 1.
there are no mitigating circumstances.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yep, that's true..also, south Africans have their own version of the English language..if someone tells you they are coming "just now", could mean anything from now until next week haha

It happens in the UK now. The youngsters say "see you later" but it can mean any time in the future. In my youth it would have meant later that day. Much the same as you are saying.:floorlaugh:

 

[Carol70]

I think I may have found a picture of the famous leopard dress:

http://www.eonline.com/news/388309/...o-know-about-the-murdered-south-african-model

All due respect, if that is indeed the dress which it appears to be, I don't blame her for asking OP if it would be ok to wear it to a formal function where they would more than likely be photographed together!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I still have no idea what that meant. Like, not even a clue, ha.

:floorlaugh: It could mean anything from a sex toy to the ears/tail of the well known bunny girl costume.

 

[Carol70]

Thanks and for the record, the last photo on the page suggests RS has a rabbit costume too!


(And I swore to stop wondering what the mysterious RS text mention "It's like I see rabbit things in your house, and when we go places you take pics of them..." was!)

lol, did she say rabbit or rabid??