Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[minor4th]

I agree, but then why did you state in your BH affidavit that you shouted to Reeva to phone the police? According to your BH affidavit, you shouted twice to Reeva to phone the police. The police wouldn't have been immediately present to protect you, either. The police would have taken much longer to arrive. Estate security would have arrived much quicker than the police.

I don't know if security is armed or authorized to make arrests.

And even if you're going to shoot an intruder you still want the police to come because someone could be hurt and need medical attention, there might be a burglar who needs to be arrested etc.

But putting myself in his shoes in this scenario, I would be yelling call the police to let the burglar know that he's not going to get away with this cuz the police are on their way - hoping it would scare them away or something.

 

[Gavel Rash]

So... you are one of those who think that Nel's lack-luster performance and shortage of evidence presented somehow indicates that he is actually a "Tiger" playing rope-a-dope... about to come off the ropes in the last round? :floorlaugh:

A bit risky to NOT present evidence that he has and hope he can sneak it in during the Defense case via cross examination.

Once again I apply Occams Razor... Nel looks to be a bit limp as an advocate, because he is a bit limp.
And the lack of conclusive evidence was because he has none.

We'll see


"including a air gun pellet hole in one door"

WHEN did it become an "air pellet hole"?

It is a HOLE shown in photos. No mention of it being inspected, let alone confirmed as a bullet hole? Ballistics expert on the scene did not inspect, or at least did not report. I would have expected the hole to be probed for bullet or pellet fragments... if it was thought relevant.Door damage guys did not report on damage to that door (or inspect it)
We do not even know that the damaged door was relevant to the night in question.

'Similarly... a photo showing spots on wall by the bed and on duvet..... nobody has testified it was blood, whose blood, when it was deposited. Blood spatter guy did not inspect, or at least did not report. There are a lot of assumptions being made... and theories running off from those assumptions. It all seems to stem from a Presumption of Guilt such that any photo is seen as important evidence, regardless of no details provided.

Blood spatter was photographed above Oscar Pistorius's headboard the morning he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

This was the testimony of police Warrant Officer Barend van Staden during Pistorius's murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

He said he photographed the blood spots on the wall as part of the extensive collection of pictures of the scene following her death on February 14 2013.'

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/17/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-11

Admittedly it does not detail whose blood...yet. but there was blood.

 

[minor4th]

Hmmm... I don't recall that. And in the crime scene photo the toilet room window does appear to be open.

How would it support OPs case if the window were closed? Maybe it would make it harder for the 5 witnesses to hear Reeva's horrifying screams, or harder to differentiate between a man's voice and a woman's voice?

To be honest, I have no idea whether the window being open or closed helps or hurts him. I just remember a discussion about it when Roux was cross examining someone (maybe Dr Stipp) and he said it was the case that the toilet window was closed and even mentioned that it's accepted by Mr Nel and that if Mr Nel disagreed or objected he would stand up and say so.

 

[minor4th]

I think I mentioned earlier in my posts that I don't think it's really a question of lying, more a question of witnesses trying to provide answers for everything rather than just saying 'I don't know'.
It appeared to me that she had adopted a bit too much from her husbands statement. It's not too big a deal however, I just find her husbands statement rather more credible.

I think Mrs. Stipp was outright lying. It wasn't a matter of her trying to fill in blanks that she couldn't quite remember - she lied, and she got caught.

 

[Duchy]

Um, so she wasn't holding the door then. So that point is moot now. Gotcha.

pulling the door towards her:banghead:

 

[minor4th]

Blood spatter was photographed above Oscar Pistorius's headboard the morning he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

This was the testimony of police Warrant Officer Barend van Staden during Pistorius's murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

He said he photographed the blood spots on the wall as part of the extensive collection of pictures of the scene following her death on February 14 2013.'

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/17/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-11

Admittedly it does not detail whose blood...yet. but there was blood.

The blood spatter guy did not testify about whether he tested those spots and they were blood (one would think such a test would be conducted). His conclusion was that the blood spatter in general was consistent with Oscar's account. That would include any blood spatter in the bedroom if it was blood spots on his wall.

 

[Duchy]

Perhaps before the shots, Reeva was not screaming but just talking, saying something like "Oscar, please calm down, let's just talk this over," even if he were pursuing her. Her pleas to Oscar would not have been heard.

Mrs Stripp has got it all wrong

 

[Duchy]

So what were the first set of bangs?

Bashing the bedroom door down

 

[steveml]

There's a big problem for OP no matter what came first, bat or gun. If the defense/OP continue to claim that the gun came first then OP still showed blatant disregard for Reeva's life and intentionally killed her. If the bat came first then OP showed that he intended to kill Reeva.

1. The gun first story:
OP, according to his story, shot the gun 4 times into the toilet room door beginning at 3 am. OP does not call Netcare until 3:20 am. That is 20 mins of Reeva bleeding out at which point she would be dead. A shot to the hip and to the head would both cause massive bleeding. OP still didn't offer any aid to Reeva until AFTER the 3:20 am call to Netcare. This shows a blatant disregard for Reeva's life and a desire for her to die.

2. Bat first theory:
OP clearly knows that it is Reeva in the toilet room. He bangs on the door with the cricket bat to scare Reeva and/or make her come out. She refuses and he then gets his gun. He shoots Reeva three times after firing four shots throught the toilet room door. This occurs at 3:17 am. OP then waits until 3:20 am to call Netcare. Instead of doing what they said (if they even said it) he does not immediately take her to the hospital. This shows a blatant disregard for Reeva's life and a desire for her to be dead.

Either way, no matter what the defense wants to argue, they are going to have to explain away why OP did not immediately get Reeva help. If they can not do that then the judge will have to rule that OP intended to shoot and kill Reeva.

MOO

OP's story is as it appears on his statement. The Judge will listen to him, have her own thoughts, and will give weight to some things more than others. She will try and get an angle on OP's frame of mind at the time.

Eventually she'll make a decision, and apply the rule of law based on her decision. What I can guarantee is that there is no x = y, therefore judge has to do z.

 

[G.bng]

He did, as the things had been amended and crossed out. Things had even been imagined.

Very little has changed from OP's original version, unless you build a huge story around the changes.

Not surprising little has changed from OP's original version seeing that OP's defence would not allow him to change or add anything that would not directly benefit his case, while the prosecution cannot recommend what witnesses should declare or testify. For the prosecution it is about protecting the public from a person who could be a danger to others. For the defence it is about getting a client off the hook whether they are guilty or not, even if by a technicality. For a defence lawyer it is not about what a client did but whether the State can prove it, so for Roux it will be superfluous whether OP killed Reeva intentionally or not, because even if he did, OP is legally innocent unless the prosecution proves the contrary, even if the client is de facto guilty, i.e legal guilt vs factual guilt. From my experience a lawyer can be known to tell a client he doesn't want to know if they are guilty. And it makes sense. Knowing their guilty would make it difficult to be able to properly defend a client because, at least in the UK, as I presume is the case in most jurisdictions including SA, as an officer of the court a lawyer cannot falsely state a client's innocence, and risks being disbarred if they do. That is why they they focus more on demonstrating the State's failure to prove rather than on a client's innocence.

 

[Viper]

To be honest, I have no idea whether the window being open or closed helps or hurts him. I just remember a discussion about it when Roux was cross examining someone (maybe Dr Stipp) and he said it was the case that the toilet window was closed and even mentioned that it's accepted by Mr Nel and that if Mr Nel disagreed or objected he would stand up and say so.

Mr. Nel has has shown the patience of a saint with Roux's antics and badgering. It seems to me that he is not objecting to small things just to allow the court days to be more productive. But the window was open in that photo though, so it must not really matter to the State.

 

[minor4th]

Sorry, that is not the State's case. Mr. Nel has been very careful not to give too much away about the State's case. With regards to Batman, please see my reply to Minor a couple of pages back near the bottom of the page. Also for another example: the State submitted a photo book with 100's of hand picked images. Amount them were images of the bedroom doors that were barged through, including a air gun pellet hole in one door. Did Nel cover that with the witnesses? No. What about Reeva's jeans? No. But the State include those images in their case photo book because they will be covering it with the DT witnesses. And along that same line watch for more from the WhatsApp texts!

What?? Mr Nel has not been careful not to give too much away about the State's case. He has finished his case in chief! There's nothing more to the state's case to be revealed. Mr. Nel is not keeping something secret that is critical to his case that he is going to spring at just the right moment during the defense case. It does not work that way.

Please people, at least accept the possibility that we have seen the State's case and if you find it lacking - it's because it is lacking and not because Nel has some secret wonderful evidence that he didn't present.

 

[Gavel Rash]

The blood spatter guy did not testify about whether he tested those spots and they were blood (one would think such a test would be conducted). His conclusion was that the blood spatter in general was consistent with Oscar's account. That would include any blood spatter in the bedroom if it was blood spots on his wall.

You are skimming over the fact that it was presented as blood spots....My Lady...I would doubt they would present them as such if they turned out to be chocolate.

And the account of spatter...in general..not specifically. Oscar will have to answer this in cross examination of his exact movements.

 

[minor4th]

All the judge is going to do is decide whether Oscar's account is reasonably possibly true. She is not going to decide if she like's the State's version or Oscar's version better. It's not her job to decide whether the state's case could also be be true - all that matters is whether Oscar's account could be reasonably possibly true. The end.

I can come up with other scenarios in my mind that would fit the evidence - scenarios wherein Oscar is guilty and this wasn't a mistake; scenarios that the State hasn't put forth or doesn't have evidence for. And those scenarios might be true! But the state can't prove it and they can't conclusively disprove Oscar's account.

 

[Viper]

OP's story is as it appears on his statement. The Judge will listen to him, have her own thoughts, and will give weight to some things more than others. She will try and get an angle on OP's frame of mind at the time.

Eventually she'll make a decision, and apply the rule of law based on her decision. What I can guarantee is that there is no x = y, therefore judge has to do z.

X never equals Y, X always equals X. :smile:

 

[minor4th]

You are skimming over the fact that it was presented as blood spots....My Lady...I would doubt they would present them as such if they turned out to be chocolate.

Staden I believe called them blood spots or what appeared to be blood spots but then we had no evidence or testimony from the guy who actually did the forensics on the blood. So my conclusion is it's either blood and it's consistent with Oscar's version or it's not blood.

 

[minor4th]

Mr. Nel has has shown the patience of a saint with Roux's antics and badgering. It seems to me that he is not objecting to small things just to allow the court days to be more productive. But the window was open in that photo though, so it must not really matter to the State.

Trust me on this - if there is something that is objectionable that can have any bearing on the case, a lawyer is going to object.

 

[minor4th]

Bashing the bedroom door down

And what evidence has the state admitted that suggests this?

 

[Gavel Rash]

:floorlaugh:

Staden I believe called them blood spots or what appeared to be blood spots but then we had no evidence or testimony from the guy who actually did the forensics on the blood. So my conclusion is it's either blood and it's consistent with Oscar's version or it's not blood.

Or its either blood and yet another thing inconsistent with Oscars version.

 

[steveml]

So you are saying that if OP on the stand were to let out something that proved his guilt BARD even if in a different way to what the State had thought or showed in their evidence that it would be irrelevant ? Both in the presentation and during Roux's cross of Stipp the state has stated that their "theory" is more or less changeable. I think that because they have been unable to question OP they are waiting for this to be able to state their full case in the submissions. Or do you think Nel and Co. weren't aware of the problems and deficiencies of their witnesses. Nel has a reputation of being much too clever for that. jmo.

Nope, I'm not saying that. I've already said that OP could quite easily incriminate himself.

It's a real risk to expect some of this big evidence to come out on cross-examination.
There are no more state expert witnesses to validate anything that has been included but not yet discussed - that's gone.

I was expecting a couple of big guns from Nel before the end and was sorely disappointed.