Trial Discussion Thread #15

[soozieqtips]

It is deliberate, but was it intentionally deceptive?

I once signed a witness statement that was used in a fatal accident trial. And after I signed it, deliberately and intentionally, I realised I had made a significant error in wording. And during my witness testimony, the defense atty called me out and implied I was lying.

I can tell you now with all sincerity that it was an HONEST MISTAKE. Even though I read it carefully before I signed it, I did not catch it at the time. I said that I saw the cars hit, but I heard them hit, and then I looked. Big difference, but I truly did not catch it when I signed the statement.

BBM - Well, apparently it makes you a liar with no integrity!!! You cannot have been mistaken since you read the statement, read your error and still signed it!! There is no room for genuine error, so you must be a liar!!! Personally, I think there's a huge distinction between error and deception, but all that matters is what the judge thinks, and if she doesn't think it's black and white, ie, that the witness deliberately lied - then I don't think it will count against Mrs Stipp, although the judge might consider other testimonies more compelling simply because Mrs Stipp did in fact make a mistake about what she saw.

 

[Interested Bystander]

We have very little fact in this case. We do however know one fact. If someone is abusive towards someone else in a relationship, there is a good chance they will continue to do so with future partners.
However, the facts tell us that 99.99% (and however many more) of these people, will not go on to eventually intentionally shoot their partners.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/glamour-relationship-abuse_n_857472.html

"94 percent cited emotional abuse. "Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical violence," says Diane Lass, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist."

Add a gun fanatic to this picture and you very likely will end up with someone being murdered.

 

[BlueShoe]

I grow weary of the 5 witnesses hearing a woman's screams. The fact is IMO they heard screams after Reeva was incapable of uttering screams and so they are all mistaken. I don't have a problem with that. If one person perceived OP's anguished cries as sounding like a woman screaming.. then clearly that is how it sounded.. perhaps to everyone. It is an example of an auditory illusion. Illusions that "fool" everybody are well documented (usually visual) but it is possible for something to be perceived as something it is not ... by everybody.. even after the "mistake" is explained. People still can not get past the illusion.

I recognize and respect your opinion. In my view, it is quite possible for the five witnesses that you have wearied of to hear a screaming Reeva, since they are willing to swear under oath that they did hear a woman scream. Therefore, we are only at loggerheads regarding our speculations. There has been no scientific proof that the witnesses heard "auditory illusions." If this is demonstrated in a scientific manner, I will most certainly change my own view. Still, you do raise some fascinating speculations, and I enjoy reading them.

 

[jay-jay]

It is deliberate, but was it intentionally deceptive?

I once signed a witness statement that was used in a fatal accident trial. And after I signed it, deliberately and intentionally, I realised I had made a significant error in wording. And during my witness testimony, the defense atty called me out and implied I was lying.

I can tell you now with all sincerity that it was an HONEST MISTAKE. Even though I read it carefully before I signed it, I did not catch it at the time.

I've done a similar thing with a statement I had to make in regard to a person I knew who had committed suicide, for their inquest. I sat in that police station for 4 hours, in quite an emotional state, and several days later started to remember all sorts of stuff that I felt should've been included, or worded differently .. but seeing as it was an inquest (which I wasn't called to) and just a formality for me to make that statement, because they already knew how the person had committed suicide, and most of the reasons why they did, it didn't seem as though there would've been much to be gained by having gone back and changed my statement <<-- but it just goes to show that you don't always remember everything, making a statement is a really stressful thing to have to do, and you don't always do it right or the way you would like to have done it when you think back.

 

[steveml]

Why not name the "people" you are referring to instead of lumping anyone who can't agree with you, for their own distinct reasons, as having "double standards"?

And have you never "remembered" something that turned out to be that you heard it from someone else ? I once enthusiastically went and said hello to a very famous actor in a restaurant convinced I knew them... luckily my partner of the time realised I only "knew" them from films and managed to extricate me before I made an even bigger fool of myself than I already had. Or have you never sworn blind to your spouse, parent, child, sibling, that you did or told them something only to realise later that you never had... and would you say sorry or just keep schtum to not let them know how you "lied" (your definition not mine) or would you own up to making a mistake (my definition not yours) just like Mrs Stipps owned up to her mistake and corrected her statement?

You've got to admit she's a bit coy though. C'mon be fair.

If you saw your own hand and was asked if it was your hand, I'd really hope you'd say yes, and not be evasive. After all, there's no reason to be.

Oldwage asks: 'Is that your hand'?
Mrs Stipp answers: 'It looks like my hand.'

What is wrong with this woman! :banghead:

 

[Interested Bystander]

So sorry, but 3 messages that some consider "emotionally abusive" does not tend to show that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva.

And this is why I brought up Alyce LaViolette the other day - after MeeBee brought this to my attention - making broad conclusions about this relationship as abusive based on three texts is exactly what ALV was trying to do to Travis. She looked at a few cherry picked text messages and concluded that he was abusive, and I'll bet most of you thought she was completely absurd for such a suggestion.

Could I point out that it was three conversations, ie many messages, not single messages. The 4th message that was alluded to was about Reeva and Roux did not want to speak about it there and then (it sounded as though it may be very personal)but said that it would be brought up in evidence.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Ok, whether it was 3, 5, or 10 messages or conversations out of thousands, you cannot discern the entire context of the relationship from that little bitty glimpse.

Yes, you may be able to say that on these occasions there were problems in the relationship. But that's all you can say. The "content" of these particular messages is not particularly revealing - it's not like a man telling his wife she's going to pay for talking back to him; it's not like a man telling his girlfriend that she better not look at John that way again or she'll be sorry; it's not like he said, I'm sorry I choked you ..but I just got out of control and that's not really me, I promise it won't happen again, please dont leave.

You see what I'm saying? If you see messages like that you might be able to conclude from just one message that this is an abusive relationship. That is not what we have here at all.

I think what is very important is that these all occurred in the 4 weeks before Reeva was killed. To me that indicates the relationship was going down hill very fast. Everything may have been hunkydory before then.

 

[steveml]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/glamour-relationship-abuse_n_857472.html

"94 percent cited emotional abuse. "Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical violence," says Diane Lass, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist."

Add a gun fanatic to this picture and you very likely will end up with someone being murdered.

I understand, but I think I've discussed the abuse issue far enough now, with respect.

 

[Rumpole]

I recognize and respect your opinion. In my view, it is quite possible for the five witnesses that you have wearied of to hear a screaming Reeva, since they are willing to swear under oath that they did hear a woman scream. Therefore, we are only at loggerheads regarding our speculations. There has been no scientific proof that the witnesses heard "auditory illusions." If this is demonstrated in a scientific manner, I will most certainly change my own view. Still, you do raise some fascinating speculations, and I enjoy reading them.

Me too... look forward to some sort of screaming tests.

But I think it will be difficult to do a convincing test. Certainly impossible to imagine a test that will convince somebody with a presumption of guilt. They will just dismiss the test. However, perhaps a test that shows that it COULD be OP screaming will be sufficient? It should be since "reasonable doubt" is the name of the game.
My contention that it is OP screaming is at this stage something I infer from the fact (as I am convinced) that the time of the screams was after Reeva was capable of uttering screams. Any test of OP screaming will just be confirmation as far as I am concerned. And a test for me only has to indicate that there is a possibility that it was OP to get past the hurdle of "doubt that it was Reeva".

 

[jay-jay]

Could I point out that it was three conversations, ie many messages, not single messages. The 4th message that was alluded to was about Reeva and Roux did not want to speak about it there and then (it sounded as though it may be very personal)but said that it would be brought up in evidence.

There were 4 conversations that were shown in court, Bystander -->> Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #15

.. the other message you refer to regarding Reeva (that was passed directly to the Judge) was separate/in addition to those 4 conversations :thumb:

 

[Val1]

But there were screams heard after the last volley. Don't know if it was screams, but they were heard, mistaken for a woman, then understood to be OP.

The bit about the cleaners is bold. It's interesting but why would he call security first and then Netcare if he was planning on hiding the body? And he sure got it together quickly to act the part of the devastated boyfriend.

There was crying heard after the last volley, not screams which would account for any mistake on identifying the sex of the cryer. Re security, he called Stander(not security) first, then Netcare(which lasted 66 seconds, is that even long enough for it to get properly answered let alone give advice? 911 you need to say what service you need, police, ambulance, fire then they redirect your call), then he called security and still had a few minutes to spare before everyone showed up at his door at approximately 3:25.

As for why he called Netcare, until we have heard from Netcare saying they indeed spoke to him and directed OP to take a headshot victim to the hospital himself, I'm guessing just so it showed up on his phone records because why else would he, he said he'd told his estate manager to call them a minute before, right? I need to review the phone record stuff again, but did Stander ever call his own security patrol to meet him and Clarice at OP's or did that all occur because of OP's concerned neighbours?

 

[Val1]

I have a case because she corrected it.

When someone makes a statement under oath, and swears to its truth subject to penalties of perjury - you cannot write it off as a simple mistake or carelessness.

So your advice as a verified attorney is to never own up to a possible reading comprehension/attention problem and let the chips fall where they may? Dang.

 

[Interested Bystander]

There were 4 conversations that were shown in court, Bystander -->> Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #15

.. the other message you refer to regarding Reeva (that was passed directly to the Judge) was separate/in addition to those 4 conversations :thumb:

The 4th Message was about Darren and shooting the gun. I didn't really associate it with being an abusive conversation between Reeva and OP and so did not include it. The 4th message (the one I refer to as the 4th message) I also think is not a direct conversation between OP and Reeva. I did wonder whether it may have been a conversation between Reeva and a Friend. I think it is probably relevant to the relationship but we will hear about it as Roux said it will be brought up in evidence.

 

[Val1]

If Judge Masipa feels that Mrs Stipp has lost some credibility because of adding something nonexistent to her statement, she may just be more willing to add more weight to her husband's statement. Which makes quite a large difference :-

Johan Stipp: Went onto to balcony heard what sounded like female screaming

Mrs Stipp: I heard a lady screaming, terrified screaming

Isn't that why Roux made that remark to Stipp that oh it's not his testimony he's questioning? That was my impression, Roux was out to shoot her down from the start, and anyone else that wouldn't change their testimony to fit with OP's version.

 

[Val1]

Well she admitted that she voluntarily signed it after reading it - she wasn't under duress or forced to sign it, knowing it contains false statements about what she saw.

That's deliberate, that's intentional and that's deceptive.

And you can believe whatever you want, but the fact that a crucial ear/eye witness is willing to swear to a false statement impeaches their testimony. Judges take this oath thing pretty seriously.

They also take being respected in their own courtroom quite seriously.... and not having some lawyer try to faff the evidence to make a witness change their testimony.

 

[kittychi]

First thanks for replying. However, if we start from the word fabricate as defined the by the Oxford Dictionary:



I really don't mean to "misconstrue" you, but unfortunately I just cannot agree that your use of fabricate does not have an accusatory and judgemental sense, in the same way as when you use it again here in this post:



or when you repeat,



both of which imo cleasly indicate you believe Mrs Stipp was deceitful, the first because that is exactly what "fabricate" means, the second, because as you say the detail was "plain(ly) not part of Mrs Stipp&#8217;s memory" you leave no option for her to have included it by mistake so that the only inference I am able to take is that you mean Mrs Stipp purposefully set out to deceive. Damning accusations without any evidence.

Witnesses very often do not coincide on details such as how many shots, screams, lights, etc., and can often recall insignificant details directly after an event with very important ones only coming back to them months later and by chance. It is reasonable to think they can also mistakenly include details they heard as their own, and that it could take quite an effort to sort it all out. Memory is not an exact science and plays tricks on us all. We have all mixed up our memories of an event with those of others, only to later realise the error with, "Ooops, tell a lie... it wasn't X but Y" without any intent, need, motive or reason to lie whatsoever. I "recall" events as a child that I clarify with, "I am not sure if I remember it or if I was told it by my mum, dad, brother, etc."

Now it may be you are using the words incorrectly, but by asserting Mrs Stipp "fabricated" or added a detail "plain(ly) not part of her memory" you deny her the same benefit of the doubt, that, you quite rightly expect for OP. Even if inadvertently, or unconsciously, you can I am sure see how it could smell of hypocrisy to be seeming to uphold one person&#8217;s rights while trashing another's.

And what proof is there that Mrs Stipp (and I could include here Burger, Johnson, Mr Stipp, the police, experts, etc.) "fabricated" or affirmed what she knew was "plain(ly)" untrue and that it was not an unwitting mistake which she quickly rectified? I am sure you agree that OP demonstrably has 15-25 years of reasons to lie, but, while Mrs Stipp may have many reasons we could "fabricate" and conjecture about, she has no motive we can affirm as a certainty in the same way. IMO, without hard evidence in contra, independent witnesses deserve an even higher presumption of innocence by a judge or jury than an accused with a life to defend (the prosecution by its very nature can't "presume" innocence otherwise they would not prosecute in the first place), so imo without evidence to the contrary, all witnesses should be presumed to be testifying as best they can, with errors, mistakes and contradictions, simply trying to fulfil their civic duty in the search for truth and justice, trying to help a court decide, after weighing up all the evidence, not just Mrs Stipps, whether or not a murder was committed so that if the judge determines it was then a person who could pose a threat to someone else&#8217;s daughter, yours, Mrs Stipp&#8217;s or mine, can be contained where they no longer can pose a threat to anyone, at least not for a time.

I have lived most of my life in Spain under a bench system and, as I am sure is the same in SA, (and even the same here in the UK with police, prosecutors, judges and juries, and insurance claim investigators), it is a known fact judges give much more weight to independent witnesses than to those close to an accused such as family, friends (or enemies!), business associates, etc., precisely because wherever there is an interest the likelihood of a hidden agenda is significantly enhanced, whether to favour or prejudice an accused.

So, what do you think could be Mrs Stipp&#8217;s hidden agenda for her to lie under oath and try to pervert the course of her nation&#8217;s search for truth and justice in respect of OP? And do you doubt OP likely has motives to lie, (even if he did kill Reeva by mistake which under SA law may not save him), contrary to those very same reasons?

:goodpost:

 

[Val1]

Why not?

Sooo, the world is wondering, what did OP plan to give RS(his beloved) for Valentine's since they apparently were unable to even spit the words out to each other in text messages?

 

[Cherwell]

I once enthusiastically went and said hello to a very famous actor in a restaurant convinced I knew them... luckily my partner of the time realised I only "knew" them from films and managed to extricate me before I made an even bigger fool of myself than I already had.

I can't resist admitting that I once almost did the same! I once worked as a tour guide, and met a lot of people: now they would remember me as I was the one doing the talking but I wouldn't remember every single face. So I would sometimes be greeted by people I didn't recognise, and would try not to let it show. Thus it was that I almost beamed and said "Hi, how nice to see you again" - to a well-known soap actor. :blushing: Luckily I realised who it was just in time, but for those few seconds I was sure it was someone else.

 

[Gryffindor]

Sooo, the world is wondering, what did OP plan to give RS(his beloved) for Valentine's since they apparently were unable to even spit the words out to each other in text messages?

Think he gave his gift early hours in the morning of the 14th Feb :-(

 

[minor4th]

Not necessarily. If the defense has done a through job tying up the loose ends, and helping him to practice, and readied him for the upcoming cross, then he might squeak through successfully.

I just think if it's all a lie, no matter how much coaching and preparation is being done - he will not be able to convincingly keep it together.