Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[04009margaret]

The affidavit didn't say "out" on the balcony. It said "onto" the balcony. And you're right he didn't go "onto" the balcony, he simply went "to" the balcony.

I do not see that at all the same as Stipp saying she saw a man in a window that she didn't see.

Does it give me slight pause about the complete accuracy of his account and whether he has tailored it as time has passed? Well - yes, it's something that contributes to an overall skepticism about the truthfulness of all of his account.

As far as giving additional details and explanations later in his plea statement and his testimony - I don't see that as indicative of deception.

Unfortunately he basically all but admits his testimony was based, not on his memories alone, but the evidence & expert witness reports & what his lawyers worked out.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes, her phone was in the toilet with her and he brought the phone out of the toilet to call for 'help help help' - but wasn't able to because he didn't know her passcode.

Thank you. So not quite as I thought I had heard/read.

 

[minor4th]

If he's on the balcony - then he's out on the balcony.
They're the same thing. He can't be on the balcony if he didn't got out onto the balcony.

I was just clarifying the words that were actually used - his bail aff said he went "onto" the balcony when in fact he only went "to" the balcony.

 

[minor4th]

Unfortunately he basically all but admits his testimony was based, not on his memories alone, but the evidence & expert witness reports & what his lawyers worked out.

I don't think so - I think he does acknowledge that his plea statement relies on legal conclusions and information he knows from experts etc.

He maintains that the facts haven't changed - that his bail affidavit is true and it was written before he knew what any witnesses said or would say and without even knowing the state's theory of the case.

 

[wb180]

I was just clarifying the words that were actually used - his bail aff said he went "onto" the balcony when in fact he only went "to" the balcony.

"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in."

Oh and BTW:

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in".
"I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help."

 

[zwiebel]

I looked at the photo of Reeva's head wound, linked upthread.

But; her face, outside of that awful wound...she looks like an angel. So beautiful, and so young. She reminded me of one of the angels you see standing above old tombs. It's so sad this happened to her.

 

[Magdalyn]

O: .....maybe it was plugged in where the tv cabinet was.....I never unplugged any fan in my version....maybe I ran from the door to the balcony and tripped over it....

Not 'in my recollection'?

In my VERSION! :scared:

And MAYBE it was plugged.....maybe I ran....which VERSION will get me off the hook?

Maybe there were ninjas!

 

[Zinn]

Wow.

Biggest surprises for me today:

- OP stated he did not go out on the balcony to bring in the fans. Said his initial statement was misinterpreted by his legal team.
- OP stated he accidentally discharged his gun. (4 times?)
- OP stated he called Stander as a friend to help him move or carry Reeva. (But his call to Stander was prior to the call to Netcare, so why was OP focused on carrying Reeva anywhere at that point? And then why did he go ahead and carry Reeva downstairs by himself upon Stander's arrival?)
- In reference to the period of time when the Standers were in his home, prior to the arrival of Dr. Stipp, OP stated black bags were collected (but not used) and Ms. Stander asked if OP had any rope or tape to tie Reeva's arm. (Black bags, rope and tape? I will admit, that creeped me out.)
- OP said he was fighting for his life. (In reference to how he was thinking through and presenting his answers, avoiding yes/no answers? Does that not undermine his credibility in the eyes of the judge? While I don't think it's uncommon, I was surprised to hear him volunteer this. It suggests merely stating the truth is not enough to save him.)

What did not surprise me was the general sense that he was not fully taking the advice of his legal team, as evidenced by Roux arguing the "accidental discharge" statement with the judge and OP's assertion that his legal team misinterpreted and misrepresented his initial statement.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

 

[soozieqtips]

In some respects, yes, but I could at least follow what information Roux was trying to elicit. With Nel, I cannot even figure out what information he wants. In fact, it seems like Nel is not even seeking information - he is only trying to rattle OP.

Nel is walking him through his affidavit, and showing that he has now substantially added or changed details to fit in with what witnesses heard or with what he's read in the media. You couldn't surely have expected Nel to ignore these so-called errors in his sworn affidavit?

 

[minor4th]

If he's on the balcony - then he's out on the balcony.
They're the same thing. He can't be on the balcony if he didn't got out onto the balcony.

BBM - but when State witnesses added details, you said they'd been influenced by the media and had added details that weren't there originally. How is what OP is doing any different? It's not!

The difference is when a witness is giving a police statement they are supposed to be telling everything they saw and heard. OP's bail affidavit was not a police statement or an account of every detail - it was bare bones with enough information to give his basic account.

So when a state's witness says she heard only a woman screaming in a police statement and that she heard 2 or 3 bangs -- it's more suspicious when she comes to trial and says she actually heard a woman's blood curdling screams, intermingled with a man's mocking yells, and that she is now certain she heard 4 bangs and she is even certain of the rhythm.

Do you not see the difference?

 

[04009margaret]

I don't think so - I think he does acknowledge that his plea statement relies on legal conclusions and information he knows from experts etc.

He maintains that the facts haven't changed - that his bail affidavit is true and it was written before he knew what any witnesses said or would say and without even knowing the state's theory of the case.

I'll respect your opinion but I disagree

 

[minor4th]

Nel is walking him through his affidavit, and showing that he has substantially added or changed details to fit in with what witnesses heard or with what he's read in the media. You couldn't surely have expected Nel to ignore these so-called errors in his sworn affidavit?

No, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm fine with him testing OP on the affidavit and anything that appears to be an addition or a discrepancy.

I'm talking about him asking if he plead guilty because the scene was contaminated. Or asking how the fan was tampered with, etc

 

[crasshopper]

minor4th - have you got to the part yet where OP admits certain details in his affidavit are untrue, but explains them away by saying he wasn't there when it was written? He appears to have knowingly signed a document that he knew contained incorrect information and did not at any point attempt to correct it. I'd like to know your thoughts on that based on the whole Mrs Stipp incident where she was accused of being a liar and had her credibility demolished - even though she did correct her error, and OP did not... now OP is in the same situation (but without having seen fit to correct his error) and I'd like to know what your feelings are on this so far.

I'll give you my feelings...Oscar is a LIAR!

 

[minor4th]

I'll respect your opinion but I disagree

I have not finished listening, so I may agree with you before this is over

 

[DebinGA]

The brought in the fans bit was a red herring from the beginning imo. No proof except OP's that he touched the fans that night, is there?

 

[BritsKate]

Wow.

Biggest surprises for me today:

- OP stated he did not go out on the balcony to bring in the fans. Said his initial statement was misinterpreted by his legal team.
- OP stated he accidentally discharged his gun. (4 times?)
- OP stated he called Stander as a friend to help him move or carry Reeva. (But his call to Stander was prior to the call to Netcare, so why was OP focused on carrying Reeva anywhere at that point? And then why did he go ahead and carry Reeva downstairs by himself upon Stander's arrival?)
- In reference to the period of time when the Standers were in his home, prior to the arrival of Dr. Stipp, OP stated black bags were collected (but not used) and Ms. Stander asked if OP had any rope or tape to tie Reeva's arm. (Black bags, rope and tape? I will admit, that creeped me out.)
- OP said he was fighting for his life. (In reference to how he was thinking through and presenting his answers, avoiding yes/no answers? Does that not undermine his credibility in the eyes of the judge? While I don't think it's uncommon, I was surprised to hear him volunteer this. It suggests merely stating the truth is not enough to save him.)

What did not surprise me was the general sense that he was not fully taking the advice of his legal team, as evidenced by Roux arguing the "accidental discharge" statement with the judge and OP's assertion that his legal team misinterpreted and misrepresented his initial statement.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

Yet, according to State's witnesses - there were black bags covering her body. I remember it distinctly because I had an extremely visceral reaction to her being treated like rubbish.

 

[jay-jay]

BBM - To be fair, and remember I think OP is as guilty as the day is long, I've taken my phone into the bathroom with me using the flashlight to guide me rather than turning on the lights and waking anyone up. But since OP was already awake and busy on the balcony, not on the balcony, sort of on the balcony - then I can't see why Reeva wouldn't have switched on a light. And I can't really see her tiptoeing to the toilet in the dark and then deciding to settle down for a while and check her emails or watch youtube vids. It's not impossible, but it's quite unlikely at 3am.

Spot on with all of that, soozie, espesh the BIB.

 

[jay-jay]

Moving items that are not germaine to an investigation in order to take photos of things that are does not equal tampering with evidence. Crime scene investigators move things all the time. It is not a big deal when it has no bearing on the evidence that proves or disproves guilt.

Even the boo boo with the guy handling the gun without gloves didn't change anything in this particular case. The position of the fans has nothing to do with guilt in this case.

All this talk of "tampering and contamination" is a red herring put forth by the defense as a distraction. The position of the cricket bat, the position of cell phones, etc. have no real bearing on anything in this case.

Tomorrow will be interesting. I am sure Nels has a plan for drawing the information to support premeditation out of OP. Now that he has had today to see what he's dealing with. Nels has years of experience with witnesses. Both those that talk too much and not enough, I'm sure. I would think those who talk too much make it easier to get what you want as a Prosecutor.

Spot on with that, too.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Mmmmm, nein er is nicht......was ist incoherent/rambling in Deutsche? That is what he sounds like to me, and my native language is English....

Lol, I know what incoherent is in Deutsche - me, trying to speak German!

Yes, then you are right, but I meant "wortgewandt" what means "can express well with words". It seems, though he answers allmost incoherent (zusammenhanglos), as you have chosen the translation. :smile:
I know, my English is minimal. :blushing:
Google translator is more than minimal!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes, her phone was in the toilet with her and he brought the phone out of the toilet to call for 'help help help' - but wasn't able to because he didn't know her passcode.

Wait a minute. :sleuth: Usually phones allow emergency calls even from a locked phone or is this not the case in SA!