Trial Discussion Thread #22 - 14.04.10, Day 20

[zwiebel]

Yes I have to agree.
It was odd when Nel said 7 hours and OP corrected him to 8 or maybe I just dreamed that lol .
Anyway I was very shocked that when he confirmed the time they ate and that he doubted that she could have eaten later.

Yes, OP did correct Nel swiftly, and seemed pleased he'd caught him out. Though I made it 7 too?

 

[aa9511]

So regarding Oscar's Ipad....can they not look on it and locate when was the precise last time someone used that Ipad? (to give us a better idea of whether he was really sleeping or not?)

Also the same thing with Reeva's phone or was it Ipad that she was using in bed?

I'm baffled by this.

They were both apparently using electronics, Reeva all the way up to the time when Oscar supposedly got up to "bring the fans in." Can they not get more information from these electronics to verify or to refute Oscar's story?

Please someone enlighten me on this.

Bumping my own post. I missed the cell phone/Ipad/electronics testimony. Were they ever able to retrieve information from the Ipads/phones, such as when was the last time that night that either of those were being used?

I am assuming Oscar made up his new version of story that Reeva was awake and playing with her phone b/c of some phone evidence they retrieved which showed she was using her phone after the time Oscar had originally stated that they both went to sleep (I think 10 pm)?

What about Oscar's Ipad? Does it show when was the last time he used it that night? Also same for his phone?

TIA.

 

[Viper]

Yes I have to agree.
It was odd when Nel said 7 hours and OP corrected him to 8 or maybe I just dreamed that lol .
Anyway I was very shocked that when he confirmed the time they ate and that he doubted that she could have eaten later.

Thanks for reminding us about OP adding the extra hour; I wonder if Mr. Nel opened that door for him intentionally. Hmm...

The food from her stomach would definitely be completely gone after 8 hours, no doubt about that. Mr. Nel had mentioned that people have surgery after eating 8 hours before, because it is safe for general anesthesia after that amount of time passes.

 

[steveml]

Do you think he's perjured himself yet, and do you think he's a credible witness?

Not necessarily perjury. His statement is an interpretation of fact, therefore he has to be deceiving the court for it to qualify. A lot of times you simply see things different when shown photographs etc., which show your initial statement to be incorrect. This is why perjury, although it sounds bad, is very rarely prosecuted. In that respect he's no more committing perjury than a witness who testifies, and whose information turns out to be wide of the mark.

I'm not sure I know how credible he is. If he just answered the questions it would be easier to tell. He's trying to be his own lawyer at the moment. I'm just bemused by how the SA courts operate as I've not seen anything like it before. I'll reserve proper judgement until I've seen some more. I haven't a clue how OP's gonna react tomorrow. :dunno:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yes, OP did correct Nel swiftly, and seemed pleased he'd caught him out. Though I made it 7 too?

Of I remember rightly they ate around 7'and she was shot at 3.15
So that is about 8'? You got me thinking now .
No one could pin an eating time for that evening and his defence team have been working very hard to disprove the food time .
He just made it a lot harder for them .
Maybe he is just getting worn down and may eventually tell more of the truth ?

 

[katydid23]

That's true. It highlights that OP is not, and probably never has been a responsible gun owner.

That's an understatement, if there ever was one.

 

[jay-jay]

Pic showing that fan cord was not underneath the speaker,

The piece of cable at the front of the speaker is the easiest way of spotting this.



https://twitter.com/bradMentoor/status/454282614237851648/photo/1

Well, it's not the clearest pic in the world, but yes I can see that .. assuming it's not been photoshopped (don't mean you .. I mean wherever that photo came from) .. wonder why Nel has said that then .. I doubt very much he ever says anything if there isn't a reason for it and he's probably laid some sort of trap there ..

Edit: the link seems to have changed source as I was typing my post and I see it links back to BB's twitter feed .. hadn't realised that as all I got before was just the photo on it's own.

Edited again ..! .. think I must be going slightly mad .. the reason for ^^^ was that I clicked on the image the first time and then on the link the next time I looked at it, lol

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Bumping my own post. I missed the cell phone/Ipad/electronics testimony. Were they ever able to retrieve information from the Ipads/phones, such as when was the last time that night that either of those were being used?

I am assuming Oscar made up his new version of story that Reeva was awake and playing with her phone b/c of some phone evidence they retrieved which showed she was using her phone after the time Oscar had originally stated that they both went to sleep (I think 10 pm)?

What about Oscar's Ipad? Does it show when was the last time he used it that night? Also same for his phone?

TIA.

I think Reeva last used her phone at 8.00pm and it was still connected to the Internet after the shooting .
Not sure about the iPads . I am still looking for confirmation in testimony that they were both OP's .
If one was Reeva's and they were synced accidentally there could have been something on there that caused an argument.
If they are OP's then it is odd that Reeva didn't have one with her or at home .
And if they were both his why did they end up on the floor at the right side of the bed . One of them looked like it may have been thrown or dropped.

 

[steveml]

I asked you before ST, because I didn't hear that part of the testimony and you seem to have knowledge on guns, if OP didn't hear Darren say the gun was "one up" why did he empty the chamber ? At least that is what the lawyer interviewed by Sky explained, i.e. OP heard Darren say it was one up but didn't check to see if it also had a magazine loaded, so when he received it under the table he emptied the chamber for the one up so as to be able to test the sensitivity of the trigger to see if he liked it, but he didn't realise, because he didn't check, that a magazine was loaded so that on emptying the chamber and closing it again another round was chambered so when OP pressed the trigger it fired.

In any case as a responsible gun owner, which I am not, not a gun owner that is, shouldn't you check everything, chamber, magazine and if there is one a safety catch, before pulling a trigger. It reminds me of when I learnt to drive in respect of going by other drivers waving me on i.e. to always check myself if it is safe to go rather than by someone else's indications. I was also taught the same as a kid, i.e. never to cross a road just because a driver hand signed me to go but to ALWAYS check myself with my own eyes.

Yep, you should always do these checks, these won't have been done as they should because neither guy could even see the gun under the table. It's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure of the model of the gun, some have a safety on the side, but there are many that don't. The ones that don't have a pin that runs down the centre of the trigger. All this means is that to fire, the whole of your finger needs to be across the trigger. Catch the trigger by flicking it on one side and it won't fire, I have a feeling that Darren's gun was one of the trigger safety types.

I'm just glad I don't eat where they do.

 

[Viper]

I asked you before ST, because I didn't hear that part of the testimony and you seem to have knowledge on guns, if OP didn't hear Darren say the gun was "one up" why did he empty the chamber ? At least that is what the lawyer interviewed by Sky explained, i.e. OP heard Darren say it was one up but didn't check to see if it also had a magazine loaded, so when he received it under the table he emptied the chamber for the one up so as to be able to test the sensitivity of the trigger to see if he liked it, but he didn't realise, because he didn't check, that a magazine was loaded so that on emptying the chamber and closing it again another round was chambered so when OP pressed the trigger it fired.

In any case as a responsible gun owner, which I am not, not a gun owner that is, shouldn't you check everything, chamber, magazine and if there is one a safety catch, before pulling a trigger. It reminds me of when I learnt to drive in respect of going by other drivers waving me on i.e. to always check myself if it is safe to go rather than by someone else's indications. I was also taught the same as a kid, i.e. never to cross a road just because a driver hand signed me to go but to ALWAYS check myself with my own eyes.

BIB. Yes, absolutely! Just as you describe it. Handling (playing with) any loaded firearm, let alone one that you are not familiar with, beneath a table is just stupid. I would never. But if I were at home or at a range the rule is to always visually inspect the weapon, including pulling out the magazine to determine if it has any bullet cartridges, and pulling back the slide and looking down in the barrel from the slide to see if it has a bullet in the chamber. The safety is usually the first thing another gun owner will point out to you, if his gun is equipped with a safety.

 

[Viper]

Yep, you should always do these checks, these won't have been done as they should because neither guy could even see the gun under the table. It's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure of the model of the gun, some have a safety on the side, but there are many that don't. The ones that don't have a pin that runs down the centre of the trigger. All this means is that to fire, the whole of your finger needs to be across the trigger. Catch the trigger by flicking it on one side and it won't fire, I have a feeling that Darren's gun was one of the trigger safety types.

I'm just glad I don't eat where they do.

What handgun(s) do you own, if you don't mind sharing. Mine is a Glock 17 9mm, I bought it to replace my Walther PPK .380 stainless steel because the Walthers magazine only held 6 rounds making it a pain in the butt to have to keep reloading the magazines when I went to the range!

 

[nastasya]

I don't know whether I should admit to this but although my uppermost thoughts are seeking justice for Reeva I have a deep sense of sadness for OP .
He has taken a life and ruined his own life .
One wonders if things might have been different if he hadn't lost his mum.
I still find myself needing to guide my kids and the eldest is now 25.
They are quite spoilt and sometimes need reigning in .

I think he would have had a lot more understanding if he had been more honest at the beginning . This is not to say that I don't think he should be punished,of course he should but the whole thing is just sad sad sad

<modsnip>

Re the killer, there are millions of people who lost their mum who didn't grow up to be spoiled <modsnip>. There are millions of orphans who lost both parents who grew up to be great men and women.

Blaming another outside factor, like the death of his mother, for his actions is what caused him to have the self-indulged victim mentality that he's displayed. The you coddle kids the more they learn that failure and irresponsibility gets them love and attention.

 

[ShadyLady]

I think Reeva last used her phone at 8.00pm and it was still connected to the Internet after the shooting .
Not sure about the iPads . I am still looking for confirmation in testimony that they were both OP's .
If one was Reeva's and they were synced accidentally there could have been something on there that caused an argument.
If they are OP's then it is odd that Reeva didn't have one with her or at home .
And if they were both his why did they end up on the floor at the right side of the bed . One of them looked like it may have been thrown or dropped.

And I am still wondering about Reeva's meeting with ex-boy friend. She must have confided in him somewhat.

 

[AlexUK]

Mostly ...ooo...Baba...not one mention of anything really personal. It seems like he was using her to be in his arm when he wanted and she was okay...waiting for something more.

I wondered if she was just a 'trophy" girlfriend - a good looking glamorous woman to be seen about with to boost his ego. Certainly didn't seem to be much genuine passion there.....

 

[BritsKate]

Yes I have to agree.
It was odd when Nel said 7 hours and OP corrected him to 8 or maybe I just dreamed that lol .
Anyway I was very shocked that when he confirmed the time they ate and that he doubted that she could have eaten later.

Ditto and d'ya know if he'd conceded she may have gotten up while he was sleeping, it might have helped sway my opinion back a bit. But...how can he know she didn't get up while he was sleeping but magically poofed herself into the bathroom while he was awake? (While it was pitch dark enough to see jeans and Reeva's legs under the duvet that magically poofed itself on the floor.)

JMO

 

[MeeBee]

And I am still wondering about Reeva's meeting with ex-boy friend. She must have confided in him somewhat.

The ex has been interviewed before. He says OP called a couple of times and asked Reeva if everything was fine and says Reeva seemed perfectly fine and normal. So I don't really know how helpful or hurtful his testimony would have been. Reeva mentioned meeting him for coffee in the text and OP said nothing about it. Doesn't mean he wasn't jealous, just that it can't really be proven.

 

[jay-jay]

Well, it's not the clearest pic in the world, but yes I can see that .. assuming it's not been photoshopped (don't mean you .. I mean wherever that photo came from) .. wonder why Nel has said that then .. I doubt very much he ever says anything if there isn't a reason for it and he's probably laid some sort of trap there ..

I've taken a screengrab of the part of the youtube clip where it shows the fan lead/speaker .. have zoomed into it and it doesn't look anything near as clear as the pic in BB's tweet. I have also put it through my own photo editing software to try and lighten that area in front of the speaker, change the contrast, etc, but I can't seem to make it look like BB's photo to no avail. I won't put a pic up here of what I've done because it could be just as easy for me to alter my own pic and then say that is what the original looks like .. you have to do it yourself really, in order to verify it.

 

[Tricia]

You do not want to miss this show.

Tonight (Thursday) 8 PM Eastern on the iHeart Radio Network we welcome Award Winning Criminal Defense Attorney Alison Triessl

You are going to LOVE Alison. Alison is going to give us her unique insights into the Oscar Pistorius case and we will have the latest in what's going on in the world of true crime.

That's tonight (Thursday) 8 PM EASTERN on iHeat Rado. CLICK HERE 8 PM EASTERN TONIGHT (Thursday) TO LISTEN LIVE
A bit of Alison trivia...Did you know Alison created the Wild about Trial App?

 

[steveml]

Well, it's not the clearest pic in the world, but yes I can see that .. assuming it's not been photoshopped (don't mean you .. I mean wherever that photo came from) .. wonder why Nel has said that then .. I doubt very much he ever says anything if there isn't a reason for it and he's probably laid some sort of trap there ..

Edit: the link seems to have changed source as I was typing my post and I see it links back to BB's twitter feed .. hadn't realised that as all I got before was just the photo on it's own.

Edited again ..! .. think I must be going slightly mad .. the reason for ^^^ was that I clicked on the image the first time and then on the link the next time I looked at it, lol

No worries. Yep, there may be something else, and it wasn't a wasted exercise.

Did you notice how Nel let the guy on the computer start to enlarge the pic, and didn't finish. This is because Nel was doing his own little test on OP to check how closely OP had been through the evidence photos.

Yesterday OP said he'd looked at all the photos many times but Nel wouldn't know if OP was just saying this, and whether it was true or not. As soon as OP mentioned he knew about the cable and said he'd seen it enlarged, that confirmed to Nel that OP had looked carefully at all the photos.

This could be useful later if Nel is deciding to try and catch OP out with photo evidence. Now he knows OP has seen them all, and seen them enlarged as well, he may not rely as much on the photo evidence and try a different line of questioning.

 

[Melanie]

OK I have to add to this conversation OP saying that he got in to bed and laid his head in Reeva's lap. If he had added what happened after that act I would not comment. :wink: But he did not, and that is the act of a child that is sleepy putting his head on his MOTHER'S lap. :weird :

I agree with you. It appeared to me, IMHO, that the relationship was more of a mother/son thing, or at least, very childish. Baba, boo, etc. I don't see any passion in their texts, only Reeva trying to calm a child having tantrums. I still have my AOL messages from my DH from 16 years ago and they were quite, erm, risque.

Do I believe he had another tantrum and killed her? Yes. Why was the duvet on the floor? He said he couldn't see anything, yet said he saw her jeans. He yells at her to call the police, but doesn't wait for a response before shooting? I finally finished watching his testimony on WAT, and I agree with Nel - it's all about OP and he (OP) was not very caring towards Reeva.

All in all, it seemed a very strange and strained relationship.

Again - this is just my opinion.

Mel