Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Val1]

And the only conclusive physical evidence on the door supports the bat strikes second as well. A crack in a piece of wood is a pretty objective witness.

Except that noone can definitively state whether that crack came from previous bat whacks or from after the gunshots when that particular splinter was pulled from the door frame.

 

[minor4th]

Hi Steve.... the pic that you posted from that link is not how the duvet was originally found, as testified to in court.

The State testified that they did open up the duvet to inspect it after they noticed blood spatter on it and they photographed it again, noting that it had been opened up.

This picture below depicts how it was originally found. (again, still catching up so hopefully I'm not duplicating anybody's post)

That's the same photo steve posted.

 

[Val1]

I don't know what Motha was doing, but he was there with Van Staden in the crime scene when Van Staden was supposed to be alone and preserving the crime scene.

Then the question becomes, what does preserving the crime scene mean to VS. Is it having taken the initial pics to preserve what was initially observed(which makes sense to me), or what some here seem to take as meaning having locked everyone out of the whole upstairs until he was done with taking all his pics(initial scene, taking measurements, then focusing on particular items by possibly moving them into better view, taking more pics, until all done)? Is there a standard by which he was obligated to follow?

 

[Feynman]

Why don't you visit the WhatsApp site and send them a tech support question and ask them.

Here's the screen cap from the site.

I think you are confusing what can be stored on your phone vs. what can be *recovered* on your phone from a backup in the case where you delete chat messages.

 

[BritsKate]

I don't believe so, but I think their closing arguments are more extensive than what we see in the US.

Cape Town Crim. stated over the weekend that the State could move to pursue a rebuttal under certain conditions. IIRC, the State has to hand over practically everything to the defence but there is no reciprocal discovery or depositions, so it redresses the balance. Here are links...now I really will crash. Goodnight, minor and everyone else.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #30

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #30

 

[liesbeth]

No, they were taken during the same minute but no seconds were given. That time also happened to correspond with Van Staden going back into the bedroom for a few shots before returning to the bathroom.

So for example VS could have taken a picture in the hallway at 6:04:03, then moved to the bedroom while Motha then takes a shot in the hallway at 6:04:47

Also, Roux produced pretty solid proof that Mothas pictures were at the same time as Van Staden's by reference to Motha's photos that showed items in their original positions in the bathroom and before they had been moved.

BBM: So Van Staden's pictures were taken at the same time when it suits the DT but not at the same time when it doesn't suit the DT?

Van Staden was outside taking a picture of the bathroom window and inside the bathroom we can see someone else investigating. Wanna bet it was Motha?

 

[minor4th]

Then the question becomes, what does preserving the crime scene mean to VS. Is it having taken the initial pics to preserve what was initially observed(which makes sense to me), or what some here seem to take as meaning having locked everyone out of the whole upstairs until he was done with taking all his pics(initial scene, taking measurements, then focusing on particular items by possibly moving them into better view, taking more pics, until all done)? Is there a standard by which he was obligated to follow?

Yes, he's supposed to be alone and without anyone else there who could potentially disturb something. Van Staden testified vehemently that he was alone the whole time he was taking the initial crime scene photos - but that could not have been the case, per the Motha photos in the same timeframe.

My theory is that Van Staden is covering for mistakes that were made by his superiors because he doesn't want to concede that they compromised the crime scene - maybe because he fears there would be repercussions with his job if he were to give negative evidence about the mistakes of his Colonels?

Compare that to Van Rensburg who was very up front about the mistakes that were made and expressed his dissatisfaction and even anger. VR no longer has to worry about repercussions to his job with the police dept cuz he's no longer there.

 

[Val1]

BBM

They are absolutely not little things. Oscar himself on the stand testified that if the duvet was in fact in that position on the floor in front of the bed it would create a big problem for his story. Those were HIS words. Considering that OP changed his story about the duvet three different times on the stand, I think Nel sufficiently proved that he was lying about it.

I stand corrected, the bat noises were important in that they enabled Nel to derive OP's narrative/s...

 

[minor4th]

BBM: So Van Staden's pictures were taken at the same time when it suits the DT but not at the same time when it doesn't suit the DT?

Van Staden was outside taking a picture of the bathroom window and inside the bathroom we can see someone else investigating. Wanna bet it was Motha?

Roux suggested it was Van Rensberg and another Col M (not Motha, but I can't remember his name now)

 

[minor4th]

BBM: So Van Staden's pictures were taken at the same time when it suits the DT but not at the same time when it doesn't suit the DT?

Van Staden was outside taking a picture of the bathroom window and inside the bathroom we can see someone else investigating. Wanna bet it was Motha?

I'm not following that first question. The point is Motha was in the crime scene while Van Staden was supposed to have been there alone taking the initial photographs before any other investigation was done in the crime scene.

 

[JuneBug67]

Except that noone can definitively state whether that crack came from previous bat whacks or from after the gunshots when that particular splinter was pulled from the door frame.

Not sure what you're referring to. Both sides agree that the bullet hole with the crack through it definitively indicates the door was hit in that instance after the shot was fired. The strikes-shots-door evidence is a true Occam's Razor in this case. We have a door in evidence that indicates at least two distinct events - four shots and three strikes. We have ear witnesses that hear only two groups of clustered noises several minutes apart that all sound like gunshots. We have evidence, however unintuitive it may be, that hard bat strikes on a wood door sound like gunshots. Physical evidence on the door indicates that the one bat caused crack on which conclusions can be drawn came after the shot that it bisected.

Two events on the door, two sets of resulting sounds, evidence that one followed the other. It is one part of the case that reasons in a pretty straight, pretty objective line.

 

[lisasalinger]

That is a great question and one that I have not been able to answer for myself. Some of the first pics seem to show one panel missing and others show several panels missing. Would love for someone to clarify this if it's known

For Minor and Sleuth-D asking about the door...

The door was found by police with almost all of the panel ripped out (see photos below). Only a little bit of wood was left on the left hand side.

The panel itself is one big piece. But after being hit with the bat on the right side of the door, the wood cracked and one long piece fell inward (the long panel that was seen inside the toilet room) and the rest was ripped out by hand by OP.

 

[Val1]

Yes, he's supposed to be alone and without anyone else there who could potentially disturb something. Van Staden testified vehemently that he was alone the whole time he was taking the initial crime scene photos - but that could not have been the case, per the Motha photos in the same timeframe.

My theory is that Van Staden is covering for mistakes that were made by his superiors because he doesn't want to concede that they compromised the crime scene - maybe because he fears there would be repercussions with his job if he were to give negative evidence about the mistakes of his Colonels?

Compare that to Van Rensburg who was very up front about the mistakes that were made and expressed his dissatisfaction and even anger. VR no longer has to worry about repercussions to his job with the police dept cuz he's no longer there.

I think shane13 would disagree with your description of "mistakes". When you really look at some of the testimony, timing, evidence(missing cell and possible evidence such as the thumbdrive with no repercussions, all kinds of people allowed into a crime scene that should not have been), colonels and brigadiers showing up to "take care" of OP, and what we as the public haven't been allowed to see or hear, it does kinda point to some kind of "care taking" from higher up, including OP's bail conditions all being pretty much revoked other than the deposit and not even by the same court that had imposed them but by a higher court. Who gets that kind of treatment, it sure isn't "normal"?

 

[minor4th]

Not sure what you're referring to. Both sides agree that the bullet hole with the crack through it definitively indicates the door was hit in that instance after the shot was fired. The strikes-shots-door evidence is a true Occam's Razor in this case. We have a door in evidence that indicates at least two distinct events - four shots and three strikes. We have ear witnesses that hear only two groups of clustered noises several minutes apart that all sound like gunshots. We have evidence, however unintuitive it may be, that hard bat strikes on a wood door sound like gunshots. Physical evidence on the door indicates that the one bat caused crack on which conclusions can be drawn came after the shot that it bisected.

Two events on the door, two sets of resulting sounds, evidence that one followed the other. It is one part of the case that reasons in a pretty straight, pretty objective line.

Both sides also agree that the shots were all fired through the closed door also, and the splintering in the wounds is evidence of this also.

Even if you think the state's forensic evidence was not conclusive, it can at least be said that the gunshots came before at least one of the cricket bat hits - the one that caused the crack in the door.

I really don't understand how the sequence of gunshots/bat sounds can fit any other scenario other than the bat hitting the door after the gunshots. Especially since both sides agree there were only 4 gunshots, they all happened in quick succession at the same time, and two witnesses heard two sets of 3 loud bangs that sounded exactly like gunshots.

 

[Val1]

Not sure what you're referring to. Both sides agree that the bullet hole with the crack through it definitively indicates the door was hit in that instance after the shot was fired. The strikes-shots-door evidence is a true Occam's Razor in this case. We have a door in evidence that indicates at least two distinct events - four shots and three strikes. We have ear witnesses that hear only two groups of clustered noises several minutes apart that all sound like gunshots. We have evidence, however unintuitive it may be, that hard bat strikes on a wood door sound like gunshots. Physical evidence on the door indicates that the one bat caused crack on which conclusions can be drawn came after the shot that it bisected.

Two events on the door, two sets of resulting sounds, evidence that one followed the other. It is one part of the case that reasons in a pretty straight, pretty objective line.

Only if you believe all the witnesses only heard the bat sounds and not the gunshots.

 

[minor4th]

I think shane13 would disagree with your description of "mistakes". When you really look at some of the testimony, timing, evidence(missing cell and possible evidence such as the thumbdrive with no repercussions, all kinds of people allowed into a crime scene that should not have been), colonels and brigadiers showing up to "take care" of OP, and what we as the public haven't been allowed to see or hear, it does kinda point to some kind of "care taking" from higher up, including OP's bail conditions all being pretty much revoked other than the deposit and not even by the same court that had imposed them but by a higher court. Who gets that kind of treatment, it sure isn't "normal"?

I would say just the opposite. The mucked up crime scene does not help Oscar. it makes it easier for the state to construct a case on photographs that aren't so reliable.

I have read shane's posts, and I do believe there was some sort of divide in the police department over whether to really stick it to OP before the scene was even investigated (e.g. Botha) or have some patience and see what the investigation reveals (Van Rensburg). I do not believe that anyone was purposely messing with the crime scene to either incriminate OP or to help him out. I think it was just sloppy police investigation.

 

[minor4th]

For Minor and Sleuth-D asking about the door...

The door was found by police with almost all of the panel ripped out (see photos below). Only a little bit of wood was left on the left hand side.

The panel itself is one big piece. But after being hit with the bat on the right side of the door, the wood cracked and one long piece fell inward (the long panel that was seen inside the toilet room) and the rest was ripped out by hand by OP.

That last pic of the magazine rack does look like it was placed there over the pool of blood

 

[lisasalinger]

I don't believe so, but I think their closing arguments are more extensive than what we see in the US.

ETA: The judge can also call additional witnesses if she wants additional information

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a clip of a local SA news reporter talking about how long it will take to wrap up the case after the defense rests, and was surprised at the time frame. (I'm trying to find the clip)

She said that the court will adjourn for up to 6 weeks for the attorneys to prepare their closing arguments. The closing arguments will be read over 1-2 days in court, so they do definitely sound lengthy.

And then the Judge will take a minimum of 2 weeks after that to make her decision. I would think more than that. She predicted that we would have a verdict in July.

 

[minor4th]

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a clip of a local SA news reporter talking about how long it will take to wrap up the case after the defense rests, and was surprised at the time frame. (I'm trying to find the clip)

She said that the court will adjourn for up to 6 weeks for the attorneys to prepare their closing arguments. The closing arguments will be read over 1-2 days in court, so they do definitely sound lengthy.

And then the Judge will take a minimum of 2 weeks after that to make her decision. I would think more than that. She predicted that we would have a verdict in July.

6 weeks to prepare their closing arguments!!??

 

[Val1]

I would say just the opposite. The mucked up crime scene does not help Oscar. it makes it easier for the state to construct a case on photographs that aren't so reliable.

I have read shane's posts, and I do believe there was some sort of divide in the police department over whether to really stick it to OP before the scene was even investigated (e.g. Botha) or have some patience and see what the investigation reveals (Van Rensburg). I do not believe that anyone was purposely messing with the crime scene to either incriminate OP or to help him out. I think it was just sloppy police investigation.

But the mucked up crime scene was first mucked up by OP, friends and family, long before VR got there.