Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[patCee]

Frank Chiziweni
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=23602899

In this video clip it is stated "the Pistorious family continue to employ him".

Looks as though the link has been removed.

 

[soozieqtips]

I did say an 'accused murderer' .. which is actually the case, and that is why he is on trial. I'm not aware that in the UK, someone like (for instance) Mark Bridger, would've just been allowed to walk out of the door with the rest of everyone in court .. I believe that 'the accused' is led away separately, by police, in this country.
They are also kept in prison until their trial.

BBM - And quite rightly too. Why should convicted pedophiles or murderers be free to roam the streets while waiting for an appeal? The public deserves to be kept safe from dangerous people like that. I just cannot believe that a convicted murderer can enjoy several more years of freedom while waiting to appeal his conviction. Once you're convicted of the charges against you, that should be it. Off to :jail: and sort out your appeal from there and away from the public.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yep! The third person at the property not testifying for the defence speaks volumes. I think he is doing a huge favour to OP just in staying silent.

He is definitely the smoking gun. I am really surprised he cannot be subpoenaed as a witness. He most definitely heard something or he would not have appeared outside the house almost before anyone else. Perhaps one of the legal eagles on here can throw some light on this. If he were subpoenaed and refused to answer questions on the stand what would happen? It is no good him saying that he heard or saw nothing because he was obviously up, dressed, and about well before other persons arrived. Very odd.

 

[Cherwell]

I would only be guessing as I have no legal knowledge. I can only refer to what I have read. MOO is that he would still get bail but he will never be allowed to own or use a gun in future. I don't know how far that would go, ie would he be allowed to belong to a gun club as long as he didn't own a gun. However, it is also my belief that if this happens OP will obtain/borrow a firearm at some stage and possibly shoot on safe territory, ie friend's property, and given the type of personality he is, he may even secrete one of his own somewhere he considers safe. Sorry I cannot offer any more. We do have legal eagles on here who may be of more help.

I think you missed my point.

OP is up on four other charges besides murder. As I understand it, those charges can carry a custodial sentence. So assuming he is found guilty on a firearms charge, he could well be imprisoned for that immediately. A completely separate issue from the hypothetical appeal against a murder conviction. So while hypothetically he might get bail for that alone, he would still be in prison for the other offence.

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM - And quite rightly too. Why should convicted pedophiles or murderers be free to roam the streets while waiting for an appeal? The public deserves to be kept safe from dangerous people like that. I just cannot believe that a convicted murderer can enjoy several more years of freedom while waiting to appeal his conviction. Once you're convicted of the charges against you, that should be it. Off to :jail: and sort out your appeal from there and away from the public.

Yep, no way it would happen here in the UK and very possibly he would spend his time in jail before his trial (as per Vincent Tabak) .

 

[Lochlynsmom]

So many posters here have offered "it defies common sense ..." explanations for their points of view. Anyone who's done any hard science is wary of that kind of thing. It's not real sleuthing. I hate to do this, but here I go: Einstein once said "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." And that is pretty much true. Compare what we heard today from witnesses who live next door to OP and who seem to have heard little compared with witnesses who live nearly 3 football fields away who claim they heard lots more. That makes no sense!

It would be logical to use the correct figures don't you agree? I am assuming you are speaking of the Burger/Johnson's that are 177 meters away not 3 football fields and not the Stipps that were only 72 meters.

So if you are familiar with "hard science" are you saying there is no way those folks heard what happened that night? And if that's the case why has OP had to explain away the exact noises that they heard.

 

[Budgie]

I did say an 'accused murderer' .. which is actually the case, and that is why he is on trial. I'm not aware that in the UK, someone like (for instance) Mark Bridger, would've just been allowed to walk out of the door with the rest of everyone in court .. I believe that 'the accused' is led away separately, by police, in this country. They are also kept in prison until their trial.

Looks as though the link has been removed.

True that...it's been removed.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think you missed my point.

OP is up on four other charges besides murder. As I understand it, those charges can carry a custodial sentence. So assuming he is found guilty on a firearms charge, he could well be imprisoned for that immediately. A completely separate issue from the hypothetical appeal against a murder conviction. So while hypothetically he might get bail for that alone, he would still be in prison for the other offence.

Sorry, yes, I did miss your point. Eating lunch and not concentrating - my bad. I am not sure he would necessarily get a jail sentence for the gun issues (being a first offence) but I could well be absolutely wrong. I think SA would like to jail every serious offender but at the moment they just don't have the room.

I am sure one of the legal bods will be in a better place to answer this. Nothing I have read covered that eventuality nor do I remember whether the bail allowed pre appeal had guns used as a murder weapon. Sorry.

 

[Cherwell]

He is definitely the smoking gun. I am really surprised he cannot be subpoenaed as a witness. He most definitely heard something or he would not have appeared outside the house almost before anyone else. Perhaps one of the legal eagles on here can throw some light on this. If he were subpoenaed and refused to answer questions on the stand what would happen? It is no good him saying that he heard or saw nothing because he was obviously up, dressed, and about well before other persons arrived. Very odd.

The prosecution cannot risk calling him, because he could say anything.

 

[Viper]

I hate to revisit this debate but I respectfully completely disagree.

Personally I will not dispute the PT's expert on blood spatters findings until another expert with compelling evidence testifies.
Odd that one would accept a googled image of gross arterial gush/spurt and make a determination that the spatter in question is not arterial.

Just because a pea sized lump in the breast doesn't look like or feel like the large exophytic tumors depicted extensively in old medical books (and current ones as examples of advanced disease, now much less common) at first glance or exam, doesn't mean it's not cancer. Sophisticated histology and staining answer/determine that. From what I read arterial spatter would lack the pathognomonic "tails" of cast off, the only other option, even though cast off can result in an arc.

Do provide a link if possible to a report of Dr. Saayman's statement that "vital functions would have ceased." I would be surprised if he used that language.

Often a physician's expert testimony is simplified to minimize confusion by lay people, to emphasize the main points. IMO Dr. Saayman wanted to emphasize that the GSW to the brain was last. This together with the bullet trajectories decimates the DT contention that the GSW to the head was first and Reeva never uttered a whimper, much less screamed while going down. Dr. Saymaan's testimony does not preclude the heart beating weakly or erratically for a few minutes.

I doubt Nel would elicit what could appear to be 'contradictory' testimony from his experts without having a purpose. Roux would also have exploited this to discredit Saayman or the blood spatter expert to weaken/discredit their testimony IF it could possibly do that.

Mrs Stipp's testimony also supports screams& gunshots last -> ending the screaming; all of which support premeditated murder.

No one who believes OP to be guilty believes OP was carrying a 'dying' Reeva to save her or get real help, she was already dead. He was reacting to the enormity and finality of what he'd just done. The bargaining with God was to save himself. The remorse and stories the "but I didn't mean it/I didn't really do it" of someone who's really, really caught.

So self centered, his 'version' came first with every contact that morning "I thought she was an intruder" .... well I put to everyone that a reasonable person who just accidentally shot a loved one would be screaming to 911 'get here now' or 'Reeva needs help,' 'I need some help for Reeva' throwing in I shot her but it was an accident in there at some point, but NOT making it the primary focus.

:cow:

Also unclear about the use of the term 'medics', it can be broad.

Where to begin!? Dr. Saymaan was not put on the stand to determine the order in which the shots were fired. He does seem to indicate that the bullet to Reeva's brain caused her death, but I do not think he described that fact so that laymen would understand the order of the shots fired, it is simply the fact of what caused Reeva to die.

The bullet to Reeva's head was a perforating GSW, it had an entry wound and an exit wound. The bullet split in to two as it entered her head. One piece destroyed the front of Reeva's brain and the other caused a major fracture of her base of skull. Dr. Saymaan determined that Reeva would have taken 2-3 last breaths. That indicated that her brain would have died and her breathing would have died within the few seconds of time she would have had for those 2-3 last breaths. Remember that there was no blood found in her airways. You correctly point out that Reeva's heart could have still lived for a short time. Dr. Saymaan pointed that out very clearly, but he said, "she would have died a few minutes later." A few minutes after 3:15-3:16 when she was shot in the head. Where you and Dr. Saymaan part ways is you take "a few minutes" without brain function, without breathing function, with two severed arteries bleeding out, and massive injuries to her pelvic region, you want others to believe that Reeva's heart was still beating as OP carried her down the stairs at ~3:24-3:25; that's 8-10 minutes!

I have posted information that I received from the Director of the Forensics (CSI) unit in my city, a large suburb of Dallas. I described to her the debate that we are having here. She was very open and honest with me and said with absolutely no hesitation, "This is a subjective science not an exact science, mistakes are made in every case but it never affects the outcome of the case." She also told me that, depending on how much time had passed after Reeva died (including her heart), applying force against her body could cause blood to exit her wounds. In this case Reeva's body weight of ~125lbs was being exerted upon her back through her chest as she was bounced up and down in OPs arms as he walked down the stairs; that would cause pressure that would move blood.

I know you want to have your cake, what Dr. Saymaan reported, and eat your cake too, what Nest says the blood tells him, but the absense of significant blood pools and arterial spurt / spatter between the bathroom and the stairs, and the extended time of 8-10 minutes does not support your opinion. Reeva's heart could not have been beating for more that a few minutes, that is what Dr. Saymaan determined and I don't think anyone but you would dispute that.

 

[crasshopper]

BBM - And quite rightly too. Why should convicted pedophiles or murderers be free to roam the streets while waiting for an appeal? The public deserves to be kept safe from dangerous people like that. I just cannot believe that a convicted murderer can enjoy several more years of freedom while waiting to appeal his conviction. Once you're convicted of the charges against you, that should be it. Off to :jail: and sort out your appeal from there and away from the public.

CORRECTION: I was addressing accused muderers, not convicted, sorry.

While I agree in principle, especially in the more clear cut cases. In the US they quite often grant them bail.

The bail is usually pretty high so only the wealthy or those with supportive families willing to put up the bond amount are freed on bail.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Looks as though the link has been removed.

Obviously the Pistorius family are reading this forum. It must be bad news for them as about 98 per cent of "voters" feel he is guilty of a serious crime. If a jury were to be formed from a random selection of us OP would undoubtedly be found guilty.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I just downgraded common sense, so I don't understand why you ask me this question.

BTW, why did Merwe hear loud arguing noises, with all sorts of obstacles in the way, while the Stipps, closer than Merwe and with a direct line, did not?

Maybe because the argument that started an hour before the shooting did not occur in the bedroom with the open window...

 

[DebinGA]

I have often thought even before the trial that OP could have been on his prosthetic legs and knelt down when he fired those shots rather than being on his stumps. Also, I do not think they went to bed that night so he was not on his stumps IMO.

Since I firmly believe the Stipps that the bathroom light was ON, I can imagine a terrified Reeva screaming for help in the wc and OP, cocked gun in hand, stopping to knell in the bathroom doorway to gauge where he'd need to stand when firing to avoid being seen by already alarmed neighbors through the open window panel.

 

[lithgow1]

Does this woman work for Fox News? I'm being serious.

Apologies if someone has answered this - I am making my way through in an orderly 'nicely typed' manner.

She works for CNN - at some point in the last few years she did a profile on Pistorius back when many people admired him, interviewing him in his home etc so to an extent, she 'knows' him and I think is sympathetic to him. Since she's the journo, more concerning to me is Kelly Phelps, their legal analyst who is often consulted during Curnow's reports. She is totally for the defence, something a few South African posters here have commented on. Totally, as in I have never heard her concede anything for the state but always finds a way to spin it for Pistorius. Especially laughable was yesterday's report where she said that the defence's neighbour's testimony swept away the state's version while never once mentioning that all of them testified to events after the shooting and the state has never claimed OP was not distraught then. And, unlike every other SA legal expert I''ve seen in the last 24-hours, claimed that Nel spent little time on cross as he couldn't 'poke holes' in their testimony - all the others say he doesn't really care because of that post-shooting factor. This is her, though it's not one of her 'better' ones - post-Dixon was especially 'surreal' shall we say:

Pistorius trial resumes after break - YouTube

And this is another interesting chat:

on time wasting and Oscar's emotional state. - YouTube

 

[Cherwell]

While I agree in principle, especially in the more clear cut cases. In the US they quite often grant them bail.

The bail is usually pretty high so only the wealthy or those with supportive families willing to put up the bond amount are freed on bail.

Convicted offenders allowed bail pending appeal? Really? I am astonished.

 

[Budgie]

Where to begin!? Dr. Saymaan was not put on the stand to determine the order in which the shots were fired. He does seem to indicate that the bullet to Reeva's brain caused her death, but I do not think he described that fact so that laymen would understand the order of the shots fired, it is simply the fact of what caused Reeva to die.

The bullet to Reeva's head was a perforating GSW, it had an entry wound and an exit wound. The bullet split in to two as it entered her head. One piece destroyed the front of Reeva's brain and the other caused a major fracture of her base of skull. Dr. Saymaan determined that Reeva would have taken 2-3 last breaths. That indicated that her brain would have died and her breathing would have died within the few seconds of time she would have had for those 2-3 last breaths. Remember that there was no blood found in her airways. You correctly point out that Reeva's heart could have still lived for a short time. Dr. Saymaan pointed that out very clearly, but he said, "she would have died a few minutes later." A few minutes after 3:15-3:16 when she was shot in the head. Where you and Dr. Saymaan part ways is you take "a few minutes" without brain function, without breathing function, with two severed arteries bleeding out, and massive injuries to her pelvic region, you want others to believe that Reeva's heart was still beating as OP carried her down the stairs at ~3:24-3:25; that's 8-10 minutes!

I have posted information that I received from the Director of the Forensics (CSI) unit in my city, a large suburb of Dallas. I described to her the debate that we are having here. She was very open and honest with me and said with absolutely no hesitation, "This is a subjective science not an exact science, mistakes are made in every case but it never affects the outcome of the case." She also told me that, depending on how much time had passed after Reeva died (including her heart), applying force against her body could cause blood to exit her wounds. In this case Reeva's body weight of ~125lbs was being exerted upon her back through her chest as she was bounced up and down in OPs arms as he walked down the stairs; that would cause pressure that would move blood.

I know you want to have your cake, what Dr. Saymaan reported, and eat your cake too, what Nest says the blood tells him, but the absense of significant blood pools and arterial spurt / spatter between the bathroom and the stairs, and the extended time of 8-10 minutes does not support your opinion. Reeva's heart could not have been beating for more that a few minutes, that is what Dr. Saymaan determined and I don't think anyone but you would dispute that.

I think we'll leave these two to it....what do ya'll think

 

[lithgow1]

How would he know the intruder(s) had arms? (Just asking)

I was making a lame joke in response to the post about 'armed intruders', which I quoted in my reply and was in my post along with the comment you're querying.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I just downgraded common sense, so I don't understand why you ask me this question.

BTW, why did Merwe hear loud arguing noises, with all sorts of obstacles in the way, while the Stipps, closer than Merwe and with a direct line, did not?

Van Der Merwe lives almost opposite OP, which might suggest the argument started in the front part of the house and ended up in the bedroom. All speculation. Here is a photo with Van Der Merwe's and Stipp's House marked. VDM's is bottom left. Apologies if you already know this.

This photo is from The Telegraph.

 

[Fuskier]

Frank, as we all likely suspect, would know a lot! I'm loathe to criticise him too much though for not testifying/making a statement without "walking a mile in his shoes". I'd speculate that there was a huge power imbalance in the relationship he had with OP - who was not only a national hero but from an old and wealthy family. Is it unlikely/impossible that he felt intimidated? I'd say no.

Agree. The Pistorious family continue to employ him. We don't know if his employment supports a huge African family elsewhere for example. We can only speculate on these possibilities, but we do know that he was awake, standing with Security out front of OP's house at the time Stander and Carise arrived.
Like so many others here: 'What woke him?' 'How is it that he managed to meet up with Security, fully dressed, at such an early time?'