Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[JudgeJudi]

Oscar on his stumps pulling someone out of the toilet, why would he do that when its not part of his version?.

I'm just wondering, could this be the re-enactment that the DT had done pre-trial. It was said that it was going to be a computer model but what if it was this? Obviously it would never have been shown because he changed his story. Just saying ...

 

[04009margaret]

This is correct. I did correct myself up thread however. And I'm much less surprised that it's channel 7

BIB
I did notice that too late lol.......We'll all know the answers to our questions soon

 

[Val1]

The Evidence Room team:

http://www.evidence-room.net/

The Canadian video at least shows there's audio too so I'm now eagerly awaiting why Scott Roder thinks he's innocent.

E.T.A. I haven't seen this article before - which mentions quite a few who were asked to join the DT

http://time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

The videos are Pixar meets murder trial: illustrating car crashes and murders with faceless cartoons of people in jagged geometric landscapes. “We don’t give opinions, we don’t say ‘this is how it happens,’ we describe the scene,” says Scott Roder, the 43-year-old chief executive officer of the Evidence Room. “That’s our job: to help people understand the bigger picture.”

Mr Roder seems to be giving his opinion now.

Yes he sure is, and the pic that Vansleuths had posted a couple of pages back that showed one of the two blue shirts in the video quite clearly, could easily be the art director from the Evidence Room team.

 

[Val1]

I'm just wondering, could this be the re-enactment that the DT had done pre-trial. It was said that it was going to be a computer model but what if it was this? Obviously it would never have been shown because he changed his story. Just saying ...

bbm - If I could afford to lose it, I'd bet you a trip to SA for the verdict it was...

 

[JudgeJudi]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 2m
#OscarTrial Footage of OP re-enacting the shooting created by a US company for the Defence but never shown in court to be shown in Australia

Ha ha. I just posted that this might be the case. This will positively kill OP's case. Nel's smoking gun.

 

[JudgeJudi]

If you slow the video down you can see where the stand-in has her left arm curled around OP's neck while her right arm is draped over OP's shoulder and it's outstretched (at 9 seconds) but at 12 seconds, the right arm comes up to hold herself onto OP's back. It was Reeva's right arm that was supposed to be nearly severed so she wouldn't have been able to do that and as she'd also have gunshots in her head and hip, she most certainly wouldn't have had brain function or the strength to cling on to OP the way the stand-in is doing.

OP said after he went into the bathroom he sat there for a while and then made the telephone calls. Prof Gert Saayman said she would have only taken a few breaths before dying. So by the time he dragged her out of the toilet and into the bathroom she was well and truly dead. OMG, he's just soooooo disgusting.

 

[04009margaret]

Oh boy, the power of social media........what will OP's demeanour be in court on Monday? Smirks, doodling or fetch the green bucket?

****Ad for the OP video has just aired on Network seven, so the DT has not succeeded in stopping it's airing.******

 

[delilah]

For a 'top forensic scientist', there isn't much out there about Scott Roder, other than what's on his own website ("17 years experience in demonstrative evidence consulting"). He has a FB page with very little on it (nice pic of his dog, though).

If the video really did convince a 'top forensic scientist' that OP is 'innocent' (whatever that means), you would have expected the DT to have used it.

I'm not sure how this video can be anything but bad news for OP, but I'm sure there are plenty more twists and turns in this story before the trial ends.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Well it is not a jury trial. And Masipa would have to declare a mistrial based on she and the two assessors not being able to be unbiased because of the video. I can't see that happening, but I am extremely biased. LOL!

As far as OP doing this behind Roux's back in hopes of an appeal after his conviction, I doubt it. He can use all sorts of stuff in an appeal but that does not mean that it would be successful. This video is devastating to the story that his DT is currently trying to get the court to believe. OP and Arnold would have to be complete fools to release this believing that it serves their interests in any way. It is devastating to his defense.

I must be missing the point. This video is irrefutable evidence that he was lying so how would bias come into it? It's just the same as ballistics evidence or anything else that proves he lied.

 

[kaos]

I've been looking at the first video a bit closer as somebody suggested you couldn't make out if he was on his prosthetics and think I have to change my mind :blushing: I've tried screenshotting it but my images keep turning to black when I try and upload them here

At around 9 seconds into the clip you can see OP manoeuvring around (where the woman's arm is extended over his shoulder) and if you look directly across from where the right hand front leg of the table is, you can make out the 'bandage' bit of the prosthetic and what looks like the sock from the prosthetic can be seen right next to the white box under the table.

 

[delilah]

I must be missing the point. This video is irrefutable evidence that he was lying so how would bias come into it? It's just the same as ballistics evidence or anything else that proves he lied.

Wouldn't the point be that, as the video has not been entered as evidence, the viewing if it could lead to bias. It's irrelevant as to whether it 'proves' OP's guilt or 'innocence'. It's one if the frustrating vagaries of the adversarial system of justice - defence and prosecution are not there to present the truth, only the evidence that supports their case.

The defence appears to have decided it didn't help their case, so they didn't want to use it. Whether Nel can now enter it as evidence in support of the prosecution's case is the question.

IMO - I'm no legal expert.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I was thinking there's what look like white balls in a case on top of the coffee table and knew they used ping pong balls for markers in animation but the ones on the coffee table are just a tad too big

Of course he had balls ... he thought he'd get away with all his lies.

 

[Jake18]

I personally don't understand how a "top forensic scientist" would think it reasonable to release footage or be interviewed mid trial. Surely a person with 17 years experience would have learnt about discretion and confidentially? Unless it really was the DT and they're hoping Mr Roder's endorsement strengthens their case in spite of the discrepancies in the "versions"?

 

[delilah]

I personally don't understand how a "top forensic scientist" would think it reasonable to release footage or be interviewed mid trial. Surely a person with 17 years experience would have learnt about discretion and confidentially? Unless it really was the DT and they're hoping Mr Roder's endorsement strengthens their case in spite of the discrepancies in the "versions"?

I would have thought the driver for releasing the video was to make a bit of cash, not to influence the outcome of the trial. Can't imagine it's a DT tactic (v high risk strategy if it is). Could be someone involved in making it, or someone in The Evidence Room. Roder after some publicity?

 

[04009margaret]

I've been looking at the first video a bit closer as somebody suggested you couldn't make out if he was on his prosthetics and think I have to change my mind :blushing: I've tried screenshotting it but my images keep turning to black when I try and upload them here

At around 9 seconds into the clip you can see OP manoeuvring around (where the woman's arm is extended over his shoulder) and if you look directly across from where the right hand front leg of the table is, you can make out the 'bandage' bit of the prosthetic and what looks like the sock from the prosthetic can be seen right next to the white box under the table.

I noticed that also, we'll soon know lol

 

[Jake18]

Hmmm. Maybe Roder was counting on there being more publicity for his company and was annoyed that his work wasn't referenced throughout the trial

 

[kaos]

If he was on his prosthetics that does mean he was trying to show how he got Reeva out of the toilet but it doesn't change how Reeva couldn't possibly have clamped onto him the way the woman does in the video or why his arm is fully extended or why his mobility is a lot better than he claims it to be.

 

[G.bng]

I'm just wondering, could this be the re-enactment that the DT had done pre-trial. It was said that it was going to be a computer model but what if it was this? Obviously it would never have been shown because he changed his story. Just saying ...

I already posted a page or two back saying I thought the video re-enactment part within this "documentary" is one the defence have had made to support their final arguments, i.e. to show how everything OP claims he did is possible and the possible time line involved.

And you could be right that the defence now don't want to use it but I respectfully can't believe that is because of OP changing his story, which is arguable, since if we ever get to see the re-enactment part I think you will find OP is not on stumps as he is pulling Aimee out of the toilet but has his prothesis on just as he stated in testimony (I can't find it just now but there is a screen grab showing this I saw not an hour ago).

No. IMHO, I think the re-enactment part of the video was made for final arguments and the reason the defence is trying to stop it being aired today, if they are actually trying to because the reports about this are confusing, it is because it would be clearly be disrespectful to Judge Masipa and her team that it was aired publicly before it were presented to the court.
jmhosnnfs,i,or

 

[G.bng]

Yes he sure is, and the pic that Vansleuths had posted a couple of pages back that showed one of the two blue shirts in the video quite clearly, could easily be the art director from the Evidence Room team.

IMBW but don't you think the first video shot in that very formal setting of the first snippet which has now been pulled could well be the hall at the Chambers where Roux and Oldwage work from? IDK, but I've been in a lot of barrister's chambers over here and no more than see it I was immediately reminded me of how they tend to be set up and decorated. And it's certainly not the same setting as the re-enactment parts of the new promotional stings. Just pondering...

 

[kaos]

I wonder if the wailing on the Canadian video is actually OP or an actor?