Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[minor4th]

That was one of the things he learnt in "firing school" sorry, don't know what it's called. He knew that it was unlawful to shoot behind a closed door knowing that someone was behind it.

I was asking if anyone knew if Professor Grant has given an opinion on guilt/innocence?

 

[minor4th]

I think we are all aware of that.

The question is, would he have said anything different in the witness box under cross-examination? He could still have been called as a witness and asked about such things as the security routine, the ladders, the damage in the house etc. No one wanted to risk it though.

True, unless he had been asked those questions during a deposition or recorded statement.

Reading between the lines, it seems Frank just didn't want to be involved at all

 

[Cherwell]

I do think it strange that OP was not asked why he didn't call Frank to help, instead of phoning someone who wasn't even a close neighbour.

 

[Val1]

I think we are all aware of that.

The question is, would he have said anything different in the witness box under cross-examination? He could still have been called as a witness and asked about such things as the security routine, the ladders, the damage in the house etc. No one wanted to risk it though.

What strikes me with the Frank situation, is that the only one who made reference to him by name and identified him as being there iirc, was OP's lawyer friend, CS. I don't think it's impossible that she may have pulled him aside and said something to the effect of, you didn't hear or see anything right Frank?

 

[Cherwell]

What strikes me with the Frank situation, is that the only one who made reference to him by name and identified him as being there iirc, was OP's lawyer friend, CS. I don't think it's impossible that she may have pulled him aside and said something to the effect of, you didn't hear or see anything right Frank?

In which case she slipped up by mentioning him at all .... She also made that inexplicable comment about "the lady" which wasn't picked up either.

 

[soozieqtips]

I do think it strange that OP was not asked why he didn't call Frank to help, instead of phoning someone who wasn't even a close neighbour.

It's beyond strange why OP wasn't asked why he didn't call the person who was nearest at the time. I guess the 'close' neighbour was of far more use to him than Frank. But it certainly doesn't make sense why Nel didn't even approach the subject with OP. Maybe we'll hear more about it in closing arguments?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I think we are all aware of that.

The question is, would he have said anything different in the witness box under cross-examination? He could still have been called as a witness and asked about such things as the security routine, the ladders, the damage in the house etc. No one wanted to risk it though.

I agree, who better to talk about the day to day routine of OP and his visitors. Surely Frank would have some information in that regard. :waitasec:

 

[Figuring]

The three gun charges, OP did not mount much of a defense at all to any of them.

Did Dixon say that the Glock could fire without OP pulling the trigger? Did OP say the other guy pulled the trigger?

The illegal possession of the .38 caliber ammunition is done, no defense.

The shooting out of the car sunroof has two witness against OPs word and Samantha Taylor was not impeached by emails that Roux promised.

What can Roux possibly do?

I don't think that Masipa is only going to issue a "first offender" fine for all three crimes, especially in light of the murder charge on top of all of them. Jail.

I was wondering if anyone knew what the sentencing options are for the gun charges? I kind of forgot these were rolled in. I think the defence forgot too!

 

[Val1]

In which case she slipped up by mentioning him at all .... She also made that inexplicable comment about "the lady" which wasn't picked up either.

I'm only guessing that she mentioned them just in case someone else did too, wasn't he initially on the PT's list of witnesses, before it was reported that a number of their witnesses had changed their minds(possibly their stories) about testifying? To me that speaks directly to the fact that OP had been granted bail and the right to return to his home, no matter his claims to not interfere with any witnesses. After all, he'd already "tampered" with the evidence ala his cell phone and we'll never know what else besides RS's stolen handbag which both CS and his sister were involved with.

 

[Val1]

I was wondering if anyone knew what the sentencing options are for the gun charges? I kind of forgot these were rolled in. I think the defence forgot too!

I don't know if this is correct but here is one report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10943148/Oscar-Pistorius-the-verdicts-the-trial-judge-can-reach.html

Other charges: Pistorius also faces two charges of discharging firearms in public, once through the sunroof of a car, and once under the table in a crowded Johannesburg restaurant called Tasha's. Both charges, which he denies, carry a maximum five-year prison sentence.

He also denies a further charge of illegal possession of ammunition. Police found .38 bullets in a safe in his bedroom. He said they were his father's and he had no gun to fire them. This charge carries a maximum 15 year prison term.

 

[kittychi]

True, unless he had been asked those questions during a deposition or recorded statement.

Reading between the lines, it seems Frank just didn't want to be involved at all

Agreed. For some reason it sticks in my mind that Frank was maybe a foreign person and in a class of subservient workers there in SA that just do not speak about the goings on of their employers out of respect and/or for fear of losing their jobs. I would not be surprised if Frank got a nice raise after the incident. It seems he would still be needed to maintain care of the house, gardens and pool, since OP was trying to sell it.

 

[delilah]

O/T I've been using the question/phrase "Am I right?" in my text messages that I send to my wife whenever I am wondering if I understood her correctly or whatever. She doesn't have the first clue about where I picked it up from, and I'm not going to tell her. It's my little secret! :floorlaugh:

Just as long as you don't follow it up with:

"I find that...interesting..." - ie you are lying

"No, no, no, that can't be right..." - ie you are lying

"now, let us deal with that..." - you are lying

"I will deal with that later..." - you are lying but I'm going to let you stew on it and then ask you the same question again...

: )

 

[delilah]

Agreed. For some reason it sticks in my mind that Frank was maybe a foreign person and in a class of subservient workers there in SA that just do not speak about the goings on of their employers out of respect and/or for fear of losing their jobs. I would not be surprised if Frank got a nice raise after the incident. It seems he would still be needed to maintain care of the house, gardens and pool, since OP was trying to sell it.

I seem to remember Frank is from Malawi. He might have been earning a relatively reasonable amount of money and sending it home to family. Whatever, he's unlikely to have kept his job if he'd said his boss was a liar. Being a foreign worker, he's probably in a fairly vulnerable position, economically and immigration-wise.

There does seem to me to be a kind of underlying unspoken racism here, like he's the black 'servant' who says nothing and sees nothing, so much so that hardly anyone even acknowledges his presence. I hope that isn't the case.

And, on the other hand, maybe he just didn't hear anything, like he said.

 

[Giles]

I was asking if anyone knew if Professor Grant has given an opinion on guilt/innocence?

No, I don't think so. Not yet.

I'm reading between the lines somewhat, but I think the Legal profession were given some strict guidelines to adhere to when commenting on this case. It has been mentioned on the 'Legal Round Table' discussion. Unfortunately, the video where it is mentioned has been taken down.

On the last programme David O'Sullivan had some tweets asking the panel what they thought regarding guilt or innocence and he said they wouldn't discuss that until after closing arguments.

ETA - Professor Grant has been a part of the 'Oscar Trial channel' so he might be bound by their rules.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm just popping back in for a moment to make this one post... I found my scribbled note regarding the rabbits.When OP was testifying about text messages... and reading them out loud... Nel asked about the "rabbit things" around his house which RS referred to. OP said it referred to little wood carvings of rabbits which he bought for friends as gifts and Reeva had asked about it. (From memory, I think he said they had hearts on them.)

You are so right. I think I must have missed this evidence and have been arguing from a completely misguided viewpoint. I know I lost internet connection on some days but thought I had caught up. Obviously I hadn't! This is Lisa's (Juror13) log of what happened and well worth a read by all.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/oscar-trial-day-17-oscar/

Time to move on for me.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I seem to remember Frank is from Malawi. He might have been earning a relatively reasonable amount of money and sending it home to family. Whatever, he's unlikely to have kept his job if he'd said his boss was a liar. Being a foreign worker, he's probably in a fairly vulnerable position, economically and immigration-wise.

There does seem to me to be a kind of underlying unspoken racism here, like he's the black 'servant' who says nothing and sees nothing, so much so that hardly anyone even acknowledges his presence. I hope that isn't the case.

And, on the other hand, maybe he just didn't hear anything, like he said.

Good points. He was interview by police and they have said they did not believe his story. I think he should have been called to give general evidence with respect to OP's routines, the security of the house, the ladders and how long they had been there, etc. Very strange that he was up and dressed at the front door and yet nobody but Carice mentioned him. We would never have known if she had not let that slip. I truly cannot see how he heard nothing. Four gunshots in the house and near and distant neighbours heard shots and OP shouting for help. He apparently spoke good English, so no problem there.

I am sure I read somewhere that he is being retained by the Uncle but the press is not always right, as we know, though I am a little surprised the press have not made more of Frank's invisibility.

Here are a couple of relevant links:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...us-murder-trial-the-case-for-the-defence.html

She also revealed that Pistorius’s Malawian housekeeper Frank Chiziweni was at the house the night Steenkamp was shot. Police said Mr Chiziweni slept in the domestic quarters next to Pistorius’ kitchen on the ground floor of his home but said he told them he “heard nothing” that night. Miss Viljoen said when she arrived at the house, “Frank” was standing in the road with the estate security guards.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html

A policeman who arrived at the scene an hour after the shooting confirmed Mr Chiziweni had been sleeping in a room off the kitchen and was awake when they arived. He said the man spoke good English. “We said to him, you were here. What did you hear?” the policeman said, adding that he had replied: “No, no, no, I didn't hear anything”. He said police had been unconvinced by his response: “We were all asking ourselves how he could not have heard anything,” he said.

 

[saraomar]

Hi all, am new to this forum and love your intelligent observations. Regarding the 'rabbits', this is definitely to do with playboy bunnies IMO, as reeva comments on not being a 'stripper or ho' which is what playboy bunnies are notorious for. It seems like it was something OP shared with an ex and hence made reeva uncomfortable as OP still kept looking at them and taking pics...reliving that time with whomever the ex was.

 

[808]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/24417868/this-week-criminologist-on-pistorius/

Just watched the "Explosive" new claims on channel 7. Nothing new just a criminologist speculating that he murdered her because she was going to leave him.

...and more propaganda from the "Evidence room" to bolster the GAD, fright at the magazine rack moving version.

What is Uncle Arnold playing at releasing this footage?

 

[Cherwell]

Hi all, am new to this forum and love your intelligent observations. Regarding the 'rabbits', this is definitely to do with playboy bunnies IMO, as reeva comments on not being a 'stripper or ho' which is what playboy bunnies are notorious for. It seems like it was something OP shared with an ex and hence made reeva uncomfortable as OP still kept looking at them and taking pics...reliving that time with whomever the ex was.

Sorry to disagree with your first post but I am sure that if Reeva was referring to Playboy bunnies, she would have said "bunnies" and not "rabbit things".

btw I feel I must defend the Bunnies, as I had a good friend who worked as a Playboy Bunny back in the 1970s. While there were, shall we say, opportunities for some who might wish to make extra money, the majority of Bunnies were simply waitresses and bartenders. Certainly my friend was never a 'stripper or ho'.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The promo for the show said another story was running first and that last week’s show Running Scared had a viewing audience of 2 million.

Running Scared

This is how the program guide described tonight’s show:

“This week on Sunday Night, we continue our investigation with Reeva’s side of the story. We speak to Reeva’s family and friends who analyse her last few months alive and reveal the truth about her relationship with the Pistorius. Plus we hear from a top criminologist who says Reeva was ready to leave her celebrity boyfriend”.

Well this has got to be the most outrageously misleading description for any TV show I’ve ever seen. It lasted for about 10 minutes, and 95% of the content was in last week’s show. The only extra bit was, I believe, a bit cut from one of last week’s clips with Laurie Pieters, criminologist, in order to make that show last 1 hour. The following was the only new content.

Pieters says she’s been in court and studied OP closely.

“Her TV program was about to begin. She felt perhaps that she didn’t need him anymore. She thought the writing was on the wall that she was going to leave him. She thought Oscar was a fantastic opportunity for publicity, but once that’s no longer necessary, would you be prepared to stay in what you feel is an abusive relationship? We tolerate things because we have to in a lot of cases or because we feel they’ll promote our cause, but when you no longer need that person, you break away from it, especially if staying in the relationship is uncomfortable as it clearly was”.

She refers to the lengthy Whatsapp messages in which Reeva said she wasn’t happy. “They were the only long messages, and usually before somebody gets to a point of typing a message of that nature, there’s a significant problem brewing for quite a while”.

She then said that had she spoken to Reeva, she would have told her to “Run, don’t look back”.

ETA: However the first segment occupied the entire hour except for 10 minutes.
THAT’S IT FOLKS, NOTHING ELSE. THEY NEVER SPOKE TO HER FRIENDS. WHAT AN ABSOLUTE CON.