Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8

[Stromm]

For OP's story to work, RS has to remain silent in the loo as a tactical choice after OP shouts "Get out of my house! Reeva, ring the police!" (or something in that style). Presumed reason for her silence being that she doesn't want to alert the intruders to her presence in case they take an interest in her. You don't date a bloke whose ammo of choice is the Winchester Black Talon just so you can draw the burglars' fire upon your unarmed self.

Not mad on it myself, for much the same reasons as discussed elsewhere on here. Also:-

She wasn't short of phones in there. Even if she didn't want to reveal her presence to intruders by shouting to OP that it was her that was in the loo, wouldn't she at least make the call, as discreetly as possible? What would stop her? I think it could only be the fear that the intruders were closer to her than they were to OP.

Well in OP's version it was RS who opened the bathroom window. And now she was in the loo directly adjacent. I really think she'd have a pretty good sense that there could have been no invaders lying in wait at the foot of the ladder just hoping that the window might get opened, at 3:00 a.m., and if they'd suddenly materialised in the bathroom (by whichever route) she'd have heard it.

Since, in real life, there were no intruders, she'd have heard nothing going on in the bathroom. If OP heard her opening the bathroom window after he'd closed the balcony doors, curtains and blinds, then she'd have heard the balcony doors, curtains and blinds being closed - so she has no reason to fear intruders that might have entered from the balcony.

The only intruders that RS can immediately, instinctively, have feared - prompting her silence - are those that may have entered through the bedroom door. I think it's implausible (though not impossible) that OP can have locked the door without her knowledge when they went to bed and to sleep at 10:00 p.m. What if she got up in the middle of the night - or even just an hour after going to bed, say - and wanted to fetch something from another room or from her car, and she finds she's locked in the room. Or she's first to wake in the morning and can't even escape the bedroom to put some coffee on. (I think the key must be kept elsewhere, for OP to use the locked door as justification for feeling trapped). It would seem quite sinister, and imprisoning.

So, particularly since she'd have known aboout OP's security paranoia - and he'd have known she knew - the bedroom door-locking probably wouldn't have been kept from her. So I find it very difficult to believe that she'd instinctively feel the need to lay so low from any intruders that she wouldn't even quietly call the police. Or even get the number dialled in ready.

Take more than that to get a conviction, of course, but maybe the sort of questions that Nel -apeing Roux - could put to OP: "Can you help me to understand this?" ... "Why do you think she would have done that?" ... etc.

 

[Harmony 2]

The video should be cued to the point where they confirm that Merwe heard one voice, not two. It is Merwe testifying, not Burger.

If it's not cued properly, it starts at 1:03:17

Then there's another discussion about her hearing only one voice at 1:08:25

Van der Merwe woke up at around 1am, when she heard shouts by what appeared to sound like a woman.
She said she could not understand what was being said, or even the language she was speaking. The voice would start and stop, but she couldn't hear the other person's voice.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...itness-tells-of-shouts-1.1656063#.Ux_PYyGYbIU

1:56 a.m.- neighbor Estelle van der Merwe:

“I woke up the morning at 1:56am to sounds of someone talking loudly and fighting,’’ she told the court. “It lasted about an hour.’’

http://www.news.com.au/world/africa...rrifying-screams/story-fnh81gzi-1226845099657

 

[Zhooter]

Yes, and do you see the lock from the inside under said door handle? It doesn't look like a lock that needs a key from the inside to lock or unlock - and certainly with that big gaping hole in the door right next to it to reach in and turn it, OP wouldn't have needed a key to open it! So why this whole "I saw the key on the floor and reached it and opened the door" business?

 

[Zhooter]

Has it been determined conclusively that only 4 shots were fired? Or is that just because only 4 bullet holes were found? Any chance OP fired some "warning" shots out the open bathroom window first (which would be the first shots heard by the good Dr. Stipp that awoke him)? He's certainly not shy about shooting out of windows (sun roofs) it sounds.

 

[Feynman]

South African prosecutors pressing a murder charge against Oscar Pistorius secured a meeting Thursday with Apple officials in the United States over accessing potentially crucial evidence on the double-amputee athlete’s locked iPhone, they said.

Pistorius claimed he forgot the password for the cellphone, one of a number found at his upscale villa after he shot dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp Feb. 14, 2013.

http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...storius-investigators-meet-apple-over-iphone/

Pistorius told authorities he could not remember the password to his own cell phone. As a result, authorities took the phone to Apple headquarters to have it unlocked. This raises the possibility that Pistorius may have been hiding incriminating messages.

http://www.tsn.ca/other_sports/story/?id=445273

Yes, the MSM is full of such things these days. But this topic actually came up in August 2013:

------
A senior source at South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority said that despite repeated requests, Pistorius could not help them access a programme on his phone called WhatsApp.

He said: “There are several encrypted messages on that application of interest to us. But they are coded and even WhatsApp’s servers cannot identify them.

“Oscar says he cannot remember a password for them or what they say.

“After months of SDHp pressing him he remembered the password to his iPhone 5 but we haven’t been in a position to open all his messages from the night of the shooting and the days before that.” Detectives are keen to find out who Pistorius was in contact with before and on the night of Reeva’s death.
---------

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...laims-he-cannot-remember-log-in-for-phone-app

So the issue according to the above at that time was not the pwd to the iphone - it was the pwd to encrypted WhatsApp messages. I'm going to stick with that account until I hear really good evidence to the contrary.

 

[Zhooter]

I think it was the kind of lock that needed a key to lock and unlock. If the key is taken out then it's locked and you can't unlock it without a key.

Take a look: does this not look like a normal lock that can be locked/unlocked without a key from the inside? To me it DEFINITELY does.

So it begs the question, why all the mention of the key on the floor in the affidavit unless he was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain why someone might have found a toilet key on the floor - the only reason it would be there is because "someone" took it INSIDE - presumably to make sure no one else could get in after them.

...is my guess and just my guess. What do you all think?

 

[JuneBug67]

For OP's story to work, RS has to remain silent in the loo as a tactical choice after OP shouts "Get out of my house! Reeva, ring the police!" (or something in that style). Presumed reason for her silence being that she doesn't want to alert the intruders to her presence in case they take an interest in her. You don't date a bloke whose ammo of choice is the Winchester Black Talon just so you can draw the burglars' fire upon your unarmed self.

Not mad on it myself, for much the same reasons as discussed elsewhere on here. Also:-

She wasn't short of phones in there. Even if she didn't want to reveal her presence to intruders by shouting to OP that it was her that was in the loo, wouldn't she at least make the call, as discreetly as possible? What would stop her? I think it could only be the fear that the intruders were closer to her than they were to OP.

Well in OP's version it was RS who opened the bathroom window. And now she was in the loo directly adjacent. I really think she'd have a pretty good sense that there could have been no invaders lying in wait at the foot of the ladder just hoping that the window might get opened, at 3:00 a.m., and if they'd suddenly materialised in the bathroom (by whichever route) she'd have heard it.

Since, in real life, there were no intruders, she'd have heard nothing going on in the bathroom. If OP heard her opening the bathroom window after he'd closed the balcony doors, curtains and blinds, then she'd have heard the balcony doors, curtains and blinds being closed - so she has no reason to fear intruders that might have entered from the balcony.

The only intruders that RS can immediately, instinctively, have feared - prompting her silence - are those that may have entered through the bedroom door. I think it's implausible (though not impossible) that OP can have locked the door without her knowledge when they went to bed and to sleep at 10:00 p.m. What if she got up in the middle of the night - or even just an hour after going to bed, say - and wanted to fetch something from another room or from her car, and she finds she's locked in the room. Or she's first to wake in the morning and can't even escape the bedroom to put some coffee on. (I think the key must be kept elsewhere, for OP to use the locked door as justification for feeling trapped). It would seem quite sinister, and imprisoning.

So, particularly since she'd have known aboout OP's security paranoia - and he'd have known she knew - the bedroom door-locking probably wouldn't have been kept from her. So I find it very difficult to believe that she'd instinctively feel the need to lay so low from any intruders that she wouldn't even quietly call the police. Or even get the number dialled in ready.

Take more than that to get a conviction, of course, but maybe the sort of questions that Nel -apeing Roux - could put to OP: "Can you help me to understand this?" ... "Why do you think she would have done that?" ... etc.

The phones were found in the bathroom, so we don't even know yet how they got there, at what point, or if Reeva ever had one or more with her in the toilet room. So we can't yet assume she could have made a call. On the same lack of information, we can't assume she didn't make a call either.

I think perhaps it's being missed how this really could have happened the way Oscar said it did. The only element that is essential is that he didn't see Reeva wasn't in bed because it was dark, and he assumed she was because he had just seen her there. That is not particularly far fetched. Everything else could have unfolded literally over moments. Reeva hears Oscar yelling at something or someone, stands up to listen at the door, locks herself in for safety and is fired at in rapid succession. Oscar loses his mind and starts screaming and shrieking and battering the door when he realizes what he has probably done.

I'm NOT pro Oscar or any such thing. I'm just waiting for evidence to be less ambiguous than it has been.

 

[aa9511]

I have toyed with the idea that it was to impress the British runner, Martyn Rooney.. bit of the old you-cant-have-guns-we-can, see? we're allowed to play with them any time we want, anywhere we want and you can't..

Kevin, the sweet little boxer never got to hold the gun.. the passage of it went directly from Oscar asking for it, those two leaning forward to each other so it could be passed under the table, Darrin saying its 'one up' Oscar fiddling with the gun under the table, for a few seconds, then whoofooo... off it goes..!!

Also, per the witness testimony, it seems that Oscar knew about how to work guns (I guess, obvious). Guns were a part of his life. So I don't believe that, somehow, Oscar didn't know how to work this Glock that Darrin passed to him.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

The blood splatter evidence in the toilet doesn't support their theory that the first bullet struck her head, since a few blonde hairs were found in her clutched hand right, indicating that Reeva right hand clasped the bullet wound to her head to ease the agonizing pain in a reflex motion.With her right hand in such a frozen state on her head, it would have been impossible for any bullet to hit the same hand at such an angle split two fingers then penetrate her elbow and break it.

There were blonde hairs in her hand?

 

[Feynman]

Harmony2 posted the following above (I do not know how to properly quote that post):

“I woke up the morning at 1:56am to sounds of someone talking loudly and fighting,’’ she told the court. “It lasted about an hour.’’

http://www.news.com.au/world/africa/...-1226845099657.

But that's the MSM being a bit off IMO. If you listen to the tape at that point, you'll hear this (my own transcription of what the translator said): "I woke up around 1:56 in the morning. I heard sounds ... it seems like ... somebody was involved in a fight ... and these people are talking in loud voices."

So yes, most of Van Der Merwe's testimony talks about "a voice" (of a woman). But the tape shows it started out with "people" and "voices". So her testimony is not uniformly about a single voice.

 

[aa9511]

Well, I agree that a youtube video should not be taken as conclusive proof. We'll have to see what evidence is brought forth in trial. In my mind, however, it was helpful to hear the two sounds and their similarity.

Yes, Minor, agreed. But please take this into consideration - that say, in a cricket match, the sound of the cricket bat hitting the ball is going to be like a "pop" b/c the ball is moving at a very fast velocity, hitting a moving bat.

Now think about the bat hitting a stationary door. The sound will be much different.

I think that Oscar and his defense want the judge and her assistants to compare the sound that, say, you would hear at a cricket match. The sound of the bat hitting the ball, like a "pop."

But that is entirely different than a cricket bat hititng a stationary door.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

I agree. If I understand that the shot went through her arm and into her head, then IMO she was already in a "defensive" position when that shot hit. That to me proves the shot to the head was not first and there was something to be scared of already. Hence the screaming heard by many witnesses before the shots.

Wait, but how can the shot have gone through her arm and into her head? Wouldn't they be able to tell that from the forensics? I guess we'll wait and see. It's just that I am not understanding this arm/head thing, because wouldn't it have been obvious if it was one bullet which went through both the arm and the head, and is that even possible?

 

[aa9511]

This may well have been discussed before and if it has i apologise.
One thing that doesn't make sense to me is in Oscar's affidavit he says and i quote

"I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door".

Now from looking at the size of the gap in the door here

(graphic) http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/31/oscar-pistorius-murder-scene-bloody-photos-surface/

Clearly all you would be able to fit through that gap would be an arm, i think it's very conservative to estimate the shortest distance between the floor and the bottom of the gap is 100 centimeters, it would be impossible to pick up a key through that hole in the door from that height with one arm.
So how on earth did he manage to pick up the key?.

I don't know how many tests they did on that door, b/c I'm thinking they could have checked the opening for fibers from Oscar's shirt. If he had truly put his arm in there, if he was wearing a long-sleeved shirt (or maybe even with short-sleeved), there would have been some fibers caught in that opening.

JMO.

 

[Trooper]

I didn't realize that he had a criminal case against him when this was presented. I had thought that he brought it up himself after it was NOT prosecuted or put forth in any way. Can you/others share with me the reference you must be referring to of a criminal charge that this testimony is a plea bargain for?

I thought it was only brought out for this trial..where he admitted something that was "swept under the rug" before....and he had no outstanding charges for.....not on one that he was being prosecuted for.

You guys are great bringing this information forward as I had no idea on this as being the case!

TIA!!!

minor4th View Post
His motive is his plea bargain that kept him out of jail


this gross misrepresentation needs to be laid to rest...

Mr Fresco.. hereinafter referred to as Darrin, is not facing any criminal charges.. he is not on probation or bargaining for time off a sentence already given on any charge whatsoever. He hasn't come to court in the position of being a 'jail house snitch'.. he isn't IN jail. He is a private citizen conducting his business under no charges of misdemeanor, felony, or crime.

he is not , in any sense of the meaning of the term ,' keeping himself out of jail.'

the misdemeanor that he admits in his testimony was that he failed to report the firing of a gun in a public place. He didn't fire the gun in question but is obliged under SA law to report it's firing.

As an aside... to the owner of the property the gun was fired in ( restaurant) he took the blame for it.. This isn't even a misdemeanor..

Darrins immunity is related to the firearm charges laid against Oscar( IN ADDITION to his pre med murder charge.. )

Darrins immunity is NOT related to Oscar's murder charge in an way whatsoever..

Darrin hasn't made a plea bargain. How could he? he isn't charged or convicted of anything..

South African law isn't any more complicated than any other countries laws, and in many ways a lot less complicated.. its not hard to follow

So what did Darrin receive immunity for , on this particular instance? he got immunity for his previous avoidance in stating that he , Darrin , fired the gun in the restaurant. When it was Oscar who fired it according to one witness previous to Darrin. ( Mr Kevin Lareda)

He got immunity for failing to report Oscars firing of Oscars gun in Darrins car while travelling on the public roads of the Republic of South Africa.

and that's it, ....

what would be the penalties for Darrin if he hadn't negotiated immunity? a record of failing to report the firing of the gun and the identity of the shooter.

Its not complicated.

what would be he penalties for Darrin if it turns out that irrefutable evidence is presented that he is NOW lying and Oscar DIDNT fire the gun in either the car or the restaurant?

the penalty for perjury is harsh and swift.. THEN he would be charged with a whole string of offences.. disrupting justice, perjury, nuisance,

 

[Trooper]

Yes, Minor, agreed. But please take this into consideration - that say, in a cricket match, the sound of the cricket bat hitting the ball is going to be like a "pop" b/c the ball is moving at a very fast velocity, hitting a moving bat.

Now think about the bat hitting a stationary door. The sound will be much different.

I think that Oscar and his defense want the judge and her assistants to compare the sound that, say, you would hear at a cricket match. The sound of the bat hitting the ball, like a "pop."

But that is entirely different than a cricket bat hititng a stationary door.

JMO.

Since Judge Mapisa will be the one who decides on the probability of the sound of a cricket bat being similar to gunshot, and the possibility of South African neighbors of Oscar mistaking those sounds, its reasonable to assume that Judge Mapisa has grown up all her life hearing the sound of a cricket bat when it hits something. Ditto gunfire.

She could hardly avoid the sound. . it would be on her local news every night in the Sports segment , month after month, year after year, she would hear it in her neighborhood, and who knows? she may very well be, and is MORE likely than not to be a cricket fan who attends matches on a regular basis. For at least the last 30 years of her life.

A cricket bat in a South African home is not an exotic or esoteric object.. It only appears that way to those not living in a cricket culture. Which SA is, deeply and fiercely.

 

[gajonka]

I don't think he's lying

Please help - robots... what are they talking about>?

Thanks,
G

 

[minor4th]

Please help - robots... what are they talking about>?

Thanks,
G

Shooting a robot means running red light in SA, if I remember correctly. SA'ers weigh in here.

 

[canny]

Seriously? The State is trying to convict Oscar Pistorius - do you not see Darrin's motive to give a version the state likes in order to get a deal? It's just like jailhouse snitches who testify for the prosecution and receive probation or immunity or time off their sentence. I'm sure you've followed other trials before where a witness' testimony is suspect because of a deal he received from the prosecution.

If Darren has a motive to lie to be on the same page as the prosecution, then I wonder what kinda hanky panky deal the State must have signed with ST as her testimony on the key issue is compatible with his that OP did fire a shot without a warning through the sun-roof of his car in anger even though their testimonies differ on minor details that have NO bearing whatsoever on this murder trial. For you to compare Darren’s plea bargain with those of convicted criminals doing time in prison reflects your mindset that compels you come out with all guns blazing to ridicule the truthful testimony all the witnesses who have testified so far, but you bend over backwards to sugar-coat the long list of criminal wrong doings of OP.A man who intentionally fire a gun in public can never be called a thrill seeker under any circumstances.

And I have not given Oscar's statements a clean bill of health - I very specifically made a list of contradictions and concerns I had about it.

Yes Sir!

Oh, I do see problems with Oscar's statements, and I'll be commenting on any discrepancies or embellishments when he testifies as well.

Any sane individual will never mistake the sounds from his washing machine for an intruder, however as part of your strategy to strengthen the arguments in his favor his tweet was posted in this thread.

 

[gajonka]

Shooting a robot means running red light in SA, if I remember correctly. SA'ers weigh in here.

Thanks, minor4th, for taking the time to reply. No one else would.

"He wanted to either shoot a robot.." could it be that it means shooting a street light unit>?

Could be... thanks again, minor 4th (smile).

YOur admirer,

THE GAJONKA

 

[canny]

There were blonde hairs in her hand?

Yes, the defense claims to have photographic evidence taken during the post postmortem.