Trial Discussion Thread #9 - 14.03.18, Day 12

[minor4th]

The least likely possibility (three out of the four suggest mistake rather than deceit), but the one you've personally decided to go with?

Again, that's confirmation bias, the most common of all logical fallacies.

You keep saying (rightly) that it's all about the evidence, and yet you've decided, in the basis of precisely none, that this officer is a liar and involved in wholesale cover up.

As Nel pointed out, if both photographers were in the hall at the same time as Roux asserted, then they should be in each other's photos. They weren't.

We're listing possibilities, right? I'm just including the fourth possibility that you left out.

 

[Trooper]

4th possibility: Both camera times are right and someone is covering for someone else

who is this mysterious someone who is covering up for this equally mysterious someone else??

this is a simple question. there is nothing complicated about it..

'someone' and 'someone else'.. is terrifically vague and has the air of fractured reasoning ability...... god knows this trial has a cast of thousands.. surely among all those you could define two names??

and surely , if you know who these mystery folks are, you will know why they are 'covering up?? "

its a clear question, Minor.. I am happy to rephrase it if it appears difficult.

 

[LemonMousse]

We're listing possibilities, right? I'm just including the fourth possibility that you left out.

Possibilities are irrelevant. When anything is possible, it's what's probable that really matters.

In this case, it's more probable than not (on current evidence) that this involved mistake rather than deliberate deceit. Not to mention the fact that it's close to impossible for the times on the cameras to be the same given that this would mean both photographers would be in the hall photo (unless one was hiding in a wardrobe) - so your 4th "possibility" is factually incorrect anyway.

And you did say that you considered this witness a liar, and I'm showing that you don't have good reason for this assertion. You can think it all you like, but we either take note of the evidence or we ignore it completely and go with our personal hunches.

 

[04009margaret]

Anyone know if the phone service providers will be testifying about the contents of calls that night? Like what was actually said in OP's call to Netcare, and what they advised him to do? In the UK, we generally record emergency calls, so I was wondering if SA do the same. Even though Roux said he has proof of the Netcare call, the content of the call is very important as it will show whether OP downplayed Reeva's injuries (knowing she was already dead or close to dead) and will prove one way or another what was actually said in that call. If OP is lying about that, surely the judge would want to know why.

From the witness list:-
Donova D Jagga & Daniel de Waal Pretorius - Netcare 911 East Base
Geoffrey Boulton - Net care 911 Midrand
Benise Kitshoff - Netcare 911

 

[Trooper]

but I don't expect an answer.. not really.... I expect this request will be blotted out, and the claims of conspiracy will go on ad infinitum, probably long after the trial has finished, and the verdict given..

its the way these things manage to grab oxygen and go on feebly breathing for decades... oh well.

 

[minor4th]

Possibilities are irrelevant. When anything is possible, it's what's probable that really matters.

In this case, it's more probable than not (on current evidence) that this involved mistake rather than deliberate deceit. Not to mention the fact that it's close to impossible for the times on the cameras to be the same given that this would mean both photographers would be in the hall photo (unless one was hiding in a wardrobe) - so your 4th "possibility" is factually incorrect anyway.

And you did say that you considered this witness a liar, and I'm showing that you don't have good reason for this assertion. You can think it all you like, but we either take note of the evidence or we ignore it completely and go with our personal hunches.

The post that I was responding to listed "Three possibilities" and I included a fourth. Nothing more, nor less.

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 5h
#OscarTrial It's astonishing that every police officer that has testified so far has been shown up for shoddy crime scene work....

 

[Trooper]

Is Debra Patta the judge??? I thought Masipa was.. .

 

[zwiebel]

From the floorplan, it would be impossible for VS to see from the toilet, who was entering or leaving the bedroom, or even who was in the passageway leading to the bathroom. Even in the bathroom, he would not be able to see round the closet wall into the bedroom.

VS could say in good faith he thought he was alone,, while not knowing someone was taking pictures in the room beside him.

If both camera data systems are proved completely in sync though, and there are two with identical times, I guess it may put into question VS's honesty. I think a few of the photos Roux spoke about today had seconds between them though. Thay may not seem much, but it is enough for someone to snap a picture and walk away as someone approaches to do the same, and with all the corners and passage in OP's bedroom/bathroom and the separate toilet/shower, it is possible not to see each other.

It is concerning that VS did seem to imply at first that there was no other photographer with him. But I just don't feel he is lying, somehow. He just wasn't concerned enough, and didn't appear to have any rehearsed answers or details ready, that are trademarks of deliberate liars.

 

[LemonMousse]

The post that I was responding to listed "Three possibilities" and I included a fourth. Nothing more, nor less.

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 5h
#OscarTrial It's astonishing that every police officer that has testified so far has been shown up for shoddy crime scene work....

Your 4th is not possible, as Nel demonstrated.

 

[Trooper]

when is this elusive second official photographer, Motha to appear in the dock?? to my knowledge he hasn't testified as yet...

 

[04009margaret]

Possibilities are irrelevant. When anything is possible, it's what's probable that really matters.

In this case, it's more probable than not (on current evidence) that this involved mistake rather than deliberate deceit. Not to mention the fact that it's close to impossible for the times on the cameras to be the same given that this would mean both photographers would be in the hall photo (unless one was hiding in a wardrobe) - so your 4th "possibility" is factually incorrect anyway.

And you did say that you considered this witness a liar, and I'm showing that you don't have good reason for this assertion. You can think it all you like, but we either take note of the evidence or we ignore it completely and go with our personal hunches.

I have faith this judge will see through the smoke & mirrors, the pictures paint a clear picture that this was DV & no accident. To imply planting & tampering of evidence is not going to change the facts that OP's own words will convict him.

 

[minor4th]

From the floorplan, it would be impossible for VS to see from the toilet, who was entering or leaving the bedroom, or even who was in the passageway leading to the bathroom. Even in the bathroom, he would not be able to see round the closet wall into the bedroom.

VS could say in good faith he thought he was alone,, while not knowing someone was taking pictures in the room beside him.

If both camera data systems are proved completely in sync though, and there are two with identical times, I guess it may put into question VS's honesty. I think a few of the photos Roux spoke about today had seconds between them though. Thay may not seem much, but it is enough for someone to snap a picture and walk away as someone approaches to do the same, and with all the corners and passage in OP's bedroom/bathroom and the separate toilet/shower, it is possible not to see each other.

It is concerning that VS did seem to imply at first that there was no other photographer with him. But I just don't feel he is lying, somehow. He just wasn't concerned enough, and didn't appear to have any rehearsed answers or details ready, that are trademarks of deliberate liars.

I'll give you- VS may not have seen Col Motha creeping around behind him for several minutes, and maybe didn't hear him either. Maybe he didn't know Motha was sneaking around in the same room taking pictures of the same areas of the crime scene. I'm not suggesting that VS is actively trying to cover up, but I think he has been influenced and pressured by his commanders to give their version.

Did you also notice that at first VS said it was he who made the decision about which photos to put in the album, but under cross-examination today he conceded that it was Vermuelen who made those decisions? And when asked why he couldn't just grab the photo CD's from his locked office box, he stated that his commander had to go through them with him first and assure that the sequence was correct? That's baloney - Van Staden is being leaned on by Vermuelen and his superiors IMO

 

[LemonMousse]

Responding to pressure from superiors to give their version IS actively covering up. It's collusion.

 

[minor4th]

Your 4th is not possible, as Nel demonstrated.

Speaking of confirmation bias ...

My 4th is of course possible and Nel demonstrated nothing other than the two avoided taking pictures of each other which is easy enough to do. Did Nel put forth any evidence that either of the camera's time stamps were wrong or off? I don't believe he did.

Besides that, I believe that the two did capture one another in their photos - in VS's Album #2 there are pictures taken at 6:21 in the hallway in which measuring tape is held by a gloved hand next to a cartridge that is in a plastic bag. It would be difficult to hold the camera with one hand and take a close up like that of the other hand with a measuring stick. I think it is possible that it was Motha's hand. I will try to grab a screen shot to illustrate the shot I am talking about.

Also, someone was marking evidence and placing cones while all of this photographing was being done and when asked, VS could not say that he had evidence markers with him when he went up the stairs. That means, likely someone else was there with evidence markers - and that someone is likely the person who was also taking photographs at that time.

 

[minor4th]

Responding to pressure from superiors to give their version IS actively covering up. It's collusion.

Yes, but I mean that I don't believe VS is doing it willingly or because he has a bias against OP. If anything, I think he is doing it because his job is at stake if he doesn't comply with the demands.

 

[zwiebel]

Now I have dared mention a 'feeling'; I know it's not evidence, but I can't count the number of times a 'grieving loved one' of a murder victim - who later is charged with that murder - uses an entirely inappropriate word/words when talking to media.

They just seem to spring out and catch them unawares - so a murdering spouse mentions how brutal things have been for him, when he's actually been asked about his dead wife. Or someone skirts around the subject when asked about how upset they are; "I know her parents are really upset." Or they talk about 'disruption' or 'inconvenience' when other loved ones speak of 'devastation' and 'catastrophe'.

There are so many examples and truly grieving people don't seem to make them. They sometimes hold emotions in and come across as cold, but never seem to use those really misplaced, inappropriate words.

I do think OP's use of 'mortified' is yet another example of a totally inappropriate word. It may not indicate guilt, but it certainly indicates a lack of true care and grief at shooting Reeva, to me.

 

[minor4th]

I have faith this judge will see through the smoke & mirrors, the pictures paint a clear picture that this was DV & no accident. To imply planting & tampering of evidence is not going to change the facts that OP's own words will convict him.

I agree with you. Even it is proven conclusively that the crime scene was staged or purposely manipulated - even if it is proven that all of the police officers are covering for each other, etc, I think the judge can still convict OP of culpable homicide from his statement alone. I've never argued otherwise.

My points are directed more at premeditation and what I believe to be the State's overcharging and questionable tactics.

 

[minor4th]

Now I have dared mention a 'feeling'; I know it's not evidence, but I can't count the number of times a 'grieving loved one' of a murder victim - who later is charged with that murder - uses an entirely inappropriate word/words when talking to media.

They just seem to spring out and catch them unawares - so a murdering spouse mentions how brutal things have been for him, when he's actually been asked about his dead wife. Or someone skirts around the subject when asked about how upset they are; "I know her parents are really upset." Or they talk about 'disruption' or 'inconvenience' when other loved ones speak of 'devastation' and 'catastrophe'.

There are so many examples and truly grieving people don't seem to make them. They sometimes hold emotions in and come across as cold, but never seem to use those really misplaced, inappropriate words.

I do think OP's use of 'mortified' is yet another example of a totally inappropriate word. It may not indicate guilt, but it certainly indicates a lack of true care and grief at shooting Reeva, to me.

I agree with this too, and while I'm playing somewhat of a devil's advocate on the evidence - I'm not at all convinced that Oscar's version is true or that there wasn't a fight leading into the shooting.

 

[zwiebel]

I'll give you- VS may not have seen Col Motha creeping around behind him for several minutes, and maybe didn't hear him either. Maybe he didn't know Motha was sneaking around in the same room taking pictures of the same areas of the crime scene. I'm not suggesting that VS is actively trying to cover up, but I think he has been influenced and pressured by his commanders to give their version.

Did you also notice that at first VS said it was he who made the decision about which photos to put in the album, but under cross-examination today he conceded that it was Vermuelen who made those decisions? And when asked why he couldn't just grab the photo CD's from his locked office box, he stated that his commander had to go through them with him first and assure that the sequence was correct? That's baloney - Van Staden is being leaned on by Vermuelen and his superiors IMO

Oh, I didn't catch that. I thought he said he had to get permission from V 'signed off' to collect the CDs from the clerk? I thought it was the clerk who was charged with their safekeeping?

 

[04009margaret]

The post that I was responding to listed "Three possibilities" and I included a fourth. Nothing more, nor less.

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 5h
#OscarTrial It's astonishing that every police officer that has testified so far has been shown up for shoddy crime scene work....

@karynmaughan
Mangena is widely respected in forensic community. He's also come up against #OscarPistorius ballistics expert in another case.

We'll have to add him to the cover-up, no need to follow the trial tomorrow as it's a foregone conclusion, he's part of the conspiracy.