Trial Discussion Thread #9 - 14.03.18, Day 12

[minor4th]

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?

The clerk has the SD card and is charged with its verification, but the CD's are copies that are made from the SD card and were apparently kept by VS locked in his office.

Yes, he testified at the beginning of today that the delay was due to his commander having to go over the CD's with him before he brought them to court to "assure the sequencing was correct""

 

[zwiebel]

Mmmm. That doesn't fit with him using his own discretion all the time, which was the impression I got from his testimony on the witness stand.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

If the cameras were recording the exact same time as your 4th possibility asserts, then the photographers took the same photo at the same time. Yes? Two men could not fit into that hallway together without one being visible. It's too small. It's NOT possible.

Perhaps the photos were taken a few minutes a part, or the time on the the two cameras were not in synch - but both the events negates your 4th possibility.

I don't think it's likely that the cones were put there by someone else and VS duly photographed them. It's possible, of course, but equally he could have got upstairs, realised he needed cones and gone back to his car to get them - the kind if detail that's easily forgotten a year later.

I've taken pictures of my finger pointing to something before, many times.

I think you need more than this, personally, if you're going to claim that there is some kind of mass cover up going on.

 

[minor4th]

Mmmm. That doesn't fit with him using his own discretion all the time, which was the impression I got from his testimony on the witness stand.

Right. Later in his testimony he also said that it was Vermuelen who made the decisions about which photos go in the albums. That's exactly my point.

 

[zwiebel]

I've just remembered, the question about what VS carried upstairs - I think that was the odd question from Roux that confused VS, because Roux didn't state a time, or even a day.

VS seemed - rightfully - confused about if he was being asked to remember exactly what he had in his hands, every time he went up and down the stairs. It didn't surprise me that he could not say with certainty.

 

[zwiebel]

In US trials or English trials, are defence ever allowed to enter the crime scene and take photos, anyone? Or even visit the crime scene?

 

[minor4th]

If the cameras were recording the exact same time as your 4th possibility asserts, then the photographers took the same photo at the same time. Yes? Two men could not fit into that hallway together without one being visible. It's too small. It's NOT possible.

Perhaps the photos were taken a few minutes a part, or the time on the the two cameras were not in synch - but both the events negates your 4th possibility.

I don't think it's likely that the cones were put there by someone else and VS duly photographed them. It's possible, of course, but equally he could have got upstairs, realised he needed cones and gone back to his car to get them - the kind if detail that's easily forgotten a year later.

I've taken pictures of my finger pointing to something before, many times.

I think you need more than this, personally, if you're going to claim that there is some kind of mass cover up going on.

Ok, first of all I'm not claiming there is some kind of mass cover up going on. I'm suggesting that there are several instances in which the police have bungled the crime scene and they are trying to cover this up on the witness stand.

VS presumably would have mentioned he forgot evidence markers and went to his car to get them if that was the case - that was not his testimony.

And it's certainly possible for two men to take pictures of a hallway during the same minute without photographing each other. e.g. Van Staden takes a photo of the hallway at 6:21:05 and then moves into the bedroom to take pictures of the bedside table - meanwhile Motha steps into the hallway to take a photo at 6:21:45

 

[minor4th]

I've just remembered, the question about what VS carried upstairs - I think that was the odd question from Roux that confused VS, because Roux didn't state a time, or even a day.

VS seemed - rightfully - confused about if he was being asked to remember exactly what he had in his hands, every time he went up and down the stairs. It didn't surprise me that he could not say with certainty.

I don't know - listen to his testimony on this again. Roux didn't ask him about evidence markers, he asked him what he had with him. To which he responded that he had his camera and camera bag. Then, as if it dawns on him where Roux it taking him, he says "I may have" had an evidence marker with me. It comes off as trying to create a possibility that would explain all the evidence markers being placed at the exact times VS was taking pictures.

That's just my interpretation of it ...I could be wrong.

 

[minor4th]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 15m
#OscarTrial Key point today: Roux is asserting SAPS removed a photo of 3rd cricket bat mark cause it doesn't' fit their version of events

I didn't hear that far into the testimony. Did anyone else catch this?

 

[LemonMousse]

In US trials or English trials, are defence ever allowed to enter the crime scene and take photos, anyone? Or even visit the crime scene?

In England, yes, I think so....after all the forensics are finished. The jury can visit the crime scene during the trial too if it's relevant.

I find it very hard to believe that, if this collusion involves VS saying what he's told to by his bosses, and this is evidenced by what happened this morning, that he would admit to it in open court! Some secret cover -up! "Sorry, I'm late, M'lady, but my boss was going over things to check I was saying what he wanted me to"

And I got the impression that he said he used his discretion to initially compile the albums and number the pictures. He's not autonomous, though, he's part of a team and obviously his boss would be overseeing.

 

[04009margaret]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 15m
#OscarTrial Key point today: Roux is asserting SAPS removed a photo of 3rd cricket bat mark cause it doesn't' fit their version of events

I didn't hear that far into the testimony. Did anyone else catch this?

Yes,there was a photo of that & that's what lead to the who chose what photos.

 

[21merc7]

In US trials or English trials, are defence ever allowed to enter the crime scene and take photos, anyone? Or even visit the crime scene?

Yes, in the U.S. the attorneys for both sides may visit crime scenes after the forensic teams are finished. They may photo. At times have even discovered evidence missed by the forensics and LE.

 

[zwiebel]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 15m
#OscarTrial Key point today: Roux is asserting SAPS removed a photo of 3rd cricket bat mark cause it doesn't' fit their version of events

I didn't hear that far into the testimony. Did anyone else catch this?

No. I heard talk about the towel etc not lining up, and the R in the logo not being in line with something in photos, indicating it had 'been moved' (according to Roux) - but just taken from a different perspective, according to Nel.

Roux also asked why a close up of a 'mark' on the bedroom door, where the tiles were broken, was not taken? Or maybe it was the bathroom door. My memory is going.......

 

[zwiebel]

Yes,there was a photo of that & that's what lead to the who chose what photos.

Oh, was that the pic of the bat actually in the crack in the door that flashed up?

 

[04009margaret]

No. I heard talk about the towel etc not lining up, and the R in the logo not being in line with something in photos, indicating it had 'been moved' (according to Roux) - but just taken from a different perspective, according to Nel.

Roux also asked why a close up of a 'mark' on the bedroom door, where the tiles were broken, was not taken? Or maybe it was the bathroom door. My memory is going.......

These points were quickly cleared up by Nel

 

[04009margaret]

Oh, was that the pic of the bat actually in the crack in the door that flashed up?

Correct

 

[04009margaret]

Trooper must have fallen asleep over his keyboard lol. It's3:00 am here so time for bed

 

[zwiebel]

One tiny mystery may have been cleared up for me; today, I was having trouble at times understanding the intrepreter. Apparently she was chewing gum.....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-recap-updates-3254901

Also a pic at the link of OP today with his green sick bucket by his side, if anyone's interested.

 

[BritsKate]

From what I can gather, Mr. Roux has promised to address the omitted photos in the defense CIC. At issue is the door and whether Oscar Pistorius was on his prostheses or not. Here are a few tweets from the relevant time frame. (Admittedly though, I missed the live testimony.)

Aislinn Laing ‏@Simmoa 3h
Roux presents a state photograph of Col Vermeulen matching the bat to the higher mark on the door. Asks why it wasn't included.

An exasperated Van Staden accuses Roux of"playing with words"-says Vermeulen didnt tell him not to put that one in,just which ones TO put in

Presumably relevance of the top cricket bat mark on the door wd suggest Pistorius was on his legs, which state contends but OP says he was
https://twitter.com/Simmoa

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta 3h
#OscarTrial Bat photos that were omitted will be raised later by Defence experts who will testify marks consistent with OP not on his stumps

Gerald Imray ‏@GeraldImrayAP 3h
#OscarPistorius Roux asking why photos taken by defense experts showing mark missed by police, didn't later get included in police photos

Alex Crawford ‏@AlexCrawfordSky 3h
#OscarPistorius We're shown defence photo of bat matching mark on door. Roux wants to know why similar photos didnt make it into State album

https://twitter.com/Debora_Patta
https://twitter.com/GeraldImrayAP
https://twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky

 

[ShadyLady]

Well tune in today with session one march 18...same old ...same old...some guy in trenchcoat (must be cold in there) droning on with Roux...only after they decide they are going to have to go without "tea" today because no one was prepared. Frankly at this rate this trial may go all summer. CourtChatter does a nice two or three paragraph summary of each day which really captures what has happened missing little. I would think the state has something better than this.

OP's defense is to confuse first....then put everyone to sleep.

I will check out CourtChatter.