Trial Discussion Thread #9 - 14.03.18, Day 12

[wishIknewmore]

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.[/QUOTE


I havn't seen the footage-- just going on what WS has reported. This guy is a professional and had a job to do. Sounds like he was zeroing in on the important things and not worry about what others were doing. I could see how he could be "in the zone" and was conscious that he was alone. He was alone and even if someone say, walked in behind him or was in his peripheral vison might not register if the person wasn't doing anything wrong. It just didnt matter.

 

[steveml]

For the defence to claim a cover-up or conspiracy there has to be an associated reason or story put forward. This works exactly the same for the prosecution. To obtain conviction they will be expected to re-create what happened before and after the shooting of RS. They will be expected to provide beyond reasonable doubt that this was not an accident. It's just not good enough for anybody to suggest conspiracy without reason, that's no different to simply saying 'I think he did it'.

I've seen very little evidence presented by Roux that suggests anything more than procedural errors. Procedural errors are made in many murder cases, however what really matters is whether those procedural errors have such an impact that they would not offer the accused a fair trial.


If we look at some of the errors we've seen already can we honestly say that these were made to conspire towards the conviction of OP? Most of these relate to evidence moved out of necessity to be photographed, or removed for forensic purposes, which is quite normal procedure. I would go as far as to suggest that a couple of errors actually work in favour of OP.


Position of flip-flops - despite being moved they do not appear to have been moved from one side of the bed to the other. The only evidence advantage for conspiracy theorists would be for somebody to move them to another side, attempting to make it look like the accused had lied about which side he slept on. The photographs regarding this have remained consistent.


Forensics handled gun without gloves - quite a major error this one. Who does that benefit? Certainly not anyone hoping to conspire. OP has admitted he handled the gun and fired - he's already done a big part of the forensic work himself. If you are being as selective about your photo album as Roux suggests, you'd remove that photograph straight away.


Watch/es missing - Again, if you were conspiring to charge OP with murder, how does this help your case? A conspiracy that is so professional and runs so deep, yet it fails to notice a couple of watches stolen at the crime scene?


Roux appears to be conforming the old adage, 'when the facts aren't on your side, you argue the law', hence his desire to attack the credibility of every single witness. Lawyers often revert to this when they don't feel they have a credible story from the accused.


I think the blood towards the far wall of the bedroom will be the key to unlock this whole incident. If the analysis comes back as Reeva's there will be a huge hole in OP’s story and I can’t see that Roux will have any room for manoeuvre.


OP’s affidavit in it’s most basic form is: went to bathroom with gun, shot four times, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom. Only after all this to-ing and fro-ing does he break down the bathroom door, and approaches Reeva. This is the first opportunity he has to be covered in Reeva's blood, and he carries her downstairs. There should be absolutely none of Reevas blood on the far wall of the bedroom.


:justice:

 

[minor4th]

Ha......:floorlaugh:

possible ....yes

probable.....no

Actually, I think that was pretty well established today when Roux produced pictures from Motha that showed the crime scene before items had been moved.

Plus, Van Staden backed off his original statement that he was alone when he was taking pictures upstairs - now it's only "as far as I remember" his commander was at the scene but wasn't with him when taking pictures. And of course he's already conceded that Botha was up there collecting cell phones while he was in the bathroom taking pictures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sc2C1U-s_uY#t=2640

I don't know why it's so hard to believe that Motha was up there also while he was taking pictures, considering we have photographic proof that he was in the bathroom around the same time.

 

[Lyra500]

If i can just go back to Oscar's affidavit for a second

he was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.


Why would she give him the present and tell him not to open it till the next day?
Why not just give it to him the next day?.
That to me sound's like a comment you make when you are not going to see that person the next day, it suggest's to me that if that is what she said, she wasn't planning to stay the night.
Bear in mind that at this point according to Oscar they had already established that they were staying in together and not going out with friends.

Good point. That does sound as if she was not expecting to stay with him until the morning doesn't it? But then didn't she send her friend a text saying she was staying over because she was tired?

 

[minor4th]

For the defence to claim a cover-up or conspiracy there has to be an associated reason or story put forward. This works exactly the same for the prosecution. To obtain conviction they will be expected to re-create what happened before and after the shooting of RS. They will be expected to provide beyond reasonable doubt that this was not an accident. It's just not good enough for anybody to suggest conspiracy without reason, that's no different to simply saying 'I think he did it'.

I've seen very little evidence presented by Roux that suggests anything more than procedural errors. Procedural errors are made in many murder cases, however what really matters is whether those procedural errors have such an impact that they would not offer the accused a fair trial.


If we look at some of the errors we've seen already can we honestly say that these were made to conspire towards the conviction of OP? Most of these relate to evidence moved out of necessity to be photographed, or removed for forensic purposes, which is quite normal procedure. I would go as far as to suggest that a couple of errors actually work in favour of OP.


Position of flip-flops - despite being moved they do not appear to have been moved from one side of the bed to the other. The only evidence advantage for conspiracy theorists would be for somebody to move them to another side, attempting to make it look like the accused had lied about which side he slept on. The photographs regarding this have remained consistent.


Forensics handled gun without gloves - quite a major error this one. Who does that benefit? Certainly not anyone hoping to conspire. OP has admitted he handled the gun and fired - he's already done a big part of the forensic work himself. If you are being as selective about your photo album as Roux suggests, you'd remove that photograph straight away.


Watch/es missing - Again, if you were conspiring to charge OP with murder, how does this help your case? A conspiracy that is so professional and runs so deep, yet it fails to notice a couple of watches stolen at the crime scene?


Roux appears to be conforming the old adage, 'when the facts aren't on your side, you argue the law', hence his desire to attack the credibility of every single witness. Lawyers often revert to this when they don't feel they have a credible story from the accused.


I think the blood towards the far wall of the bedroom will be the key to unlock this whole incident. If the analysis comes back as Reeva's there will be a huge hole in OP’s story and I can’t see that Roux will have any room for manoeuvre.


OP’s affidavit in it’s most basic form is: went to bathroom with gun, shot four times, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom. Only after all this to-ing and fro-ing does he break down the bathroom door, and approaches Reeva. This is the first opportunity he has to be covered in Reeva's blood, and he carries her downstairs. There should be absolutely none of Reevas blood on the far wall of the bedroom.


:justice:

It's not that any of the single incidents of mishandling/moving/stepping on/contaminating of the crime scene is in itself conclusive of anything - it's the fact that all of the police witnesses have been shown to be either biased, untruthful or incompetent. And that casts doubt on the entire crime scene so that one has little confidence that the photos are reliable depictions of the scene as it was immediately following the incident - and it casts doubts on the various officer's credibility.

Those are judge issues to decide what weight and credibility to give each piece of evidence and each witness' testimony.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I fell like I'm missing something here. Even if there were two photographers in the same place at the same time, why would police have felt they had to lie about this?

 

[minor4th]

P.S. - keep in mind that the State has not argued that the time stamps are wrong or that either of the camera clocks were set to the wrong time. If that were the case, again that would be a tremendous case of negligence/incompetence on the part of the police - if you can't rely on their time-stamped photographs, then how can you rely on the photographs at all?

 

[minor4th]

I fell like I'm missing something here. Even if there were two photographers in the same place at the same time, why would police have felt they had to lie about this?

My theory: Because Van Staden needs to be able to testify that the crime scene was accurately preserved and that his photos accurately portray the scene as it was immediately after the incident, before evidence was moved, stepped on, lost, handled, etc.

If there was another person on the crime scene while he was taking his initial photographs - when he should have been the only person there to accurately document and depict the scene - then it throws into question the reliability of all of his crime scene photos because he cannot say that nothing was moved or changed before and during his photo documentation of the scene.

 

[soozieqtips]

P.S. - keep in mind that the State has not argued that the time stamps are wrong or that either of the camera clocks were set to the wrong time. If that were the case, again that would be a tremendous case of negligence/incompetence on the part of the police - if you can't rely on their time-stamped photographs, then how can you rely on the photographs at all?

BBM - do you know if it's police procedure for all cameras to be synchronised with each other at a crime scene? If so, who oversees it? Is there a specific job position for a camera synchroniser? I don't understand how not having cameras synched with each other is incompetence, unless it's a legal requirement. Perhaps you, or someone with more knowledge could confirm if it is or isn't.

 

[minor4th]

BBM - do you know if it's police procedure for all cameras to be synchronised with each other at a crime scene? If so, who oversees it? Is there a specific job position for a camera synchroniser? I don't understand how not having cameras synched with each other is incompetence, unless it's a legal requirement. Perhaps you, or someone with more knowledge could confirm if it is or isn't.

I know it's police procedure for the cameras taking evidentiary photos to have an accurate time stamp

 

[james83]

Presuming it's true OP was on his stumps when he used the bat and not as he claims on his prosthesis, could the reason he lied about it be it would be a contradiction to other parts of his affidavit I.E
"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps."
"I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps"

Would it have seemed totally implausible to include the above sentences along with i grabbed a cricket bat and tried to broke down the door on my stumps.
Was he lying to exaggerate his sense of fear and vulnerability to make his story seem more credible?.

 

[bajas]

I just want to say thank you to Minor4th for all the thorough explanations from a legal perspective of what is happening in the court room and why. I make a point of looking out for your posts because I find them objective and informative. Thank you

 

[weeeva]

It's not that any of the single incidents of mishandling/moving/stepping on/contaminating of the crime scene is in itself conclusive of anything - it's the fact that all of the police witnesses have been shown to be either biased, untruthful or incompetent. And that casts doubt on the entire crime scene so that one has little confidence that the photos are reliable depictions of the scene as it was immediately following the incident - and it casts doubts on the various officer's credibility.

Those are judge issues to decide what weight and credibility to give each piece of evidence and each witness' testimony.

I agree with you. I think Roux could be trying to build a case that the professionals present at the crime scene cannot be trusted, firstly the matter of the missing watch. Who took it? In a situation like this everyone is under suspicion. and secondly the witness today, the forensic photographer, was made to look either a liar or incompetent or both. Roux could use this as evidence of an unfair trial. That's what got OJ Simpson off the hook. I'd rather see OP getting a fair trial.

 

[Val1]

I know it's police procedure for the cameras taking evidentiary photos to have an accurate time stamp

That they are NOT being used as evidence was the very reason why Nell objected to these photos being used by Roux.

Perhaps they were taken legitimately and on the same day and time by someone else, but the fact remains, the photos Roux was using to try and confuse the witness are not in evidence and it sure sounded like Roux was in no hurry to do so, he just wanted to obfuscate the evidence that this witness was presenting.

 

[minor4th]

I just want to say thank you to Minor4th for all the thorough explanations from a legal perspective of what is happening in the court room and why. I make a point of looking out for your posts because I find them objective and informative. Thank you

:tyou:

 

[minor4th]

That they are NOT being used as evidence was the very reason why Nell objected to these photos being used by Roux.

Perhaps they were taken legitimately and on the same day and time by someone else, but the fact remains, the photos Roux was using to try and confuse the witness are not in evidence and it sure sounded like Roux was in no hurry to do so, he just wanted to obfuscate the evidence that this witness was presenting.

So a police Colonel just happened to be on scene taking pictures for his personal use with a whacky time stamp that also just happens to coincide with the official photographer's time stamps?

That's a reach IMO

Any police officer taking pictures of a crime scene knows that those photos are evidence and have to be turned over to the defense. Even if they are just off hand photos they take from their cell phones.

 

[foxbluff]

BBM - she wasn't planning to stay the night. She sent a text later that evening to say it was too late to drive home so she was going stay over.

Wow... I did not know that. It would be interesting to know what time that text was sent.

And, BTW, good catch on your part, James83!

Jumping off soozie's post: This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that, not only did they have a big fight, I suspect she "dumped him" and was headed home.

It has always seemed to me that a three-month breakup is a popular timeframe for couples who are all wrong for each other.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I know it's police procedure for the cameras taking evidentiary photos to have an accurate time stamp

Do we know that the official photographer, VS, even knew at that time that another photographer was going to be there too? If he didn't he would have no reason to check that the camera timings were synchronised. VS would have synch'd his camera with SA time.

With respect to the crime scene, once the initial photos recording the scene accurately have been taken, it is perfectly normal to move items in order to check for obscured evidence. In fact one would not be doing one's job if one failed to do this. This evening a crime scene photographer was interviewed in SA (shown on UK TV) who stated just that. Roux doth protest too much IMO.

 

[steveml]

It's not that any of the single incidents of mishandling/moving/stepping on/contaminating of the crime scene is in itself conclusive of anything - it's the fact that all of the police witnesses have been shown to be either biased, untruthful or incompetent. And that casts doubt on the entire crime scene so that one has little confidence that the photos are reliable depictions of the scene as it was immediately following the incident - and it casts doubts on the various officer's credibility.

Those are judge issues to decide what weight and credibility to give each piece of evidence and each witness' testimony.

I notice that you say Police witnesses are either incompetent, biased and untruthful, but say little about independent witnesses. You have to be careful who you include as police witnesses, as many involved in this case do not work for the police. You can't keep continually going down the line claiming this person could have been bribed etc. You need to have a reason - suspicion is absolutely not good enough in a murder inquiry. If conspiracy is at play, then Roux needs to tell Reeva's family about it. Isn't that the least they deserve?

I don't care if the police have made a thousand errors as long as those errors don't alter the prospect of conviction or acquittal. There has to be a relevance to the case. You can't simply say that because a policeman moved a book before it was photographed, the crime scene is contaminated. Sure, he may have moved the book, but what matters is the relevance that object has in relation to contradicting evidence. If it doesn't become relevant to the case then it's a non-issue. This isn't a trial to see how good the police are - the police only had to face this horrible stomach-churning scene because of what a man did with a gun. They would each tell you that they'd rather not have received the call. Sometimes people look for forensic problems not because they're necessarily problematic to the case, but simply because they can use the legalities to ensure the case is quashed (in which case justice is never served).

 

[minor4th]

Do we know that the official photographer, VS, even knew at that time that another photographer was going to be there too? If he didn't he would have no reason to check that the camera timings were synchronised. VS would have synch'd his camera with SA time.

With respect to the crime scene, once the initial photos recording the scene accurately have been taken, it is perfectly normal to move items in order to check for obscured evidence. In fact one would not be doing one's job if one failed to do this. This evening a crime scene photographer was interviewed in SA (shown on UK TV) who stated just that. Roux doth protest too much IMO.

He says he didn't know Motha was standing right beside him in the hallway and the bathroom. And I'm not suggesting that they should have synched their camera clocks - I'm suggesting that both of them should have had accurate clocks on their cameras so that the time stamps on the evidentiary photos would be accurate. As far as I can tell, the State believes this too because they have not tried to claim that the clocks were off (because they weren't IMO).

Even if the clocks weren't perfectly synched, they each should have been very close to accurate since they were both documenting a crime scene. Can you imagine a police investigator trying to admit his crime scene photos, with the caveat that the time stamps aren't accurate because he didn't check his camera clock? If that happened, his whole compilation of crime scene photos would be basically dismissed because they're unreliable.

The point is - it's questionable, or even doubtful, that the initial photos recording the scene are reliable because there were other people present in the crime scene and at least Van Staden cannot testify as to whether they were or were not moving evidence or compromising the crime scene.