Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[Cherwell]

Think of the judge as if she were a jury. The evidence has to be presented to you in court. A lawyer can't keep something back that hasn't been presented, even if it's in a bundle, or a bin liner.

Prosecution have shown their evidence, that's what they've been doing the last few weeks. They've rested now. It's now the turn of the defense. They will cross-examine OP eventually and can only refer to evidence that he has already seen. It's that straight-forward.

And the evidence has been presented to the judge, and disclosed to the defence. It just hasn't all been read out in court.

 

[soozieqtips]

SMS text messages recovered from the PHONE are one specific thing. WhatsApp data is one specific thing. OPs browser history is one specific thing. Etc, etc, etc... Different bundles of Evidence so it is important to nail down exactly which bundle Moller was testifying about, wouldn't you agree? :smile:

The WhatsApp messages were the ones Moller testified about, am I right about that?
Not the regular phone texts?

 

[steveml]

As it's a preview, it's not quite complete, unfortunately. Can't tell how much more there is.

Ah, thanks. I only skimmed through it. I'll see if I can get the complete story.

:smile:

 

[Gryffindor]

Think of the judge as if she were a jury. The evidence has to be presented to you in court. A lawyer can't keep something back that hasn't been presented, even if it's in a bundle, or a bin liner.

Prosecution have shown their evidence, that's what they've been doing the last few weeks. They've rested now. It's now the turn of the defense. They will cross-examine OP eventually and can only refer to evidence that he has already seen. It's that straight-forward.

Not sure if some have missed my earlier post but @DeboraPatta replied to my question regarding exactly this i.e. can the PT ask Oscar about e.g. the jeans outside
and her reply to me was:

@DeboraPatta : @Jilltweety they can examine on pretty much anything if it's relevant

Hope this helps.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

WhatsApp is an internet based texting and voicemail service.

Killer could have been told to check his voice mail by somebody who just sent a WhatsApp voice message. The GPRS times are in line with WhatsApp voice messages. Since all are roughly the same duration, first access could be WhatsApp receiving a message and downloading it to phone. Next two accesses could be killer listening to messages or sending message back.

WhatsApp is noted for it's use by cheating spouses, etc., because it leaves no trail on a phone bill like text messaging, history auto-deletes, and even deleted messages are permanently unrecoverable after 7 days.

I think this is definitely right unless
(If I have a have understood correctly from chats with my kids )
the user has a Whatsapp back up set up to ICloud then deleted messages can be retrieved by the phone user through iCloud. If that had been the case I guess he could have still deleted the back up's before handing the phone back in .

Please excuse my info if I am wrong as this is a big learning curve for me today.

It is a surprise to me that someone has not been charges with tampering with evidence over this phone .
I wonder how relevant the judge will view this to be or whether she can infer anything by it?
Just adding here :-
It certainly wouldn't appear to be the action of an innocent person, so no doubt Nel will question him about it . The explanation will likely be someone forgot they had it in their pocket ?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Did he really?

Why did Mr Nhlengthwa phone security around the same time as Dr Stipp then?

I don't have time until later today but I will try to find the section on video. He almost said it as an aside but it was quite clear.

 

[Gryffindor]

To clarify, if PT wish to raise other text, WhatsApp or other messages, conversations etc, then they can

 

[Viper]

Think of the judge as if she were a jury. The evidence has to be presented to you in court. A lawyer can't keep something back that hasn't been presented, even if it's in a bundle, or a bin liner.

Prosecution have shown their evidence, that's what they've been doing the last few weeks. They've rested now. It's now the turn of the defense. They will cross-examine OP eventually and can only refer to evidence that he has already seen. It's that straight-forward.

:facepalm: BIB1 The evidence was tabled, put in to evidence by the PT. They are not "keeping something back that hasn't been presented." They are waiting for the appropriate witness to take the stand to question him about much more of their evidence - that is already in evidence!

:facepalm: BIB2 The DT can and will access all of the bundles of evidence that the PT has tabled, not just what has been used in Court that we see "on TV," and the PT can use the "unseen" evidence as well. In addition, the DT will no doubt have new evidence that they will put in to evidence for the Court.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Another thing that I now find fascinating, in addition to him sleeping on the left side of the bed that night, was another thing that was also revealed by Sammantha when I listened closely to her testimony. Something else I had also missed.

She said she was at his home sleeping with him almost 4 nights a week for 3 years. And not ONCE in that entire 625 nights did she ever see him put the gun under the bed

Valentine's Day night he claims he did. I will need to hear mucho explanation for that little oddity.

Go to 33:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUAi5_ySYjo&list=UU8yH-uI81UUtEMDsowQyx1g&feature=share

But ....the defence will produce visitors and even a journalist who all say he did have a gun under or next to his bed and also one that was there several nights and witnessed OP getting up at night WITH gun after hearing a noise.
I DO get where you're coming from but it seems OP and his defence have an answer ready and waiting for most things! We need him caught out and lying on the stand to get rid of the reasonable doubt IMO.

 

[jay-jay]

The trouble with Moller ascertaining what's relevant and what's not about the messages is that he's a mobile phone expert, not a psychologist or relationship expert. There could be other incriminating messages that he dismissed as insignificant, but which might tell a fuller story of the dynamics between OP and Reeva.

Yup, I said exactly the same thing on a previous thread :thumb:

 

[steveml]

To clarify, if PT wish to raise other text, WhatsApp or other messages, conversations etc, then they can

The point I'm trying to make is out of the 1700 messages there were only 4/5 of any relevance (or shall we say incrimination). Roux has been through all the messages, and picked up on the ones that are of any importance, and consequently dealt with them.

The rest of the stuff is just filling, there's no bombshell there. There's no reason they're going to get any value out of the other messages. If there was Roux would have had it read in court. Prosecution aren't going to waste time going through 1000+ messages of what Reeva and OP like for their tea.

The reply you got 'if it's relevant' is entirely correct.

 

[Viper]

But ....the defence will produce visitors and even a journalist who all say he did have a gun under or next to his bed and also one that was there several nights and witnessed OP getting up at night WITH gun after hearing a noise.
I DO get where you're coming from but it seems OP and his defence have an answer ready and waiting for most things! We need him caught out and lying on the stand to get rid of the reasonable doubt IMO.

What I am saying is OP has/had a distinct habit of ALWAYS placing his firearm on the nightstand next to where he slept; which I find natural, normal. Placing it UNDER the bed is weird, and is a lie for the purpose of putting OPs eyes down under the bed so as not to see that Reeva was not in bed.

 

[steveml]

The trouble with Moller ascertaining what's relevant and what's not about the messages is that he's a mobile phone expert, not a psychologist or relationship expert. There could be other incriminating messages that he dismissed as insignificant, but which might tell a fuller story of the dynamics between OP and Reeva.

I agree with you Soozie, he isn't qualified to ascertain, but the DT have these experts available and have been through those messages with a fine tooth comb. There's no way they would let OP handle some kind of bombshell that hasn't already been dealt with. You'd sack them if they did that.

:smile:

 

[Feynman]

There's no real point in telling me it's misleading, as it's not my piece (that's why we I've included a link in the original post). We do this to show you where the source is, precisely so you don't end up blaming the poster.

You can contact Karyn Maughan, Legal Reporter at Enca if you find it misleading, but in the grand scheme of things is it really that important?

It's misleading and you posted it. Nothing wrong with letting you know, is there? And I do think it's important to distinguish between WhatsApp and itunes in this matter.

 

[jay-jay]

This still gets me...in the moment that terror washed over him, he remembered there were ladders outside, but didn't remember that a woman was spending the night in his bed.

Yup.

.. and why has he decided to leave this important 'fact' off his N/G PE, and yet it was so (apparently) central to his 'pivotal moment' of suddenly going from a state of calm to a state of terror (i.e. what he said in his bail statement: "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside" Yet the 'oh so important' ladders no longer appear important enough to be included in his PE hoh:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

But ....the defence will produce visitors and even a journalist who all say he did have a gun under or next to his bed and also one that was there several nights and witnessed OP getting up at night WITH gun after hearing a noise.
I DO get where you're coming from but it seems OP and his defence have an answer ready and waiting for most things! We need him caught out and lying on the stand to get rid of the reasonable doubt IMO.

If the judge finds he is guilty of the other firearms charges then surely that proves that he is capable of lying. By not admitting those offences he could have effectively given himself a bad character reference and proved he is capable of trying to cover up a crime ?
There was one opinion to that effect in a link that was posted earlier today .
If this is the case surely it will be bad for his murder charge and whether his version should be believed ?

 

[sorrell skye]

What I am saying is OP has/had a distinct habit of ALWAYS placing his firearm on the nightstand next to where he slept; which I find natural, normal. Placing it UNDER the bed is weird, and is a lie for the purpose of putting OPs eyes down under the bed so as not to see that Reeva was not in bed.

You've nailed it!

One of the things that's been bugging me is why the gun holster was found on the nightstand on the left-hand side of the bed if the gun had been on the floor.

I don't think the gun was on the floor at all. I think it was on the nightstand, but OP claimed it was on the floor for the exact reason you described. The location of the holster makes sense to me now. Thank You!

 

[steveml]

It's misleading and you posted it. Nothing wrong with letting you know, is there? And I do think it's important to distinguish between WhatsApp and itunes in this matter.

? Confused ?

 

[Viper]

I agree with you Soozie, he isn't qualified to ascertain, but the DT have these experts available and have been through those messages with a fine tooth comb. There's no way they would let OP handle some kind of bombshell that hasn't already been dealt with. You'd sack them if they did that.

:smile:

BIB. That is why, as many FM have said, Roux will question OP about any and all incriminating evidence first, to try to minimize the damage that will be following when Mr. Nel gets to hammer OP about that evidence.

 

[Insp.Dots]

I disagree, even with a history of healthy or normal relationships, a later relationship can become highly dysfunctional.

Reeva seemed intent on discussing and addressing those developing issues with Oscar according to her texts, imo.

I think Reeva was unlike any of his other girlfriends, she had strong values, morals and opinion and wanted to be 'equal' to him in the relationship, unlike others who seemed happy to let him take the lead. I have no doubt he genuinely loved her, but he just wasn't used to people who didn't bow down to his every whim.......Just the way I see it. MOO