GUILTY Uk - Emile Cilliers Accused Of Tampering W/ Wife's Parachute, Wiltshire, 5 April 2015

New Posts

  • #481
It looks like that may be it.
________________

13:55
Wife believed her husband would receive the life insurance payout
Mrs Cilliers, as it is alleged her husband did, believed that her £120,000 life insurance payout would go to him.


Cilliers was £22,000 in debt, the court has heard.


Cilliers, who now lives in barracks in Aldershot, Hampshire, denies two counts of attempted murder and one of damaging property being reckless as to the endangerment of life.


The trial continues.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-truth-police-interview.html#ixzz5EFqVAlgb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
  • #482
  • #483
Legally Bland said:
13:28
Cilliers 'damaged gas fitting to cause explosion', prosecution says
Prosecutors allege just a week before, Cilliers had damaged a gas fitting at the home he shared with his wife, now 42, in Amesbury, Wilts, in a bid to cause an explosion.

South African Cilliers, who was having affairs with two women and was in contact with prostitutes, had allegedly racked up debts of around £22,000 at the time. It is claimed he thought he would receive a £120,000 life insurance payout if Mrs Cilliers had a 'fatal accident'.

In fact, prosecutor Michael Bowes QC said the insurance money would go to his wife's estate if she was to die, but Cilliers was not aware of this.


13:36
Prosecution says wife changed her story
Giving evidence today at Winchester Crown Court, Hampshire, Mrs Cilliers said she was angry when police interviewed her after the horrifying accident.

When asked today whether she was concerned about the amount of time Cilliers had spent in the toilet with the parachute, she said she was not.

But prosecutor Michael Bowes QC said that was not what she had told police during her police interviews.


13:40
Victoria Cilliers says she was 'not telling the truth' during police interview
When Mr Bowes QC asked Victoria Cilliers whether she had told the police the truth, she said: 'I was not telling the truth.

'I am not saying I lied completely. I was angry and I elaborated throughout the statement to paint Emile in a bad picture.

'I know what I said in my police statement and I had a reason and a motive for doing that.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-truth-police-interview.html#ixzz5EFm9U2sI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

It almost sounds as if she's trying to get him off the hook :thinking:
 
  • #484
Just listened to the radio - link as above.

Very short 2 minute chat with the reporter - Nick Dewers - who is covering the trial.
Nothing new really - he just reiterated what we have already read in the newspaper articles and said that the court watched a video of VCs police interview and heard testimony from VC, who was saying - yet again - that she had lied in her interview.
Ended his report saying the trial is due to last several more weeks and they will be "" all over it"" ..........well, let's hope so.
 
  • #485
chimpface said:
It almost sounds as if she's trying to get him off the hook :thinking:
Click to expand...
Yes, it did the first time round. We were all puzzled then. I was rather hoping she'd desist from doing that this time, as I'd have thought she can't be sure how long he was in the loo, 3 minutes or 6.
 
  • #486
chimpface said:
It almost sounds as if she's trying to get him off the hook :thinking:
Click to expand...

I appreciate that her evidence re the timings was not completely truthful - but as far as I recollect, she only increased the timings by about a minute or two which surely is not a huge mistake. Why would she - or anyone else - be expected to remember, to the minute, exactly how long EC was gone for.

Which is why I find it rather strange that she consistently uses the word lie ( a very emotive word in this situation ) rather than simply saying she exaggerated slightly.
.
 
  • #487
Alyce said:
Just listened to the radio - link as above.

Very short 2 minute chat with the reporter - Nick Dewers - who is covering the trial.
Nothing new really - he just reiterated what we have already read in the newspaper articles and said that the court watched a video of VCs police interview and heard testimony from VC, who was saying - yet again - that she had lied in her interview.
Ended his report saying the trial is due to last several more weeks and they will be "" all over it"" ..........well, let's hope so.
Click to expand...

Whatever her reasons, and although it's annoying her testimony produces the same headlines before as if she had substantively lied and it made any real difference, the facts are so clear that we can only hope the jury see past her testimony to what seems very clearly to have happened.

Most of us of course being interviewed after someone had just tried to kill us and left us with multiple injuries would not feel the slightest bit inclined to paint the worst possible picture of that person.
 
  • #488
Alyce said:
I appreciate that her evidence re the timings was not completely truthful - but as far as I recollect, she only increased the timings by about a minute or two which surely is not a huge mistake. Why would she - or anyone else - be expected to remember, to the minute, exactly how long EC was gone for.

Which is why I find it rather strange that she consistently uses the word lie ( a very emotive word in this situation ) rather than simply saying she exaggerated slightly.
.
Click to expand...

Me too, Alyce. And it gets picked up every time by the media. Do we even know she was wrong in her timings the first time? Hasn't she just decided it was less rather than more time?
 
  • #489
Wow. Even if the husband is guilty it cannot be good to say

"'I know what I said in my police statement and I had a reason and a motive for doing that.'"

Motive? My goodness. If this shows she was not credible with statements made to LE and if this shows she had motives for lying then a jury is sure to question anything else she has said in the past and even the future testimony on the stand.

It is my understanding that a jury has to decide whether or not they want to believe witness statements. Even if people swear under oath a jury member has to decide for themselves whether the person is credible. They can choose to disregard any witnesses statements during a trial if they think they are not telling the truth.

And once it is proven to a jury that a witness has lied or admitting to lying then a jury will have a hard time trying to believe ANYTHING that person says ever again.

This is huge to the defense in this case. I will not be surprised if this causes the defendent to be found not guilty.

Unless other evidence that can be shown which has nothing to do with statements she made then maybe there can still be a conviction.

I have not followed this case so JMO
 
  • #490
This is an amazing case. I am just glad she survived the terrible fall.

Been reading some of the case now.

Not sure why he even went into the bathroom with her chute. That right there is a stike against him. Unless he had a valid reason to going to the bathroom it seems very strange right there.

There was something I read and cant find it now about him having to get her another chute because hers was not inspected in time or something like that. I think a lot more needs to be brought up at trial about that.

The defense could argue how they could not have planned this out since they may not have been aware that her original chute would not pass inspection.

She could also use that part to argue that he was the one in control of getting her another chute.

I knew someone that did jumping and one thing I remember him saying was he always was in control of his own chute packing. He even showed me his chute he kept at his house. He never would have jumped unless he himself packed it.

I find it very surprising she even jumped with someone else controlling any aspect of getting or accessing her chute. I am sure she knows this now though.

So glad she lived through this.
 
  • #491
Slightly OT

DB Cooper who was the famous airline hijacker asked to have multiple parachutes brought onto the plane. It was a very smart move on his part because it made authorities think the hijacker was going to make someone on the plane jump with him. So it prevented authorities from purposely rigging the chute where he would fall to his death.

They had to make all the chutes safe because they did not know if he was going to make someone else jump with him. Pretty amazing that Cooper thought about that in advance. Shows he really planned it out.

It was also interesting that a couple different styles of parachutes were given to Cooper on the plane. I think the chute that ended up missing and the one he allegedly jumped with was one that Cooper was most familiar with and if I remember the case right I think he chose a military style chute rather than one of the more modern styles. Which I think is how authorities suspected he had some military experience somewhere.
 
  • #492
Hatfield
This woman is an expert parachutist, and there has been a huge amount of technical evidence about the packing. I really don't see how you can tell them how they ought to be conducting that part of the trial.

No one has suggested she did it herself, not even Cilliers' defence, in the previous trial, so it just seems as though she wants to cast doubt on his guilt, nothing more. The 'reason and motive' as far as we have been told previously are just her feelings on being so badly injured and thinking he must have done it. No other suggestions have been made.

The trouble is that in this retrial we have been unable to see any reports of much of the evidence so we don't know what has been said or how much the context might affect how a jury perceives her evidence this time round. It's just puzzling, but I cannot see how it can undo all the evidence against Cilliers. However, even though I followed the case before, I now feel it's impossible to judge what's going on.
 
  • #493
Moll said:
Hatfield
This woman is an expert parachutist, and there has been a huge amount of technical evidence about the packing. I really don't see how you can tell them how they ought to be conducting that part of the trial.

No one has suggested she did it herself, not even Cilliers' defence, in the previous trial, so it just seems as though she wants to cast doubt on his guilt, nothing more. The 'reason and motive' as far as we have been told previously are just her feelings on being so badly injured and thinking he must have done it. No other suggestions have been made.

The trouble is that in this retrial we have been unable to see any reports of much of the evidence so we don't know what has been said or how much the context might affect how a jury perceives her evidence this time round. It's just puzzling, but I cannot see how it can undo all the evidence against Cilliers. However, even though I followed the case before, I now feel it's impossible to judge what's going on.
Click to expand...

What?

I think you misunderstood a lot of what I was trying to say. I never said she did it either.

I think she just uses a poor choice of words when she was talking about lying to the police.
 
  • #494
Hatfield said:
What?

I think you misunderstood a lot of what I was trying to say. I never said she did it either.

I think she just uses a poor choice of words when she was talking about lying to the police.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't. I am just spelling out the possible implications of thinking that what she says about lying, her motive etc might ruin the case - even knowing as we do that last time round it resulted in no verdict.

We are all frustrated by her choice of words, and have all talked at length about the choice of the word 'lied', second time round the same again,

But you've made a lot of comments about the parachutes, and said what the court needs to establish in that area, which seem to spring from not having seen just how much incriminating evidence there has been on all aspects of the technical 'failures'.

Sorry - I just felt a bit exasperated that you commented so forcefully without having followed the case. I'm actually as baffled for having followed it as if I hadn't, now...
 
  • #495
  • #496
Moll said:
I know you didn't. I am just spelling out the possible implications of thinking that what she says about lying, her motive etc might ruin the case - even knowing as we do that last time round it resulted in no verdict.

We are all frustrated by her choice of words, and have all talked at length about the choice of the word 'lied', second time round the same again,

But you've made a lot of comments about the parachutes, and said what the court needs to establish in that area, which seem to spring from not having seen just how much incriminating evidence there has been on all aspects of the technical 'failures'.

Sorry - I just felt a bit exasperated that you commented so forcefully without having followed the case. I'm actually as baffled for having followed it as if I hadn't, now...
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining. And yeah I really need to review much more about the first trial to get a better understanding of what was presented during first trial.

It is a very interesting case. Its so horrific to think someone could do what he is alleged to have done.

It reminds me of another case. The one where a scuba diver was alleged to have rigged the scuba gear of his new wife and she drowned.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/honeymoon-killer-gabe-watson-breaks-silence-details-wifes/story?id=15819106
 
  • #497
"He's taken tens of thousands of pounds off me. He told his girlfriend we were separated and that [our son] wasn't his and that I had an affair. This is not just my opinion, he admitted it all to the police".
Mr Bowes put it to Mrs Cilliers that she had been telling the truth when she gave her police statements. "You did not exaggerate, in fact you were being very fair. You are a former army officer. You are an upright and honest person, aren't you?"
Mrs Cilliers replied: "Yes, for the most part".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-43977328
 
  • #498
I think he's driving home that VC does not want to have responsibility for a murder conviction. She wants it proved without her evidence. IMO.
 
  • #499
I think you're exactly right, Tortoise. This is evidence for the prosecution and the technical evidence is pretty well watertight. It doesn't need to be her stressing the case against him. She's an honest woman with every reason to feel aggrieved - that last exchange you've posted spells that out.

I just wish the stupid papers wouldn't keep making it sound as if she'd lied about something material to the case as opposed to her impression of the time he took in the loo!
 
  • #500
Moll said:
I think you're exactly right, Tortoise.
Click to expand...
I remember her even saying last time that she may have used the pliers herself on the gas pipe then denying it again when Bowes re-questioned her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 109 more.
Total: 2,310 (members: 110, guests: 2,200)

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
2,200
Total visitors
2,310
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,828
Messages
18,632,359
Members
243,307
Latest member
Lordfrazer
Back
Top