Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Review:

Gunshots happened before the cricket bat hitting the door. (State's witness Vermuelen)

2 sets of bangs - one at 3:00 -3:10 and another at 3:17 (Dr and Mrs Stipp). They could not all be gunshots

All 4 gunshots were fired together in succession - not separated by minutes. (State's witness - Ballistics guy)

Burger and Johnson only heard the second set of bangs at 3:17, following screaming (State's witnesses - Burger and Johnson)

For the life of me I cannot understand how that can be interpreted in more than one way
 
Mrs.Stipp was already awake and their house is nearer to Oscars . That's why maybe they could hear the first set .. The Burger's house however was further and both were sleeping .Could be they were sleeping during the first set of shots (prob bat hitting ) and they woke up to the terrible screams and heard the following second set of shots.
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
Mrs.Stipp was already awake and their house is nearer to Oscars . That's why maybe they heard the first set .. The Burger's house however was further and both were sleeping .Could be they were sleeping during the first set of shots (prob bat hitting ) and they woke up to the terrible screams and heard the following second set of shots.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Seems the Burgers were furthest away so they didn't hear the first set of bangs. Same with the VDMs. The Stipps were the closest so they heard the most, especially the Mrs., who was already awake.
 
Some great posts, thanks all.

I'm busy but would will have to write down at a later stage (now that there's all this time ;)) where I will write about how the timing of Pistorius statement actions don't appear to work.

Just a quick note, which may have been already covered, about the two sets of sounds.

If the defense wants to posit that cricket bat sounds are as loud as a gun shot, which many have argued is just not accurate, then many bang sounds from a cricket bat... or even a plastic leg, could be used to make bang/boom sounds at the lower decibel of what the defense has said about the bat hitting the door.

- Like hitting the bat on a panel which reverberates the bath structure.
- From smashing bathroom tiles.
- If you are low on the floor, on your stumps and there may be someone you are following, even the floor could create enough reverberation.

More soon, thank for all the sleuthing :)
 
K.T said:
Some great posts, thanks all.

I'm busy but would will have to write down at a later stage (now that there's all this time ;) where I will write about how the timing for Pistorius statement actions don't appear to work.

Just a quick note, which may have been already covered, about the two sets of sounds.

If the defense wants to posit that cricket bat sounds are as loud as a gun shot, which many have argued is just not accurate, then many bang sounds from a cricket bat... or even a plastic leg, could be used to make bang/boom sounds at the lower decibel of what the defense has said about the bat hitting the door.

- Like hitting the bat on a panel which reverberates the bath structure.
- From smashing bathroom tiles.
- If you are low on the floor, on your stumps and there may be someone you are following, even the floor could create enough reverberation.

More soon, thank for all the sleuthing :)
Click to expand...

I think the thing that would sound most like gunshots would be wood on wood. The cricket bat on the door. I don't think the bat hitting the thin metal would sound like a gunshot. It'd probably be metally or tinny sounding. The bathroom tiles, same thing. It'd sound more piercing, like porcelain breaking. It may sound implausible, but someone has already done an amateur demo on youtube comparing the sound of a 9 mm firing to that of a cricket bat hitting a door. To my surprise, from a distance, they sounded almost identical. Very uncanny. So it really does seem possible and likely that one set of bangs was the cricket bat striking the door.
 
lisasalinger said:
YouTube

Start listening at 14:00

You'll need to listen for several minutes because it's a very long explanation of how he established phone numbers for each device, etc.

In summation, according to this testimony, Moller was the one who uncovered that there was a missing phone. Not sure on what day this occurred. He started processing the phones recovered from the scene on Feb 15 but I'm sure it took him some time to get records, etc

I suppose it's feasible that Nel and Botha found out at the bail hearing, while Moller was working away behind the scenes. There were numerous investigators working on the case.. if this all happened within a few days of each other, they each could have had pieces that weren't communicated to each other yet. I don't know, that's just a guess.

I definitely want to hear more about this as the trial continues.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of that is germane to the 5th phone.

At the Bail Hearing Roux said they have a 5th phone taken from the crime scene and the DT was in posession of it. Whoever took it is guilty of a serious crime under SA law--I checked that. your video of the Monday seems all about 4 phones--and getting them from Botha on the 15th.

What I wrote about is Nel (and tehn Roux) stipulating about the 5th phone at the very beginning of Tuesday which has been excised from vidoes of that day's onset. Videos of the Tuesday onset are different from all other videos which truly show the beginning of the day with everyone standing before anyone speaks.

Botha said on or about Feb. 21 or 22 that when Roux mentioned the 5th phone was the first he learned of its existence--for the obvious reason--it was illegally taken from the crime scene. I recall Nel "re-crossed" on this issue and he said he had first heard of its existnece when Roux mentioned the afternoon of the previous day. And so it is fascinating at the BH how Botha was ridiculled by Roux and the magistrate about a phone he only first heard existed less than a day earlier.

My only issue--since I sometimes have trouble making out SA English was whether it was the 30th of Feb 2013--which it sounded like to me, was when Nel noted on Tuesday's onset of court proceeding--was when he said DT handed over the phone to the Pros./cops.

The bottom line is that this issue is a clear cut case of tampering by the DT. No arrests, no investigation of who gave it to Roux and Co.--i.e. who committed this crime that affects the case severely as that phone could have been tampered with.

Clearly it was someone who was on scene shortly after the killing. And we know who those people are--or certainly the SAPS does.

It is not something that should be totaly ignored by the media--which it is.
And the beginning of Tuesday's first session can be compared with the videos of the beginning of other day's for the clear diffference shown. Mention of the 5th phone and when PT got if from DT has been excised.
 
With my limited English, I will try to put it to you :loveyou:abt the change in OP's version which included he had talked to Reeva some time before going to the balcony.

Acc to the 1st version , OP didn't know the whereabouts of Reeva at the time he went to the balcony. It was pitch dark and she could have gone to the loo before OP got up.... But then second version emphasizing that he had talked to her, OP tries to strenthen why he directly focused on an intruder rather than Reeva . Because he had talked to her it couldn't be her, she was just in bed. JMO
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
With my limited English, I will try to put it to you :loveyou:abt the change in OP's version which included he had talked to Reeva some time before going to the balcony.

Acc to the 1st version , OP didn't know the whereabouts of Reeva at the time he went to the balcony. It was pitch dark and she could have gone to the loo before OP got up.... But then second version emphasizing that he had talked to her, OP tries to strenthen why he directly focused on an intruder rather than Reeva . Because he had talked to her it couldn't be her, she was just in bed. JMO
Click to expand...

At first I thought this was desperation from DT. But perhaps itis more sinister. At BH, maybe Roux and Co. thoiught beating PM charge was the best they could hope for. But maybe now they are shooting for complete innocence on all possible carages incl. culpable homicide with this [sea] change?

They must have thought long and hard about this very significant alteration of OP's BH affidavit. Again to me points to things going on beneath the surfcae.
 
kittychi said:
BBM: i wonder if he will come up with a Youtube video of a man screaming like a woman :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

Lol, there are a ton of them on youtube so wouldn't surprise me :D
I wonder if the guy that did the gunshot tests had any idea that Roux would bring in up in trial, he must have been pretty chuffed. :)
 
shane13 said:
I don't think any of that is germane to the 5th phone.

At the Bail Hearing Roux said they have a 5th phone taken from the crime scene and the DT was in posession of it. Whoever took it is guilty of a serious crime under SA law--I checked that. your video of the Monday seems all about 4 phones--and getting them from Botha on the 15th.

What I wrote about is Nel (and tehn Roux) stipulating about the 5th phone at the very beginning of Tuesday which has been excised from vidoes of that day's onset. Videos of the Tuesday onset are different from all other videos which truly show the beginning of the day with everyone standing before anyone speaks.

Botha said on or about Feb. 21 or 22 that when Roux mentioned the 5th phone was the first he learned of its existence--for the obvious reason--it was illegally taken from the crime scene. I recall Nel "re-crossed" on this issue and he said he had first heard of its existnece when Roux mentioned the afternoon of the previous day. And so it is fascinating at the BH how Botha was ridiculled by Roux and the magistrate about a phone he only first heard existed less than a day earlier.

My only issue--since I sometimes have trouble making out SA English was whether it was the 30th of Feb 2013--which it sounded like to me, was when Nel noted on Tuesday's onset of court proceeding--was when he said DT handed over the phone to the Pros./cops.

The bottom line is that this issue is a clear cut case of tampering by the DT. No arrests, no investigation of who gave it to Roux and Co.--i.e. who committed this crime that affects the case severely as that phone could have been tampered with.

Clearly it was someone who was on scene shortly after the killing. And we know who those people are--or certainly the SAPS does.

It is not something that should be totaly ignored by the media--which it is.
And the beginning of Tuesday's first session can be compared with the videos of the beginning of other day's for the clear diffference shown. Mention of the 5th phone and when PT got if from DT has been excised.
Click to expand...

It is applicable to the 5th phone. Like I said, it's a very tedious explanation he gives but if you listen to all of it closely, Moller is talking about everything that he processed from the scene PLUS how he discovered there was an additional phone. This additional phone was tested via 3 different extraction methods (more than the other devices) including being brought to Apple in the US.

The 5th phone that somebody "hijacked" from the scene had the phone number ending in 0020.

Reeva had been primarily using this number for Oscar the evening of Feb 13, that is how Moller identified the phone number in the first place. But when he tried to match it up to the actual device that was seized in the house for Oscar, it didn't match. The phone seized at the scene for Oscar had a phone number ending in 4949.

Next... he looked at the Blackberries. Long story short, the Blackberries were old phones that Oscar hadn't used in months. He apparently had upgraded to two new iPhones. He did a sim swap where he swapped out the old larger Blackberry sim cards for smaller sim cards that would fit in to the iPhones.

All in all, Oscar only had 2 phones that he used - the 4949 phone that was seized at the scene. And the 0020 number that was in the possession of somebody other than the police (until February 26).

Reeva had one phone which was also seized at the scene.

Nel did say that the 0020 phone was turned over to the police on February 26, he said this at the very beginning of testimony.

There was no mention about the bail hearing situation during trial.

I understand your question about whether or not something pertaining to a stipulation had been cut out of all the online videos, and I'm really not sure. I have not seen or heard anything about that other than what you are saying.

There definitely was fishy bushiness going on with that phone. Nel did make a point though to bring it up in his presentation and he made a point to show in evidence that the phone was turned off sometime after 4am and left the scene around 8am that day according to phone records and pings. We will have to wait and see if it is addressed further. I agree that it absolutely should be!
 
minor4th said:
If the state has a theory of what the earlier gunshots were, if not gunshots, they are obliged to disclose that theory and make it part of their case. Nel has not disclosed any theory or made any kind of suggestion that the two sets of "gunshots" were anything other than the gunshots and the cricket bat hitting the door.

It is just not logical or reasonable to hold out for the state to put forth an alternate theory that is suddenly going to explain everything and make it clear that Oscar's statements are false. It's not going to happen - one has to be willing to accept the possibility that the state has little proof of their claims and that they won't be able to clearly show you that Oscar intentional killed Reeva.

All of these doubts that people are experiencing, wondering where is the smoking gun we're waiting for - that doubt exists because the state's evidence is not compelling enough and you want more. That, my friends, is reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
I agree. The state have made there play regarding their theory, and the questions asked of witnesses gives me no reason to believe they will even attempt to provide an alternative.

With regard to evidence already submitted, again I suspect all the heavy plays have been made. It's far too risky for the state to have a big disclose and not introduce it in prosecution.
 
Setting the record straight

1. Re the moon on the AM of the 14th February.
There was no full moon. It was a crescent and furthermore was not in the sky over Pretoria at that time.
2. RE Pistorius competing fairly against able-bodied runners. In 2008 Oscar and his team presented evidence to the CAS in Switzerland, based on videotaping and analysis by biophysicists from Rice University and elsewhere, that though OP has a slight advantage on the straightaway due to the spring in his baaldes, he suffers from disadvantage at the start of the race and on turns. His scientists proved to the satisfaction of the CAS that on average Oscar remains at a disadvantage as compared to able-bodied runners. I fully agree with their conclusion to allow OPO to race against able-bodied runners.
 
shane13 said:
At first I thought this was desperation from DT. But perhaps itis more sinister. At BH, maybe Roux and Co. thoiught beating PM charge was the best they could hope for. But maybe now they are shooting for complete innocence on all possible carages incl. culpable homicide with this [sea] change?

They must have thought long and hard about this very significant alteration of OP's BH affidavit. Again to me points to things going on beneath the surfcae.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps he remembered something later on and simply decided to include it.
If it strengthens his case then fine, he'd be foolish not to.
Any omission will be fair game for the state and they'll happily grill you for it, you don't need to give them a lift.
 
steveml said:
Or, perhaps he remembered something later on and simply decided to include it.
If it strengthens his case then fine, he'd be foolish not to.
Any omission will be fair game for the state and they'll happily grill you for it, you don't need to give them a lift.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He added a minor detail. If he outright changed something or one account was vastly different from the next, filled with inconsistencies, that would be a problem. So far, every account he's made has lined up. He remembered he'd spoken to her so added the detail. It's not like he completely fabricates something, the way Mrs. Stipp did, for instance.
 
One more thing to add to my phone post...

The last calls that the 0020 number made were to Pete Van Zyl. That was around 4am-ish. The phone was switched off after that. Then left scene at 8am.

In Roux's cross exam he asked Moller if he was aware who was using the phone at the time of those Pete Van Zyl calls and obviously he said no was not.
 
shane13 said:
I don't think any of that is germane to the 5th phone.

At the Bail Hearing Roux said they have a 5th phone taken from the crime scene and the DT was in posession of it. Whoever took it is guilty of a serious crime under SA law--I checked that. your video of the Monday seems all about 4 phones--and getting them from Botha on the 15th.

What I wrote about is Nel (and tehn Roux) stipulating about the 5th phone at the very beginning of Tuesday which has been excised from vidoes of that day's onset. Videos of the Tuesday onset are different from all other videos which truly show the beginning of the day with everyone standing before anyone speaks.

Botha said on or about Feb. 21 or 22 that when Roux mentioned the 5th phone was the first he learned of its existence--for the obvious reason--it was illegally taken from the crime scene. I recall Nel "re-crossed" on this issue and he said he had first heard of its existnece when Roux mentioned the afternoon of the previous day. And so it is fascinating at the BH how Botha was ridiculled by Roux and the magistrate about a phone he only first heard existed less than a day earlier.

My only issue--since I sometimes have trouble making out SA English was whether it was the 30th of Feb 2013--which it sounded like to me, was when Nel noted on Tuesday's onset of court proceeding--was when he said DT handed over the phone to the Pros./cops.

The bottom line is that this issue is a clear cut case of tampering by the DT. No arrests, no investigation of who gave it to Roux and Co.--i.e. who committed this crime that affects the case severely as that phone could have been tampered with.

Clearly it was someone who was on scene shortly after the killing. And we know who those people are--or certainly the SAPS does.

It is not something that should be totaly ignored by the media--which it is.
And the beginning of Tuesday's first session can be compared with the videos of the beginning of other day's for the clear diffference shown. Mention of the 5th phone and when PT got if from DT has been excised.
Click to expand...
I think we can safely presume that if Nel hasn't raised further issue with court, the matter has been dealt with by all parties.

Irrespective of any TV feed editing, there were reporters tweeting live from court and there's been no mention of a problem with this.

The last thing we need in this case is a conspira... no, I'm not even going to say it.
 
steveml said:
Or, perhaps he remembered something later on and simply decided to include it.
If it strengthens his case then fine, he'd be foolish not to.
Any omission will be fair game for the state and they'll happily grill you for it, you don't need to give them a lift.
Click to expand...

When the witnesses did that, Roux grilled them over the coals for doing so. He implied they were lying or manufacturing new stories when they added things they had failed to mention in their prior statements.
 
MeeBee said:
Agreed. He added a minor detail. If he outright changed something or one account was vastly different from the next, filled with inconsistencies, that would be a problem. So far, every account he's made has lined up. He remembered he'd spoken to her so added the detail. It's not like he completely fabricates something, the way Mrs. Stipp did, for instance.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I hope everyone is scrutinizing witness statements to the same effect.
It's one thing to imagine hearing an intruder, however Mrs Stipp actually saw an imaginary figure walking across the bathroom.
But it's ok, she didn't really. She made it up and then changed it...so all's good :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 161 more.
Total: 603 (members: 162, guests: 441)

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
441
Total visitors
603
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,406
Messages
18,047,015
Members
229,990
Latest member
pettylogic
Back
Top