Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

Status
Not open for further replies.

mrjitty

On Time Out
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
10,249
Reaction score
79,358
I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

Now also - and this is critical.

Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.
 
I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

Now also - and this is critical.

Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.

BIB 1 and 2. Exactly.

Mr Jitty -
Regarding this appeal for leave to appeal do you think this is correct?
1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate
 
I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

Now also - and this is critical.

Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.[
/QUOTE]

BIB 1 and 2. Exactly.

Mr Jitty -
Regarding this appeal for leave to appeal do you think this is correct?
1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate

Where are you, mrjitty? This is driving me crazy! Would someone find mrjitty and let him know there are longstanding, unanswered questions here?
 
Where are you, mrjitty? This is driving me crazy! Would someone find mrjitty and let him know there are longstanding, unanswered questions here?

He's from NZ isn't he? Right now he's probably watching NZ playing Australia in cricket.

Sorry, L2L, no idea why it looks like I'm quoting myself and not you.
 
That's alright, Jake18... just another of life's little mysteries! Now, if we can only entice mrjitty away from that cricket to things of greater importance! BTW, thanks for your excellent and concise 5 point summary for which I'm daring to predict .... "desperate"!
 
That's alright, Jake18... just another of life's little mysteries! Now, if we can only entice mrjitty away from that cricket to things of greater importance! BTW, thanks for your excellent and concise 5 point summary for which I'm daring to predict .... "desperate"!


I agree, desperate. Desperate that this case doesn't get to the SCA, though (sad to say) I still have a concern that strings may be pulled at the top.
 
Yes, I see that's what the State's case was in essence. But I still don't see why the timeline is a huge white elephant. Surely one of the strands of deciding whether to believe a witness' version involves looking at what else corroborates it and what contradicts it. All the things that Nel said were a problem seemed to me to be things that could be explained or could be mistakes. And Roux's timeline is hard to dispute and indeed Nel didn't even try. Do you say then that an experienced court will look at the timeline and say, oh well, that doesn't matter because of his poor testimony? I'd expect them to see that the evidence from the neighbours agrees with his version and conclude that it represented very strong evidence in his favour, at least as regards the primary case. DE is another matter but I was talking about the DD case.

If you don't want to discuss further as all this is just repetition to you now, I understand.

Go ahead and explain the crime scene photos not matching OP's testimony. Not only not matching but making his story impossible. We really don't need to go further than this and neither did Masipa if she was competent or not corrupt.
 
Hold on. The defense is applying to leave to appeal the state's granted leave to appeal??

Good grief.

At the hearing back in December Roux already argued against the state's application to leave for appeal. I remember him telling the court that the appeal had no chance of success. Really Roux? If that were true, you would not be desperately trying to block the state from presenting the case to the SCA.

He obviously is very worried about the outcome. As he should be... His client clearly committed murder.
 
I could go on but we already had these discussions last year

RSBM

Ugh, indeed. This is well covered territory. We have discussed it ad nauseam. It's time to quit beating that dead horse.
 
Continue discussion here...

stupid-indubitably_zpsz3ojxjmi.gif


link to previous thread
 
Go ahead and explain the crime scene photos not matching OP's testimony. Not only not matching but making his story impossible. We really don't need to go further than this and neither did Masipa if she was competent or not corrupt.

OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.

I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.

It seems as though an accused in this situation is expected to have perfect recall of an event and to stick to that possibly shaky and perhaps contaminated memory when the prosecutor argues that his evidence isn't possible. It seems that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he sticks with the fan being where it was in the photo then the prosecutor can say this is impossible as he couldn't go out on to the balcony, and if he says, well, it must have been further over, then he's accused of changing his story and tailoring. This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.

Is that what you meant?

I suspect that I'll be told again that the accused must provide a basis for their version but whilst I see that I don't see how this relates to the burden of proof. As far as I can see, an accused even in a self-defense or PPD case in SA does not have to prove their version is true - it is up to the State to show that it can't be true. Anyone got any links to SA judgements in which this aspect is explained? Or to an earlier discussion, for that matter.
 
OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.

I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.

It seems as though an accused in this situation is expected to have perfect recall of an event and to stick to that possibly shaky and perhaps contaminated memory when the prosecutor argues that his evidence isn't possible. It seems that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he sticks with the fan being where it was in the photo then the prosecutor can say this is impossible as he couldn't go out on to the balcony, and if he says, well, it must have been further over, then he's accused of changing his story and tailoring. This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.

Is that what you meant?

I suspect that I'll be told again that the accused must provide a basis for their version but whilst I see that I don't see how this relates to the burden of proof. As far as I can see, an accused even in a self-defense or PPD case in SA does not have to prove their version is true - it is up to the State to show that it can't be true. Anyone got any links to SA judgements in which this aspect is explained? Or to an earlier discussion, for that matter.

Rather an easy way out for the accused to make an unsubstantiated claim of contamination of the crime scene by police… OP repeatedly and vociferously argued that proof of the contamination would be forthcoming but it never was, was it ?

What difference would it have made if police investigators had worn overalls and shoe coverings ?… there is no DNA, fingerprint, foot print, residue transfer, etc... evidence in the State's case… Roux's whole bit about contamination was a red herring.

As for OP's memory… it is obviously and strangely very selective… it is highly detailed and specific on some aspects (… because they establish his defence) but very fuzzy and uncertain on other aspects (… because they would jeopardize his defence).

As for what the photos show… perhaps looking at each element in a vacuum, one could possibly make the case that they don't amount to much… However this is NOT how evidence should be examined in a criminal Trial… evidence is looked at as a whole, as a portrait... not item by item in a piecemeal fashion.

According to OP :

A. The small fan was plugged in, turned ON, at the head of the bed (next to the large fan on the left)

B. The large fan was turned ON, at the head of the bed (next to the small fan on the right), orientated towards the occupants of the bed

According to the photos :

A. The small was not plugged in, was turned OFF, was stored near the stereo (nowhere near the head of the bed or the large fan)… PLUS where the small fan should be according to OP, the photos show the duvet… PLUS there is no available outlet where the small fan could be plugged in.

B. The large fan was turned OFF, was between the bed and the balcony doors (nowhere near the head of the bed or the small fan), was not orientated towards the occupants of the bed… PLUS where the large fan should be according to OP, the photos show the duvet… PLUS the large fan cannot reach the location indicated by OP without the multi-plug moving toward the corner of the bed.

The keystone of OP's scenario rests on those 2 fans : they were the reason why he could not see nor hear Reeva leave the bedroom.

For OP's version to be possible you must believe the following happened in sequence :

0. No one took a single photograph of the bedroom

1. Someone unplugged the small fan from the multi-plug, moved it and neatly gathered up the electrical lead

2. Someone turned OFF the large fan, moved it so as to impede access to the balcony and reoriented it 90 degrees

3. Someone moved back the multi-plug towards the nightstand

4. Someone plugged the rechargeable base of the hair clippers into the multi-plug and placed the hair clippers upright onto the rechargeable base

5. Someone moved the duvet where the fans used to be

6. Someone moved the jeans so as to have them slightly overlap onto the duvet

7. Someone gathered some of Reeva's blood in the bathroom and made a single blood trail which starts on the carpet and ends onto the duvet

8. Photographs are now taken to document the bedroom

One should remember that Police investigators had absolutely NO information whatsoever about OP's version of events during their investigation.

Therefore, the probabilities Police would be blessed with the uncanny foresight to successfully tamper with so many seemingly unimportant items in order to eventually contradict OP's version of events are infinitesimal at best.

The probabilities negligence and bad luck would be responsible for so many items being moved in precise sequence is also infinitesimal.

Whereas the probabilities the accused charged with murder would fabricate a version of events to avoid life in prison are quite good.

The fact a version conflicts so severely with so many secondary items is a telltale sign that said version is a fabrication… which is to be expected as the primary purpose of said fabrication is not to address these unimportant items but rather to provide a "plausible" alternate scenario to murder.
 
P.S.

Justifying all these incongruities in OP's version by saying they could be mistakes or memory troubles is not very reasonable to say the least :

1. OP moved the items himself… he should therefore have a clear recollection of his own actions

2. OP moved these items before the stressful situation began

3. OP went back and forth from the bedroom to the bathroom… he witnessed the bedroom and the items several times

4. OP went back upstairs after he brought Reeva downstairs… he again witnessed the bedroom and the items

5. OP went back upstairs a second time after the paramedics had arrived… he again witnessed the bedroom and the items

6. OP studied the photographs of the bedroom and the items… yet no claims of tampering on these specific items were made until OP was being cross-examined about them.

It's not surprising… the State must disclose all the evidence but not their strategy or line of questioning…

OP prepared and rehearsed everything he could possibly think of... BUT he could not prepare nor rehearse for what he could not anticipate… which is basically how you unmask a liar and his lies.
 
OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.

The photos do depict the scene at the time of the shooting, the police said so, and why on earth would they move around key items before taking photos? makes no sense, and no evidence of it. Rensburg not being accurate on who went up first upstairs has NOTHING to do with evidence being moved the scene 'contaminated' at all. It is a non sequitur.

I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.

You are missing the point. A mistake of memory does not excuse the fact the photos make OP's story impossible. I am not sure if you are aware of the gravity of the fans, because Op's whole story revolves around moving them because it gave Reeva the opportunity to slip past him without him noticing. If the big fan was moved to front of the bed as OP claims then the duvet could not have been under it. The small fan which he INSISTS was also plugged in could not have been because there was no room for it on the adapter. So you see the tangled web of lies? His story cannot be true according to the photos.


This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.

How does the state prove crime scene photos do depict the relevant scene accurately? I thought it was to be assumed they are not lying and the photos are accurate, rather than trusting the accused. If we take your line of reasoning then we might as well throw out all crime scene photos.
 
mirage1 - yes. The fans were central to OP's whole fairy story.

The photos prove his version(s) were utter rubbish. Remember how he was able to correct Nel on the smallest of detail regarding other things, and yet his memory conveniently failed when it came to the mystery of the fans, which was what his whole defence was based around!
 
Not the fans matter now as they are to do with the facts of the case and not the law, but his memory did not conveniently fail wrt the fans.
 
The photos do depict the scene at the time of the shooting, the police said so, and why on earth would they move around key items before taking photos? makes no sense, and no evidence of it. Rensburg not being accurate on who went up first upstairs has NOTHING to do with evidence being moved the scene 'contaminated' at all. It is a non sequitur.

You are missing the point. A mistake of memory does not excuse the fact the photos make OP's story impossible. I am not sure if you are aware of the gravity of the fans, because Op's whole story revolves around moving them because it gave Reeva the opportunity to slip past him without him noticing. If the big fan was moved to front of the bed as OP claims then the duvet could not have been under it. The small fan which he INSISTS was also plugged in could not have been because there was no room for it on the adapter. So you see the tangled web of lies? His story cannot be true according to the photos.

How does the state prove crime scene photos do depict the relevant scene accurately? I thought it was to be assumed they are not lying and the photos are accurate, rather than trusting the accused. If we take your line of reasoning then we might as well throw out all crime scene photos.

Why do they lock down scenes of crimes if it is not to be clear that the photos of the crime scene are an accurate reflection of the scene at the time of the crime or as soon after as possible? Since they didn't in this case, the photos can't be taken as accurate. There is considerable evidence that the scene was attended by a number of people before the photos were taken, and these people's evidence is contradictory. Moreover, we can imagine that the position of fans and plugs was the last thing on anyone's mind in the early stages of this case. So:
1. The State didn't call two policemen who claimed to have been there before Col. van Rensburg. Why not? They could have explained why there was a discrepancy between their's and van Renburg's testimony and then stated what they saw and did while they were upstairs.
2. Van Rensburg's evidence was also contradicted by Botha's in regard to where Oscar was when Botha arrived - clearly Col. van Renburg couldn't have gone upstairs with Botha when Botha hadn't yet arrived. Something is very amiss with his evidence.
3. We also know that Col van Rensburg did touch the plugs at some point as there is a photo of this, and we know from his testimony that he went out onto the balcony on arrival, apparently without moving anything, which might explain the angle of the fan or indeed it's position. He also said in cross that he picked up the fan, the big silver fan, but Roux was fishing for something else and didn't follow up the point.

So how anyone can claim that the photo evidence is a true reflection of the scene, I don't know.

I do see the significance of the fans and duvet. But only the duvet was in that position for sure. Oscar might have just been mistaken about the placement of the fans and the photo evidence doesn't prove otherwise if it doesn't reflect the true scene at the time.
 
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...-more-privileges-in-jail-upgraded-to-a-status

Pistorius gets more privileges in jail, upgraded to A status

Pistorius' spokesperson, Annalise Burgess told the Daily Mail, that her client would now enjoy a wider range of privileges. These would include personal contact with visitors - he would be allowed to hug and kiss them and a substantial allowance to buy toiletries and treats.

The Daily Mail also reports that Kgosi Mampuru prison authorities believes he poses little threat and this influenced their decision to upgrade his category status which comes two years after he shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius will also have the freedom to pick a hobby of his choice and wear jewellery.
 
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...-more-privileges-in-jail-upgraded-to-a-status

Pistorius gets more privileges in jail, upgraded to A status

Pistorius' spokesperson, Annalise Burgess told the Daily Mail, that her client would now enjoy a wider range of privileges. These would include personal contact with visitors - he would be allowed to hug and kiss them and a substantial allowance to buy toiletries and treats.

The Daily Mail also reports that Kgosi Mampuru prison authorities believes he poses little threat and this influenced their decision to upgrade his category status which comes two years after he shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius will also have the freedom to pick a hobby of his choice and wear jewellery.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-

"Clearly, the Correctional Services Department has a short memory [about what Pistorius did]," Reeva's uncle, Mike Steenkamp, said to Times Live. "If they grant these things, they must think he is a model prisoner." - See more at: http://www.gospelherald.com/article...ed-prison-privileges.htm#sthash.rP25Mpvo.dpuf
 
Why do they lock down scenes of crimes if it is not to be clear that the photos of the crime scene are an accurate reflection of the scene at the time of the crime or as soon after as possible? Since they didn't in this case, the photos can't be taken as accurate.

As you see it, all police photographs in all criminal cases should be deemed inaccurate and unreliable… since no crime scene was ever photographed before anybody (police officer, police investigator, paramedic, etc) had done a walkabout to ascertain the situation.

There is considerable evidence that the scene was attended by a number of people before the photos were taken, and these people's evidence is contradictory. Moreover, we can imagine that the position of fans and plugs was the last thing on anyone's mind in the early stages of this case. So:
1. The State didn't call two policemen who claimed to have been there before Col. van Rensburg. Why not? They could have explained why there was a discrepancy between their's and van Renburg's testimony and then stated what they saw and did while they were upstairs.

Yes, authorized and mandated individuals went into the bedroom, bathroom and everywhere in OP's house to do their job… that does NOT constitute evidence that the crime scene was altered or tampered.

Nel didn't call the 2 policemen… why would he ?… It is not for the State to call upon witnesses in attempts to establish that the unsubstantiated claims made the Defence are wrong.

What is surprising is that Roux didn't call those 2 policemen.

BTW, who are those 2 policemen ? Who made the claim they arrived at the scene before Col. van Rensburg ?

2. Van Rensburg's evidence was also contradicted by Botha's in regard to where Oscar was when Botha arrived - clearly Col. van Renburg couldn't have gone upstairs with Botha when Botha hadn't yet arrived. Something is very amiss with his evidence.

I don't recall Botha testifying… so how can Van Rensburg's evidence be contradicted by Botha ??

3. We also know that Col van Rensburg did touch the plugs at some point as there is a photo of this, and we know from his testimony that he went out onto the balcony on arrival, apparently without moving anything, which might explain the angle of the fan or indeed it's position. He also said in cross that he picked up the fan, the big silver fan, but Roux was fishing for something else and didn't follow up the point.

Yes, a great many things were touched and moved after the scene was documented by photographs… that's perfectly normal and standard operating procedures in a crime scene investigation.

I'm not sure whether you are saying Van Rensburg was reliable and credible witness or not… some bits of his testimony you discredit (because they contradict OP's version) and other bits of his testimony you reaffirm (because they might help OP's version)

So how anyone can claim that the photo evidence is a true reflection of the scene, I don't know.

I do see the significance of the fans and duvet. But only the duvet was in that position for sure. Oscar might have just been mistaken about the placement of the fans and the photo evidence doesn't prove otherwise if it doesn't reflect the true scene at the time.

Why wouldn't the photo evidence be a true reflection of the scene ?… where is the evidence it is not ?…

Individuals who did not testify, unasked and unanswered questions, speculation based on possible events, etc certainly do not amount to proof that the photo evidence is not accurate.

2 questions whose answers may prevent futile discussions :

Is there any of State's evidence which contradicts OP's version of events that you find reliable and credible ?

Is there any element in OP's version of events which contradicts the State's evidence that you find unreliable or not credible ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,046
Total visitors
2,222

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,670
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top