Here's a sketch of what I'm thinking. It's not finished but I'd like to invite discussion sooner rather than later. If I've missed something vital that completely undermines it, I'd rather know now and divert my efforts! Equally, it still needs some refining so I'm hoping a bit of 'crowd sleuthing' will speed this up!
Witness testimony analysis 2
Some key points and assumptions it makes:
1. The earlier sounds that the Stipps hear are Reeva slamming the toilet door three times as she struggles with OP to close and lock it (see below)
2. The Stipps see the bathroom light is on at this point. This is damning to OP's version.
3. The Johnson call time is wrong. Burger's phone is fast (see below). The police could prove this but perhaps didn't recognise the need to
4. Burger and Johnson hear OP mimic Reeva's cries for help (mocking, sounded embarrassed). They don't hear his later shout for help because they have come inside and are talking
5. The trigger for OP firing the gun is the loud click made by an iPhone 4 when you enter your Passcode (thanks to Nick van der Leek and Lisa Salinger for this) because she is going to call the police
6. OP uses the bat after the gun, as he says
7. Nobody hears the cricket bat striking the door (the Stipps have also come inside to await Security and are talking)
8. Dr Stipp sees OP moving in the bathroom at a time OP says he is
I'm out this evening so may not have time to discuss anything until either later (UK time) or tomorrow.
The phone usage argument remains unchanged, although the precise logistics for the argument that EvdM hears on and off for an hour may change. The argument fits better if it is on the front side of OP's house (e.g. nearest EvdM) for her, and only her, to hear it. The fact that the security guards miss it is irrelevant as it's intermittent. She only hears Reeva because OP is keeping his voice down but Reeva isn't. She's confronting him. I'm wondering if the open door may relate to this period ... but would OP be downstairs on his stumps? The barging of the bedroom door follows when Reeva runs upstairs (with his phone?) and locks the bedroom door before running to the bathroom after he pushes it open.
A couple of other points:
Toilet door slamming
I think OP was convincing when he argued that Reeva wouldn't have answered him when she was in the toilet because she was scared. He points Nel to a previous episode in her life. In his version, she wouldn't know what was happening outside the toilet and wouldn't have risked giving herself away. I think that is totally plausible (even though Nel doesn't). But what is not therefore plausible in this version is Reeva slamming the door after he has been screaming and shouting: she would have closed it quietly. It was this that put me on to thinking about door slams being what the Stipps heard. Does OP use real events: the door slamming, pulling on the handle, barging the door, but in a different context?
Johnson call time
Johnson provided the time in his statement from the phone itself and subsequently voiced his concerns to Roux about its accuracy by asking where the reference to times was taken from.
Roux: We have the time
Johnson: Mlady, can I ask the reference to the times, were they taken from my statement or were they taken from a central time server which I would assume the cell phone provider would have available?
Roux: Mr Johnson, Im curious about it, because you explain to us, and we know your cell phone data, we know thats the central data, we know you put it in your statement. You know you would not lie to the policeman and say it was 3:16 and the duration 58 seconds. You said to us that you checked it. Thats why Im saying to you, and we received ... let me help you, we received from the police the time calls were made by the accused. The exact time calls.
Johnson: Thank you
The exact times calls were made by the accused?! How does this help? Johnson has been duped by Roux into believing the time of his call has been verified but it was never corroborated against any other objective evidence (Strubenkop call log or the cell phone provider's records).
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/strathclyde-university-urged-strip-oscar-4490542
Do you think that the University of Strathclyde should strip OP of his Honorary Degree?
Yes 30% No 70%
Please vote at above link!
I agree! Meanwhile, I'm continuing to work on what really happened with what information we have and think I'm close to having a version that fits all the objective facts. I know there will be no re-trial but I still want to get as close to the truth as possible. I am now convinced the bat comes after the gunshots ... but before anyone fears I'm doing a complete about face on OP's guilt, I also think he knew Reeva was in the toilet. More to follow.
Robyn Curnow ?@RobynCurnowCNN Oct 21
Prison official to CNN: #oscarpistorius is a 'B' group prisoner. Only allowed 2 no-contact visits during a weekend and 45 over the year.
Originally Posted by Estelle
"My attacker was jailed. Do I have to be grateful?
As a female victim of male violence, things could always be worse. But despite what society and the media tell us, there are no “small mercies”, and we don’t have to be grateful."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/my-attacker-was-jailed-do-i-have-be-grateful
There is some reference to OP in this article which prompts my question: "Should the Steenkamps now feel grateful that OP is in prison?
It's not always easy to see that you're being emotionally abused. In fact, this is normally how it plays out. The abused senses that something is wrong. S/he speaks out. The abuser does what s/he does best and the abused apologizes. The cycle repeats itself until something gives.
- Mr Sandman, CNN comments
Thank you Mr. F - very thought provoking! And thank you for ALL your insight, time & analyst with regards to this trial, so helpful. Much appreciated.
I am still absorbing the new "tweaks" to your original thoughts on the above. But would like to specifically ask at this time a question with regards to the call logs & Mr. Johnson. Suggesting Roux was actually using "the accused" version of times to support the "exact time of the calls". But how would Nel ever allow that?
Would a seasoned prosecutor like Nel allow something so key as the official time of every call made, received, etc to be based on "the accused"? Wouldn't Nel make sure the times were validated through cell phone providers & Strubenkop call logs, etc?
I understand that the verbiage Roux uses with Mr.Johnson is very suspect & could be interpreted as that. Perhaps he is just saying.."we received from the police . . . . the time the calls were made by accused". Not that the accused provided them. The whole thing sounds weird, because Mr. Johnson is asking about the acurracy of the calls HE MADE. So you're correct, why would Roux even mention "the accused" call records from police? Mr Johnson didn't call the accused on his phone.
It's just hard to even imagine that Nel would let something as important as this slide.
I just feel we can't advance this without the exhibits.
We need to know whether there were any independent, primary sources for the call times, or whether in fact the security phone log is basically it.
How can we get this information?
The bats have always been a red herring in my view.
Long ago a superb refutation of the bats was posted by someone here - along the lines of how unlikely it was that multiple witnesses would mistakenly hear a woman screaming and shot to death 4 times - but wouldn't you know it? Only 5 mins previously she really was shot 4 times to death!
The judge said these exhibits were not to be made available to the public but only because they reveal individual's phone numbers. If they could be abbreviated like OP's was (e.g. 0020, 4949) then perhaps they could be? I'll try and follow it up. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we have.
Just voted then - must admit I'm surprised at the way the votes are falling. No offence but I thought you'd made a typo with the balance of 'Yes' vs 'No'. I thought it would be the opposite.
No. I'll contact Moller again and ask if some form of redacted phone exhibits can be made available. I only asked BB one question and I'm not sure if he's following it up or not. He asked for more info, whi I provided, and that was it. I'll chase this too and see if I can whet his appetite for some real investigative journalism!
BIB - it was Nastaya, who wrote some great posts, as did Trooper, Shane, and Viper - all of whom have been sadly missing for some time.Respectively snipped. BIB I think that was Nastaya, another very interesting poster like Shane13 who has not been seen for some time.
BIB - Jimmy Savile made millions for charity, which just goes to show there can be ulterior motives for being (publicly) seen to be generous. For OP, I believe Nel mentioned it would have raised his public profile, which would have been beneficial to OP, from a financial point of view at least.Lith, I was surprised too in the poll numbers. For me, however, it was a pleasant surprise.
Before I give the analogy I came up with to help me decide how I would vote, I need for everybody to understand that I by no means put OP on the same level as Jonas Salk.
Analogy: Suppose Jonas Salk had killed his wife after he came up with the cure/prevention of polio. Should he then be stripped of all honors, etc. which had been bestowed on him?
Imo, OP's charitable work/donations did a lot of good and continue to do so. I don't think his credit for that should be removed.
SnippedThe bats have always been a red herring in my view.
I see you agree.
Long ago a superb refutation of the bats was posted by someone here - along the lines of how unlikely it was that multiple witnesses would mistakenly hear a woman screaming and shot to death 4 times - but wouldn't you know it? Only 5 mins previously she really was shot 4 times to death!
I doubt very much she would have got that precise information, bang... bang bang bang - from anywhere. It fitted in completely with Mangena's testimony, which is why I couldn't understand why Masipa stated all the shots were fired in quick succession. Did she even explain why she totally discarded Mangena's testimony?Snipped
Burger's bang....bang bang bang is one of the best bits of prosecution evidence IMO.
Even if you're sceptical about her ability to hear screams that far from OP's house, or her ability to distinguish male and female screams, the fact that her description of the pattern of the sounds matches exactly with Mangena's forensic evidence of the gunshots is compelling.
I'm working on the basis that, at the point at which she gave evidence, no one other than the NPA, PT and DT knew that level of detail, so there's no way she could have known, short of having been told as much by one of the above. As Nel would say, "Am I right?"
Lith, I was surprised too in the poll numbers. For me, however, it was a pleasant surprise.
Before I give the analogy I came up with to help me decide how I would vote, I need for everybody to understand that I by no means put OP on the same level as Jonas Salk.
Analogy: Suppose Jonas Salk had killed his wife after he came up with the cure/prevention of polio. Should he then be stripped of all honors, etc. which had been bestowed on him?
Imo, OP's charitable work/donations did a lot of good and continue to do so. I don't think his credit for that should be removed.