Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[steveml]

What should she have told the court if she doesn't know what woke her?? As for waking and looking at the clock I do it all the time... JMO

How about 'I don't know what woke me'?

There is an innate human nature to try and say something rather than nothing when memory is questioned.

This is exactly what she did with phantom window man.

This is what causes so many problems with witness statements, and why they should always be tested.

 

[steveml]

Burglary is also the last thing to be expected in that complex.. see Capt Maritz testimony..


but the awful and an undeniable fact is, that a burglary DIDNT happen and a MURDER DID.


Quaecumque vultis, .. quid est illud esse.

it is what it is.. not what you want it to be.

Quaecumque vultis, .. quid est illud esse also applies to OP's statement.

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM

At the commencement of trial, one of Nel's first statements to My Lady was that the State's case and evidence was "largely circumstantial".

When I heard him say that, I knew right away there would be no 'smoking gun' so to speak, so I didn't anticipate one nor did I feel disappointed when there wasn't a grand finale, as it were. I suspect My Lady wasn't expecting a 'smoking gun', either, based on what the prosecutor said as he opened the State's CIC.

If the State's case is so allegedly weak, why, then, is OP planning to testify and risk incriminating himself? He isn't required to testify, yet he has chosen to do so. I find that very interesting. If the State's case is so weak, why didn't Roux then move for a summary judgment of dismissal after the State concluded their CIC? That's the one thing that surprised me, rather than the lack of a 'smoking gun'. We've read about other SA criminal cases in these threads when the Defense has done so. Curiously, Roux did not.

In every US trial I've watched, the Defense has always moved for a dismissal of charges after the State rests. I wonder if this is only done in SA when the Defense believes the State hasn't presented a solid case to the Judge? If so, it says a lot (to me) that not only did Roux not move for a dismissal, but that the accused is going to take the great risk of testifying.

Every criminal Defense attorney knows it's a dangerous gamble for the defendant/accused to testify, which is why it rarely happens. If the Defense possesses compelling evidence which they believe will refute the State's case, why is OP going to take the stand?

IMO, I think it's because the Defense believes the State has presented a solid case. I also think the Defense believes that the accused is their strongest witness. If so, it says a lot (to me) about the other testimony/evidence the Defense will present if they need OP's testimony to bolster their case.

Like everyone else here, I look forward to OP taking the stand. I'm certain that Mr. Nel is eagerly awaiting his opportunity to cross-examine him.

One of OP's legal team was asked by one of the reporters (possibly Alex Crawford but not sure) why OP was taking the stand. The answer was "We have to". Sounds as though they don't feel they can win the case without him taking the stand unless one of you clever people can think of some other reason. I am all ears.

 

[Viper]

I've read it - it absolutely does not refer to a time at all.

I'll use evidence rather than speculation thank you.

OP's bed/bath: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_4977/img/pistorius_3d_plan_624x400_clean.jpg

The safest place for RS looks like on top of the magazine rack. If she'd known OP had put down the bat and gone for the gun, a bet she'd have squeezed herself as tightly as possible in that left corner, rather than stand totally unprotected facing the door.

BIB. Reeva was standing where she was because she had no idea that Oscar was actually going to shoot her. If she did then she must have just frozen in place and she was pleeding for him not to, screaming for him not to, she had no where to hide.

 

[Trooper]

Quaecumque vultis, .. quid est illud esse also applies to OP's statement.

who has the bigger motive to lie?? Oscar??? or mrs VD merwe, mrs burger, mr Johnson mrs stipp and dr stipp?


who is on trial for their life?? Oscar or the ear witnesses??

who gains from a lie?? Oscar or the witnesses??


Qui prodest?

 

[BlueShoe]

Nah, not for me. That's the wrong way round.

In a safe neighborhood, murder would be the last thing you'd expect - not the first.

Unless you are OP. Then you expect that someone is about to murder you on the scantest of sounds.

 

[Mystymiss]

How about 'I don't know what woke me'?

There is an innate human nature to try and say something rather than nothing when memory is questioned.

This is exactly what she did with phantom window man.

This is what causes so many problems with witness statements, and why they should always be tested.

My under standing when your answering questions in court from an attorney you answer what he/she ask: Example What did you hear that night? etc.

Not really sure if he asked her did the sound of gun fire wake you up? She wouldn't know! JMO

 

[Trooper]

it really doesn't matter to me if the ear witness folks have caused such angst and fury to some. .. its of no consequence.. Judge Masipa will weigh up the probity of their testimony, and naturally, all fall under the 'innocent bystander' article of common law and South African law.. they are so far removed from connection to Oscar by family ties, or business ties, or even neighbourly ties.. * none of them knew him at all.

The innocent bystander law covers those who are by no fault or plan of their own dragged into a crime by virtue of being at their own business at a particular time unrelated in any way to the crime.

and these people fulfil that criteria in spades... in their own homes, in their own beds, minding their own business, paying their bills, unrelated and uninvolved with the perpetrator at any conjunction of his and their lives..

their testimony counts..

 

[DebinGA]

It's a boon for RS that the neighbor witnesses are articulate professionals uncowed by Roux's credentials/blustering. At least the Stipps and Ms Burger are iirc.

 

[Trooper]

if there is an expectation that Judge Masipa will throw out their testimony , she herself will have to justify it. in detail and in writing.....and because of her experience on the bench , and the solid understanding of the 'innocent bystander ' law ingrained, keep in mind that if she does throw out their testimony she has to find, by law, a motive for their perjury, a benefit to their perjury and a determination to commit perjury as an injury to Pistorius and a persistant and malicious act of wilful contempt of court..


whats the chances of that happening??


to all 5?? together and collaboratively??

no chance, is what. that kind of reasoning and hoping it will happen is the stuff of fantasy so extended as to defy measurement.

 

[sorrell skye]

Remember aswell that the bathroom window is another change in his story

2013 "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised there was someone in the bathroom"

2014 "I heard the bathroom window sliding open"

2013 his words suggested someone was already in he bathroom

2014 the "intruder" has only just slid the window open.

Excellent points, James.

If an intruder (or intruders) had just slid the bathroom window open, then the intruder(s) would still be outside. Nowhere in either his BH affidavit or in his plea statement did OP mention hearing an intruder or intruders climbing in through the bathroom window - which would have created a great deal more noise than the sound of the bathroom window sliding open.

It was a hot night (according to witness testimony - which was why so many of the witnesses were sleeping with their balcony doors/windows open).

IMO, OP's bathroom window had likely been open all night, as well as his balcony door, in order to create a cross-draft to help cool the master suite. If so, I think OP was well aware that it was already open when he allegedly heard the phantom intruder(s).

I think OP fabricated the sound of it opening to try to bolster his claim that he thought an intruder had come into his bathroom. He forgot to mention, though, that after he allegedly heard the bathroom window sliding open that he heard someone climbing through the same window.

The nettlesome part of trying to rewind time (of which Trooper has so eloquently talked about in previous threads) when one is inventing a story, is that one forgets to include crucial details that are reality-based and would provide a modicum of plausibility to one's story.

 

[minor4th]

Just find this about the bat/sound test for interests sake.
http://www.alexanderjason.com/SoundTest.pdf

Hahaha ...responding to youtube and internet trolls

 

[patCee]

It's a boon for RS that the neighbor witnesses are articulate professionals uncowed by Roux's credentials/blustering. At least the Stipps and Ms Burger are iirc.

Agreed, and not just any professionals, but people who work in environments where they are dealing with people who are stressed/distressed and hearing and discussing their stories with them. This will add to their credibility in the court.

 

[minor4th]

If you accept that the Stipps heard gunshots at 3-310, you can't then just disregard their claim to have heard gunshots at 317 simply because it's not convenient, and doesn't fit OP's version of events.

However, I agree that the two sets of bangs need to be explained and a theory presented by the prosecution. How do we know for certain that the first and second sets weren't gunshots? We have evidence of four gunshots, not evidence that there were ONLY four gunshots.

But let's assume for a minute that the first set were shots and second the bat. What was OP doing for 10-17 minutes after the shots and before he broke down the toilet door? That's a heck of a long time to be doing not very much, when you've just shot someone four times and you've just realised it was your girlfriend. Even though he says he realised it must have been RS as soon as he found the bed empty, he still takes 9-16 mins to break the door down. He doesn't phone anyone in the meantime. All he's doing is screaming 'like a woman'. And when he does eventually drag her out of the toilet and carry her downstairs, over a minimum of 12 mins after the head shot, SHE'S STILL ALIVE?

I didn't disregard the sounds at 3:17, I gave the reasonable explanation that they were cricket bat sounds.

And I don't know what Oscar was doing for 7 or 10 or 12 minutes or whatever but he was apparently not listening to Reeva scream during that time period

 

[Interested Bystander]

It's a boon for RS that the neighbor witnesses are articulate professionals uncowed by Roux's credentials/blustering. At least the Stipps and Ms Burger are iirc.

Totally agree. Their intellect seems equal to or above Roux's. I read an interesting comment about Roux which said that he "beats" the witnesses into submission with his incessant grinding. That is how he wins his cases. Well it isn't going to work with these guys/girls.

 

[sorrell skye]

PLUS Stipp has already said the bathroom window was closed.

When asked by Roux, Dr. Stipp testified that "it didn't appear to be open".

But Stipp also stated that he could see the left 1/3 of the window from top to bottom, indicating to me (based on the design of the window, as well as the frosted glass) that the window was open.

Crime scene photos show the bathroom window open.

I don't think Reeva opened that window when she fled into the bathroom & then into the toilet room.

IMO, that window had been open all night, which is the reason why the ear-witnesses were able to hear Reeva's terrified screaming and the subsequent sounds of the gunshots.

 

[Viper]

When asked by Roux, Dr. Stipp testified that "it didn't appear to be open".

But Stipp also stated that he could see the left 1/3 of the window from top to bottom, indicating to me (based on the design of the window, as well as the frosted glass) that the window was open.

Crime scene photos show the bathroom window open.

I don't think Reeva opened that window when she fled into the bathroom & then into the toilet room.

IMO, that window had been open all night, which is the reason why the ear-witnesses were able to hear Reeva's terrified screaming and the subsequent sounds of the gunshots.

Very insightful post, as usual.

I wanted to add that the photos show the WC window open as well. Mrs. Stipp said that the screams seemed to be coming closer to her at one point. I suspect that Reeva had opened that small WC window to cry for help, making her cries seem louder and clearer to Mrs. Stipp, who perceived that change as the screaming person moving closer to her.

 

[minor4th]

BBM

At the commencement of trial, one of Nel's first statements to My Lady was that the State's case and evidence was "largely circumstantial".

When I heard him say that, I knew right away there would be no 'smoking gun' so to speak, so I didn't anticipate one nor did I feel disappointed when there wasn't a grand finale, as it were. I suspect My Lady wasn't expecting a 'smoking gun', either, based on what the prosecutor said as he opened the State's CIC.

If the State's case is so allegedly weak, why, then, is OP planning to testify and risk incriminating himself? He isn't required to testify, yet he has chosen to do so. I find that very interesting. If the State's case is so weak, why didn't Roux then move for a summary judgment of dismissal after the State concluded their CIC? That's the one thing that surprised me, rather than the lack of a 'smoking gun'. We've read about other SA criminal cases in these threads when the Defense has done so. Curiously, Roux did not.

In every US trial I've watched, the Defense has always moved for a dismissal of charges after the State rests. I wonder if this is only done in SA when the Defense believes the State hasn't presented a solid case to the Judge? If so, it says a lot (to me) that not only did Roux not move for a dismissal, but that the accused is going to take the great risk of testifying.

Every criminal Defense attorney knows it's a dangerous gamble for the defendant/accused to testify, which is why it rarely happens. If the Defense possesses compelling evidence which they believe will refute the State's case, why is OP going to take the stand?

IMO, I think it's because the Defense believes the State has presented a solid case. I also think the Defense believes that the accused is their strongest witness. If so, it says a lot (to me) about the other testimony/evidence the Defense will present if they need OP's testimony to bolster their case.

Like everyone else here, I look forward to OP taking the stand. I'm certain that Mr. Nel is eagerly awaiting his opportunity to cross-examine him.

My point was, and still is, that many who are convinced that OP is guilty are still looking for more evidence because the state's case is simply not compelling enough to explain premeditated murder.

 

[nastasya]

Thanks MeeBee.

Agreed. It's been mentioned more than once by moderators.

lol there's nothing anybody can say to offend or upset me.

How stupid would it be to choose to be upset over something some strangers on an internet forum typed about me half way around the world?

We're all intelligent. Let's just choose to be happy no matter what other people type.

I never understood how or why some people sit around waiting for others to say something to be offended by. Why plan ahead to be upset??? lol

 

[kittychi]

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

In going with the witnesses' testimony that you listed above, why would you discount their testimonies about the screaming they heard?

Oscar claimed to have screamed words twice. No testimony has come close to saying they heard words screamed. A neighbor heard arguing and could not tell the language, but that was well before the screaming.

IMO Here is where Oscar tripped up: he should have said he thought it was a female intruder!

:wink: