Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Val1]

Yes in the UK That would be my expectation of an emergency call,they even kept me on the phone when I thought someone had broken into my house.
They kept speaking to me until the police arrived .
The thing that really puzzles me is why the Netcare operative or call recording weren't presented as evidence by the prosecution .
It indicates that OP may have been truthful about it or that Nel really thinks he has enough without it . I guess we will have to listen to the rest of the trial and hope this is cleared up .

Didn't someone say that voice call recordings are only saved for 7 days? Didn't OP's cell phone go "missing" in the defense's pocket for almost 2 full weeks?

 

[MeeBee]

If he were innocent he would not have to lie so much. That is why light, deck and fan information is important to his "story". His story makes no sense. I won't try to convince you again.

Night.

I just don't understand how the light bit can be categorized as a lie when it's not even clear what he said. I didn't even take it that he's actually covered it, just that he was going to but didn't get the chance. I just think there's a weird path being taken from point a to point b on this one.

It's like, "he never actually says he covered the light but he says he couldn't see anything so must be trying to say he did cover the light even though he didn't actually say that, therefore he lied." I'm just not following the logic.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

How weird, I read this post at this exact moment lol I was watching Sky & pressed pause to read some posts & guess what is paused on my screen? A transcript of OP's words "Of course I think of every single word I say when I'm sitting here".......spooky

Originally Posted by luvmygarden View Post
Originally Posted by 04009margaret
I think his whole story is a lie & he has now convinced himself that it's true, including emotions that go with that story. He only becomes distraught when he has to confront what he has done to Reeva & when he thinks of the consequences for himself.

xxxxxxxxxxx

OP is distraught because he said he doesn't know what the implications of his answers would be. He wants to give the answers that will keep him a free man. He is messing up with this attitude I fear.

OP didn't tell his family throughout the last months 2/2013-4/2014 about the sequence of event! Therefore his whole family had been shocked and cried in court.
No wonder, that he himself believes his intruder story. And he has to, otherwise he flies on his lies.

 

[kittychi]

I disagree that he has "repudiated much of his bail affidavit"

Did you miss the part where he threw Roux under the bus when he said his lawyer got it wrong?

He pretty much said it was brought to him and he signed it...that he was under emotional duress.

He doesn't even take responsibility for his own statement. If the bale hearing judge had known that, would he have been given bale? NO!

What a pathetic little man.

 

[Carol70]

::

Perhaps you didn't read the entire affidavit ...

"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. "

Lol, thanks you are right, didn't read until the end and I see that's when he mentions this.

 

[DebinGA]

Jeans thoughts
* hot day/night/ac not working
* RS washed her clothes at OP's that day
* RS seen in shorts and sleeveless top in late afternoon
* RS wearing shorts and sleeveless top when killed
* OP says RS jeans on bedroom floor
* women's jeans found outside

Would RS have been wearing freshly washed jeans that hot night? If so, would RS have left them on OP's floor, allowing him to add "slob" to his long list of her faults? What does it say about OP that he'd add that little dig about RS to his evolving narrative?

 

[nastasya]

Very possibly she locked it and then kept very quiet when OP shouted that there was an intruder.

Killer's new "version" is that he did not shout there was an intruder.

Killer's new "version" is that he shouted for intruder to leave his house (probably what he said to Reeva?) and he whispered to Reeva to get down and call the police.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I know there are some legal eagles on here....aren't clients usually instructed to give "yes" or "no" answers?? TIA.

 

[nastasya]

Oh, yeah. Especially since the gunshots were at 3:10 so Reeva was dead when these other witnesses heard a woman screaming in terror or whatever emotional descriptions they came up with.

If gunshots were at 3:10 then what caused arterial blood spurts all over the house at 3:20?

Killer testified victim was not breathing when he found her.

Photo of brain matter splattered on the back of victim's head, and ME testimony indicates she died almost instantly from head wound.

Do you actually believe her heart kept beating for 10 minutes? Then why so little blood in the bathroom?

 

[Val1]

::
I wish we could see true transcripts because I'm sure he said "I try not to lie"(in his day to day life) when Nel asked him about his religion etc, not "I"ll try not to" (on the stand, in the present).. Actually a huge difference between the two.

You don't need transcripts, you can hear it in his own words and decide for yourself, but you need to start at the beginning of the conversation for the proper context, imo.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

 

[nastasya]

Nope. That was the cricket bat whacks. Remember the forensic evidence and the two sets of loud bangs?

Gunshots before cricket bat. Not disputed.

That's a complete misrepresentation of the evidence presented.

Bullet hole came before piece of wood was pried out of door, not before cricket bat.

Killer testified that first hit caused a break in the door that he could have seen through. Cricket bat hits door. Gun shots. Killer pulls panels out of door causing wood piece to tear through bullet hole.

 

[shane13]

Didn't someone say that voice call recordings are only saved for 7 days? Didn't OP's cell phone go "missing" in the defense's pocket for almost 2 full weeks?

Yes, Val and as you know, perhaps I am the only one in the world harping on this AND the alteration of the videos from Tuesday, March 25th.

And now I note that OP himself is using the possibly doctored "evidence" from the phone records instead of his own recollection!!

Fascinating how some here either ignore this or just exclaim that they weren't altered, so now I include some simple legalistics from Wikipedia:

Chain of Custody:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
Includes this quote: "An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step)."


Evidence management:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_management
Includes this quote:
"management requires that the evidence is:

collected in a fashion which does not compromise the nature of the evidence
kept in a fashion which maintains the nature of the evidence
handled in a fashion which allows no doubt that the evidence could not have been accidentally or deliberately altered or substituted..."


Recall how Roux tried to get van Rensberg to say that the chain of custody was broken or such for the loo door. You can bet that if he thought C of C was broken he would have tried to get the entire door matter dismissed from the trial--and thus throw out the whole case.

But here, you all now can see how standard it is to have total chain of custody info--let alone allowing a criminal act of taking crucial evidence from a crime scene go unpunished and non-investigated.

To summarize this corruption, OP now quotes the timelog--instead of his own recollections--of a phone that was criminally removed from the scene by someone on his side [sibling, attorney?] and was in possession of the DT for 16 days, breaking all Chain of Custody regulations. Media ignores all this including the alteration of the first video from March 25th that I have stated here.

 

[Val1]

I thought that it may be for guests as I'm sure he must have friends with stronger disabilities than his own. Or he may be looking towards his future as a lot of amputees sometimes end up having further operations to take even more of the limb off if it gets infected.

Call me jaded but I'd bet that it was suggested that OP play the disabled card(for obvious reasons he dare not use the race one) as much as he can, like taking off his legs and making a show of how difficult it can be to walk on just his stumps(wasn't Roux going to have him do further demonstrations before the lunch break and then conveniently didn't after they came back?). I bet that was truly mortifying for someone like OP who lived his whole life denying that he has a disability.

 

[kittychi]

He doesn't even need that. He has already raised plenty of reasonable doubt about the witnesses who heard screams mistakenly identifying Oscar's screams as female.

He's already got one witness (and her husband) who identified the cries as coming from Oscar when they were initially believed to be female. So we have it on record that it's possible for a witness to make that mistake. And unless Nel comes up with some kind of stunning evidence that he forgot to bring forward in his case-in-chief, we've got solid evidence that the gunshots were first, and the subsequent screaming heard by neighbors could not have been Reeva.

BBM: right. Cries. NOT screams.

 

[K.T]

Credibility of the murder defendant is a major part of this case.

Pistorius in just one day has admitted he has worked on his “version” with his team, he implied that it was Roux’s fault that the bail affidavit was incorrect. The statements are not his words and yet his version shifts again in the plea explanation.
Now were hearing a in a third and fourth version between morning and afternoon court. The versions are all slightly different and more elaborate; we all know this is not the way memory works.

It all reflects on credibility. He only has to convince on person, Judge Masipa.

Yet with the inconsistency of statements, holes in his version and his prevarications and elaborative denials, he’s coming across, in my mind, as less than credible. Consistency is truth.*

It’s fascinating, if this was fiction he would be a classic antihero as an unreliable narrator.

*OJ Simpson’s lawyer quote.

 

[Val1]

Yes, Val and as you know, perhaps I am the only one in the world harping on this AND the alteration of the videos from Tuesday, March 25th.

<snipped for brevity>
To summarize this corruption, OP now quotes the timelog--instead of his own recollections--of a phone that was criminally removed from the scene by someone on his side [sibling, attorney?] and was in possession of the DT for 16 days, breaking all Chain of Custody regulations. Media ignores all this including the alteration of the first video from March 25th that I have stated here.

bbm Yes, I'm on the same page as you in regards to this but few seem to respond to any mention of this breach, whether it's because both sides need whatever records were left intact to "prove" their cases, I don't know, but between this and OP's statement today that someone in an official capacity claiming to be a "friend" of OP's family was there at the scene to take care of him(not verbatim but was the gist of it), things are really starting to smell.

 

[kittychi]

Nel's cases are textbook stuff on X-examination of the accused... being the prosecutor he does have the advantage of appearing to be Mr. Meek and Mild at first, but he is in his element in the area of x-cross.

the time, even if SA had an Alford element is long gone. Oscar had one window of opportunity, and that was when the state rested its case.. after that , its full steam ahead till the gruesome end.. Of course he had an opportunity before the trial, naturally.. but now its on it's course come what may. The defence have in fact put their theory of defence forward, and it doesn't include any mental disability at all. No automatism, no nothing of the sort. The Defence theory, on record, is that everyone is mistaken. Or lying. Or collaborating.. Or conspiring.

I am bitterly disappointed in Roux in this context.. the bail aff and the trial aff were shoddy and not the best work for a client paying big bucks.. Oscar could have a solid foundation on appeal for bad workmanship at the coal face with his Barrister.. that Roux let Oscar ramble on, bringing in his adventures as caped avenger, the Clark Kent of Pretoria, rescuing folks , patting dogs, charity stuff, all this character evidence was just plain nuts, and even Roux expressed, ruefully, that he let it go on too long.. Too long is too right, but he let the content of it veer into giving Nel a window as big as the Opera House to stroll into.

My hunch is that Roux is taking marching orders from his client. He may well have advised Oscar to plead guilty to culpable homicide but he refused.

IMO His client is making Roux's work very difficult.

 

[shane13]

BBM: right. Cries. NOT screams.

Well I have wondered about this.
The witness said her husband corrected her--that it was OP crying.

How would he know what Op sounds like when he cries??

E.g., we already know from Oscar himself and DT that when panicked, Oscar's screams sound like a woman's. So his cries could well also sound like a woman's, and thus unless someone knew him real well, could not claim to know that it was Oscar crying.

 

[bessie]

Good morning. Time to move over to the new thread.


Trial Discussion Thread #22 - 14.04.10, Day 22 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community