Oscar Pistorius Defense #2

Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by AJ_DS, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Session 1 (S1) : 9:30AM to 11:00AM (1 h. 30 m.) – Session 2 (S2) : 11:30AM to 1:00PM (1 h. 30 m.) – Session 3 (S3) : 2:00PM to 3:00PM (1 h.)

    FRIDAY 2 MAY 2014

    Very last weekday of the 2-week adjournment

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Oscar Pistorius for the very first time

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Diana Binge (Oscar's aunt)

    MONDAY 5 MAY 2014

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Aimee Pistorius, Carl Pistorius, Justin Divaris, Oscar's manager, Oscar's coach.

    S1 : Johan Stander (1 h. 30 m.)

    S2 : Carice Stander (1 h.)

    Roux : " M'Lady…huh…we…huh…experienced great difficulty to get more than 2 witnesses available for today…we were hoping that…huh…the 2 witnesses would…would take up most of the day…huh…we desperately tried to get a 3rd and a 4th one…huh…we just could not…I…I can only ascribe it to the…many public holidays before…huh…everyone had something on on a Monday…it won't repeat on the days following, we have already the other witnesses lined up to ensure that…that…that…that it won't be a repeat of this…that we can use up all the available Court time. "

    Roux : " M'Lady, we believe…I heard on the radio that the Wednesday is a public holiday…it's…it's voting day…but…but M'Lady I can…can tell you from our side that…on the times given to you that we believe that we still well within that…that time…huh…estimation "

    Unused Court time : 1 h. 30 m.

    TUESDAY 6 MAY 2014

    The social worker Ingrid van Schalkwyk contacts the Defence team to convey her desire to testify on Oscar's behalf : she was upset because she read that Oscar Pistorius had "taken acting training", that he "put on a show", that he "started crying when it wasn't needed"… she wanted to tell her version of what she had observed of the accused.

    S1 : Mr. Nhlengethwa (1 h.) and Mrs Nhlengethwa (30 m.)

    S2 : Mrs Motchuani (15 min.)

    Roux : " Understanding now better the cross-examination of the previous 2 witnesses that I can anticipate it won't take that long, so again a said problem will arise but…I…I will put on record, that we, well within the timeframe and, if I work it out, the timeframe and…and…and trying anticipate cross-examinations the times that I even believe that, we may end the Defence case by Tuesday next week. "

    Roux : " So I'm…I'm…I'm…I'm really sorry about the delay again that I can anticipate it's going to be caused because I…the 3 witnesses lined that we tried to work out…huh…they all have children and we just could not bring witnesses left, right and center…and I incorrectly believed that the 3 witnesses would, take the day… "

    Roux : " M'Lady, I indicated the difficulty…huh…but also the timeframes to you, so my apologies again…I would asked Mr. Nel to maybe ask more questions on Thursday to save me this embarrassment but…huh…and he assured me that he would do so…but the witnesses are ready for Thursday again I'm…I can only estimate…"

    Unused Court time : 2 h. 15 m.

    WEDNESDAY 7 MAY 2014

    This day is a holiday because of elections in South Africa

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Oscar Pistorius for the second time

    THURSDAY 8 MAY 2014

    S1 : Christina Lundgren the anesthetist (1 h 10)

    S2 : Ingrid van Schalkwyk the social worker (45 m.)

    S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 15 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0 (but about 50 minutes of delays caused by withholding reports until the very last second)

    FRIDAY 9 MAY 2014

    S1 – S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (4 h.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    MONDAY 12 MAY 2014

    S1 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 30 m.)

    S2 : Dr Merryll Vorster the forensic psychiatrist

    Total time of Wolmarans's testimony : 6 h. 45 m.


    1. Dr. Merryll Vorster's involvement was an unplanned very last minute Hail-Mary effort in Oscar's Defence… the unplanned and unforeseen 2-week adjournment was an application that was brought forth by the State on 15 April 2014 because some members of the Prosecution team had other preferential cases to address where the accused were being detained. Had this application not been made by the State, the Defence would NOT have had the opportunity or the time to retain the services of Dr. Merryll Vorster to evaluate Oscar Pistorius because the Defence's case would have been concluded during the first week of the aforementioned 2-week adjournment.

    2. Dr. Merryll Vorster conducted her first interview with Oscar Pistorius on 2 May 2014… this posed a problem for the Defence : Dr. Merryll Vorster had to : interview Oscar, interview family and friends, interview Oscar a second time and write a report before appearing in Court as an expert witness.

    3. Dr. Merryll Vorster's second interview with Oscar Pistorius was conducted on 7 May 2014… This was a Holliday in SA because of elections… Roux blatantly lied to the Court when he stated on 5 May 2014 that he had just learned that 7 May 2014 was a Holliday… Oscar Pistorius was scheduled to meet Dr. Merryll Vorster that VERY day… Oscar has to be present in the courtroom when the Court is in session… without this Holliday, Oscar could not have met with Dr. Vorster. Interestingly enough, Nel had already mentioned on 15 April 2014 when he made the application for the 2-week adjournment that the week of 2 May 2014 was an election week.

    4. Roux intentionally delayed Court proceeding to buy some time for Dr. Merryll Vorster to complete her analysis and prepare her report… without the 2 days where witnesses were 'fortuitously' unavailable and Roux 'fortuitously' misevaluated the times (5 May and 6 May), Dr. Vorster would have had to been called upon Friday 9 May 2014 instead of Monday 12 May 2014. (see alternate timeline with full use of Court time below).

    5. Interestingly, Roux stated on 6 May that he did not have more than 3 witnesses available because the witnesses had children… BUT all of the following witnesses that were brought forth on 8 May and afterwards are ALL professionals that work during the day and therefore are very much available to be in Court : Roux could have called Christina Lundgren to the stand on 6 May 2014.

    6. Ingrid van Schalkwyk inexplicably approached the Defence on 6 May 2014 and was put in the witness box on 8 May 2014 by Roux… She decided to come forth 3 weeks AFTER Oscar Pistorius had already finished his testimony on 15 April 2014… Had the 2-week adjournment application not been made by the State, the Defence would NOT have had the opportunity to put Ingrid van Schalkwyk on the stand. By 'coincidence', she came forth precisely when the Defence needed to buy some time for Dr. Merryll Vorster.

    7. Although Roux was very contrite and apologetic for delaying Court proceedings by not having witnesses available, Roux purposefully withheld from the Prosecution Christina Lundgren's, Ingrid van Schalkwyk's and Thomas Wolmarans's reports until the very last possible moment i.e. when the witnesses took the stand… This would inevitably lead the State to ask for adjournments to read those reports and confer with their own experts on the content of said reports… hence by some additional time for Dr. Merryll Vorster.

    8. The timeframe of when the Defence expected to conclude their case was established prior to the 2-week adjournment : Roux estimated that the Defence would rest on 13 May 2014… This was BEFORE Dr Merryll Vorster and Ingrid van Schalkwyk were even involved… Roux blatantly lied in open Court on 5 May and 6 May when he stated that he would keep to the 13 May timeframe.

    Alternate timeline with full use of available Court time :

    MONDAY 5 MAY 2014

    S1 : Johan Stander (1 h. 30 m.)
    S2 : Carice Stander (1 h.)
    S2 – S3 : Mr. Nhlengethwa (1 h.) and Mrs Nhlengethwa (30 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    TUESDAY 6 MAY 2014

    S1 : Mrs Motchuani (15 m.) and Christina Lundgren (1 h 10)
    S2 : Ingrid van Schalkwyk (45 m.)
    S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 45 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    THURSDAY 8 MAY 2014

    S1 – S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (4 h.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    FRIDAY 9 MAY 2014

    S1 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h.) and Dr Merryll Vorster (30 m.)

    S2 – S3 : Dr Merryll Vorster (2 h. 30 m.)

    Total time of Wolmarans's testimony : 6 h. 45 m. (same)

    One can clearly see that WITHOUT Roux's dubious delaying tactics, Dr Merryll Vorster would have had ONLY 1 day (8 May) to prepare her report… with Roux's engineered delays, she got 4 days.

    Dr. Vorster involvement was a last ditch effort and Roux purposefully delayed Court proceedings to allow such effort to come to fruition… very unbecoming behavior for an attorney !!

    Furthermore, WITHOUT Ingrid van Schalkwyk's involvement, Thomas Wolmarans would have probably finished his testimony on 8 May and Dr Merryll Vorster would have been on the stand first thing on Friday 9 May at 9:30AM
     
  2. Loading...


  3. kittychi

    kittychi Active Member

    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm not getting my hopes up that the trial will really begin again on the 30th. I have a feeling that on Monday June 30 when trial is to resume, it will be adjourned until reports from the psych eval can be properly compiled. It seems it will take some time to bring results from the evaluation.
     
  4. FromGermany

    FromGermany Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,022
    Likes Received:
    764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    rsbm


    Interesting, thank you!

    Part of your dissertation? :smile:
     
  5. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL… indeed... that last post was a bit long !

    No, not part of a dissertation… enjoy sleuthing and unmasking the less obvious aspects of the case.

    Cheers
     
  6. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Trial will not resume on 30th.

    The 30th was only a pro forma scheduling… Masipa said as much.
     
  7. FromGermany

    FromGermany Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,022
    Likes Received:
    764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My intelligence is not always sufficient, but I'm reading all these interesting (maybe long or not) posts and often admire the writer. :clap:
     
  8. Feynman

    Feynman New Member

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    partial quote:
    This makes no sense to me. Did Oscar say he fired 4 shots at 3 am? Of course not. You are getting that time from witness statements. At the same time, you claim you are disregarding all witness testimonies.
     
  9. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BiB… You are of course quite correct… I wasn't clear enough in my initial statement.

    "Let us take as fact every word from Oscar Pistorius and analyze them disregarding for the moment all witness testimonies and forensics evidence"

    This was meant as : Let us believe Oscar's version of events and disregard all witness testimony and forensics evidence that contradicts his mistaken identity intruder story.

    It is common cause evidence the OP shot the door and struck it with the cricket bat… it is also common cause that all or some of those 'bangs' were heard by witnesses…

    The issue that is not agreed upon between State and Defence is which came first : bat or gun.

    Defence says gun first… so I explored what OP did between the shots and the breaking down of the door as per his own testimony
     
  10. atthelake

    atthelake Former Member

    Messages:
    9,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am missing Zwiebels late night food for us ! Marking my seat for the new WS forum !

    Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
     
  11. Sherbert

    Sherbert New Member

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Guys! I haven't posted before, but I've been reading for a while.

    AJ_DS, your timelines really are astonishingly good - amongst other things, I think you are correct that the row erupted in the kitchen and that Reeva may not have locked herself in the bathroom, after all. My brain is much much lazier than yours, but I thought I'd offer up a few crumbs of pure speculation anyway:

    I've been wondering for a while why Oscar doesn't want to admit the possibility that, without his knowledge, Reeva may have slipped downstairs for a snack at around 1pm. IIRC, he insisted to Gerrie Nel that, had Reeva slipped downstairs for a snack, he would have known about it.

    Last night, it dawned on me that he is trying to reinforce his claim that they were both sleeping together in the master bedroom, when, in fact, they'd had a row and she was sleeping in the spare room.

    I believe that Reeva was sleeping in the spare room, couldn't get to sleep because of the argument and thought a snack might help. It was when she came out of the spare room for a snack that round two of the argument commenced.

    Apologies if this theory has been posted before, but I've not had the chance to read all of the threads.

    Regarding Oscar's 'mistake', I don't find his claim to have heard a noise in the bathroom over and above the noise of the fans to be credible. I live in quite a noisy street and I often keep a fan on at night because I find that a single fan masks street noise very effectively. As I've often thought though, the downside is that, if someone broke in, I wouldn't hear a thing. I imagine that no tests have been done at the premises to confirm that, had Reeva made a noise in the bathroom, Oscar could not have heard it in the bedroom with the fans on. A pity.

    As far as the mysterious Frank is concerned, it seems likely that Reeva would have known that he was on the premises. As the row escalated to extreme violence, I feel that, being a female in a very vulnerable position, she would have been expecting Frank to intervene to calm Oscar down.

    I think her desperate screams for help were directed at Frank and that it was she, not Oscar, who screamed, 'Call the police', which is why Oscar has incorporated these words into his evidence, as if they came from him.

    Oscar knew that Frank wouldn't get involved. Hence, the sarcastic mimicry of her cries referred to by some of the State's witnesses.

    I, too, am disappointed that Frank hasn't been called to give evidence. Even if he continued to maintain that he heard nothing, it would have been useful to have the opportunity to gauge his credibility and to question him about how and when he became aware that Reeva had been shot. It seems bizarre that he's simply been allowed to slip under the radar like this, as if he were never there at all. And very frustrating for Reeva's parents, too.

    Having said that, had he come forward to say that he heard the shots, but no argument, that would have been very helpful to Oscar. All very puzzling.

    And did Frank make an appearance at some stage to see what was going on, causing an infuriated Oscar to scream: 'Get the **** out of my house!' ?

    Mods, I'm posting here rather than on the theory thread because my comments link in with some of the comments posted here. Please feel free to move, though!
     
  12. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,541
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It may not start again on the 30th, but at least we are getting closer.

    I wonder how OP has been doing in his outpatient testing. Cannot wait to hear all about it.
     
  13. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Sherbert,

    Thanks… and you definitely should post more !

    BiB… My take on why OP did not want to admit RS could have gone downstairs :

    1. Get out from underneath the duvay and out of bed on the right-hand side (balcony side)
    2. Navigate precisely in the dark through the mess of things on the floor (hair clipper, iPad, electrical cords, t-shirt, prosthetics, fans, etc)
    3. Locate the alarm remote in the bedroom and deactivate it
    4. Remove the cricket bat from the bedroom door
    5. Unlock and open the bedroom door
    6. Make her way to the kitchen
    7. Eat
    8. Make her way to the bedroom
    9. Close and lock the bedroom door
    10. Place the cricket bat at the bedroom door
    11. Reactivate the alarm
    12. Go to the bathroom and brush her teeth again !!
    13. Make her way to the bed
    12. Navigate precisely through the mess of things on the floor
    13. Slip back into bed and under the duvay

    _______ all this, without the GAD stricken hypervigilent OP ever waking up.

    Furthermore, having RS fall asleep and forgetting to bring in the fans and lock the balcony doors as instructed by OP, was the basic premise of the whole intruder mistaken identity scenario…

    … If RS had indeed woken up during the night, she surely would have brought the fans in and locked the balcony doors… then OP would not have had any reason to go to the ONLY place in the bedroom where he would simultaneously face away from the bed AND from the bathroom passageway.

    Therefore, it was better for OP's version to have RS fall asleep, forget to lock the balcony doors and stay asleep in bed next to him until 3AM.
     
  14. atthelake

    atthelake Former Member

    Messages:
    9,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :welcome2: :wagon: :goodpost:
     
  15. Giles

    Giles New Member

    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AJ_DS, thanks for all your posts and timelines. You have breathed new life into these threads while we all eagerly await the resumption of the trial. You have gone into astonishing detail and have some really interesting observations and insights.

    I wanted to ask you about your post when you highlighted Oscar’s actions between 3AM and 3:15AM.

    Snipped and from two separate posts.

    Following the same thought experiment and assuming, for a moment, that Oscar’s version is true, I’m sure that during Oscar’s testimony, at some point he stated there could have been no longer than 5 minutes between him firing the gun and hitting the door with the bat.

    If we agree that the second set of sounds were at approximately 3:15AM, then, if his version is true, it would put the shooting at between 3:10AM – 3:12AM

    Considering this, we only have Annette Stipp’s testimony which directly contradicts the timings. She and her husband are the only witnesses who (knowingly) heard the first set of bangshots, and only Annette had looked at the clock and seen 03:02AM (running a couple of minutes fast).

    Even though she was a reliable and credible witness, is it possible that she was mistaken about the 3:00AM timing? I certainly thought that Mrs Stipp had difficulty explaining the 15 minutes that supposedly elapsed as she stood on her balcony listening to a woman screaming.

    Listening to Dr Stipp’s testimony, it doesn’t seem to allow for 15 minutes between sounds. IIRC, when asked how long there was between the two sets of sounds, he replied “moments”. He wasn’t asked to clarify this.

    I may be mistaken and please correct me if I am wrong, but your post has made me think about this again. I would be interested in your thoughts.
     
  16. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Giles !

    You are quite correct when questioning the 3:00AM time of the bat strikes.

    1. I believe we can safely infer that the gunshots were at 3:15AM (from the physics of the sound of gunshots, from the phone records and chronology of events as related by 5 corroborating witness testimonies)

    2. We, as Trial observers, do not have access to all the information that was entered into evidence… only a fraction was entered into Court record… this does not mean that because it was not mentioned in open Court during witness questioning that it can't or won't be used in closing arguments… so we still might have some 'surprises' before Masipa and the assessors start their deliberations.

    3. The only information WE have about the bat strikes is the testimony of Anette Stipp and her 3:02AM… I personally don't see why she would perjure herself about this time… even if she wanted to incriminate OP, she could NOT know if 3:02AM was more or less incriminating than, for example, 3:12AM… plus, by purposefully inventing evidence she would risk loosing not only her credibility but she would also jeopardize her reliability as a witness.

    4. As for the 3:02AM being an honest mistake… that is certainly a possibility

    5. Dr Stipp's statement of 'moments' between the sets of bangs is certainly very subjective… especially when one is woken up around 3AM, trying to listen, see, figure out what's going on… fumbling with the phone trying to call unsuccessfully various numbers… going back and forth between the bedroom and the balcony… talking with the wife… etc… the perception of time and duration might be distorted and therefore inaccurate… and even further distorted when attempting to recall those events more than a year later.

    6. I do not believe that the precise time of the bat strikes will be useful in the State's case… having A) the time of the gunshots at 3:15AM ; B) the bat strikes BEFORE the gunshots ; C) both Reeva and OP screaming AFTER the bat strikes but BEFORE the gunshots… makes an airtight case of murder with intent for the State.
     
  17. eimajjjj

    eimajjjj New Member

    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also very new to the forum but wanting to get involved!

    Even if we take the massive list of improbablities in OP's story, multiple witness statements and the quite obvious lack of responsibilty OP wants to take with anything, I think we can find enough tailoring and inconsistencies in just this one paragarah of his bail affadavit:

    "I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/ were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet."

    1) I noticed that the bathroom window was open.

    During his testimony, the ambiguous 'noise' in the bathroom from the bail affidavit became a very clear window opening and crashing into the frame. There was no doubt in his mind it was the window.

    Thus, why do you just 'notice' something implying it's the first time he's seen it rather that it confirming what he's already heard.

    2) I realised that the intruder/s was/ were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.

    Again, contradicts his testimony that the reason he thought people were in the toilet was NOT because he saw 'the toilet door was closed', but because he heard it slam shut. So he 'realised intruders were in the toilet' why? because he sees the door closed or because he heard it shut?

    3) I heard movement inside the toilet.

    Although Nel starts to corner him regarding this mistake, I feel he stopped one step too short to really trap him, and this is due to OP's craftiness: After OP starts to say that he thought the movement was 'the door opening' and then 'in retrospect that must have been the magazine rack', Nel rightly asks how 'movement' implies this wood movement/door opening and not people moving. From here on though, notice OP starts to refer to his 'movement' in the bail affadavit as a movement. Nel doesn't pick up on this and it allows OP to waffle on about how he meant a movement was the wood moving/door opening. All Nel has to say after he's got this far is 'No, you said 'I heard movment, not a movement, so how does movement refer to a sound of the door opening'?
     
  18. G.bng

    G.bng New Member

    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My reply here is neither a criticism nor dispute so please understand I neither want a debate nor an argument, simply concrete facts for a visual time-line I am trying to make.

    That said, could please say what evidence are you relying on to affirm that the last volley of bangs was at 3:15? I ask because from my data the last volley was put on record by both Nel and Roux at 3:17:00 on the basis of Johnson's testimony and phone log. Unfortunately, I have not yet transcribed in full Johnson's testimony but the part corresponding to Nel's re-examination after Roux's cross, I have transcribed and the relevant part goes as follows (BIB the most important):

    Furthermore, during Stipp's testimony, which I have transcribed in full, Nel stated the following during Roux's cross:

    I also distinctly recall while I was transcribing Mrs Nhlengethwa's testimony, that during an exchange between Roux, Nel and the Judge, there was again a reference to the 3:17 as the time for the last set of bangs. Unfortunately I've mislaid the transcript just now (I hope it's on the other laptop since they are extremely time consuming to do!) but from what I recall the time of 3:17 was not disputed by either Nel or Roux, so I was presuming it still stood.

    So, if the time you quote of 3:15 for the last set of bangs is now the State's case I need to know with links, references, etc. so I can check for myself how, who, when, etc. it came about as I only want to include common cause proven data in my graphic timeline which I hope may make it easier to compare all of the ear witnesses testimonies, i.e., what each witness heard, saw etc., and where testimonies coincide, overlap, differ, etc. To date I was sure that 3:17 was a fixed parameter for the last set of bangs so I am very concerned I may be working with the wrong data - I can assure you even two minutes makes a huge difference if comparing ear witness statements between each other. Thanks for any info you can give.
     
  19. AJ_DS

    AJ_DS Former Member

    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL… I haven't been posting very long but I get the distinct impression that some posters have been involved in some serious cat fights in the past on this forum… the BiB is not the first time I have been approached in such a cautious manner…

    … not a problem, my pleasure…and just to be crystal clear I invite debate, discussion and opposing points of view :)


    Dr. Johan STIPP (DrS)

    – ...
    – DrS went back into the bedroom and took his phone
    – DrS called Silverwoods security landline : it rang quite a few times but no answer (i.e. not logged in phone records or misdialed).
    – DrS called 10111 but that number must be out of order : heard a ‘funny’ dialing tone.
    – DrS called to 082911 but no one answered.
    – DrS heard another 3 loud bangs, one on top of each other in rapid succession.
    – DrS told AS to get away from the windows
    – DrS called Silverwoods security landline again at 3:15:51 (16 seconds)
    – DrS explained to the guard on duty what he heard and asked to dispatch someone
    – ...

    The second set of bang occurred before 3:15:51… this time is taken from the telephone company server that services the Silverwoods Security landline.


    Michael NHLENGETHWA (MN)

    – MN was woken up by 4 gunshots
    – MN went to check on his daughters bedroom door
    – MN had a quick look around in his house to see if anything was amiss
    – MN went back to his bedroom
    – MN called Silverwoods security landline at 3:16:13 but it was busy
    – MN called Silverwoods security landline again at 3:16:36 (44 seconds)
    – MN did not hear any other bangs
    – ...

    The gunshots occurred before 3:16:13… this time is taken from the telephone company server that services the Silverwoods Security landline.


    Charl JOHNSON (CJ)

    – ...
    – MB dialed security and gave the phone to CJ.
    – CJ talked to a first person that didn’t understand and passed the phone to a second person.
    – CJ talked to the second person that explained this wasn’t Silverwoods but Strubenkop estates.
    – CJ realized the number stored under ‘security’ was an old number of his previous residence.
    – CJ hung-up the phone and rushed back onto the balcony.
    – CJ estimates the distance from the foot of the bed to the balcony between 8 to 10 meters
    – CJ estimates the time from the foot of the bed to the balcony between 3 to 5 seconds
    – CJ heard the woman’s screams escalated in fear and intensity; that person’s life was clearly in danger.
    – CJ heard the gunshots moments after he got onto the balcony.
    – CJ heard quite a few of gunshots, a volley, 5 or 6.
    – …

    CJ said that the call to Strubenkop estates security either started or ended at 3:16, he does not remember which. The call lasted 58 seconds.

    We know that CJ heard the gunshots about 3 to 5 seconds after ending the phone call.

    CJ started writing what happened that night in a document so as not to forget details (he was instructed to do so by his attorney)… he started writing the day after the events on 15 February.

    We can infer that CJ was very anal about small details.

    Th climax of that night was the gunshots : at that time the blood-curdling screams stopped and nothing further happened from CJ's perspective

    One can infer that CJ would want to pinpoint in time that precise moment… since he remembers that seconds after ending the phone call he heard the gunshots it makes sense that he would write down the time at which the phone call ended and not the time at which the phone call began.

    Phone call start time = imbroglio with the security personnel of the wrong estate
    Phone call end time = gunshots

    We do not have exact time in h:mm:ss but 3:16 + 3 to 5 seconds is still 3:16

    CJ also said he retrieved the 3:16 time from his phone… this makes sense because on 15 February when he was writing the document he could not have his detailed billing with the call he had made on the previous day.

    So the 3:16 comes from the clock on his phone and not a Telecom server

    So we have :

    – gunshots moments before 3:15:51 from a server
    – gunshots a few moments before 3:16:13 from same server
    – gunshots 3 to 5 seconds after 3:16 from a personal clock

    I believe it is very safe to infer that the gunshots occurred between 3:15:00 and 3:15:51 and that CJ's phone clock was about 1 minute fast relative to the server clock.
     
  20. yozzdi

    yozzdi New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi there, I'd appreciate any comments from the learned people on this forum!

    Was Reeva at front or back of toilet when shot?

    In OP's version, he shot when he heard the magazine rack move. Since the magazine rack was at the back wall of the toilet, and only Reeva could have moved it, Reeva would have been at the ***back*** of the toilet when shot.

    But the pathologists and other experts say that she would have been at the ***front*** of the toilet, near the door. That includes some of the defence experts.

    That seems like a major hole in OP version. His version puts her at the back of the toilet, but the evidence puts her at the front. If she was at the front, what noise could he have heard?

    I don't recall Nel bringing that point up... Did he?

    Have other forum members mentioned this point?
     
  21. Hatfield

    Hatfield Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,720
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good questions and good points. Others may do a better job answering as I have only followed sporadically but I took a shot at answering based on my recollection. See bolded responses above to the questions.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice