Trial Discussion Thread #43 - 14.06.30 Day 33

[Val1]

A bit of local gossip...

There's been a bit of speculation on the local Oscar Trial TV channel tonight that Nel could apply to reopen his case. The panel said that Roux will oppose but that the judge would, in all probability, grant the application. Cape Town Crim suggested this a while ago, remember?

Anyway. They then said that Nel could very well put Oscar back on the stand to cross him on Dr. V's evidence today (which is basically hearsay according to them and should have been introduced during Oscar's testimony in chief). To their credit they were very professional and not a hint of glee showed on any of their faces when they said it.

Oh, and they also said that Roux's application for the cord had no legal basis at all. They felt it was a ploy by the defence to make the prosecution/police look bad.

Has anyone kept track of all the things we're still wondering about that Roux may have opened the door on should Nel choose and the judge lets him re-open? I know I would love a fuller picture but I'm sure Nel would have to be especially careful not to make this a neverending story.... "story" being the key word.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I doubt Nel would want to subject himself or the rest of the courtroom to more of OP's puking.

And although I felt Pistorius would be found to have not been legally mentally impaired, I do think that boy has some heavy duty personality problems?

Can the judge and her assistants not re-watch clips of portions of the trial if they so choose? If not, why not?

I think this Judge is smart and knows the law. But I am glad she has those two younger assistants beside her. If she gets confused about a certain piece of testimony, surely all three of them will not be confused.

The only thing I can see Nel wanting to re-open about would be for small things like getting in an expert to discuss whether the blue light on the stereo cast enough light to see by and an expert to state, based on the available photos, how long that extension cord was.

I think the Judge was just humoring Barry today, about obtaining an affidavidit to try to determine where the extension cord got off to. She seemed to be "throwing him a bone". I think he knows this is a losing case.

A more fun topic: How many years do we think Oscar will get?

 

[BatGunKick]

The Windows.

Regarding the windows and sound traveling:

Who's to say the small toilet window wasn't open the whole time? (Until perhaps Oscar closed it when he finally got through the toilet door and to Reeva at the end and closed it, not wanting to draw further attention?) OR: It was closed, and Reeva opened it to scream for help?

From crime photos we know the far left window is the toilet window.
On the night of the incident the toilet door would have been closed when Reeva was in the cubicle, meaning said toilet window would have been seen as a "black shape" to witnesses - near impossible to see if the pane was slid up and open or down and closed.

NB: Dr. Stipp testified 'the windows' looked closed to him when Dr. Stipp was on the balcony. Note that the toilet light was not working. If the toilet window was open for sound to carry, being a window that slides up and down, not opening outwards, Dr Stipp then wouldn't have been able to tell if the toilet window was open, he may have assumed it was closed and commenting on the bathroom windows, as he did in his testimony. Yet the toilet window could indeed have been open for sound to carry.

possibility (1)
Let's say small toilet window was open from earlier in the evening - (toilet is after all where one would want immediate ventilation for hygiene purposes) while they were up arguing. Sound would travel to ear witnesses. It remains open and screaming from Reeva plus her cries for help, plus Oscar mocking help, plus bat bashing, plus Reeva screaming escalating when she unlocks and ventures out, and ultimately gunshots, all carries to witnesses from inside the cubicle. Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

possibility (2)
Let's say small toilet window was closed from earlier in the evening. When Reeva runs the first time to the toilet and locks herself in, surely it's within reason that she opens the toilet window and begins screaming as he's bashing with the bat. I would have done that for sure! Oscar then realizes too much attention is being drawn now in the dead of night, that neighbours will hear. He goes to get the gun, at this point Reeva unlocks and opens the toilet door, sees OP coming, explaining why intense screams traveled to Burger/Johnson. She just closes the toilet door as she is shot - not managing to lock it. Then gunshots and Reeva's screams fading would all travel to witness ears. as above: Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

Furthermore, there was testimony that Oscar returned upstairs while Dr Stipp and stander were attending to Reeva downstairs. Could he have gone upstairs to open the bathroom window - having suddenly realized he needed it for the point of entry for the 'intruder' - after all, the toilet window he closed was too small to say the intruder came through it, but the bathroom window he could say was the point of entry for the intruder.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Well, let's see what the State's case in final arguments is which is where they will have to pull everything together based on the evidence as it is and iirc the State already accepted that OP was on his stumps at least when he fired the shots. What suspense!

The State may well stick with the view that OP was on his stumps as propounded by Vermeulen and Mangena. However neither of them said it was impossible for him to have been on his prostheses. As no definitive proof is available, I see no reason to change my opinion.

 

[vansleuths]

We had two defence witnesses today.

Anyone know how many defence witnesses are to come and who they might be?

Thank you

 

[JudgeJudi]

I also get the distinct impression that Roux is not captain of the ship… there is a puppeteer behind the scene that is animating the puppet… which makes the Defence look so bad and disorganized.

I suspect the puppeteer to be Oscar himself… he believes himself to be so smart…smatter than everybody… and it's his money… Roux is basically just along for the OP funded fun-ride.

I agree. Roux has to take instructions from his client and can only advise how best to run the case to achieve the most favourable result. If OP changes his story at any point/s, Roux can only try and make the best of a bad situation. Having to change OP's defence a number of times would have to be more than a little frustrating, but at least he's being well compensated.

 

[MsMarple]

Dagnabbit! I fell asleep last night and missed breakfast with y'all!

I hope I didn't miss an exciting day of trial too.

:tantrum:

Is it on for tomorrow? TIA. :loveyou:

 

[vansleuths]

What is the phrase that Roux uses just after the 40 min mark at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDuq0hUTcAA

He's talking about the missing extension cord and he says if it is a "cul de sap" then it is a cul de sap" with consequences on the evidence.

What is the correct spelling for "cul de sap", I suspect he is talking about making the extension cord inadmissible evidence.

Thank you

 

[vansleuths]

Respectfully, you are incorrect.

If Police had seized the extension cord and it appeared in the inventory, then the State would have to produce it… being unable to do so would be serious.

If State had used the extension cord to make their case for murder, then they would have to produce it… being unable to do so would be serious.

But this is NOT the case on both counts… it was not seized, it was not used and therefore there was no chain of custody for that extension cord… same as 99.99 % of items inside Oscar's house.

The ONLY thing Roux can state as fact is that between 14 February 2013 and 15 February 2013, the extension cord was moved… but so was about everything in that bedroom… police conducted an extensive forensic investigation… it is to be expected.

The State released the house to the Defence on 17 February
The State divulged to the Defence the inventory of seized items
The State divulged to the Defence the photos taken

If Roux had said on 17 February 2013 : Where is the extension cord ?… then he would have a case against the police for not preserving the crime scene.

Is the State responsible for any and all items in Oscar's house after they release the house back to the accused… of course not.

From the 17 February 2013 to 6 June 2014, the content of Oscar's house was in Oscar's custody.

The State can never foresee what the accused will say on the stand… Oscar said that he moved the large fan at the head of the bed… Nel simply tested Oscar on that, based on the only thing that was available to him, i.e. the photographs.

Same goes with the small floor fan being plugged… Nel had no way of knowing Oscar would say that… in fact up until the plea explanation, Oscar had only talked about a single fan, the large tripod fan… so Nel used the photographs to show that the extension cord had only 2 plugs which were used by the large fan and the hair clipper… the small fan could not have been plugged there.

Does this mean that the State must produce the extension cord, the hair clipper, the large fan, the small fan… No.

BIB This makes so much sense but why is the judge making such a big deal of it then saying she is very unhappy about this.

 

[vansleuths]

It is really funny to me that the defense is now relying on an extension cord and a sound expert saying that the witnesses could not have heard what they heard. SMH!!!

Regarding OP having pain if he were to walk on his stumps: Why did he testify that Reeva called him to brush his teeth before bed that night and he did so, walking to the bathroom and brushing his teeth and walking back to the bed, on his freakin' stumps??? SMH again.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser. LOL! What new silly stuff will follow on in the next two weeks? Hmm...

BIB Shame Nel didn't put this to the surgeon.

 

[vansleuths]

I would be interested in your opinion as to why you think that !

Not really holding my breath as to a response though :facepalm:

I didn't make the original comment, but I have family that still lives in Africa and from what they tell me, everything is for sale. It wouldn't surprise me if bribes were being made.

 

[JudgeJudi]

It is really funny to me that the defense is now relying on an extension cord and a sound expert saying that the witnesses could not have heard what they heard. SMH!!!

<Respectfully snipped>

I'm just waiting for the acoustics expert, Lin, say that Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson (who live approx. 170m away) couldn't have heard the screams. If he does, how could it be that they both woke to the sound of screaming at approx. 3am, heard a woman scream for help followed by a man screaming for help 3 times, more screaming and then 4 gunshots with a pause between the 1st and 2nd shot. Will Roux say they were asleep and dreaming? Unfortunately for OP this then became his nightmare. Dream on Barry.

Burger and Johnson had no way of knowing that their timeline and what they heard coincides with that of the other ear witnesses. Lin conducted his tests up to 177m away.

 

[Channy]

What is the phrase that Roux uses just after the 40 min mark at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDuq0hUTcAA

He's talking about the missing extension cord and he says if it is a "cul de sap" then it is a cul de sap" with consequences on the evidence.

What is the correct spelling for "cul de sap", I suspect he is talking about making the extension cord inadmissible evidence.

Thank you

I guess he says "Cul-de-sac", which means "dead end"

 

[4MrsB]

I didn't make the original comment, but I have family that still lives in Africa and from what they tell me, everything is for sale. It wouldn't surprise me if bribes were being made.

That is so sad to hear.

 

[vansleuths]

I guess he says "Cul-de-sac", which means "dead end"

I thought it was cul-de-sac originally but then I thought it must be some kind of legal term but couldn't Google anything that seemed reasonable to what I was hearing.

 

[lisasalinger]

What is the phrase that Roux uses just after the 40 min mark at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDuq0hUTcAA

He's talking about the missing extension cord and he says if it is a "cul de sap" then it is a cul de sap" with consequences on the evidence.

What is the correct spelling for "cul de sap", I suspect he is talking about making the extension cord inadmissible evidence.

Thank you

A "cul de sac" is a dead end street... so he's making the statement that if it's a dead end, it's a dead end, and not much you can do about it, but it should at least be investigated.

With that said... I'm just getting caught up on today and this whole exchange with Roux, Nel and the Judge really pissed me off. The cord was not a seized piece of evidence, so how can the state be in 100% control of it when Oscar admittedly (through witnesses on the stand) had people such as Dixon, Wolmarans, etc going back and forth to the house, collecting his personal belongings while doing various testing. Not to mention his sister and Carice's handy work.

It's impossible to catalog 100% of every single item in a home. At the time, the police likely did not know the significance of that cord, although they did photograph it on the day of the incident. I'm sure it became apparent after the bail application which was a week later, but the defense had taken control of the scene just 3 days after the incident. How is it fair to hold the State accountable for every single item in that home when they only had total control of it for such a short window of time?

Maybe somebody can tell me if I'm being unreasonable and I'll listen, but this all seemed like a load of BS to me.

Also... start listening at 41:40... Nel starts to say to the Judge "a lot of things happened" and she cuts him off and says "it doesn't assist to go on and on about that"... They were very vague here.

Do you think Nel was making reference to the stolen phone and stolen purse? If that's the case, then maybe the Judge is kind of saying to him hey, you need to keep your own things in order before ragging on their misdeeds. Or, maybe she's just trying to appease Roux. Who knows. Just curious if anybody else wondered about that.

 

[lisasalinger]

I'm too slow tonight. Thanks, AJ_DS for your well-written earlier post! I no longer feel unreasonable for being mad about the exchange with the Judge.

 

[Hatfield]

Thanks everyone for the great posts and recaps.

The most concerning thing to me today was what I perceived as a real possibility that the judge herself may have a conflict of interest with this case. If I heard it right and read the thread right, she actually came out from behind the bench to help look at OP when he was doing some sort of demonstration about his legs. I think she had to be helped or it showed that she herself has some trouble walking due to previous illness (Polio ?) which may have caused her a disability of her own. On top of that OP was partially disrobing. Good Grief.

This is huge news to me and I am really concerned. Also, I believe she made a few decisions about the time break in the trial due to equipment failure around that time that seemed to be good for the defense and she made a couple questionable comments that seemed to show she may be having personal feelings towards OPs disability.

I know a judge is supposed to not be bias but after today I am deeply concerned.
All along I thought her quietness and attention was to be sure she fairly judged. Now I am not so sure.

 

[K.T]

We had two defence witnesses today.

Anyone know how many defence witnesses are to come and who they might be?

Thank you

I remember before the break there was talk of an industrial psychologist being a possible defense witness. Presumably to talk about fight/flight/freeze & the differences disability may make on a person's actions. Unsure if this is relevant after his 30 day assessment.

To counter that, prosecution has a psychologist specializing in the deaf/hearing impaired community. I would assume if she was called as prosecution witness after they reopened their case, she could talk in general about levels of disability and how that influences (or not) someone's mindset.

In disability terms having no feet/calves is not seen as such a high level of disability, compared to say a complete loss of sight or hearing.

Personally I think a prosecution pysch should detail the incredibly high levels of partner homicide in SA and explain the characteristics that are common in this case.

In my opinion Afrikaner men from a certain class (complete stereotype!) are extremely chauvinistic and act like they are in the 1950's, leading to problems with a changing society and different female expectations.

Pistorius clan seem to fall into that category of strict, outdated mentality.

 

[lisasalinger]

My local news (in the U.S.) reported on today's proceedings. A reporter on assignment in SA stated that the case -- testimony, closing arguments, and a verdict -- will conclude within the next few weeks.

Considering how slowly everything in this case has moved thus far I'm a little skeptical of that claim, but I thought I'd share what was reported.

Was that The Today Show? I saw it this morning and heard the same thing. I thought, no way is that possible. The Today Show typically has some very fluffy reporting. But on the off chance that they are correct, I would gladly take a verdict in the next few weeks.