Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

997 replies

Roussette · 03/05/2014 17:18

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

OP posts:
Nerf · 07/05/2014 20:10

No I'm trying to work out what it all means.
The work phone was upstairs IF he used it upstairs to call for help. Or he ran down and got it to call for help.
He used the work phone to call for help - fact?
The work phone was later seen on charge downstairs - fact.
How does that proof anything? In between calling for help he put it on charge.

AmIthatSpringy · 07/05/2014 20:16

It doesn't prove anything Nerf but there will, I am sure, be inferences drawn from those facts

I suppose that's part and parcel of just having circumstantial evidence

LookingThroughTheFog · 07/05/2014 20:17

Oh, and worth mentioning... Assange is on the run from two rape charges too.

Yes, I know that. My point is, if it were just them nobody would care two hoots about him. It's the political stuff that's saving him.

StackALee · 07/05/2014 20:20

'I'm interested in what makes you think the prosecution is losing, Stack, given the terrible performance of the defense experts?'

Have to say first that I still don't understand the way the murder charge works in this case.

I also think he's probably guilty in that there probably was an augment and he killed her knowing it was her OR he is guilty because he didn't check she was ok and should have.

It's the Stipp Evidence that makes me think there is more to it than mistaken identity.

But... I just don't see how, so far, the state have proven any of this beyond reasonable doubt it's just to hard to prove and there is always that little bit of doubt that it could all have been a terrible tragic accident.

I think they could go some way towards proving it by bringing in certain witnesses like 'frank' etc.

LookingThroughTheFog · 07/05/2014 20:23

I don't see that a long sentence is in anyone's interests. Unless he really is proven to be a menace to society.

While on the one hand, I agree, on another hand, I don't think a lengthy sentence is always about protecting the public. It's punitive, and it also needs to act as a deterrent. It has to remind people that they can't just go shooting at people.

LouiseBrooks · 07/05/2014 20:25

"Not sure I'll say this the right way (and I may very well be wrong), but I don't think he appears to be evil, nor unrepentant, nor unremorseful... For those reasons, and because I do think he may have immediately realised he'd committed the most appalling act of violence and would desperately want to turn the clock back, I don't see that a long sentence is in anyone's interests. Unless he really is proven to be a menace to society."

Jill I agree completely with all of that (although of course I think he does need some punishment) but I think - and have all along - that the State are extremely anxious to prove that he won't get special treatment because of who he is and therefore he will get a very stiff sentence that he probably wouldn't get if he was Joe Bloggs in the same circumstances.

YNK · 07/05/2014 20:29

Actually I take back any respect I have expressed for Roux. I have C&P'd this post from DS. It's from the same poster who's timeline went viral the other day!

Posted by Donmack
OK...anyone who is interested, I have watched Baba & Stipp's cross to see exactly what Roux is up to. And I think I can. It's made me lose a little bit of respect for him, I think....and it explains Nel's attitude to the disputed time of call yesterday.

Anyone who is not interested, skip this. It's loooooooong.

Recall that several posters yesterday opined that Mr Mike's testimony about his wife hearing a bang, then both hearing male crying, then making a call at 3.16 hugely contradicted the State's case...etc. etc, on the basis that it was a "fact on record" that Stipp called security at 3.15 before hearing bangs which he said happened 2 minutes later at 3.17.

This is not true. It was Stipp's evidence in chief that he called security and found it engaged. He then tried another number and it was out of order. On this call, he heard the shots. Then he called security again and got through.

But Roux tried to challenge this with both Baba & Stipp....failing IMO. Spectacularly in the case of Stipp.

Cross of Baba:

(Monday March 10, Session 1, from 12.00 onwards)

Baba is handed by Roux a copy of the log of calls made to the security landline. He tells Baba that it shows that Mr Stipp's number made a call at 3.15.51. To help him place that call, he points out that it is just before two calls made by Mr Mike at 3.16. Roux asks if this is the call that Baba took where Mr Stipp reported hearing gunshots. He agreed it was. The call duration is 16 seconds.

Roux: Now, in the evidence of Dr Stipp, he denied that he got through to you on that first call and says that it is much later. We know, long after 3....or sometime after 3.17. But we see that the call before Mr N that it was in fact 16 seconds. Are you positive that he did speak to you?

Baba: Milady, I spoke to Dr Stipp and I spoke to Mr N.

This is total bollocks. Total. Well, maybe not total, but highly misleading.

Stipp's cross:

(Friday, March 7, Session 1, beginning 14.04)

Roux: How many times did you call security?

Stipp: Twice

Roux: My understanding is that the first time you couldn't get through and the second time you spoke to them?

Stipp: That's right

Roux: Are you sure that the first time you didn't get through?

Stipp: I am

Roux: Are you sure that you spoke to them the 2nd time?

Stipp: Yes, I am

Roux: And are you sure it was after speaking to them the second time, that you heard the screaming?
(NB: the screaming that Roux is referring to here is the "help, help, help" that Stipp says he heard sometime after the call to security)

Stipp: Yes, that's right

Roux: The state made available to us - and I won't refer to your telephone number, doctor, we have that. I won't make that mistake again. But the state made available to us the records of calls to security. So that we can see it. The first call you could not get through. It's null. We have the record. It's the States, it's not ours.......uh, uh, I apologise. The first call you DID speak to them. The 2nd call there was no answer. On the State's documents. Would you like to answer that?

Stipp: Well, that's not correct because I phoned security......if I spoke to them, and they answered, I would not have phoned the other two numbers trying to get help. Which I did.

Roux: I am putting something to you because the records will be before the court through the State. We have them, the State has a copy. The first call is 16 seconds. The second call, it says no answer.

Stipp: I phoned the security guards and there was no answer. I then proceeded to call 10111 because there was no answer the first time. After that, I also called another number, an 082 number. I couldn't really remember what their emergency number was. And that didn't work out. I called security again and that time they answered.

Roux: We have the calls. We worked it out exactly. I'll take you to the next point there. That call was....you heard, "help, help, help" after speaking, on your version, to security?

Stipp: No. Er....sorry. Yes. That's correct.

Roux: And they said they were on their way to your house, before they arrived, you heard "help, help, help"

Stipp: it was shortly after I finished speaking to them that I heard the help, help, help.

Roux: We know what time you spoke, er, not spoke, made the call......it's 3.27 and 14 seconds. Would that moreorless make sense?

Stipp: It, er.....I'm not sure. I haven't seen the times.

Roux: That time, when you would have, according to you, because you heard the "help, help, help" it must then have been after 3.27 because it was after that call, you say

Stipp: Well, if that was the time of the call, then it was after that call, yes.

Roux: We have the call to Netcare by Mr Stander, you were with him when he made that call

Stipp: From Oscar's house?

Roux: Yes

Stipp: Yes

Roux: At 3.28

Stipp: Well, I have to go and look at the phone logs because I also phoned the something-med (couldn't catch what it was called) emergency care while he was on the phone. So I am sure. I can get my phone log to see what my phone said the time of the call was.

Roux: Of course, doctor

Roux then questions Stipp about what he saw in the house.

It's damn obvious what's happened here. Roux knows it, so does Nel. Unfortunately, Dr Stipp doesn't because he hasn't seen the call logs. Nel never objects, because Roux is not factually wrong....but it can dismissed in about 3 seconds of argument, which is what Nel will do.

Stipp in fact (IMO) made 3 calls to security.

The first one did not go through, because it was engaged. This attempt would not show up on the security call logs, because no connection was made. It has probably shown up on Stipp's personal call log, but Stipp hasn't checked, although the State & Roux will know. It's not a coincidence that we don't actually know what the time of the call was - it wasn't on the security logs that Roux used.

The second call went through at 3.15:15 and lasted 16 seconds. This is when Stipp spoke to security.

Another call, that barely connected (registering 0 seconds) was made at 3.27:14. This is probably an accidental press of redial.

Roux has, probably correctly, stated that the security logs show 3.15 & 3.27 as Stipp's phone calling security. And he has asserted that, if Stipp heard the "helps" after the last call then this must have been after 3.27.

He then tells Stipp that the call to Netcare that Stander made with Stipp present was 3.28, causing immediate confusion for Stipp, unsurprisingly, since he knows he wasn't calling security then.

Roux's ploy here is ridiculous and desperate. He may be factually correct, but it leads to the bizarre assertion that Dr Stipp heard the "help, help, help's" standing in OP's forecourt with Stander after coming out from tending Reeva.

Not surprised that Nel is not worried by the "timeline inconsistency". There isn't one.

Stipp and Mr Mike both called AFTER the gunshots. Clearly and obviously. The gunshots were either at 3.13 or 3.14. Everything fits like a glove.

voiceofgodot · 07/05/2014 20:30

YNK I'm interested in what makes you think the prosecution is losing, Stack, given the terrible performance of the defense experts?

It's not really a case of 'losing' though, is it? Stack said she wasn't sure the case had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is what it needs to do. I have to say I tend to agree. We may have extrapolated a lot of things that - as have been constantly claimed recently - will become clear in Nel's final summary. But I don't think there have been any real 'slam dunk' moments that have made you think that he is lying and that it is incontrovertibly clear that he is lying.

By the way, I watched that legal discussion clip you linked to; really enjoy listening to their verdict on the day's proceedings. I wasn't sure whether they were saying that they think that Nel missed a bit of a trick by not objecting when Stander claimed that OP had said he'd made a terrible mistake, he thought she was an intruder. They also seemed to be suggesting that the Judge had missed it too (although perhaps had come back to it later on). The Standers clearly have subconscious bias towards Oscar, although the other NDN's don't so much. Frank of course, well... his testimony would have been fascinating. I'm still struggling to get past the fact that has been magnificently glossed over by both parties.

Also struggling to keep up with this thread, having spent the day at Legoland with two impish children having a life Grin

LouiseBrooks · 07/05/2014 20:36

The other thing is that people are supposed to be punished and rehabilitated and that is a fine line.
,
I remember reading an interview with the novelist Anne Perry who was previously Juliet Hulme who, with her friend, murdered her friend's mother (very famous case in NZ, a film was made starring Kate Winslet.) They were 15. She said that she thought the time she served in an adult jail (a very tough women's jail) from the age of 18 was just the right amount of time because it was long enough to punish her and make her realise just how wrong their actions were, but any longer and she would have unable to be rehabilitated.

I appreciate she was a lot younger than OP but I hope you see the point.

StackALee · 07/05/2014 20:37

I forgot one other thing re the questions about the remote for the alarm system.

OP already said, very early on that he didn't think it was possible she went downstairs to eat. When one of the court officials asked him to clarify if Reeva knew how to use the remote he seemed to be saying that he didn't think she would have had access to it.

So, what happened to the remote? Where was it found for example?

Surely she did know how to use it, as she stayed at the house by herself and the evening before the killing she was at the house before OP arrived. Interestingly, during that bit of testimony he started to say he arrived home, the dogs were out and the door was locked. Then he was interrupted by either the judge or Roux and when he started up again with that testimony he skipped straight to 'Reeva was in the kitchen cooking'.

I would be asking more direct questions about when she used the remote, if the alarms had ever been left off by Reeva and where the re,one was when the crime scene was sealed off.

Btw, since I last posted some of the more recent posts have convinced me he will be found guilty, not least because it doesn't matter f it was an accident,he still killed whoever was behind the door.

YNK · 07/05/2014 20:39

No blooming wonder we have all been confused with the timeline!
I totally blame Roux for the migraine I gave myself the other day trying to make it all fit!

JillJ72 · 07/05/2014 20:42

Stack there are pages and reams and theses worth of questions not asked, it seems. I wonder whether the prosecution and defence reports will cover some of them, as they do seem so obvious.

And that makes me wonder what the UK system is like; is it really thorough, no stone unturned, or is that just for TV and film?

Nerf · 07/05/2014 20:43

I can't follow half the long posts about what things mean and why it proves something without a doubt.

AmIthatSpringy · 07/05/2014 20:43

Yes Stack, he did stop at that bit of testimony! with the front door being locked.

Did he say that the alarm remote was on the same key ring as the keys for the internal doors.

I don't think that has been mentioned at all

AmIthatSpringy · 07/05/2014 20:48

Nerf. I'm not sure any of us can prove anything beyond a doubt

StackALee · 07/05/2014 20:50

if it was on the Same keying then that raises some interesting questions.

He maintains he can't remember if it was him who turned off the alarm?
Or did he ask Reeva to bring fans in and set the alarm?
He definitely opened the front door, and the bedroom door (must have surely) at which point he would have had to turn off the alarm (?) IF it was even on.

But definitely he would have opened the front door, taking the alarm remote with him?

Nerf · 07/05/2014 20:50

No, but I just can't get into all the extrapolation and leaps from a to b to c. I need things really simply explained!
(And I have some legal training Blush)

BonnieL · 07/05/2014 20:54

Are you Donmack YNK? Just out of interest.

LookingThroughTheFog · 07/05/2014 20:54

I hope you see the point.

I do see the point. However, there is the deterrent element. It's very, very unusual for a teenager to kill their parent. Yes, some of them are hard work, but not to the extent of actual murder.

Men kill their wives/girlfriends daily. Even if we don't see this as a cut and dried DV case, it would be a mistake to in any way imply that the death of a woman just isn't that important.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves really. There hasn't been a guilty verdict yet, and we haven't even finished the defence case. He may be found not guilty, he may be found guilty. When it comes to any potential sentencing though, I think it would be a mistake to think 'it probably won't happen again; he won't kill anyone else and it's an uncommon crime.' Because it's sort of not.

I want to see a fair trial, and I want to see a fair verdict. I do trust the judge to do that. If there is a sentence, then I hope that sentence isn't too harsh because he happens to be a celebrity, or too lenient because it won't happen again.

Hopefully, I'm not asking too much. I trust her though. She seems very calm.

AmIthatSpringy · 07/05/2014 21:00

Bonnie. What's Donmack, please ?

YNK · 07/05/2014 21:02

I know Nerf! I was doing my nut in trying to get my heid around that bit of the timeline the other day!

I now realise how much Roux was trying to bamboozle Dr Stipp, who didn't have access to his own phone log, just the one the prosecution gave the defense!
And why it was so important to OP to dismiss and discredit him!

Undeterred though, Dr Stipp stuck to his guns (excuse the pun), but then that's what you CAN do when you are telling the truth!
I think OP might have got away with this if it wasn't for Dr Stipp!

What a hero!
Not only did he go into an uncertain situation, facing real danger in order to offer help, he has doggedly stuck to his testimony to bring justice for Reeva!

StackALee · 07/05/2014 21:02

Donmack is a poster on digital spy forum

BonnieL · 07/05/2014 21:04

springy Donmack is a poster from DS who YNK has quoted a few times on here.

YNK · 07/05/2014 21:05

OMG no, I am not Donmack, bon. (a poster on DS, springy)

I only wish I was half that clever!
I would be doing a run around the MN block with my knickers on my head!

AmIthatSpringy · 07/05/2014 21:07

Ah, thanks Stack and Bonnie. That explains why I didn't know