Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

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

stack I read the timeline to mean the second set of bangs were at 3.17 and he called Stander at 3.19.
If the first set were about 3am then that means it took about 15 mins for OP to go to the bedroom etc and realise it might be Reeva.
Someone said upthread (sorry I can't remember who) about the blood not being analysed and if that poster had made a mistake or lied (aargh too many posters!).I said as far as I remembered the blood on the watch case hadn't been analysed. But I don't think any of the blood was analysed which seemed odd as in theory any of the blood could have predated that night and any of it could have come from a different source.

Book, that was me about the blood. I was, admittedly very clumsily, trying to make a point.

I was sure that we had not heard the results of any blood analysis. I too thought that very odd. Nothing should be assumed in a murder case. Even if just to prove it was Reeva's blood, it should have been done.

My point about the poster and the mistake is that OP has been criticised for changing words and "not remembering" saying various things while under what was very intense cross examination. And here would had a poster talking about Reeva's blood on the watch case, and then a few posts later saying that we didn't know whose blood it was. Not under cross examination, and with access to previous posts to see what they had said.

Sorry if that muddied the waters a bit.

Unfortunately, I'm not off work tomorrow, as we dont get bank holidays

So I will have my headphones on at work and try and sneak a peek on MN at break times

Thanks for thar stack - that is the timeline I was working from, you got there first. I have been caught up with other things and since I got home I have also been getting up to date with DS and reviewing OP's testimony from 6/4.

Apologies for getting V D Merwe and Berger mixed up to the kind poster who pointed that out . I think it best that I overlook some of your errors though or we might move away from the trial itself!

But is that timeline incorrect, ie with where it starts? Was there a call about 3am, or was it much later?

Need to go back and listen to the evidence.

I do have all the links to the testimony here but I have a slightly better version with more detail in work.

Week One

March 3rd (Michelle Burger) March 4th (Cross Examination of Michelle Burger) March 5th (Charl Johnson; Kevin Lerena RE Tasha’s Restaurant) March 6th (Johan Stipp) March 7th (Johan Stipp; Samantha Taylor; Pieter Baba)

Week 2

March 10th . (Pieter Baba) March 11th Pathologist, Gert Saayman continues revealing Reeva Steenkamp's post mortem details. The proceedings cannot be shown. (Darren Fresco) March 12th (Police Col Johan Vermeulen, Toilet Door Evidence) March 13th (Police Col Johan Vermeulen) (Col Van Rensburg; Pictures of the scene) March 14th (Col Van Rensburg)

Week 3

March 17th (Sean Patrick Rens, Firearms; Warrant officer Van Staden, Photographs) March 18th (Warrant officer Van Staden) (Capt. Christian Mangena) March 19th ((Capt. Christian Mangena)) Court adjourned until 24th March. (Capt ian van der Nest; Michael Sales – Ipad data)

Week 4

March 24th (Annette Stipp evidence, Reeva Phone messages) March 25th (Phone Messages. End of State’s Case)) Court adjourned until Friday 28th March

MARCH 28th court case postponed when one of the court officials fell ill.

Week 5

April 7th (Jan Botha Oscar; Defence witness forensic pathologist. Includes food digestion evidence. Pistorius apologised to the family of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, on the first day of his evidence at his murder trial. (Oscar Pistorius takes to the stand, apologises to family gives evidence to Roux. Talks about growing up.) (ROUX: talks about religion, his dogs, etc) April 8th (ROUX: Talks about meeting Reeva, her interest in motor vehicles, WhatsApp Messages’ emails from Sam Taylor, press reaction to relationship) (ROUX: more WhatsApp messages) (ROUX: More WhatsApp messages, Counts two, three and four – OP talks about shooting incidents and ammunition. The day of the Shooting, arriving home, dinner, going to bedroom, fans, curtains, locking bedroom drawer. Testimony about the valentine present, demonstration of OP by the door on and off Prosthesis, continuing statements RE getting out of bed, fans, LED light; noise in the bathroom) (ROUX: OP’s Testimony of the Shooting and aftermath, breaks down – court Adjourned) April 9th (ROUX: OP’s Testimony RE making calls, moving Reeva, leaving his bedroom, people arriving, demo of kicking the door. Mr Nel Cross Examination) (More OP Cross Examination ‘I made a mistake’, ‘Zombie Stopper’ evidence argument about defence being ambushed; Judge adjourns court so defence can see video) (Zombie Stopper Video shown; Picture of Reeva’s head shown to court; OP breaks down; Court Adjourned) (NEL: More discussion on the Water-melon; Detailed questions about the Bail application version ‘My story hasn’t changed’; (NEL: OP talks about Police tampering; ‘Are you saying the fans were tampered with?’ Photos of the bedroom – fans, bed, Stereo, Plugs, Shooting, ‘I didn’t deliberately do it’) April 10th (NEL: OP talking about their relationship; Whatsapp messages - arguments; The incident in Tasha’s; guns. (NEL: Firearms; WhatsApp April 11th

Week 6

April 14th (Oscar Pistorius Cross-Examined) April 15th (OP; Dixon) April 16th (Dixon) April 17th (Roger Dixon) (Roger Dixon) Court Adjourned until Monday 5th may 2014.

Hope this works.

Wow - thank you Stack. That must have been a lot of work!

Thanks for that, Stack!

Re the timeline, it still looks (to me) that OP is arguing that the first set of bangs at 3:00 (ish) were the gunshots. He then did the moving around the room, calling from the balcony for help, putting his prosthetics on, for about 15 minutes.

Then the second set of bangs happened at around 3:15, and that was the sound of the bat being used. The lights were on now, which is what the neighbours saw. He called for help minutes after getting the door open.

That's his story.

As luck would have it, last night there was a very loud bang outside which woke three of the four of us up. It was very loud. We've discussed it this morning, and we can't work out what it might have been.

DH suggests it was a rocket, but I said it was more of a bang than a crack. It sounded like something slamming into something, but there was no noise of glass breaking or screams or voices. DD woke up crying as it had incorporated itself into her dream, so she thinks she only dreamed it. The same noise, but three different ideas of what it sounded like.

It's not really relevant; I just found it interesting.

If we were to hear in the news that someone had been shot, all of us would be saying we heard a gunshot. If there was a car embedded into the railway bridge outside, we'd all be saying we heard the crash. Even DS, who slept through.

I think there might be some mileage in the gun and the bat sounding relatively similar.

I did it in work whenever I had a spare moment.

I do have one with more detail for the final week but can't access it at the mo.

Anyone know where I can watch live today? Online I mean. And what time?

Stack. Sorry, so many posts that I can't remember, but was it you that mentioned the Whatsapp from Reeva that OP nearly read out?

If it was, that was a good spot. I went back to it and I am pretty sure it did say "no more fuckers" and I wondered if that was related to the alleged harassment by the ex and her sister?

Stack, I watch on the bbc...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27280194

Amazing work Stack :)

Re. that phone call, firstly in the article it says it was made "after 3am". Secondly, it has not been mentioned in court that there was a phone call made to this person at such an early time, and I think it would be crucial evidence. Like Louise (I think it was) says earlier, there was a lot said in the early days after the shooting and much of it was confused and has been later disproved. In terms of that thread on Web Sleuths, I think the later posts have taken that phone call out of the timeline..?

Looking - it is interesting then, isn't it, that if the shots happened at 3am then she would have died at 3am and not later? I am starting to see that the problem with the timelines is almost that OP either has too much time to play with (c.17 minutes to do not that much really given the space involved) or not enough time (c.2 minutes if the 3:17 sounds were the gunshots).

Oh even I am confused today... :)

Yes, I think that there are still a lot of questions about the timeline. I don't think it can be taken as conclusive proof of anything really.

On the fence. Still feeling like implausible but not improbable.

Marking place for later.

This is interesting - Stander says he asked Dr Stipp what happened, and at that point, Dr Stipp says he heard 4 shots, silence, screams, 4 more shots.

He says he remembers specifically, because he said to his daughter who'd asked what happened, that he was concerned because you cannot shoot four times, even if you think it's an intruder.

I don't know whether this is more or less compelling than Dr Stipp's testimony.

After the shooting, OP says he went back, crawled over the bed, felt the curtains, called from the balcony?, put his legs on, got the bat, and then bashed the door. To be fair that could take a very short space of time.

Well done Stack

It appears BBC are televising it? I am watching the trial on the BBC News channel on Freeview. I thought it was a clip but it appears not. Neighbour John Stander giving evidence.

Looking - remind me, what did Dr Stipp say specifically about that in his testimony?

I take that back. It's just gone back to news.

Can I come back to that later, Godot? I don't remember off the top of my head, and want to keep listening to today's for now.

I'm watching on Enca.
Where is Roux?

Roux is in court but the guy I hate is taking the lead today

looking I thought that was interesting and also that he was originally a state witness but when he wasn't called, the defence called him. (Disclaimer - I'm not listening live just picking up BBC reports).

I'm watching live via Telegraph. Nel is questioning Stander closely (who incidentally sounds quite emotional).

I wondered about that too, Book. I pondered whether it was because he didn't think Stander was reliable, or whether he thought that if he didn't, the defence would call him anyway (it would be a big witness for nobody to call), or what.

It might just be that he thought he wasn't going to provide anything that would further the information.