It's based on all the ear-witnesses testimonies except Motshuane (she gave no times). I worked on it while transcribing their testimonies bit by bit the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct but hey, for sure there must be things I missed or got wrong so will welcome corrections or anything of real importance I missed out (if I can fit any more on it that is!) but please anyone PM corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I don't miss them and can check them myself first.
Clicking its title above opens it in photobucket. Not the best as it doesn't allow different viewing sizes (AFAIK) and it's a wide document so once open you have to scroll along to view it all, but docdroid, much better for viewing it, quirkily interpreted all the dashed time lines as solids making it look more like a typographic Mondrian than a timeline but I haven't found another solution at the moment... or any ideas ?
Anyway hope you do check it out because it gives a visual idea of how the testimonies fit together, much of which you know, and I have done it using the real times where they exist so it's not fishing for a debate... unless of course you want to debate the colour scheme ; -- )
are your timings from some of Roux's cross examinations ? You mention Roux saying times of calls to security - would need to check those, not sure you're right on that.
And just noticed the following this is AFTER OP had killed Reeva :
MN/EN - 'After checks house, high pitched man crying very loudly 'as if his life was in danger'
MN - hears no no no no please no
I think the above no nono please no-- was OP realising Reeva's dead.
No disrespect , but when did anyone say they heard a high pitched man crying loudly ? as if HIS life was in danger ? when we know OP had the gun and shot Reeva !- how would and when would OP have been under any threat to his life, he never was ! If OP was screeching it was only when he was terrorising Reeva, that's how that would be interpretted as, he was mimicking her, bullying her , ridiculing her.
AND Van Der Merve was woken to Reeva's loud voice as if in an argument at 1.58am , she said on the stand.
Why are you criticising the Stipps, and when they called Security ?
The Stipps clock was couple of minutes fast, and they got up went to balcony,tried to work out where gunshots were coming from, checking each balcony and then joining eachother
i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security - Are you in SA ?, as you know names of other staff. ( Just seen on your chart - they're bike patrol guards).
Just because bike duty guard who passed OP's house didn't hear Reeva's shouts when Van de Merve did..... doesn't mean they didn't happen - and they went passed on a bike at 2.,02 , so chances were slim they would anyway, it's a huge Estate. The evidence from them can't be used anyway because they did not testify in Court, so this can not and has not been tested, so you have to remove this from your timeline.
Where on your chart is Baba's call to OP ??
the call where OP told him Everything was Fine - which is really important, - because it wasn't all fine was it - because OP had already shot and killed Reeva , so OP lied, to Baba and covered it up because he didn't want him at the house did he. (all the phone data has been read out in court - so would be easy to get a time for those calls)
Neat breakdown,...........but think trying to fit in OP's version over State's, so will nit-pick , if I have time to go through everyone's testimonies again.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security -
Ah - someone called Maluleka(?!) was possibly the policeman that picked up the gun without the gloves on - there was an affidavit saying he was 'first on scene' which Rensberg disputed. But that was definitely some time after the Standers and Stipp arrived. I don't know who Dimandi is but is this also the name of an officer?
I am guessing these people are supposed to be security guards, but might be an error as might be policemen that arrived later - unless of course Maluleka is the name of the security guard as well. Common enough surname.
Ah - someone called Maluleka(?!) was possibly the policeman that picked up the gun without the gloves on - there was an affidavit saying he was 'first on scene' which Rensberg disputed. But that was definitely some time after the Standers and Stipp arrived. I don't know who Dimandi is but is this also the name of an officer?
I am guessing these people are supposed to be security guards, but might be an error as might be policemen that arrived later - unless of course Maluleka is the name of the security guard as well. Common enough surname.
no, had a closer look at that timeline of etcetera's
Diwandi- bike duty guard
Malueka - bike patrol guard
I think the conclusion must be that there were 3 sets of gunshots "bangs" that morning lol
There was a set at "around 3am" which came from Oscar's house.
Then there were some quieter cricket bat bangs at around 3:14-5 which Stipps heard and woke up Mike and his wife.
Then Berger/Johnson by chance heard a completely different murder taking place on completely the other side somewhere in SilverLakes estate lol
Its the only solution.
Unless someone got something wrong lol
Yep, I don't envy Masipa and Co on this one.
And how Nel is going to tally up the discrepancies between witnesses as he said he would during Stipp's cross is anyone's guess. An exchange priceless just for the poor Masipa who with Nel's cryptic and confusing explanations a la par with Rumsfield's "there are things we know, and things we don't know... etc." speech, cannot anymore fathom if the screams came before or after shots giving a classic gold when she says so seriously to the by then ever more confused Roux: "Well I think the objection is that this is your case. It is not the State's case that after the shots the deceased was not screaming" Precious!
FROM STIPP'S CROSS
Roux: So what we know as a fact it could not have been the deceased.
Nel: My lady, I have to object. We take it as a fact that the first shots killed the deceased, because that is the only way Mr Roux can say, it could not have been the deceased. I'm des... it's not according to the State's case. Mr Roux can argue that but he can't put to this witness as a fact, that after the first shots the screams could not have been the deceased. It's our case it was. So, he can say, on their version it was, but not as a fact. Because it's different, my lady, with the utmost respect, to put to a person, it's a fact when it is not. It... as far as I'm concerned it's not our case that is a fact.
Judge: Yes, it's not common cause.
Nel: No, not at all.
Judge: Yes Mr Roux?
Roux: My lady it cannot be. If we may... may I deal with the State's objection... and maybe he must make himself clear. He talks about, it's not their case that the "first shots". Is... if it's the State's case that there were later, after the first 4 shots other shots fired, he must tell us that because we have not a statement. We have statements from the police, from the ballistics, of only four shots. We have statements by state witnesses telling us about the succession of the shots, how far apart. We have no other statements of after those shots, and not first shots, the real shots, that there were no other shots fired other than the four shots. No other shots. So if the State tells us that there were "first" shots and "later" shots, then we have the difficulty because we have no such statement and I would ask the state to make it available.
Nel: My lady, I am not obliged to answer the questions of counsel what I will do is say our evidence. It's not... it's the State's case that it was the deceased that screamed. Whatever, how we argue, and what we'll do, will become clear, but my lady, if it's not common cause, and if it's still the State's case as I stand here, that the person that screamed was the deceased, then it could not be put as a fact. And that's my objection, my lady. If counsel would say that my arguments are wrong, that I don't know what I'm doing, that's **[00:21:04.24] 1/2 WORDS?**, that will come out in argument and after other evidence was led, but for now my lady, as I stand here, our objection is, counsel puts to this witness as a fact that it could not have been the deceased. I say on the State's case, it was her.
Judge: Yes. Thank you.
Roux: My lady, my difficulty is that the witness is a medical expert. He tells us, he testified, he saw the deceased with that wounding. She could not have screamed, because of that wounding. So the only time is the State tells us, and then I've... of course I can't put it that there were other shots later on that would have killed the deceased and that we're mistaken, it was not that. If that's not the case **[00:21:50.02]** that the State cannot tell you that, then my lady it's unfair to stop me, because I give it through that witness as a fact. He agreed, he agreed on a number of occasions, and it's correct, that those shots would have been fatal, would have killed the deceased, and there was no way that after that time lapse that she could have screamed. There's no dispute between the witness and I. And that's what I'm putting to you.
Judge: Well I think the objection is that this is your case. It is not the State's case that after the shots the deceased was not screaming.
Roux: My lady, that may not... if he tells us it is not his case, the witness agrees then with the defence case. He saw the deceased, so I can put it to this witness. Because he agrees that it would not be possible.
Judge: Yes.
Roux: And that's the only point that I'm dealing with. If the State want to retain their right to argue differently, that's fine. I'm only dealing with this witness.
Judge: Yes.
Roux: And what I was instructed by my witnessess.
Nel: My lady, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I'll do it now. I say, the shots at 3:17 caused the deceased' death. If, if... clearer than that I cannot. Before the shots of 3:17 she'd... she was screaming. That's my case. If Mr Roux tells the court that he thinks that I'm wrong, that's one thing, that's fine, but as long as I tell the court that, and as long as that's my case, counsel cannot put that the shots he elects killed the deceased. I say, if we have 2 sets of shots the last set killed the deceased. After that there was no scream by a woman.
Judge: You saying there was 4 shots?
Nel: My lady, the amount of shots...
Judge: Yes...
Nel: ...one will get to. The prev... earlier witnesses testified about 4 shots at 3:17, round about there. This witnesses testifies about two to three shots at 3:17. I say those shots heard at 3:17 caused the deceased' death. The screaming was before that.
Judge: The screaming was before 3:17?
Nel: Yes.
Judge: That's your case?
Nel: Yes.
Judge: Yes.
Nel: Now what Mr Roux is putting to the witness is that the shots before 3:17 caused the dec... caused the death of the deceased and she was incapable of screaming. My lady, I agree that the wounds that the deceased sustained at the shooting at 3:17 caused her death, after that she would not have been able to scream.
Judge: hmm, hmm
Nel: I agree with that. But this witness testifies about two sets of shots. Early shots and 3:17 shots. My... the State's case is, the 3:17 shots. If Mr Roux puts to this witness that after the 3:17 shots the witness was incapable of screa... the deceased was incapabe of screaming, I've got no problem. But that's not what he's putting. He's putting that the first shot caused her death and she was incapable of screaming, it must have been somebody else. If he says, i'ts my case, it's the defence case, that those were the shots, she was killed there, and if that's correct then she couldn't have screamed. Then I've no problem. And that was my argument from the start. Mr Roux must just make it clear that's it's not common cause, it's not the State's case, it's his case. He cannot put it as a fact to the witness. That's my argument.
Judge: Yes Mr Roux?
Roux: My lady, there's a... there's a big difficulty now...
Judge: hmm, hmm
Roux: ... because, and I beleive the State will listen very carefully. What is common cause in this case, after the further particulars was in, one thing is common cause, the accused fired 4 shots. I've listened to the State's argument now. He says it's not the State's case that the first shots, meaning, that the Dr heard when he woke up, killed the deceased but it was the later shots at 3:17. My lady there's a problem. The State cannot stand there and do an objection like that. Then they must give us a document to say, in fact we misled you all the time to say there were only the 4 shots fired. There were shots fired when our Dr woke up and there were shots fired when he was on the telephone. That's not the case, that's not in the particulars. So the State must for the purposes of his objection then tell you, that what the Dr heard were not shots. That he's wrong. Then we know and I'll do... go on that bases. We will put it differently. But the State cannot rely on two sets of shots as he is doing. That's not their case. It's in the further particulars clear. There were not two sets of shots. So you cannot talk about the first shots, or the first set and the last set. The State must decide and tell you, my lady. Do they say there were two volleys of shots, one when that witness woke up and one when he was on 10111, or what is it that they say, then we can take it from there. Because then it's not in accordance with the common cause evidence, by all their ballistics, to say now to us that there were two sets of shots, one when this witness woke up and one when he was on the telephone. So maybe the State must assist you there, my lady.
Judge: Do you want to say something Mr Nel?
Nel: My lady. There two sets of noises. We say the shots at 3:17 killed the deceased. It's as easy at that. There are two sets of noises. We say that the shots of 3:17 killed the deceased. If that is our case.
Judge: And before 3:17?
Nel: My lady there... she was alive and screaming. There were oth... other sets of noises; this witness indicates he heard two. Our case is not two sets of shots. It's not our case. Our case is. There were four shots fired in the region of 3:17. That's our case.
Judge: All of them at 3:17?
Nel: Yes. This witness heard two sets of shots which he believed to be... two sets of noises which he believed to be shots. That's fine. That's fair.
Judge: And the screaming when did that take place? After 3:17?
Nel: No, before.
Judge: Before 3:17?
Nel: Yes. Before. So, my lady, we're not saying there more than 4 shots fired. It's not our case. We will deal with the discrepancies between the State witnesses. We will. But, for now, my lady, and that's why I ask the co... the court to step in as far as cross examination is concerned. If we have discrepancies between our witnesses we'll deal with that. But for now, the shots, for there were 4 shots fired at 3:17, that caused the deceased' death, that's our case. And if that's our case it's not common cause and it's not a fact for the accu... for Mr Roux to say that it's a fact that she could not have screamed before 3:17. And that's what he's doing. That's when I got up to object. So, my lady, wrong or right, our case is 4 shots at 3:17 killed the deceased. Nothing else is common cause. And if that is so Mr Roux should not be allowed to put that.
It's based on all the ear-witnesses testimonies except Motshuane (she gave no times). I worked on it while transcribing their testimonies bit by bit the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct but hey, for sure there must be things I missed or got wrong so will welcome corrections or anything of real importance I missed out (if I can fit any more on it that is!) but please anyone PM corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I don't miss them and can check them myself first.
Clicking its title above opens it in photobucket. Not the best as it doesn't allow different viewing sizes (AFAIK) and it's a wide document so once open you have to scroll along to view it all, but docdroid, much better for viewing it, quirkily interpreted all the dashed time lines as solids making it look more like a typographic Mondrian than a timeline but I haven't found another solution at the moment... or any ideas ?
Anyway hope you do check it out because it gives a visual idea of how the testimonies fit together, much of which you know, and I have done it using the real times where they exist so it's not fishing for a debate... unless of course you want to debate the colour scheme ; -- )
You mention Roux saying times of calls to security - would need to check those, not sure you're right on that.
And just noticed the following this is AFTER OP had killed Reeva :
MN/EN - 'After checks house, high pitched man crying very loudly 'as if his life was in danger'
MN - hears no no no no please no
I think the above no nono please no-- was OP realising Reeva's dead.
No disrespect , but when did anyone say they heard a high pitched man crying loudly ? as if HIS life was in danger ? when we know OP had the gun and shot Reeva !- how would and when would OP have been under any threat to his life, he never was ! If OP was screeching it was only when he was terrorising Reeva, that's how that would be interpretted as, he was mimicking her, bullying her , ridiculing her.
Van Der Merwe
was woken to Reeva's loud voice as if in an argument at 1.56am i think she said on the stand.
Why are you criticising the Stipps, and when they called Security ?
The Stipps clock was couple of minutes fast, and they got up went to balcony,tried to work out where gunshots were coming from, checking each balcony and then joining eachother
i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security - Are you in SA ?, as you know names of other staff. ( Just seen on your chart - they're bike patrol guards).
Just because bike duty guard who passed OP's house didn't hear Reeva's shouts when Van de Merve did..... doesn't mean they didn't happen - and they went passed on a bike at 2.,02 , so chances were slim they would anyway, it's a huge Estate. The evidence from them can't be used anyway because they did not testify in Court, so this can not and has not been tested, so you have to remove this from your timeline.
Baba's call to OP ?
the call where OP told him Everything was Fine - which is really important, - because it wasn't all fine was it - because OP had already shot and killed Reeva , so OP lied, to Baba and covered it up because he didn't want him at the house did he. (all the phone data has been read out in court - so would be easy to get a time for those calls) 3.22.05
3:21:33am – OP calls Baba - he just cries down phone, doesn't speak .(you have this on timeline) 3:22:05am – Baba’s call to OP - where OP says “Everything is fine”. (you have this time-- but don't say what OP says)
Further calls from Dr S after 3.17
Dr Stipps calls / sometime after 3.17 (Roux didn't say when btw)
- You say that Roux misread 3.17 with 3.27 - Roux contradicted himself on the 3.27 time and tried to confuse when Stipp called/ spoke to Security
Stipps and CJ -- both called security within about 30 seconds of each other reporting the shots. Based on the recorded call times, the shots would have been heard just prior to 3:16am and NOT 3.14 as you state in your timeline but OP could have used the bat on the door first to explain discrepancies
Neat breakdown,...........but think trying to fit in OP's version over State's, so will nit-pick , if I have time to go through everyone's testimonies again.
The Denial and lack of acceptance of what OP's done - he talks about OP grieving for a loved one, like it was an Intruder who'd killed Reeva, and not OP ...........just listen.......... he should say nothing, if he's going to carry on like this, he's of the presumption OP will be cleared and walk I think !
He says : "light controls darkness" "the truth will prevail"
"We allow them (Steenkamps) to grieve" Oh FFS now I see exactly where OP got his god complex from. Pass the green bucket, STAT!!!!
And how Nel is going to tally up the discrepancies between witnesses as he said he would during Stipp's cross is anyone's guess. An exchange priceless just for the poor Masipa who with Nel's cryptic and confusing explanations a la par with Rumsfield's "there are things we know, and things we don't know... etc." speech, cannot anymore fathom if the screams came before or after shots giving a classic gold when she says so seriously to the by then ever more confused Roux: "Well I think the objection is that this is your case. It is not the State's case that after the shots the deceased was not screaming" Precious!
To be fair Roux is making presumptions that the first 3 bangs included all the gunshots (and were gunshots) and that the 4th was missed because the Stipps were asleep. There are assumptions there.
That's the defence version not proven though.
So to say Reeva cannot have screamed afterwards is wrong. She might have. That is all Nel is saying, really. It should have been a lot simpler and required a lot less explanations and long-winded answers by both sides there. Roux as much as Nel.
They have a habit of talking in terms of "shots" instead of "bang noises" I think.
State versions - options???
(I) 3:17 : A nonsense option lol
I really can't see 3:17 is feasible if Nel argued that and I was an assessor I would just knock it down straight away and say it was totally improbable for the next door neighbours to miss 4 gunshots and also to phone security BEFORE the woman screamed, etc. And that would be the end of that so far as the state time line goes lol
(II) Shortly before 3:16 calls: A better option - B/J hear 2nd bangs
If Nel argues for 2-3 bang to equate with gunshots (waking up Mike and Wife) and be heard by Burger/Johnson BEFORE Dr. stipp and B/J rang security at 3:16 then all well and good. I'd query why the B/J call-bangs order is the wrong way round however. And also query what is going on with those "helps". And finally query what the heck sense to make of the first set of bangs - bats, missing gunshots out the window, what?
It can be made consistent but the scenarios all have problems that just don't feel right (to me).
(III) 2nd bangs before 3:16 but only heard by Stipp - B/J hear gunshots, regardless on when these were (since 4 bangs+).
If Nel argued that B/J gunshots were before 3:16 after all, then of course they could have been at any time, so even if gunshots came first, they still could have heard it (before Stipps woke up, heard A (pause) B+C+D). That actually might make the most sense out of all the state versions (in terms of "female screams" more likely coming from Reeva than OP, in fairness) - and meaning only Annette made the biggest perceptual mistakes afterwards.
I definitely think B/J bangs must come before the 3:16 calls otherwise it is apparent that they definitely heard Pistorius, after all. If before, some chance it was Reeva.
Couple of state arguments against defence anyway
(I) lack of results of OP's tests does not inspire confidence
I do have a suspicion at least a few fragments of Reeva screaming escaped from that property because otherwise I think OP would have had more confidence to try and present the results of his screaming audio tests to the state to compare with witnesses a long time ago. Mr. Roux mentioned tapes and alluded to them but they never surfaced. Which makes me very suspicious as to why.
(II) lack of "cricket bats" from Mike and his wife's evidence.
If the defence argues that cricket bats are so noisy they can be mistaken by people 177m away for gunshots, then I would also query how they can be missed by the neighbours in the next door house!! how is that even possible??? The defence argument that Mike and his wife can contradict especially the Stipps evidence seems to fall down on this point.
....
Conclusion: Indeterminate timeline.
We cannot know as there are too many inconsistencies and neither side has solved them all.
...
I don't think these witness testimonies will determine the outcome of the case rather OP's testimony and the ballistics, crime scene, forensics & Jan 29 / Feb 8 whatsapps, will do that. Witnesses aren't the most reliable source of information in most criminal cases and I daresay the same applies here.
[Bathroom lights is not easy for the defence to clear mind you...] ;-)
To be fair Roux is making presumptions that the first 3 bangs included all the gunshots (and were gunshots) and that the 4th was missed because the Stipps were asleep. There are assumptions there.
That's the defence version not proven though.
So to say Reeva cannot have screamed afterwards is wrong. She might have. That is all Nel is saying, really. It should have been a lot simpler and required a lot less explanations and long-winded answers by both sides there. Roux as much as Nel.
They have a habit of talking in terms of "shots" instead of "bang noises" I think.
I really can't see 3:17 is feasible if Nel argued that and I was an assessor I would just knock it down straight away and say it was totally improbable for the next door neighbours to miss 4 gunshots and also to phone security BEFORE the woman screamed, etc. And that would be the end of that so far as the state time line goes lol
If Nel argues for 2-3 bang to equate with gunshots (waking up Mike and Wife) and be heard by Burger/Johnson BEFORE Dr. stipp and B/J rang security at 3:16 then all well and good. I'd query why the B/J call-bangs order is the wrong way round however. And also query what is going on with those "helps". And finally query what the heck sense to make of the first set of bangs - bats, missing gunshots out the window, what?
It can be made consistent but the scenarios all have problems that just don't feel right (to me).
But finally if Nel argued that B/J gunshots were before 3:16 after all, then of course they could have been at any time, so even if gunshots came first, they still could have heard it (before Stipps woke up, heard A (pause) B+C+D). That actually might make the most sense out of all the state versions (in terms of "female screams" more likely coming from Reeva than OP, in fairness) - and meaning only Annette made the biggest perceptual mistakes afterwards.
I definitely think B/J bangs must come before the 3:16 calls otherwise it is apparent that they definitely heard Pistorius, after all. If before, some chance it was Reeva.
HOWEVER(!): If the defence argues that cricket bats are so noisy they can be mistaken by people 177m away for gunshots, then I would also query how they can be missed by the neighbours in the next door house!! how is that even possible??? The defence argument that Mike and his wife can contradict especially the Stipps evidence seems to fall down on this point.
Conclusion: Indeterminate timeline.
Personally I have always believed the gunshots came before the cricket bats as it is much simpler to assume she locked the door SO he shot through it and THEREFORE had to break in afterwards. That just makes complete logical sense to me.
I don't think these witness testimonies will determine the outcome of the case rather OP's testimony and the ballistics, crime scene, forensics & Jan 29 / Feb 8 whatsapps will do that.
i think he used the bat first a few times, door, bath panel, got in a rage, when Reeva woulcn't come out the toilet-but don't expect that means all the neighbours would have heard this
I think Roux's confused the two sounds because he had to , to make OP's version believable in any way---
Woman's screams and gunshots, are what all 4 agreed - and gave very convincing believable testimonies of what they'd heard, the timing is not going to be perfect, it's circumstantial case........so it doesn't have to be- I agree with your last paragraph.
"We allow them (Steenkamps) to grieve" Oh FFS now I see exactly where OP got his god complex from. Pass the green bucket, STAT!!!!
Just gross. ::shivers::
he wasn't going to concede that anything OP did was wrong in anyway was he -it was all about poor OP ,grieving and coming to terms with someone he cared about's death- totally detached from the reality of what OP had done. Buckets, many.oh...........have you voted ? please add your vote barb
i think he used the bat first a few times, door, bath panel, got in a rage, when Reeva woulcn't come out the toilet-but don't expect that means all the neighbours would have heard this
I think Roux's confused the two sounds because he had to , to make OP's version believable in any way---
Woman's screams and gunshots, are what all 4 agreed - and gave very convincing believable testimonies of what they'd heard, the timing is not going to be perfect, it's circumstantial case........so it doesn't have to be- I agree with your last paragraph.
If this was the only evidence though it would not be enough to send a man to jail for life or some other very long sentence, not if they fail to agree on the times of what they heard, and especially in light of Mike/Mike's wife waking up before 3:16 and not hearing the female. 3:17 is an untenable version and I'm perplexed why Nel repeated the time point so often. Claire's explanation that he means it in "general terms" as the "later bangs" is sensible and I hope that is what is argued. Dare say the judge/assessors will be grumpy about that however as they probably put a fair amount of work into analysing it on assumption that was the case!
With Berger/Johnson hearing "help help help" before the bangs, perhaps they got it wrong and heard a murderer shrieking about his crime rather than the victim. I dare say it's not a sound one expects to hear or understands when it happens.
Then again, the 4 bangs with the rhythm and this "climax" around the bangs, it doesn't sound like cricket bats at 177m. Just doesn't sound right to me.
Therefore, alternatively, they might have learned the 3:17 time from a policeman as this was taken by a fact after Annette deposed a statement with this time point in. and then looked at phone records and deduced the order of calls and bangs wrong. And so Berger/Johnson might have really heard brief snippets of screams before and during 4 bangs (her) and then those 3-4 shrieks Dr. stipp reports straight after (which was him). I cannot understand how this kind of sound sequence surrounds the cricket bats but it makes sense around gunshots.
The stipps then missed the critical sounds just before, Annette having fallen asleep (which I do certainly believe).
I don't find it tenable / acceptable to link female screams around the 2/3 bangs however because stipps only heard a maximum of 3 & I trust Dr. stipp to count, also dr. stipp doesn't hear any screams at that time point. I don't believe that was when Reeva died in short! Dr. Stipp's terms for the cries/screams before is ambivalent enough to perhaps be OP IMO: "intermingled cries" - how to you "intermingle" with a different person?
If we have 8 witnesses in 4 households I would expect at least one to make more serious kinds of mistakes due to ... emotions / tiredness / stress / flu / other ... and in this case I am betting it was Annette (who was dealt highly confusing circumstances of high pitched shrieks and then variety of crying sounds prior to "bang" sounds anyway! ;-)
Of course the other "anomalous" witness would be OP lol
And I certainly have a few issues with the err "accuracy" of his version HaHa
are your timings from some of Roux's cross examinations ? You mention Roux saying times of calls to security - would need to check those, not sure you're right on that.
Not sure I enjoy your aggressive tone in this post. My timings are from both lead and cross.
And just noticed the following this is AFTER OP had killed Reeva :
MN/EN - 'After checks house, high pitched man crying very loudly 'as if his life was in danger'
Duh! Yep, "after" for certain but the question is when, first or second volley, or am I in the wrong trial and thread here! Oh, and IMO and from my calcs shots first.
MN - hears no no no no please no
I think the above no nono please no-- was OP realising Reeva's dead.
IDK nor claim to but if it were me I would be saying no no no as I was realising she was in the toilet and yes almost certainly dead since he hadn't heard a sound. JMHO.
No disrespect , but when did anyone say they heard a high pitched man crying loudly ? as if HIS life was in danger ? when we know OP had the gun and shot Reeva !- how would and when would OP have been under any threat to his life, he never was ! If OP was screeching it was only when he was terrorising Reeva, that's how that would be interpretted as, he was mimicking her, bullying her , ridiculing her.
Are you native English? MN said "as if" and you copied it correctly. "As if" does not mean "was". MN described what HE heard and what HE thought. Nothing to do with me and my timeline I was just putting it down.
AND Van Der Merve was woken to Reeva's loud voice as if in an argument at 1.58am , she said on the stand.
On the timeline top first entry on the left. I didn't have room to do the whole 54 mins so put notes at the side.
Why are you criticising the Stipps, and when they called Security ?
The Stipps clock was couple of minutes fast, and they got up went to balcony,tried to work out where gunshots were coming from, checking each balcony and then joining eachother
Not criticising them just wondering if their time is correct since it took them over 12 minutes of "terrified screams" to call for help. My bet there timing is wrong but if their times are right then I probably wouldn't want them as neighbours as not too quick off the draw in an emergency.
[/QUOTE] i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.[/QUOTE]
The 13 minutes because I can't believe they or Berger/Johnson were hearing screams from 3:01 so imo somebody has some timings wrong typical of witnesses. IMHO the whole episode may have started around the time Christo said. In respect of the lights I didn't include them. No room and wasn't my agenda for this timeline at least. Maybe I'll do another with lights.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security - Are you in SA ?, as you know names of other staff. ( Just seen on your chart - they're bike patrol guards).
Their names were given during Baba's testimony. And all have sworn statements and Roux was referring to at least one during Baba's cross.
Just because bike duty guard who passed OP's house didn't hear Reeva's shouts when Van de Merve did..... doesn't mean they didn't happen - and they went passed on a bike at 2.,02 , so chances were slim they would anyway, it's a huge Estate. The evidence from them can't be used anyway because they did not testify in Court, so this can not and has not been tested, so you have to remove this from your timeline.
Never said it didn't happen but there is no proof it was Reeva so don't count on Masipa finding it was as you may be disappointed. And no. It was NOT 2:02, but 2:20 and the guards passed in front of OP's house another couple of times after that before 3:00 and the evidence was TESTED during Baba's cross not least because he was one of the guards and it was his evidence. The trial is a search for truth not a competition to see who wins which would make justice a travesty and a farce. And not sure you are right about statements that are not contested by either party as I believe they are evidence.
Where on your chart is Baba's call to OP ??
the call where OP told him Everything was Fine - which is really important, - because it wasn't all fine was it - because OP had already shot and killed Reeva , so OP lied, to Baba and covered it up because he didn't want him at the house did he. (all the phone data has been read out in court - so would be easy to get a time for those calls)
Both OP-Baba calls are present but it was proven in cross Baba made a mistake and he didn't call OP first. The "everything is fine" is IMHO really insignificant and Baba's statement said differently anyway so the Judge may well not even mention it in her judgement.
Neat breakdown,...........but think trying to fit in OP's version over State's, so will nit-pick , if I have time to go through everyone's testimonies again.
The chart was a lot of work and I kept to facts with a few ponderings and premises of my own. if it serves fine if not, fine too.
"Yeah whatever" would lead to all the ear witness testimonies being accepted despite inconsistencies but it would also lead to Pistorius version being accepted without any objections to it despite the inconsistencies!
"Yeah whatever" is never good enough in a court - thankfully - if it is, then be very afraid if your number comes up some day and you find yourself in one (on either side of the proceedings)
"Yeah whatever" is however how they do things in places with dysfunctional legal systems that result in the dictator's nephew being released when there was overwhelming evidence but in some random innocent guy being put away for 20 years.
Pay attention to the inconsistencies and other anomalies and make sure they are all accounted for and you can't go too far wrong in reaching the correct conclusions IMO
[That was Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' from the Head Druid Arthur Pendragon lol]
I see a link has emerged between people believing in OP's innocence and also in believing he is appropriately remorseful and respectful of Reeva's family, and grieving the loss of Reeva and taking responsibility for the life he took.
Just something I think is worth noting, without any inference as to why this might be.
Hey Claire,
Well I think that makes sense. If you believe he didn't know he was shooting at Reeva then by and large he is suffering for his own recklessness and negligence but magnified far beyond the norm because of killing his girlfriend unintentionally. So it would certainly be an ordeal.
You could argue he hasn't accepted enough responsibility for (several bizarre) errors but not that he was inherently a really callous and bad person I guess.
However if he shot at his girlfriend through the door four times until she was dead then clearly the way he has been going on is totally inconsistent with genuine remorse about that, even portraying himself as her chivalrous protector and not willing to concede a single blemish to his public image.
Truth versus lies is surely what determines the better part of the character assessment. I can't see how anyone that would think he was guilty of knowingly shooting her and then putting on a performance could conclude in his favour on the "remorse" front - that wouldn't make much sense really!
Like that OP's Twitter support base invariably subscribe to the message "God loves all his children" as a basis for forgiveness of OP but then get really angry with people like Gina Myers for publically disliking OP ... as though God would find the antipathy unforgivable...
Only SOME are worthy of the divine love that is shown to ALL of us oops and DEFINITELY not that "nasty person" Gina Myers .. theology errors 101 #Doh lol :D:D
It IS a credibility test, and OP did not come across as very credible witness in his own Defence - because he contradicted his Plea and Affidavit (which in turn contradicted eachother anyway) ,he also blamed his own Counsel for omissions in HIS statement ,that HE signed and approved..........it's exactly those inconsistencies of his own version that shows a Judge that a Defendant is lying. He also contradicted his own Defence case and introduced another........ - so think he's pretty much heading for prison to be fair, and for a long time !
I absolutely agree that OP's heading for prison Sandy. There does however seem to be some confusion with regard to the issue of credibility.
Credibility can be extremely important in a trial, but only as far as an overall view of character is concerned. If we were a judge (or juror) and only convicted based on credibility we would be doing our job wrong. It doesn't matter if the judge thinks OP's lying - she's not being asked to determine this. She's only concerned with any perceived lies relative to the charge in question.
As an example, if OP said he put a fan down in a certain place, and decides later that it wasn't the same place as per his statement, this only has relevance IF this then impacts on other issues surrounding his version. It's not sufficient to say 'OP got that wrong, therefore I don't believe any of the story'. If it was that easy, we could simply use the same reasoning with the prosecution evidence and say 'property disappeared from the room under SAPS supervision, therefore the scene must have been tampered with'. The credibility of both SAPS and OP can be questioned in both situations, but each must be given the same balance of reasoning. We cannot say one is more probable than the other unless we are skewing our reasoning to suit a particular outcome.
The judges job is to weigh all the evidence presented at trial. She can then draw inferences from evidence, so long as it arises from proven facts and is logical and reasonable. She cannot draw inference from anything based on speculation.
OP can only be found guilty of intentionally killing Reeva if the state can prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn't sound that difficult to achieve when skimmed over, but what it actually means is that for Judge Masipa to convict there must be NO DOUBT in her mind that OP is guilty.
Is it possible to pick up messages left on your mobile phone voicemail to be picked up using another phone or for someone else to access that voicemail if they have a pin number or something?
1) Divert incoming calls to your voicemail
2) A relative has your voicemail pin number
3) Relative uses their phone to access your voicemail.
I don't understand this post at all. You would have a point if the 'intruder' could be located someplace in reality outside of what Mr. Pistorius says was in his thoughts before firing.
However there is no other source of evidence for an intruder is there. Such evidence does not exist in the universe - except in his narrative.
So do you still maintain his 'credibility' is not important, given that his words is the only source in the universe to indicate the existence of an intruder in his mind before shooting?
Doesn't that rather make it important for his words on a variety of topics to be truthful ones???
Perhaps you're comparing with cases where independent evidence can be adduced to provide alibis for a person - and then of course they MAY lie since other types of evidence will back them up.
But here .. when the defence he advances is itself a fantasy that he claims he had ????
Can one afford to be regarded in any event as a liar in that case ??????
Poor credibility BUT the "fantasy" the person is saying they had is accepted as possibly true rather than a lie.
That is just not correct - it's misleading.
I disagree. Too many people become engrossed in the misnomer that it's sufficient to show that lies have been told in order to convict. That's miles away from how a judge oversees a case.
It's also worth remembering that a lot of talk regarding OP lying was centred around speculative things discussed in the forum (e.g. things that happened once OP brought Reeva downstairs, bedroom door, bath panel, bath tiles, air rifle, jeans outside etc. etc. etc.). Many of these issues weren't even pursued by prosecution and have little or no relevance.
Just pondering the surprising links between OP and also Reeva's social circles in Johanasburg on the one hand various sports stars, businessmen but on the other, thuggish security guards, and assorted convicts...
One of Mark Bachelor's friends is Mikey Schultz - a former boxer, private 'security guard', and self-confessed hitman. Yes, literally!
.. and this alleged OP drinking buddy, Guhil Yahev, a former stripper and bouncer turned poker player, fined for a role in one assault leading to a homicide, acquitted of another...
Various other cowboys Hougaard, Fresco, ... fashionable goods businessmen Divaris, Mortimer ... and glamour girls. I don't think one ought to be surprised to learn OP required a P.R. team in order to juggle this kind of social milieu at the same time as being the acceptable face of international sports brands and charities.
It all seems terribly remote from the worlds inhabited by either Reeva's parents or Oscar's aunt and uncle mind you...
going out to nightclubs and getting into brawls ... shows a lack of respect to reeva and her parents, whether guilty or not
I agree Siobhan. And also I see it as a sure sign that OP knows that imprisonment is imminent. If he were truly confident in his case and his prospects for exoneration and liberty, would he not be better able to postpone these disrespectful playboy antics until after the judgement is delivered?
I disagree. Too many people become engrossed in the misnomer that it's sufficient to show that lies have been told in order to convict. That's miles away from how a judge oversees a case.
It's also worth remembering that a lot of talk regarding OP lying was centred around speculative things discussed in the forum (e.g. things that happened once OP brought Reeva downstairs, bedroom door, bath panel, bath tiles, air rifle, jeans outside etc. etc. etc.). Many of these issues weren't even pursued by prosecution and have little or no relevance.
Yes but nearly his entire cross-examination concerned his version so if lies are demonstrated then these almost automatically impact upon his version of events. You mentioned fans to Sandy. Fans are relevant to his version: It is his "alibi" for missing reeva leave the room. He elaborated in detail & would struggle therefore to pass all that fan/duvet stuff off as an innocent mistake - as opposed to a very pertinent kind of lie in this case!
I definitely think you are completely wrong about "credibility" not being one of the main things the judge will use in order to arrive at her conclusion on whether he is guilty or innocent (of knowingly firing at Reeva). Of course - together with all the rest of the case - but it is a significant & central feature of it. It's the only reason we have to believe such a thing as an intruder error is OP's account of the incident. Since there was obviously no intruder - unless you have some independent evidence for the intruder???
Please share the sightings or vehicle license, etc, of this intruder if so.
This explains the importance of his credibility!!! lol
Are you sure you aren't comparing with cases where the accused can back themselves up another way, such as by having provable evidence show that they weren't anywhere near the scene of a crime, for example.
He gives an affirmative defence as the shots are admitted but it is what was going on in his head that is in dispute. And absolutely central to his defence is that he gives a truthful account, can't say it any plainer than that.
Zero chance to launch an improbable affirmative PPD defence at the same time as judge finding he has "poor credibility" i.e. lying about many aspects (and in THOSE circumstances - the girl locked herself in etc - 4 bullets until dead).
Judicial lenience but if it's "many aspects" of the story that ruled against him, then he's done for, obviously, you would agree with that much? Or not??? Because - there is no other way to corroborate the intruder barring him telling the truth. That's it. It was a fantasy in his head (he claims). If he can't justify it and lies .. he won't have a case. Except in LaLa land where the judge regards the Oath as a bit of a joke and not something to take especially seriously. Which court room is that then?
Yes but nearly his entire cross-examination concerned his version so if lies are demonstrated then these almost automatically impact upon his version of events. You mentioned fans to Sandy. Fans are relevant to his version: It is his "alibi" for missing reeva leave the room. He elaborated in detail & would struggle therefore to pass all that fan/duvet stuff off as an innocent mistake - as opposed to a very pertinent kind of lie in this case!
I definitely think you are completely wrong about "credibility" not being one of the main things the judge will use in order to arrive at her conclusion on whether he is guilty or innocent (of knowingly firing at Reeva). Of course - together with all the rest of the case - but it is a significant & central feature of it. It's the only reason we have to believe such a thing as an intruder error is OP's account of the incident. Since there was obviously no intruder - unless you have some independent evidence for the intruder???
Please share the sightings or vehicle license, etc, of this intruder if so.
This explains the importance of his credibility!!! lol
I just cannot make any sense of how you reach this conclusion in the case where the accused person takes the stand and gives an account to defend themselves.
Are you sure you aren't comparing with cases where the accused can back themselves up another way, such as by having provable evidence show that they weren't anywhere near the scene of a crime, for example.
This is affirmative defence as the shots are admitted but it is what was going on in his head that is in dispute. And absolutely central to his defence is that he gives a truthful account, can't say it any plainer than that.
If you think you can launch an affirmative PPD defence at the same time as judge finding he has "poor credibility" i.e. lying about it ... then I cannot understand your view. It's actually pretty odd.
I don't think you will find any support for it among any judges or barristers around the world either. You must be thinking of cases where there is provable corroborating evidence, surely? I'm lost if that's not what made you make this point!
I agree with you. I'm not sure where some people get their half baked ideas of exactly what judges do. Credibility of witnesses /accused is a vital part of how a judge makes their decision. Also body language as they give evidence. Masipa watched OP constantly throughout his evidence. It's not just what he said but how he said it. It was agreed he was a very poor witness. It begs the question why? While it's not enough to convict him of murder if taken along with all the other evidence then his lack of credibility will certainly be taken into account by the judge.
I'd be very wary of the sequence of calls and timings given by Roux, it was extremely misleading. For example what he told Dr Stipp that his call to security was at 03:27 it was not till the full picture emerged that you realize Roux was wrong.
I note you do a Roux, with your comment about the time (03:15:51) the Stipps contacted security at Silver Lakes.
On the prosecution side 03:17 is a time used but is that the actual time or the radio clock time. No witness said the actual time was 03:17.
The call at 03:22:05 from security to Pistorius was 12 seconds, now at the bail hearing Roux said his client dropped the phone and that's why security heard crying. But in evidence at the trial the accused said he had no recollection of communicating with security. So how did Roux know the phone was dropped during the call from security, or was it mere speculation on his part?
Just pondering the surprising links between OP and also Reeva's social circles in Johanasburg on the one hand various sports stars, businessmen but on the other, thuggish security guards, and assorted convicts...
One of Mark Bachelor's friends is Mikey Schultz - a former boxer, private 'security guard', and self-confessed hitman. Yes, literally!
.. and this alleged OP drinking buddy, Guhil Yahev, a former stripper and bouncer turned poker player, fined for a role in one assault leading to a homicide, acquitted of another...
Various other cowboys Hougaard, Fresco, ... fashionable goods businessmen Divaris, Mortimer ... and glamour girls. I don't think one ought to be surprised to learn OP required a P.R. team in order to juggle this kind of social milieu at the same time as being the acceptable face of international sports brands and charities.
It all seems terribly remote from the worlds inhabited by either Reeva's parents or Oscar's aunt and uncle mind you...
My lord..almost incestuous. Are they all 'Christians' too?
I agree with you. I'm not sure where some people get their half baked ideas of exactly what judges do. Credibility of witnesses /accused is a vital part of how a judge makes their decision. Also body language as they give evidence. Masipa watched OP constantly throughout his evidence. It's not just what he said but how he said it. It was agreed he was a very poor witness. It begs the question why? While it's not enough to convict him of murder if taken along with all the other evidence then his lack of credibility will certainly be taken into account by the judge.
DS1969 is right it's all the evidence of which his is a part - or a collection of parts (relating to lots of different points of debate) - but to make a sweeping statement such as:
"It doesn't matter if the judge thinks OP's lying - she's not being asked to determine this. "
is very misleading I feel.
Ascertaining his charge and sentence involves determining the truth of the case and clearly that might involve determining he didn't tell it to the court!
No doubt the judge might express it more like "His account was contradicted by such & such" ... "His account was not persuasive" ... "These factors were improbable" ... "The explanation given cannot be accepted" but this all amounts to the same thing i.e. he hasn't told us the truth.
In that case, as you say, it leads to the question - why? It also means the defence had the chance for an eyewitness version but for some reason OP did not provide an accurate account.
It's hard to imagine what reason there would be to accept it was a mistake if he didn't provide an accurate account and there is also other evidence to suggest it wasn't a mistake anyway...
Seems to be bending the concept of "fair trial" into previously unheard of shapes favourable under all circumstances to the defendant IMO
Comments
are your timings from some of Roux's cross examinations ? You mention Roux saying times of calls to security - would need to check those, not sure you're right on that.
And just noticed the following this is AFTER OP had killed Reeva :
MN/EN - 'After checks house, high pitched man crying very loudly 'as if his life was in danger'
MN - hears no no no no please no
I think the above no nono please no-- was OP realising Reeva's dead.
No disrespect , but when did anyone say they heard a high pitched man crying loudly ? as if HIS life was in danger ? when we know OP had the gun and shot Reeva !- how would and when would OP have been under any threat to his life, he never was ! If OP was screeching it was only when he was terrorising Reeva, that's how that would be interpretted as, he was mimicking her, bullying her , ridiculing her.
AND Van Der Merve was woken to Reeva's loud voice as if in an argument at 1.58am , she said on the stand.
Why are you criticising the Stipps, and when they called Security ?
The Stipps clock was couple of minutes fast, and they got up went to balcony,tried to work out where gunshots were coming from, checking each balcony and then joining eachother
i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security - Are you in SA ?, as you know names of other staff. ( Just seen on your chart - they're bike patrol guards).
Just because bike duty guard who passed OP's house didn't hear Reeva's shouts when Van de Merve did..... doesn't mean they didn't happen - and they went passed on a bike at 2.,02 , so chances were slim they would anyway, it's a huge Estate. The evidence from them can't be used anyway because they did not testify in Court, so this can not and has not been tested, so you have to remove this from your timeline.
Where on your chart is Baba's call to OP ??
the call where OP told him Everything was Fine - which is really important, - because it wasn't all fine was it - because OP had already shot and killed Reeva , so OP lied, to Baba and covered it up because he didn't want him at the house did he. (all the phone data has been read out in court - so would be easy to get a time for those calls)
Neat breakdown,...........but think trying to fit in OP's version over State's, so will nit-pick , if I have time to go through everyone's testimonies again.
Ah - someone called Maluleka(?!) was possibly the policeman that picked up the gun without the gloves on - there was an affidavit saying he was 'first on scene' which Rensberg disputed. But that was definitely some time after the Standers and Stipp arrived. I don't know who Dimandi is but is this also the name of an officer?
I am guessing these people are supposed to be security guards, but might be an error as might be policemen that arrived later - unless of course Maluleka is the name of the security guard as well. Common enough surname.
Diwandi- bike duty guard
Malueka - bike patrol guard
Yep, I don't envy Masipa and Co on this one.
And how Nel is going to tally up the discrepancies between witnesses as he said he would during Stipp's cross is anyone's guess. An exchange priceless just for the poor Masipa who with Nel's cryptic and confusing explanations a la par with Rumsfield's "there are things we know, and things we don't know... etc." speech, cannot anymore fathom if the screams came before or after shots giving a classic gold when she says so seriously to the by then ever more confused Roux: "Well I think the objection is that this is your case. It is not the State's case that after the shots the deceased was not screaming" Precious!
FROM STIPP'S CROSS
Roux: So what we know as a fact it could not have been the deceased.
Nel: My lady, I have to object. We take it as a fact that the first shots killed the deceased, because that is the only way Mr Roux can say, it could not have been the deceased. I'm des... it's not according to the State's case. Mr Roux can argue that but he can't put to this witness as a fact, that after the first shots the screams could not have been the deceased. It's our case it was. So, he can say, on their version it was, but not as a fact. Because it's different, my lady, with the utmost respect, to put to a person, it's a fact when it is not. It... as far as I'm concerned it's not our case that is a fact.
Judge: Yes, it's not common cause.
Nel: No, not at all.
Judge: Yes Mr Roux?
Roux: My lady it cannot be. If we may... may I deal with the State's objection... and maybe he must make himself clear. He talks about, it's not their case that the "first shots". Is... if it's the State's case that there were later, after the first 4 shots other shots fired, he must tell us that because we have not a statement. We have statements from the police, from the ballistics, of only four shots. We have statements by state witnesses telling us about the succession of the shots, how far apart. We have no other statements of after those shots, and not first shots, the real shots, that there were no other shots fired other than the four shots. No other shots. So if the State tells us that there were "first" shots and "later" shots, then we have the difficulty because we have no such statement and I would ask the state to make it available.
Nel: My lady, I am not obliged to answer the questions of counsel what I will do is say our evidence. It's not... it's the State's case that it was the deceased that screamed. Whatever, how we argue, and what we'll do, will become clear, but my lady, if it's not common cause, and if it's still the State's case as I stand here, that the person that screamed was the deceased, then it could not be put as a fact. And that's my objection, my lady. If counsel would say that my arguments are wrong, that I don't know what I'm doing, that's **[00:21:04.24] 1/2 WORDS?**, that will come out in argument and after other evidence was led, but for now my lady, as I stand here, our objection is, counsel puts to this witness as a fact that it could not have been the deceased. I say on the State's case, it was her.
Judge: Yes. Thank you.
Roux: My lady, my difficulty is that the witness is a medical expert. He tells us, he testified, he saw the deceased with that wounding. She could not have screamed, because of that wounding. So the only time is the State tells us, and then I've... of course I can't put it that there were other shots later on that would have killed the deceased and that we're mistaken, it was not that. If that's not the case **[00:21:50.02]** that the State cannot tell you that, then my lady it's unfair to stop me, because I give it through that witness as a fact. He agreed, he agreed on a number of occasions, and it's correct, that those shots would have been fatal, would have killed the deceased, and there was no way that after that time lapse that she could have screamed. There's no dispute between the witness and I. And that's what I'm putting to you.
Judge: Well I think the objection is that this is your case. It is not the State's case that after the shots the deceased was not screaming.
Roux: My lady, that may not... if he tells us it is not his case, the witness agrees then with the defence case. He saw the deceased, so I can put it to this witness. Because he agrees that it would not be possible.
Judge: Yes.
Roux: And that's the only point that I'm dealing with. If the State want to retain their right to argue differently, that's fine. I'm only dealing with this witness.
Judge: Yes.
Roux: And what I was instructed by my witnessess.
Nel: My lady, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I'll do it now. I say, the shots at 3:17 caused the deceased' death. If, if... clearer than that I cannot. Before the shots of 3:17 she'd... she was screaming. That's my case. If Mr Roux tells the court that he thinks that I'm wrong, that's one thing, that's fine, but as long as I tell the court that, and as long as that's my case, counsel cannot put that the shots he elects killed the deceased. I say, if we have 2 sets of shots the last set killed the deceased. After that there was no scream by a woman.
Judge: You saying there was 4 shots?
Nel: My lady, the amount of shots...
Judge: Yes...
Nel: ...one will get to. The prev... earlier witnesses testified about 4 shots at 3:17, round about there. This witnesses testifies about two to three shots at 3:17. I say those shots heard at 3:17 caused the deceased' death. The screaming was before that.
Judge: The screaming was before 3:17?
Nel: Yes.
Judge: That's your case?
Nel: Yes.
Judge: Yes.
Nel: Now what Mr Roux is putting to the witness is that the shots before 3:17 caused the dec... caused the death of the deceased and she was incapable of screaming. My lady, I agree that the wounds that the deceased sustained at the shooting at 3:17 caused her death, after that she would not have been able to scream.
Judge: hmm, hmm
Nel: I agree with that. But this witness testifies about two sets of shots. Early shots and 3:17 shots. My... the State's case is, the 3:17 shots. If Mr Roux puts to this witness that after the 3:17 shots the witness was incapable of screa... the deceased was incapabe of screaming, I've got no problem. But that's not what he's putting. He's putting that the first shot caused her death and she was incapable of screaming, it must have been somebody else. If he says, i'ts my case, it's the defence case, that those were the shots, she was killed there, and if that's correct then she couldn't have screamed. Then I've no problem. And that was my argument from the start. Mr Roux must just make it clear that's it's not common cause, it's not the State's case, it's his case. He cannot put it as a fact to the witness. That's my argument.
Judge: Yes Mr Roux?
Roux: My lady, there's a... there's a big difficulty now...
Judge: hmm, hmm
Roux: ... because, and I beleive the State will listen very carefully. What is common cause in this case, after the further particulars was in, one thing is common cause, the accused fired 4 shots. I've listened to the State's argument now. He says it's not the State's case that the first shots, meaning, that the Dr heard when he woke up, killed the deceased but it was the later shots at 3:17. My lady there's a problem. The State cannot stand there and do an objection like that. Then they must give us a document to say, in fact we misled you all the time to say there were only the 4 shots fired. There were shots fired when our Dr woke up and there were shots fired when he was on the telephone. That's not the case, that's not in the particulars. So the State must for the purposes of his objection then tell you, that what the Dr heard were not shots. That he's wrong. Then we know and I'll do... go on that bases. We will put it differently. But the State cannot rely on two sets of shots as he is doing. That's not their case. It's in the further particulars clear. There were not two sets of shots. So you cannot talk about the first shots, or the first set and the last set. The State must decide and tell you, my lady. Do they say there were two volleys of shots, one when that witness woke up and one when he was on 10111, or what is it that they say, then we can take it from there. Because then it's not in accordance with the common cause evidence, by all their ballistics, to say now to us that there were two sets of shots, one when this witness woke up and one when he was on the telephone. So maybe the State must assist you there, my lady.
Judge: Do you want to say something Mr Nel?
Nel: My lady. There two sets of noises. We say the shots at 3:17 killed the deceased. It's as easy at that. There are two sets of noises. We say that the shots of 3:17 killed the deceased. If that is our case.
Judge: And before 3:17?
Nel: My lady there... she was alive and screaming. There were oth... other sets of noises; this witness indicates he heard two. Our case is not two sets of shots. It's not our case. Our case is. There were four shots fired in the region of 3:17. That's our case.
Judge: All of them at 3:17?
Nel: Yes. This witness heard two sets of shots which he believed to be... two sets of noises which he believed to be shots. That's fine. That's fair.
Judge: And the screaming when did that take place? After 3:17?
Nel: No, before.
Judge: Before 3:17?
Nel: Yes. Before. So, my lady, we're not saying there more than 4 shots fired. It's not our case. We will deal with the discrepancies between the State witnesses. We will. But, for now, my lady, and that's why I ask the co... the court to step in as far as cross examination is concerned. If we have discrepancies between our witnesses we'll deal with that. But for now, the shots, for there were 4 shots fired at 3:17, that caused the deceased' death, that's our case. And if that's our case it's not common cause and it's not a fact for the accu... for Mr Roux to say that it's a fact that she could not have screamed before 3:17. And that's what he's doing. That's when I got up to object. So, my lady, wrong or right, our case is 4 shots at 3:17 killed the deceased. Nothing else is common cause. And if that is so Mr Roux should not be allowed to put that.
You mention Roux saying times of calls to security - would need to check those, not sure you're right on that.
And just noticed the following this is AFTER OP had killed Reeva :
MN/EN - 'After checks house, high pitched man crying very loudly 'as if his life was in danger'
MN - hears no no no no please no
I think the above no nono please no-- was OP realising Reeva's dead.
No disrespect , but when did anyone say they heard a high pitched man crying loudly ? as if HIS life was in danger ? when we know OP had the gun and shot Reeva !- how would and when would OP have been under any threat to his life, he never was ! If OP was screeching it was only when he was terrorising Reeva, that's how that would be interpretted as, he was mimicking her, bullying her , ridiculing her.
Van Der Merwe
was woken to Reeva's loud voice as if in an argument at 1.56am i think she said on the stand.
Why are you criticising the Stipps, and when they called Security ?
The Stipps clock was couple of minutes fast, and they got up went to balcony,tried to work out where gunshots were coming from, checking each balcony and then joining eachother
i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.
Who's maluleka and dimandi ? no-ones ever talked about those two names on here - at all. Only name known from Staff at Silverwoods has been Baba , head of Security - Are you in SA ?, as you know names of other staff. ( Just seen on your chart - they're bike patrol guards).
Just because bike duty guard who passed OP's house didn't hear Reeva's shouts when Van de Merve did..... doesn't mean they didn't happen - and they went passed on a bike at 2.,02 , so chances were slim they would anyway, it's a huge Estate. The evidence from them can't be used anyway because they did not testify in Court, so this can not and has not been tested, so you have to remove this from your timeline.
Baba's call to OP ?
the call where OP told him Everything was Fine - which is really important, - because it wasn't all fine was it - because OP had already shot and killed Reeva , so OP lied, to Baba and covered it up because he didn't want him at the house did he. (all the phone data has been read out in court - so would be easy to get a time for those calls) 3.22.05
3:21:33am – OP calls Baba - he just cries down phone, doesn't speak .(you have this on timeline)
3:22:05am – Baba’s call to OP - where OP says “Everything is fine”. (you have this time-- but don't say what OP says)
Further calls from Dr S after 3.17
Dr Stipps calls / sometime after 3.17 (Roux didn't say when btw)
- You say that Roux misread 3.17 with 3.27 - Roux contradicted himself on the 3.27 time and tried to confuse when Stipp called/ spoke to Security
Stipps and CJ -- both called security within about 30 seconds of each other reporting the shots. Based on the recorded call times, the shots would have been heard just prior to 3:16am and NOT 3.14 as you state in your timeline but OP could have used the bat on the door first to explain discrepancies
Neat breakdown,...........but think trying to fit in OP's version over State's, so will nit-pick , if I have time to go through everyone's testimonies again.
"We allow them (Steenkamps) to grieve" Oh FFS now I see exactly where OP got his god complex from. Pass the green bucket, STAT!!!!
Just gross. ::shivers::
To be fair Roux is making presumptions that the first 3 bangs included all the gunshots (and were gunshots) and that the 4th was missed because the Stipps were asleep. There are assumptions there.
That's the defence version not proven though.
So to say Reeva cannot have screamed afterwards is wrong. She might have. That is all Nel is saying, really. It should have been a lot simpler and required a lot less explanations and long-winded answers by both sides there. Roux as much as Nel.
They have a habit of talking in terms of "shots" instead of "bang noises" I think.
State versions - options???
(I) 3:17 : A nonsense option lol
I really can't see 3:17 is feasible if Nel argued that and I was an assessor I would just knock it down straight away and say it was totally improbable for the next door neighbours to miss 4 gunshots and also to phone security BEFORE the woman screamed, etc. And that would be the end of that so far as the state time line goes lol
(II) Shortly before 3:16 calls: A better option - B/J hear 2nd bangs
If Nel argues for 2-3 bang to equate with gunshots (waking up Mike and Wife) and be heard by Burger/Johnson BEFORE Dr. stipp and B/J rang security at 3:16 then all well and good. I'd query why the B/J call-bangs order is the wrong way round however. And also query what is going on with those "helps". And finally query what the heck sense to make of the first set of bangs - bats, missing gunshots out the window, what?
It can be made consistent but the scenarios all have problems that just don't feel right (to me).
(III) 2nd bangs before 3:16 but only heard by Stipp - B/J hear gunshots, regardless on when these were (since 4 bangs+).
If Nel argued that B/J gunshots were before 3:16 after all, then of course they could have been at any time, so even if gunshots came first, they still could have heard it (before Stipps woke up, heard A (pause) B+C+D). That actually might make the most sense out of all the state versions (in terms of "female screams" more likely coming from Reeva than OP, in fairness) - and meaning only Annette made the biggest perceptual mistakes afterwards.
I definitely think B/J bangs must come before the 3:16 calls otherwise it is apparent that they definitely heard Pistorius, after all. If before, some chance it was Reeva.
Couple of state arguments against defence anyway
(I) lack of results of OP's tests does not inspire confidence
I do have a suspicion at least a few fragments of Reeva screaming escaped from that property because otherwise I think OP would have had more confidence to try and present the results of his screaming audio tests to the state to compare with witnesses a long time ago. Mr. Roux mentioned tapes and alluded to them but they never surfaced. Which makes me very suspicious as to why.
(II) lack of "cricket bats" from Mike and his wife's evidence.
If the defence argues that cricket bats are so noisy they can be mistaken by people 177m away for gunshots, then I would also query how they can be missed by the neighbours in the next door house!! how is that even possible??? The defence argument that Mike and his wife can contradict especially the Stipps evidence seems to fall down on this point.
....
Conclusion: Indeterminate timeline.
We cannot know as there are too many inconsistencies and neither side has solved them all.
...
I don't think these witness testimonies will determine the outcome of the case rather OP's testimony and the ballistics, crime scene, forensics & Jan 29 / Feb 8 whatsapps, will do that. Witnesses aren't the most reliable source of information in most criminal cases and I daresay the same applies here.
[Bathroom lights is not easy for the defence to clear mind you...] ;-)
I think Roux's confused the two sounds because he had to , to make OP's version believable in any way---
Woman's screams and gunshots, are what all 4 agreed - and gave very convincing believable testimonies of what they'd heard, the timing is not going to be perfect, it's circumstantial case........so it doesn't have to be- I agree with your last paragraph.
24 Murder with Intent
4 Murder - no intent
2 Culpable Homicide
0 Acquittal
1 Not sure
If this was the only evidence though it would not be enough to send a man to jail for life or some other very long sentence, not if they fail to agree on the times of what they heard, and especially in light of Mike/Mike's wife waking up before 3:16 and not hearing the female. 3:17 is an untenable version and I'm perplexed why Nel repeated the time point so often. Claire's explanation that he means it in "general terms" as the "later bangs" is sensible and I hope that is what is argued. Dare say the judge/assessors will be grumpy about that however as they probably put a fair amount of work into analysing it on assumption that was the case!
With Berger/Johnson hearing "help help help" before the bangs, perhaps they got it wrong and heard a murderer shrieking about his crime rather than the victim. I dare say it's not a sound one expects to hear or understands when it happens.
Then again, the 4 bangs with the rhythm and this "climax" around the bangs, it doesn't sound like cricket bats at 177m. Just doesn't sound right to me.
Therefore, alternatively, they might have learned the 3:17 time from a policeman as this was taken by a fact after Annette deposed a statement with this time point in. and then looked at phone records and deduced the order of calls and bangs wrong. And so Berger/Johnson might have really heard brief snippets of screams before and during 4 bangs (her) and then those 3-4 shrieks Dr. stipp reports straight after (which was him). I cannot understand how this kind of sound sequence surrounds the cricket bats but it makes sense around gunshots.
The stipps then missed the critical sounds just before, Annette having fallen asleep (which I do certainly believe).
I don't find it tenable / acceptable to link female screams around the 2/3 bangs however because stipps only heard a maximum of 3 & I trust Dr. stipp to count, also dr. stipp doesn't hear any screams at that time point. I don't believe that was when Reeva died in short! Dr. Stipp's terms for the cries/screams before is ambivalent enough to perhaps be OP IMO: "intermingled cries" - how to you "intermingle" with a different person?
If we have 8 witnesses in 4 households I would expect at least one to make more serious kinds of mistakes due to ... emotions / tiredness / stress / flu / other ... and in this case I am betting it was Annette (who was dealt highly confusing circumstances of high pitched shrieks and then variety of crying sounds prior to "bang" sounds anyway! ;-)
Of course the other "anomalous" witness would be OP lol
And I certainly have a few issues with the err "accuracy" of his version HaHa
Not sure I enjoy your aggressive tone in this post. My timings are from both lead and cross.
Duh! Yep, "after" for certain but the question is when, first or second volley, or am I in the wrong trial and thread here! Oh, and IMO and from my calcs shots first.
IDK nor claim to but if it were me I would be saying no no no as I was realising she was in the toilet and yes almost certainly dead since he hadn't heard a sound. JMHO.
Are you native English? MN said "as if" and you copied it correctly. "As if" does not mean "was". MN described what HE heard and what HE thought. Nothing to do with me and my timeline I was just putting it down.
On the timeline top first entry on the left. I didn't have room to do the whole 54 mins so put notes at the side.
Not criticising them just wondering if their time is correct since it took them over 12 minutes of "terrified screams" to call for help. My bet there timing is wrong but if their times are right then I probably wouldn't want them as neighbours as not too quick off the draw in an emergency.
[/QUOTE] i recall from the balcony Stipp noticed a light on in OP's bathroom, then tried to find the correct phone number for security-- Stipp ringing wrong number first, then trying again, getting dressed to go over to OP's house- that takes time, so don't know why the need to mention the 13 minutes, if that 's even accurate, not long considering what they did in that time though, checking it out etc.... I don't have an issue with that at all.,no reason to.[/QUOTE]
The 13 minutes because I can't believe they or Berger/Johnson were hearing screams from 3:01 so imo somebody has some timings wrong typical of witnesses. IMHO the whole episode may have started around the time Christo said. In respect of the lights I didn't include them. No room and wasn't my agenda for this timeline at least. Maybe I'll do another with lights.
Their names were given during Baba's testimony. And all have sworn statements and Roux was referring to at least one during Baba's cross.
Never said it didn't happen but there is no proof it was Reeva so don't count on Masipa finding it was as you may be disappointed. And no. It was NOT 2:02, but 2:20 and the guards passed in front of OP's house another couple of times after that before 3:00 and the evidence was TESTED during Baba's cross not least because he was one of the guards and it was his evidence. The trial is a search for truth not a competition to see who wins which would make justice a travesty and a farce. And not sure you are right about statements that are not contested by either party as I believe they are evidence.
Both OP-Baba calls are present but it was proven in cross Baba made a mistake and he didn't call OP first. The "everything is fine" is IMHO really insignificant and Baba's statement said differently anyway so the Judge may well not even mention it in her judgement.
The chart was a lot of work and I kept to facts with a few ponderings and premises of my own. if it serves fine if not, fine too.
"Yeah whatever" is never good enough in a court - thankfully - if it is, then be very afraid if your number comes up some day and you find yourself in one (on either side of the proceedings)
"Yeah whatever" is however how they do things in places with dysfunctional legal systems that result in the dictator's nephew being released when there was overwhelming evidence but in some random innocent guy being put away for 20 years.
Pay attention to the inconsistencies and other anomalies and make sure they are all accounted for and you can't go too far wrong in reaching the correct conclusions IMO
[That was Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' from the Head Druid Arthur Pendragon lol]
Hey Claire,
Well I think that makes sense. If you believe he didn't know he was shooting at Reeva then by and large he is suffering for his own recklessness and negligence but magnified far beyond the norm because of killing his girlfriend unintentionally. So it would certainly be an ordeal.
You could argue he hasn't accepted enough responsibility for (several bizarre) errors but not that he was inherently a really callous and bad person I guess.
However if he shot at his girlfriend through the door four times until she was dead then clearly the way he has been going on is totally inconsistent with genuine remorse about that, even portraying himself as her chivalrous protector and not willing to concede a single blemish to his public image.
Truth versus lies is surely what determines the better part of the character assessment. I can't see how anyone that would think he was guilty of knowingly shooting her and then putting on a performance could conclude in his favour on the "remorse" front - that wouldn't make much sense really!
Only SOME are worthy of the divine love that is shown to ALL of us oops and DEFINITELY not that "nasty person" Gina Myers .. theology errors 101 #Doh lol
I absolutely agree that OP's heading for prison Sandy. There does however seem to be some confusion with regard to the issue of credibility.
Credibility can be extremely important in a trial, but only as far as an overall view of character is concerned. If we were a judge (or juror) and only convicted based on credibility we would be doing our job wrong. It doesn't matter if the judge thinks OP's lying - she's not being asked to determine this. She's only concerned with any perceived lies relative to the charge in question.
As an example, if OP said he put a fan down in a certain place, and decides later that it wasn't the same place as per his statement, this only has relevance IF this then impacts on other issues surrounding his version. It's not sufficient to say 'OP got that wrong, therefore I don't believe any of the story'. If it was that easy, we could simply use the same reasoning with the prosecution evidence and say 'property disappeared from the room under SAPS supervision, therefore the scene must have been tampered with'. The credibility of both SAPS and OP can be questioned in both situations, but each must be given the same balance of reasoning. We cannot say one is more probable than the other unless we are skewing our reasoning to suit a particular outcome.
The judges job is to weigh all the evidence presented at trial. She can then draw inferences from evidence, so long as it arises from proven facts and is logical and reasonable. She cannot draw inference from anything based on speculation.
OP can only be found guilty of intentionally killing Reeva if the state can prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn't sound that difficult to achieve when skimmed over, but what it actually means is that for Judge Masipa to convict there must be NO DOUBT in her mind that OP is guilty.
1) Divert incoming calls to your voicemail
2) A relative has your voicemail pin number
3) Relative uses their phone to access your voicemail.
I disagree. Too many people become engrossed in the misnomer that it's sufficient to show that lies have been told in order to convict. That's miles away from how a judge oversees a case.
It's also worth remembering that a lot of talk regarding OP lying was centred around speculative things discussed in the forum (e.g. things that happened once OP brought Reeva downstairs, bedroom door, bath panel, bath tiles, air rifle, jeans outside etc. etc. etc.). Many of these issues weren't even pursued by prosecution and have little or no relevance.
One of Mark Bachelor's friends is Mikey Schultz - a former boxer, private 'security guard', and self-confessed hitman. Yes, literally!
http://cdn.mg.co.za/crop/content/images/2012/03/24/300schultz.jpg/300x300/
He entered into a plea bargain in order to testify against the mastermind in a hit of a mining magnate from 2005.
Since then, he and the other hitman that testified was issued with many additional fire-arm licenses: FCA "stringent" rules lol
http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=77852
Add in a dash of Kenny Kunene the colourful and controversial ZAR nightclub owner and former convict who whooped and cheered at OP's bail...
http://scoophunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kenny-Kunene.jpg
.. and this alleged OP drinking buddy, Guhil Yahev, a former stripper and bouncer turned poker player, fined for a role in one assault leading to a homicide, acquitted of another...
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/pictures/Guil%20Yahav.jpg
Various other cowboys Hougaard, Fresco, ... fashionable goods businessmen Divaris, Mortimer ... and glamour girls. I don't think one ought to be surprised to learn OP required a P.R. team in order to juggle this kind of social milieu at the same time as being the acceptable face of international sports brands and charities.
It all seems terribly remote from the worlds inhabited by either Reeva's parents or Oscar's aunt and uncle mind you...
I agree Siobhan. And also I see it as a sure sign that OP knows that imprisonment is imminent. If he were truly confident in his case and his prospects for exoneration and liberty, would he not be better able to postpone these disrespectful playboy antics until after the judgement is delivered?
Yes but nearly his entire cross-examination concerned his version so if lies are demonstrated then these almost automatically impact upon his version of events. You mentioned fans to Sandy. Fans are relevant to his version: It is his "alibi" for missing reeva leave the room. He elaborated in detail & would struggle therefore to pass all that fan/duvet stuff off as an innocent mistake - as opposed to a very pertinent kind of lie in this case!
I definitely think you are completely wrong about "credibility" not being one of the main things the judge will use in order to arrive at her conclusion on whether he is guilty or innocent (of knowingly firing at Reeva). Of course - together with all the rest of the case - but it is a significant & central feature of it. It's the only reason we have to believe such a thing as an intruder error is OP's account of the incident. Since there was obviously no intruder - unless you have some independent evidence for the intruder???
Please share the sightings or vehicle license, etc, of this intruder if so.
This explains the importance of his credibility!!! lol
Are you sure you aren't comparing with cases where the accused can back themselves up another way, such as by having provable evidence show that they weren't anywhere near the scene of a crime, for example.
He gives an affirmative defence as the shots are admitted but it is what was going on in his head that is in dispute. And absolutely central to his defence is that he gives a truthful account, can't say it any plainer than that.
Zero chance to launch an improbable affirmative PPD defence at the same time as judge finding he has "poor credibility" i.e. lying about many aspects (and in THOSE circumstances - the girl locked herself in etc - 4 bullets until dead).
Judicial lenience but if it's "many aspects" of the story that ruled against him, then he's done for, obviously, you would agree with that much? Or not??? Because - there is no other way to corroborate the intruder barring him telling the truth. That's it. It was a fantasy in his head (he claims). If he can't justify it and lies .. he won't have a case. Except in LaLa land where the judge regards the Oath as a bit of a joke and not something to take especially seriously. Which court room is that then?
I agree with you. I'm not sure where some people get their half baked ideas of exactly what judges do. Credibility of witnesses /accused is a vital part of how a judge makes their decision. Also body language as they give evidence. Masipa watched OP constantly throughout his evidence. It's not just what he said but how he said it. It was agreed he was a very poor witness. It begs the question why? While it's not enough to convict him of murder if taken along with all the other evidence then his lack of credibility will certainly be taken into account by the judge.
I'd be very wary of the sequence of calls and timings given by Roux, it was extremely misleading. For example what he told Dr Stipp that his call to security was at 03:27 it was not till the full picture emerged that you realize Roux was wrong.
I note you do a Roux, with your comment about the time (03:15:51) the Stipps contacted security at Silver Lakes.
On the prosecution side 03:17 is a time used but is that the actual time or the radio clock time. No witness said the actual time was 03:17.
The call at 03:22:05 from security to Pistorius was 12 seconds, now at the bail hearing Roux said his client dropped the phone and that's why security heard crying. But in evidence at the trial the accused said he had no recollection of communicating with security. So how did Roux know the phone was dropped during the call from security, or was it mere speculation on his part?
DS1969 is right it's all the evidence of which his is a part - or a collection of parts (relating to lots of different points of debate) - but to make a sweeping statement such as:
"It doesn't matter if the judge thinks OP's lying - she's not being asked to determine this. "
is very misleading I feel.
Ascertaining his charge and sentence involves determining the truth of the case and clearly that might involve determining he didn't tell it to the court!
No doubt the judge might express it more like "His account was contradicted by such & such" ... "His account was not persuasive" ... "These factors were improbable" ... "The explanation given cannot be accepted" but this all amounts to the same thing i.e. he hasn't told us the truth.
In that case, as you say, it leads to the question - why? It also means the defence had the chance for an eyewitness version but for some reason OP did not provide an accurate account.
It's hard to imagine what reason there would be to accept it was a mistake if he didn't provide an accurate account and there is also other evidence to suggest it wasn't a mistake anyway...
Seems to be bending the concept of "fair trial" into previously unheard of shapes favourable under all circumstances to the defendant IMO