Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

nastasya · Mar 20, 2014

minor4th said:
I didn't say there was no screaming before 3:10, I said there has been no testimony of screaming until after 3:10.

So no one heard cricket bat sounds, then how did Stipp hear "3 or 4" bangs and ten minutes later heard "2 or 3" bangs?

There is ample evidence and witness testimony that the 4 shots were gunshots.

There is zero testimony or evidence that any witnesses heard the cricket bat hitting the door.

Sure, you can speculate on this, but that's not evidence. The first bangs could have been OP hitting the tub. Or OP hitting kicking the door. Or RS hitting the tub or the door.

Just because the defense wants to tell the witnesses what they heard doesn't mean it's true.

Trooper · Mar 20, 2014

nastasya said:
There is ample evidence and witness testimony that the 4 shots were gunshots.

There is zero testimony or evidence that any witnesses heard the cricket bat hitting the door.

Sure, you can speculate on this, but that's not evidence. The first bangs could have been OP hitting the tub. Or OP hitting kicking the door. Or RS hitting the tub or the door.

Just because the defense wants to tell the witnesses what they heard doesn't mean it's true.

Precisely.

Viper · Mar 20, 2014

nastasya said:
The state has what's called a prima facie case. It's self-evident that all components needed to show guilt exist:

1. RS was shot to death.
2. OP shot RS and killed her.
3. OP followed after RS into the bathroom with gun before shooting her. That's prima facie evidence for premeditation.

Now the burden of proof is on the defense to show that OP's act of following RS into the bathroom and shooting four times at her and killing her was NOT a violation of SA murder laws.

The only evidence they will have is OP's own testimony. For OP to be not guilty of premeditated murder he must convince the judge that his story is reasonable.

The state does not have the burden to prove that OP didn't imagine an intruder or navy seals or space aliens were attacking him. It's OP's burden of proof to show his firing four bullets directly at the woman he knew was in his bedroom wasn't illegal.

I really liked your post, it made me smile! Hey, armed intruders hiding in the toilet or space aliens - take your pick! :smile:

nastasya · Mar 20, 2014

LemonMousse said:
When we're really scared, we look for reassurance that there's nothing to be scared about. OP has shared his bedroom quite often and he would have heard people using the bathroom before...it would have been a very familiar sound. It is genuinely inconceivable that he didn't at least glance in the direction of the most likely source of the sound - the one person, other than him, that could legitimately be causing the sound.....and has done every single time he's ever heard it before.

The best, best, best thing that could have happened to OP in his moment of pure terror would be to see that Reeva wasn't in bed. Panic over. But he can't even turn his head to look?

And conversely - the best thing that could have happened to him after the shooting when he found she wasn't in bed would be to discover her hiding behind the sofa or on the balcony (as she would have been if she'd just heard an intruder being killed in the en-suite) - but he fails to check that too. He just knows it was her because she wasn't lying in bed where he'd left her.

Nah. Just....nah.

I take it he was tested for drugs?

Add to this his alibi:

He had to concoct a story where he leaves the room so he doesn't notice RS get up to go to the bathroom, and
His alibi must include him closing the door to the deck so witnesses couldn't have heard the screaming or gunshots, and
His alibi must include him going back and opening the door to the deck so witnesses hear him screaming like a woman and hear the cricket bat hitting the door.
And for good measure, the exact sounds the witnesses misheard, a woman being killed by gunshots, is exactly what happened during the time OP claims he closed the door to the deck.

I agree... just nah....

Rumpole · Mar 20, 2014

Viper said:
I really liked your post, it made me smile! Hey, armed intruders hiding in the toilet or space aliens - take your pick! :smile:

There is a difference.

In South Africa where home invasion, rape, torture, and murder are common (ish) it is REASONABLE to assume noises at 3:00AM are from an intruder.

Imagining noises are from the landing gear of an alien spaceship hitting the window sill... not so reasonable.

Viper · Mar 20, 2014

nastasya said:
There is ample evidence and witness testimony that the 4 shots were gunshots.

There is zero testimony or evidence that any witnesses heard the cricket bat hitting the door.

Sure, you can speculate on this, but that's not evidence. The first bangs could have been OP hitting the tub. Or OP hitting kicking the door. Or RS hitting the tub or the door.

Just because the defense wants to tell the witnesses what they heard doesn't mean it's true.

It was very early for me, maybe 3:00am or so when Roux was cross examining the door, but correct me if I am wrong but didn't Roux get the door to admit that it may in fact be a window? This trial is so hard to follow :floorlaugh:

minor4th · Mar 20, 2014

Viper said:
I am assuming that you have read the additional post that I created.

The state witness said a bullet went through the door before the panel was broken out, you are taking that to mean bullets and then bat, correct?

But the bat did not break down the door, OP used his bare hands. The bat marks are superficial. You saw that all of the top panels were torn down, the bat did not do that.

The door had holes before OP USED HIS HANDS to rip it apart, one rip or tear went through a bullet hole.

So bat first. Gun shots second.

Add Mr. Nel getting forensics to acknowledge in the affirmative that the bat strikes were superficial and consistent with OP using the bat to hit the door to scare Reeva.

There are many smart people hear, many of them will understand me even if I am cell phone challenged in trying to communicate.

Here is the exact exchange in the below two videos which I have transcribed (relevant parts). No where do they discuss the cricket bat hits before the gunshots - they SPECULATE that the door could have been kicked to scare someone and it could have happened before the gunshots.

Roux: When we look at this door, it is consistent, and I think it's conclusive in fact - if you disagree we can go through it - that when the shots were fired, the door was intact. It was not broken.

Vermuelen: That is true, Mi'Lady

Roux: What is your view? When was the door hit with the bat - before or after the shots?

Vermuelen: M'Lady, I would say the door was hit after the shots. ...if you look at the crack down here, it enters this bullet hole on the one side and then exits on the other side... so what this tells me is there had to be a hole in the door before this piece broke off, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Nel: ...which happened first, the bullet shots or the bat. You said the hole was there before the panel was broken.

Vermeulen: That's correct M'lady.

Nel: Can you say scientifically - the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: M'Lady, scientifically I would not think it would be possible to say whether small mark on the side - I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

Nel: Do you know if the kicking happened before the shots, if it's a kick - that mark?

Vermuelen: That would also be very difficult to say, and I doubt one would be able to say that the kicking happened before or after the shots M'Lady.

Nel: Mr Roux put to you that the only reason why the accused would have kicked the door was to open it- remember that - get it open because it was locked.

Vermeulen: Yes ..

Nel: Could there be other reasons?

Vermeulen: I guess if we say other reasons, it might ...

Nel: Let us speculate, you're asked to speculate - could it have been to scare someone? Is it possible?

Vermeulen: If we speculate, it's possible.. (chuckle). We also cannot prove that that mark was caused during the unfortunate incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY

Dr Mattus · Mar 20, 2014

katydid23 said:
Why did he carry her downstairs? I wondered if he maybe wanted to mess up the forensics. Just sayin....

I don't think there is a need to guess here. It is established that he carried her down stairs in order to put her in the car.

The defence maintains that he was intending to drive her to hospital, and I'm not sure what the prosecution suggest the motive is, perhaps to remove the body from the scene?

nastasya · Mar 20, 2014

LemonMousse said:
You actually said that the screaming and yelling started after the first bangs. That may be correct, it may not. We don't know. We only know that they were the first Stipp heard.

I don't know what Stipp heard precisely. But I don't have to know what it was in order to be pretty sure what it wasn't. And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a cricket bat against a door.

Do you know how much energy OP would have to transfer via the bat to the door in order for the resultant sound to be as loud as a gunshot? More than he, or anyone else can produce. And the door would have been in total smithereens. It wasn't. The panels were clearly prised out, that's why they all look so neat.

And yes - we should follow the evidence. And where precisely is the evidence that a bat on a door could be as loud as a gunshot? You are assuming it must be because OP has said he battered down the door and some people heard loud bangs.

This does NOT prove that therefore the bangs were the bat. It might do if evidence is produced that this is a justifiable conclusion, but there's been none.

And yes, it's been proved that the bat was used on the door after the gunshots - and I expect it was. But that's ALL that's been proved.

And the ballistics and blood spatter have not proved that the gun was only used four times. They have shown the evidence of four gunshots - but you can't prove a negative. If there is no physical evidence that it was used more times than that, then you can't prove anything about them including that they didn't happen.

Yes, it's hypothetical - but I have not plucked extra gunshots out of thin air. Stipp says he heard them and OP has form for shooting into the air. I am not saying that I outright believe this....I don't know. But I think it's more probable than the idea that OP managed to produce sounds loud enough to break the sound barrier without ending up with a pile of splinters.

This entire debate over what bangs Stipp heard or didn't hear is totally irrelevant and distracts from two simple facts:

If RS made ANY sounds, screaming, talking, arguing, etc., then OP is undeniably 100% guilty.
Four witnesses testified they heard a woman's voice, either screaming for her life, arguing, etc., at the precise time OP shot and killed RS.

Four witnesses corroborate each other. Four witnesses heard both a woman's voice and gunshots.

Trooper · Mar 20, 2014

it would be EXTREME.. and directly in violation of SA law procedure for Judge Masipa to dismiss in their entirety the ear witnesses testimonys.. it just isn't going to happen, no matter how much its wished and hoped for.

She is not going to dismiss Babas testimony either. that's not going to happen.

Dr Stipp is so far beyond having his testimony dismissed as to be incomprehensible.

he not only was woken up by the sounds of screaming and loud argument, THEN a shot, then very short woman screaming and man screaming then 3 more shots intermingled with this . so loud and terrifying that he hollered at his wife who had also been woken up to get away from the window.. this took place in SECONDS, he testified. SECONDS.. not minutes..

he , after consulting with his wife, and dialing security and police ( he is the only one who rang the police ) decided to get dressed and go to where the screaming and shots came from.. his only thought that children may have been involved..

When he arrives. Oscar has already made his stately descent down the stairs carrying Reeva.. Oscar is on his knees over the body, with his hand on her groin and his other hand down her throat.

Stipps has to push him aside to attend to this slaughtered body. he pretty much concludes she is dead, and has been for at least a few minutes.

so Stipps is right in there. he is an ear witness, an eye witness, and a the first to pronounce Reeva dead and the approximate time she expired before he sees her..

7 years in the military. 12 years tertiary study in his speciality. 4 years post graduate study. 15 years in his practice as a radiologist in a hospital environment.

I am inclined to think that Judge Masipa will take his testimony as a given in all respects. .. particularly as he has no motive, none, to create out of thin air.

Trooper · Mar 20, 2014

Rumpole said:
There is a difference.

In South Africa where home invasion, rape, torture, and murder are common (ish) it is REASONABLE to assume noises at 3:00AM are from an intruder.

Imagining noises are from the landing gear of an alien spaceship hitting the window sill... not so reasonable.

Oscars estate hadn't had a break - in for over 3 years. anywhere on the estate..

it is actually as common ,and in many respects MORE common. ( it happens every EIGHT HOURS in South Africa according to crime stats , which I presume the commonality of your crimes mentioned also was alluded to ) .. every EIGHT hours a woman is killed by a husband or partner.

so one outweighs the other in the probability of occurring.

just because one kind of event happens, it doesn't follow that the event he is charged with doesn't happen at the same rate, or even more so. It actually does.

to simplify.. its as equally true that break ins occur in south Africa as it is true that men murder their women partners..

one is no more a rare scenario than the other.

Break-ins do not trump the murder of women by their partners .

Dr Mattus · Mar 20, 2014

Rumpole said:
In South Africa where home invasion, rape, torture, and murder are common (ish) it is REASONABLE to assume noises at 3:00AM are from an intruder.

If this case has taught us anything, it's that it is NOT REASONABLE to assume a noise at 3 am is an intruder. Not even in South Africa.

Rumpole · Mar 20, 2014

Dr Mattus said:
If this case has taught us anything, it's that it is NOT REASONABLE to assume a noise at 3 am is an intruder. Not even in South Africa.

I don't want to labour the point, but it has not taught us that at all.

OP was wrong, but how many people were correct when they heard noises at 3:00AM and assumed intruders? My guess... 1000's
If your life depends on the odds.. safest assumption would be INTRUDERS.

Trooper · Mar 20, 2014

If Reeva shot Oscar in exactly the same circumstances ( leaving out the prosthetics, naturally) and basing her defence on Oscars theory, she would be in the dock defending a charge of premeditated murder.

Trooper · Mar 20, 2014

the only thing that would be different, had it been Reeva that murdered Oscar , under the same scenario as has happened, is that Reeva would be considered rather rare..

more men that women shoot and kill their partners..

less women than men shoot and kill their partners..

So Reeva.. as an accused defending a charge of premeditated murder of a man would be unusual in that respect statistically.

but her indictment would still be the same as Oscars.. no difference whatsoever.

sorrell skye · Mar 20, 2014

minor4th said:
Whatever Reeva's mother has said in media reports is not evidence in this trial. I'm talking about what the state has actually presented as evidence. Sure, one can imagine that he was possessive and controlling and could get worked up in a rage and kill his girlfriend - but being able to imagine it is not proof, kwim?

No, Mrs. Steenkamps's statements from that media interview have not been entered as evidence in this trial. Nevertheless, I believe that what June Steenkamp said in her interview is the truth.

Samantha Taylor's statements have been entered as evidence. I believe Sam Taylor when she says that OP exploded at her & others in a rage on more than one occasion. I believe her when she says that OP jumped out of his car & pointed his pistol at the window of another car for no other reason than he was angry because he thought the other driver was 'following' him.

Even if OP is found not guilty of the premeditated murder charge, my personal belief is that he murdered Reeva in a state of unbridled rage.

Based on everything that has come out during the testimony of this trial, as well as other things that I've read about him this past year, I believe OP has serious control issues, is prone to jealousy and possessiveness, and has extreme anger issues.

When a person with these maladaptive characteristics also has access to firearms (as well as a "deep love" for firearms), it's only a matter of time before that person escalates from enraged verbal abuse and threatening others with his gun to actually murdering someone with his gun in a fit of savage fury.

That is what I'm convinced happened in the early hours of February 14, 2013.

In retrospect, I'm not at all surprised that he murdered Reeva. If he had not murdered her on that tragic, fateful morning, it would have been someone else on an equally tragic day. I have zero doubt of that.

IMO, OP is a dangerous individual. I hope he's convicted and is locked up for many, many years.

MeeBee · Mar 20, 2014

Rumpole said:
That was an eye (ear) opening demonstration for me.

Frankly I had HUGE reservations that bat on door could sound remotely anything like a gun shot. That YT at least confirmed that YES it is plausible.

The YT does NOT purport to be a re-enactment of the same scene.. it is no more that a sound comparison. IMO the sound may well have sounded even more like a gunshot if it had involved a door inside a small bathroom with tiles and the sound first reverberating in the bathroom and the house and then across some distance.

For those who have not seen it.... well worth a watch (with an open mind).
Remember it is NOT a reenactment of the crime situation.. just a demonstration of what a bat on door can sound like

Oscar Pistorius Door: Cricket Bat v Gunshot Sounds - Analysis - YouTube

I had reservations too Rumpole! I thought if it did sound like a gunshot, at the very least it would be much duller. But from a distance the sounds are almost identical. The bat is a bit duller as I suspected, but they would be easily confused for one another especial if one is waking us from a sleep. It was indeed eye opening. Is it an exact reenactment? No. I don't know how anyone can say it isn't compelling evidence that it's possible that both the bat and the gun sound similar.

MeeBee · Mar 20, 2014

minor4th said:
Yeah, the quote you were responding to was incorrect about hearsay. At least in the US.

I didn't think so. I'm no lawyer but I read so much about hearsay and "truth of the matter asserted" during the Jodi Arias trial so I knew what they were talking about when they said that. It's a petty confusing concept.

Viper · Mar 20, 2014

Goodnight everyone! Sleep tight, Pistorius will soon be in prison where he belongs...

Dr Mattus · Mar 20, 2014

Rumpole said:
I don't want to labour the point, but it has not taught us that at all.

OP was wrong, but how many people were correct when they heard noises at 3:00AM and assumed intruders? My guess... 1000's
If your life depends on the odds.. safest assumption would be INTRUDERS.

I disagree. It is not reasonable, when deciding to use deadly force, to assume a noise you hear at 3 am is an intruder. Not even in South Africa. This case has highlighted that.

I reject the premise that firing blindly through doors at noises in the night has saved more lives than it has cost. Even in South Africa.

It is not reasonable to do so. In fact it is illegal to do so. Even in South Africa.

Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Formerly known as "Hercule Poirot"

New Member

Verified Attorney

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Formerly known as "Hercule Poirot"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics