I don't remember the defense objecting to the bath panel or outside jeans evidence. These are just pieces of factual evidence. The interpretation is another matter.
Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
New Posts
-
UK- Major incident declared in Southport after multiple stabbings, 29 July 2024- Latest: astheworldfallsdown
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3
- Latest: BatataPoha
- Status
I don't remember the defense objecting to the bath panel or outside jeans evidence. These are just pieces of factual evidence. The interpretation is another matter.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't mean to imply it was an objection made in open Court… as that did not happen.
What I suspect is that it was brought up in chambers by the Defence.
Unless I'm mistaken, both the panel and the jeans were not mentioned at all by anyone… not even when the photographs depicting these objects were entered into evidence.
Yet those items were deemed significant enough for police photographer to focus on them specifically.
As for the interpretation, I agree… on the Defence version they are insignificant… on the State's version they can be very significant… especially the panel.
I doubt this - the defense could have no grounds to object. My guess is that this evidence wasn't mentioned because it didn't help either side.
Imo too much has been made of this kind of evidence. Adv Nel's only real chance of a conviction was if the court accepted the screams evidence. Much of the rest of the evidence was just things Adv Nel thinks are suspicious but his failure to explain how his evidence fitted together must weigh against him.
I don't think there's much Adv Nel could have done with this evidence or indeed much of the evidence he did mention. The jeans in the bedroom could have been on the floor because they were dirty and the things in the bag were clean (or it was already full), and inside out because that's how you wash jeans. The bag could be packed because Reeva had an early start the next day as she was giving a talk at a school. The jeans outside could have been laid out to dry and got at by the dogs. The bath panel and BB shot through the bedroom door could have happened earlier. I think Adv Nel was throwing mud and hoping some of it would stick. But without a proper basis for proving that Oscar knew he was shooting at Reeva, all this is meaningless imo.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe there could be grounds for objecting… but I'm not an attorney… so you may be right.
The jeans in the bedroom and the BB holes : Yes, I agree one could spin various yarns about these but one would not get very far with them.
The jeans in the yard : Probably not a common occurrence which makes it somewhat suspicious it would occur on the very same day as another very uncommon event (shooting) and yet be totally unrelated to said event… but here again I can easily agree with you.
The bath panel : that's another matter IMO
Materials & Physics :
- The bath panel is made of stainless steel.
- The yield strength of stainless steel is very high : basically it means one needs to apply a lot of force to deform stainless steel permanently… if one applies a force which is less than the yield strength, the material will deform but return to its original shape (elastic deformation)… if one applies a force which is greater than the yield strength, the material will deform but not return to its original shape (plastic deformation)
- For comparison, a few yield strengths : Human bones = ~ 120 MPa ; Structural steel = ~ 250 MPa ; Aerospace aluminum = ~ 400 Mpa ; Stainless steel = ~ 520 Mpa
- The bath panel is severely deformed (see photo)… which indicates it sustained a force much greater than 520 MPa
- If one is remotely knowledgeable about physics, one can see that it would take a powerful and focused blow to produce this kind of damage
- The other thing that can be ascertained from the photo is the direction of the force : it was perpendicular to the surface of the bath panel and pretty much dead center (a little higher perhaps).
Circumstances :
- The bathroom "suffered" a repeated bashing with a cricket bat in the hands of a strong man.
- The bathroom is a crime scene where a woman was shot and killed by said man.
- The bashing and shooting occurred minutes apart.
Analysis :
- A strong intentful swing with a cricket bat at the bath panel would produce such damage.
- Nothing else in that bathroom could cause such damage… certainly not a thrown piece of door panel as it is far too light of an object which would never have the required energy to produce such damage… plus the position of the toilet door relative to the bath panel would make such a throw impossible (see photo).
- It is true that the panel may have been damaged days, weeks or months prior to events… but considering the circumstances, it is very likely to have occurred when someone was swinging a cricket bat in the bathroom (which I suspect is a very uncommon occurrence).
- OP would be hard pressed to explain how and when the bath panel was damaged.
- Furthermore, OP had a cleaning lady… she could have testified as to state of the bath panel… it's certainly not something that could go unnoticed.
- If one would prove the cricket bat caused said damage, OP's version would completely fall apart.
PS : Those protruding sharp edges of the bath panel are quite dangerous : one could get badly cut on them… especially someone who is unstable on his stumps and frequently uses the bath !!… would a professional track athlete risk such injuries to his stumps ?
I'm not an attorney either. You may be right, but I just don't see how they could complain about the State showing photo evidence from the scene.
You have clearly thought much more about the bath panel than I have. It doesn't look sturdy and I'm not sure where all your information is from if this wasn't mentioned in court, or do I misunderstand you? If it happened that night it could have happened on the back swing of one of the bat strikes - he is a strong athlete. No evidence was forthcoming from a cleaner so we don't know when it happened. The little bottles on the bath seem undisturbed so it isn't clear that there was someone going crazy with a bat there that night. I really don't see how this helps the State tbh.
Any thoughts about shots vs bangs?
Vermeulen spends just under 6 minutes on the steel plate in his testimony on 12 March 2014.
He received the plate at the laboratory on 26 April 2013 and was asked to examine it. He did not see it in situ on the scene. He concluded that it got bent as a result of an object hitting or falling against it just to the right of centre. The object had to be hard enough to form a very faint scratch in the surface of the plate in a vertical direction. It was not possible to ascertain what type of object was used.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
"It does not look sturdy" : it is not as sturdy as a stainless steel frying pan but standard stainless steel sheet metal it is pretty sturdy.
"Where all your information is from" : what information are you referring to ?
"it could have happened on the back swing of one of the bat strikes" : impossible… first because the swings where overhead swings… second because even an underhand swing could never reach so far to the back and to the left (i.e. left of the person swinging whislt facing the toilet door)
"No evidence was forthcoming from a cleaner so we don't know when it happened" : Indeed… yet another failure by the State.
"I really don't see how this helps the State" : as you pointed out earlier the State's case basically rested on the screaming which in turn rested on a timeline… BUT the case could have included the metal tub panel :
- On OP's version the bat was used AFTER the gun for the sole purpose of breaking down the toilet door.
- On the State's version the bat was used BEFORE the gun in a DV scene.
- If OP bashed the tub panel with the cricket bat that night, OP's version would utterly collapse for obvious reasons.
"The little bottles on the bath seem undisturbed" : the tub panel is held in place by clips to the main tub enclosure… whereas the tub enclosure is build of wood which is secured to the floor and walls with nails or screws… the enclosure is then covered in sheetrock held by screws and tiled using mortar... making the tub enclosure very massive and an integral part of the structure of the house… bashing the tub panel would certainly not lead to the whole structure to move enough for the bottles to topple over.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks Mr Fossil… I had completely forgotten that bit !!!
A few IMO comments :
- Vermeulen's comment that the dent could have been caused by a falling object is ludicrous !!
- I believe Vermeulen was perhaps not the best candidate to study the evidence… as I believe he is a forensic chemist.
- Tests could have been conducted to determine the force required to damage the panel in such manner.
- Tests could have been conducted to see if a cricket bat swing could produce the required force and was consistent with the resulting damage and the resulting scratch.
- A scratch in a vertical direction is very telling.
- At the very least, the direction of the impact could have been determined… I know photographs can deceive but to me at least it looks like the direction of impact had an upwards component… i.e. as an underhand swing would.
- An impact of that nature and force would certainly leave trace elements on both the panel and the bat… trace elements which could easily be identified with a mass spectrometer.
… all of this may seem over the top but it could have been invaluable to prove the bat was used before the gun or at the very least seriously challenge and jeopardize OP's version of events.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
IMO cricket bat strikes do not sound like gunshots.
Also, a cricket bat could never hit another object repeatedly as fast as a semi-automatic handgun can fire bullets.
That being said, the only 2 people who heard 2 sets of bangs are the Stipps :
- The first set was heard when waking up... not expecting anything to happen
- The second set was heard when wide awake and about… attentively paying attention to an unfolding situation
I have no problem conceiving the Stipps could mistakenly believe they heard gunshots as they were waking up at 3AM… especially since they hadn't yet identified, where in relation to them, the commotion was occurring.
e.g.
- A bull whip crack under the Stipp's bedroom window would have made them believe in a gunshot
- A firecracker detonating 1 block away from the Stipp's bedroom window would have made them believe in a gunshot
- A stick of dynamite detonating 5 kilometers away from the Stipp's bedroom window would have made them believe in a gunshot
In a country riddled with gun violence, it's not surprising that most people would instinctively associate loud sharp sounds with gunshots.
… the fact remains the Defence claimed in open Court when cross-examining State witnesses they would prove a cricket bat strike sounds like a gunshot and OP screams with a woman's voice… but they did neither.
Yes, thanks Mr Fossil! I had forgotten this part of his testimony too.
AJ- I meant where did you get all the detailed info about the door if it wasn't mentioned in court - but Mr Fossil has answered.
I'm still not convinced that this evidence could have been important. The bath panel is opposite the door and we know Oscar was swinging the cricket bat around in this area quickly and multiple times to break the door down, probably with little thought about anything other than breaking the door. The back swing of the bat would naturally go over the bath if high up or hit the side if lower down. Someone standing by the window and putting all his might into swinging at the door on one of the lower hits might have let the bat fall between attempts on one of the pull-backs, particularly if he was bending down to get the maximum force. I'd also be cautious about what Oscar can do physically and how - he's unusual as he's an Olympic athlete so probably much stronger than most, and as he wears prosthetic legs which must alter his gait and quite possibly how he would hold himself when breaking a door.
Vermeulen was indeed not ideal to give evidence about this. His evidence seemed to ignore Oscar's version (so much for the police considering both sides in their investigation) and made an imo rather ill-informed suggestion that Oscar had swung at the door while on his stumps. At the time I assumed Adv Nel was planning to use this to argue that Oscar was on his stumps the whole time but that argument (I felt) was discredited and it didn't reappear.
All I meant about the bottles was that someone going nuts in small room might be expected to lash at out whatever he could see. It doesn't just have to be a bath. Lots of bottles would do fine. But there is only the one unexplained bashed bath panel and nothing else.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I can't for the life of me picture how someone swigging a cricket bat at the toilet door as he would an axe could ever possibly hit the tub panel...
BiB… although you paint very unusual and complex circumstances… I still can't see it !!
OP unimaginably strong but mysteriously let's go of the bat on the pull-back swing ???… in which case the bat would continue in the trajectory tangent to the arc of the swing… which could NEVER land perpendicularly on the tub panel.
If you want to argue that the Stipps were wide awake for the second shots and therefore more likely to have heard accurately then I agree. They heard 3 bangs, not four - and Mrs Stipp called them thuds.
There was only one set of shots. We know that the Stipps heard 2 sets of shots. So the others were something else. There are no candidates for the 'other' shots other than the cricket bat strikes. The defence's job was to show to the court that Oscar's version could be true. The evidence was good enough imo as the bat strikes did sound like gunshots to me. I wouldn't have believed it but the sounds on even the YT video made by someone unrelated to trial made me think this was a credible source for the 'other' shots. The shots and bat strikes didn't have to be identical or the same volume as they were heard a few minutes apart.
All the other things you say might be mistaken for gunshots - yes, that's probably true. But there is no evidence that Oscar did any of those things - I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that though
. In the absence of evidence that something else caused the other shots, it doesn't matter imo that the witnesses thought the bangs were too fast to be the bats. They are the only candidate. Who knows how fast Oscar can hit the door either.
It's the State who need to prove their case, not the defense. Roux shouldn't have said that he'd prove something and then not produced the evidence. This made him look bad and might have altered a witness' testimony unfairly in his favour. But there's no evidence that that happened in this case. To my mind, Mrs Van de Merwe's testimony that Oscar sounded like a woman to her that night was like gold to the defense - it showed that what the State were claiming couldn't be true just might be.
We don't know when it happened. We don't even know that it was the cricket bat. I was trying to imagine whether it could have been caused by the back swing. I wasn't suggesting that Oscar might let go of the bat, but that he might just lean down to get a good swing and lower the end of the bat in the process. This doesn't help decide the case for me, I have to say, as the evidence is just too uncertain.
This the YT video of the gunshots.vs bats. It demonstrates the kind of bat movement I had in mind. See around 1:20 where he is hitting the door with the bat. Between the strikes the bottom of the bat is low down and away from the door. To get the bat in position to hit again, he moves the bat upwards which might create a vertical dent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMMeYM7jRo
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
If you want to argue that the Stipps were wide awake for the second shots and therefore more likely to have heard accurately then I agree. They heard 3 bangs, not four - and Mrs Stipp called them thuds.
There was only one set of shots. We know that the Stipps heard 2 sets of shots. So the others were something else. There are no candidates for the 'other' shots other than the cricket bat strikes. The defence's job was to show to the court that Oscar's version could be true. The evidence was good enough imo as the bat strikes did sound like gunshots to me. I wouldn't have believed it but the sounds on even the YT video made by someone unrelated to trial made me think this was a credible source for the 'other' shots. The shots and bat strikes didn't have to be identical or the same volume as they were heard a few minutes apart.
All the other things you say might be mistaken for gunshots - yes, that's probably true. But there is no evidence that Oscar did any of those things - I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that though
In the absence of evidence that something else caused the other shots, it doesn't matter imo that the witnesses thought the bangs were too fast to be the bats. They are the only candidate. Who knows how fast Oscar can hit the door either.
It's the State who need to prove their case, not the defense. Roux shouldn't have said that he'd prove something and then not produced the evidence. This made him look bad and might have altered a witness' testimony unfairly in his favour. But there's no evidence that that happened in this case. To my mind, Mrs Van de Merwe's testimony that Oscar sounded like a woman to her that night was like gold to the defense - it showed that what the State were claiming couldn't be true just might be.
BiB… OP may be an athlete with above average physical abilities BUT he remains a human being bound the laws of physics and biomechanics.
I suspect the YT videos you refer to were not conducted in a controlled environment by qualified forensics sound engineers… I also suspect they were not entered into evidence … - I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest they were
As the Defence stated, the gunshots were fired in rapid succession… quite possible that 4 shots could have been heard as 3 shots… I didn't suggest the Stipps would have heard the shots more accurately, only that they would more accurately be able to identify the nature of the sound.
There is nothing in the evidence which can conclusively demonstrate the first set of bangs were the gunshots and the second set were the bat strikes.
Isn't it "funny" how you make the Stipp's to be unreliable witnesses in some aspects but reliable in other aspects, no ?
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Either I'm not understanding what you mean at all or you don't realize the size and location of the bath panel in relations to the toilet door.
How could "moving the bat upwards" to strike forward could ever create a backwards force strong enough to bash the tub panel ??
The bath panel is located below knee height… the dent in the panel is somewhere between ankle and calf height…. that'S far too low for any of the movements you are describing
Furthermore, the way the YT guy strikes the door is totally inconsistent with the State's forensic evidence and OP's testimony
BiB OP may be an athlete with above average physical abilities BUT he remains a human being bound the laws of physics and biomechanics.
I suspect the YT videos you refer to were not conducted in a controlled environment by qualified forensics sound engineers I also suspect they were not entered into evidence - I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest they were
As the Defence stated, the gunshots were fired in rapid succession quite possible that 4 shots could have been heard as 3 shots I didn't suggest the Stipps would have heard the shots more accurately, only that they would more accurately be able to identify the nature of the sound.
There is nothing in the evidence which can conclusively demonstrate the first set of bangs were the gunshots and the second set were the bat strikes.
Isn't it "funny" how you make the Stipp's to be unreliable witnesses in some aspects but reliable in other aspects, no ?
Yes, I agree. But that's the only option on the table as far as I can see.
No - the YT video just demonstrated that under those circumstances, bats can sound very similar to shots, particularly when heard at separate times. I think the defense referenced it in court in the cross of Vermeulen. However, that this or their own evidence might not be under identical conditions doesn't matter as the defense just need to show this is possible, not prove that that's what happened. I think it did show this was possible.
I don't think that you can argue that they were more able to tell what is a gunshot or not because they were wide awake and not acknowledge that they should also have heard the correct number of shots.
No, I don't think it's funny that I accept some parts of the Stipps' evidence and not others. We were talking about the phones evidence and on the face of it, the phones evidence is different from Dr Stipp's verbal evidence. Even allowing for a misdial, it still doesn't match on the evidence presented. Maybe the phones evidence is wrong - we've covered that! I don't doubt everything they said because of this, but I do wonder whether they might have been confused about the exact sequence of events.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't mean "ha ha" funny… apologies if it came through that way, it wasn't my intention…
BiB… not sure I get your meaning… are you saying OP must be able to transgress the laws of physics and biomechanics because there is no other possible/probable explanation for bangs in very rapid succession ?
I honestly don't understand your reasoning on the Stipps… Please help me understand
Does the fact the phone data does not indicate a call from the Stipp's after the first set of bangs make you believe :
A. they did not hear the first set of bangs AND they did not attempt to call security until after the second set of bangs
B. they did not hear the first set of bangs BUT they attempted to call security before the second set of bangs
C. they heard the first set of bangs BUT they did not attempt to call security until after the second set of bangs
D. they heard the first set of bangs AND they attempted to call security before the second set of bangs
… which is it ?
Which aspect of the Stipps testimony do you find reliable ?… the phone calls made, the screaming, the set of 2 distinct male and female voices, the light in the bathroom, etc…
or if it's easier, which aspect of the Stipps testimony do you find unreliable ?
Try pretending to hit something three times and fast with a bat or something of similar size. It isn't a static thing with careful placement of the bat over your shoulder on the backswing. To hit a ball you'd move the bat back sharply before bringing it forward again. To do multiple hits quickly you must move the bat back very fast to start the next swing. That's why you'd always check what's around you before you swing a bat. So the backswings would be very powerful.
How is the YT guy's swing inconsistent with the testimony?
I didn't think you meant 'ha ha' funny. I'm sorry if in my reply it seemed that way. It's too easy to misunderstand when communicating this way!
Maybe our problem with the Stipps evidence is a differing approach to evidence. This is a court case and I'm trying to see the evidence from the perspective of the court which involves using the rules of the court. These rules were familiar to Adv Nel so when the State didn't contend that Dr Stipp's 10111 call wasn't at 3.17 or that Johnson's call didn't start at 3.16, he would have been aware that for the court, the Stipps' version of events doesn't agree with the calls evidence. We've already covered the rest - surely Dr Stipp's and Mr Johnson's phone records were available and yet not produced. If they weren't available from the phone company then why not.
The times of Dr Stipp's calls in relation to the bangs no longer matter that much as the evidence conflicts. But yes, I'd say he and his wife heard both sets of bangs and he made the 3.15 call between them.
I find most of Dr Stipp's evidence pretty reliable but like all witnesses, he could have made mistakes. He heard and saw many things and each should probably be judged on their own merits. I don't believe the bit about seeing the light on immediately after the first bangs.
- Status