Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

If he had at a minimum attempted to identify his target ("Who goes there?") then this all would have been avoided. That should be the lesson here-- not "oh poor Oscar, what a terrible mistake but punishing him can't bring Reeva back."

RSBM. Great post and points. Re the bit about bringing Reeva back. I have read that many times and it is a hollow argument IMO. Once a crime has been committed no punishment can reverse it but that is no reason for not punishing the perpetrator. The other argument - that he suffered enough by killing the person he loved - is equally flawed given his seeming lack of grief and mourning outside the confines of the court room.

 

[lithgow1]

....i think the time has gone for new theories on what may have happenend to bridge the gap between the violent dispute and the shooting as much as i would like to discuss them .....

That's a bit rich Colin considering you brought in a whole new theory about why he fired the shots and (rightfully) defended your right to do so. If you don't want to engage in that discussion then just ignore it and let others go for it. I may of course have misunderstood your meaning so if so apologies in advance.

 

[Colin de France]

That's a bit rich Colin considering you brought in a whole new theory about why he fired the shots and (rightfully) defended your right to do so. If you don't want to engage in that discussion then just ignore it and let others go for it. I may of course have misunderstood your meaning so if so apologies in advance.

.......i accept your apology...

 

[soozieqtips]

That's a bit rich Colin considering you brought in a whole new theory about why he fired the shots and (rightfully) defended your right to do so. If you don't want to engage in that discussion then just ignore it and let others go for it. I may of course have misunderstood your meaning so if so apologies in advance.

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. It seems only some scenarios are worthy of discussion and open-mindedness - while others are deemed not to be. Seems rather unbalanced.

 

[Colin de France]

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. It seems only some scenarios are worthy of discussion and open-mindedness - while others are deemed not to be. Seems rather unbalanced.

.....it's funny that you should say that as i am thinking exactly the same......i can assure you and anyone else i am only too willing to see new ideas on here and i really mean that sincerly it's just that it's getting too club like and the feeling that one is free to bring out new theories and ideas has diminished maybe it has something to do with the numbers of posters.......anyway i'm speaking for myself of course.......hopefully i'm wrong....

 

[soozieqtips]

.......i accept your apology...

Can you explain why you deem certain things acceptable to talk about and others not acceptable? I got exactly the same interpretation from your post as lithgow did - and while you accepted the apology if the post had been misunderstood - you didn't explain what your post even meant. You have very often told other posters to remain open to discussion and your scenarios, but you're often dismissive of anything you don't agree with.

 

[janicelongbright]

In Post 1136 I mention freeing up the timing of the bat sounds. I must have been half asleep. There would have been no bat sounds if hitting the metal plate caused the initial sounds but it would permit the bat MARKS not sounds to be made after shooting through the door.

I'm not sure I follow , but did anyone hear any bat sounds anyway ? No one claimed to hear bat sounds.

Most people have heard gunshots from an army range , and everyone knows what bangs from a building site eg sound like , and I've never ever heard of anyone mistaking / phoning the police hearing bangs from building etc.(even in the night) and thinking immediately they were gunshots . As the neighbours did AND despite buiding works going on .

 

[lithgow1]

.....it's funny that you should say that as i am thinking exactly the same......i can assure you and anyone else i am only too willing to see new ideas on here and i really mean that sincerly it's just that it's getting too club like and the feeling that one is free to bring out new theories and ideas has diminished maybe it has something to do with the numbers of posters.......anyway i'm speaking for myself of course.......hopefully i'm wrong....

I guess the heart of the issue is that there are two schools of thought. Well three if we include your theory. One is that OP's version is the truth and the whole thing was a tragic accident. Discussion of how avoidable that 'accident' was is rarely entertained but instead brushed aside by claims of fearfulness, but that's a side issue really.

The other is that it was no accident and that OP intended to murder Reeva Steenkamp. This is by far the majority view. If correct, then of course the big question is why. He had virtually everything and no matter what happens in the future it is likely he has thrown most of that away so why he would do that is a crux question and leads to the discussion of reasons. I doubt that even his supporters would argue that he hasn't displayed many instances of a bad and at times uncontrollable temper so there lies the foundation for how it all got so deadly serious but the puzzle remains as to what set it off and escalated it to that extent. It is something we are never likely to know but that is no reason for not delving into it.

Personally, i think the theories of some argument that led to domestic violence on his part could be right. It is a huge leap from hitting someone to killing them I know, but think about who was involved. A local South African 'name' and a major global one are going to make news if he is charged with or even accused of DV. It would be terrible if maintaining his reputation (and sponsors) required killing someone but it is possible isn't it? That he went too far and knew that the matter would not end there so had one option left - to silence her. Could all be BS of course but it is just as feasible as his version of events. Essentially, if you don't believe his far fetched story then there had to be a reason for what he did. Either blind rage or a cold plan but both require a spark and that is what people are trying to find.

PS Remember that part of his testimony where he said 'I asked Reeva why is she .. is she calling the police'. If that was a slip up on his part then she was calling or threatening to call the cops. Why might that be?

PPS In the interests of fairness, those here who believe OP's story do generally acknowledge his recklessness and that he should be punished for the result of that recklessness. It is elsewhere where you will see the disturbing claims that he has 'suffered enough'.

 

[Colin de France]

I guess the heart of the issue is that there are two schools of thought. Well three if we include your theory. One is that OP's version is the truth and the whole thing was a tragic accident. Discussion of how avoidable that 'accident' was is rarely entertained but instead brushed aside by claims of fearfulness, but that's a side issue really.

The other is that it was no accident and that OP intended to murder Reeva Steenkamp. This is by far the majority view. If correct, then of course the big question is why. He had virtually everything and no matter what happens in the future it is likely he has thrown most of that away so why he would do that is a crux question and leads to the discussion of reasons. I doubt that even his supporters would argue that he hasn't displayed many instances of a bad and at times uncontrollable temper so there lies the foundation for how it all got so deadly serious but the puzzle remains as to what set it off and escalated it to that extent. It is something we are never likely to know but that is no reason for not delving into it.

Personally, i think the theories of some argument that led to domestic violence on his part could be right. It is a huge leap from hitting someone to killing them I know, but think about who was involved. A local South African 'name' and a major global one are going to make news if he is charged with or even accused of DV. It would be terrible if maintaining his reputation (and sponsors) required killing someone but it is possible isn't it? That he went too far and knew that the matter would not end there so had one option left - to silence her. Could all be BS of course but it is just as feasible as his version of events. Essentially, if you don't believe his far fetched story then there had to be a reason for what he did. Either blind rage or a cold plan but both require a spark and that is what people are trying to find.

PS Remember that part of his testimony where he said 'I asked Reeva why is she .. is she calling the police'. If that was a slip up on his part then she was calling or threatening to call the cops. Why might that be?

....very good post.......i think the thread is coming to an end so i would like to put up two new theories which i'm sure no one has come up with before either on this site or any other on the new thread and i shall wait until then, they are both to do with the missing gap between the dispute and the shooting and how that gap could of been bridged.......

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm not sure I follow , but did anyone hear any bat sounds anyway ? No one claimed to hear bat sounds.

Most people have heard gunshots from an army range , and everyone knows what bangs from a building site eg sound like , and I've never ever heard of anyone mistaking / phoning the police hearing bangs from building etc.(even in the night) and thinking immediately they were gunshots . As the neighbours did AND despite buiding works going on .

I would be interested to know your thoughts with respect to the accepted two sets of sounds. At times it has been suggested OP may have fired shots out of the bathroom window in order to frighten Reeva but there has been no corroborating evidence. Had Mrs Stipps not been awake at the time, maybe nobody would have heard the first sounds. She obviously had disturbed her husband with her coughing and he also heard the sounds.

Mr Fossil did attempt to show how many bullets were left in OP's gun but whilst we know how many can be loaded, nobody knows how many were in the clip prior to the shooting and the number of bullets left in the gun was never divulged.

The accepted opinion (by both the DT and PT) is that there were two sets of sounds, heard by the Stipps, both sounded like gun shots. The Defence say the first sounds have to be the shots that killed Reeva but the evidence points conclusively, IMO, that it was the second set of shots that killed her. Nobody seems to have argued that the bat hits could not have sounded like gun shots.

There were tests done by the Defence to try to prove that bat shots and gun shots sounded very similar. However they did not bring the evidence to trial which infers that there were differences maybe because the tests were conducted in the open air. There is a video on You Tube showing a similar experiment. Roux did say during the proceedings that he had evidence that bat hits did sound like gun shots but I think it was found that the sound recordist had enhanced the bat hit sounds.

The fact that the sounds emanated from a fully tiled bathroom may have enhanced the sound and that may be why the bat hits sounded somewhat like gunshots to the Stipps. There would probably have been echos bouncing off the tiled walls that might have misled the Stipps into thinking the sounds were gunshots. Both had experience of guns and thought the sounds they heard were similar.

I did feel the metal panel may have been hit and caused the first sounds but then I would have to accept that OP made no sound whilst breaking into the toilet cubicle and I doubt that opinion is realistic.

As far as I am aware there was no construction taking place at 2.58 am.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I would be interested to know your thoughts with respect to the accepted two sets of sounds. At times it has been suggested OP may have fired shots out of the bathroom window in order to frighten Reeva but there has been no corroborating evidence. Had Mrs Stipps not been awake at the time, maybe nobody would have heard the first sounds. She obviously had disturbed her husband with her coughing and he also heard the sounds.

Mr Fossil did attempt to show how many bullets were left in OP's gun but whilst we know how many can be loaded, nobody knows how many were in the clip prior to the shooting and the number of bullets left in the gun was never divulged.

The accepted opinion (by both the DT and PT) is that there were two sets of sounds, heard by the Stipps, both sounded like gun shots. The Defence say the first sounds have to be the shots that killed Reeva but the evidence points conclusively, IMO, that it was the second set of shots that killed her. Nobody seems to have argued that the bat hits could not have sounded like gun shots.

There were tests done by the Defence to try to prove that bat shots and gun shots sounded very similar. However they did not bring the evidence to trial which infers that there were differences maybe because the tests were conducted in the open air. There is a video on You Tube showing a similar experiment. Roux did say during the proceedings that he had evidence that bat hits did sound like gun shots but I think it was found that the sound recordist had enhanced the bat hit sounds.

The fact that the sounds emanated from a fully tiled bathroom may have enhanced the sound and that may be why the bat hits sounded somewhat like gunshots to the Stipps. There would probably have been echos bouncing off the tiled walls that might have misled the Stipps into thinking the sounds were gunshots. Both had experience of guns and thought the sounds they heard were similar.

I did feel the metal panel may have been hit and caused the first sounds but then I would have to accept that OP made no sound whilst breaking into the toilet cubicle and I doubt that opinion is realistic.

Re BIB (transcript p267). Obviously, it doesn't prove it was full on the night:

Nel: You.. how do you carry your pistol?
OP: I carry my pistol in a holster usually, M'Lady. I have got two holsters, depending on what clothing I wear.
Nel: And as far as the round are concerned?
OP: I carry my firearm with a full magazine, M'Lady.
Nel: Not one up?
OP: I have a mechanism on my firearm, M'Lady where you can put a round in the chamber and you can drop the hammer, so it is not cocked in a sense of.. when you.. trigger on my gun has a… it has got a double pull, so if you *advertiser censored* a gun to pull the trigger is very easy. The weight of the trigger is fairly light. If you do not *advertiser censored* it, the first pull and the pulls thereafter are very heavy. It is very hard to pull the gun. So my firearm has got a double safety mechanism, where you can… you can *advertiser censored* the gun, you can drop the hammer and then you can put the gun on safety. So I usually do carry one up.
Nel: After all that, you carry one up.
OP: Correct, M'Lady.

 

[janicelongbright]

I would be interested to know your thoughts with respect to the accepted two sets of sounds. At times it has been suggested OP may have fired shots out of the bathroom window in order to frighten Reeva but there has been no corroborating evidence. Had Mrs Stipps not been awake at the time, maybe nobody would have heard the first sounds. She obviously had disturbed her husband with her coughing and he also heard the sounds.


Mr Fossil did attempt to show how many bullets were left in OP's gun but whilst we know how many can be loaded, nobody knows how many were in the clip prior to the shooting and the number of bullets left in the gun was never divulged.

The accepted opinion (by both the DT and PT) is that there were two sets of sounds, heard by the Stipps, both sounded like gun shots. The Defence say the first sounds have to be the shots that killed Reeva but the evidence points conclusively, IMO, that it was the second set of shots that killed her. Nobody seems to have argued that the bat hits could not have sounded like gun shots.

There were tests done by the Defence to try to prove that bat shots and gun shots sounded very similar. However they did not bring the evidence to trial which infers that there were differences maybe because the tests were conducted in the open air. There is a video on You Tube showing a similar experiment. Roux did say during the proceedings that he had evidence that bat hits did sound like gun shots but I think it was found that the sound recordist had enhanced the bat hit sounds.

The fact that the sounds emanated from a fully tiled bathroom may have enhanced the sound and that may be why the bat hits sounded somewhat like gunshots to the Stipps. There would probably have been echos bouncing off the tiled walls that might have misled the Stipps into thinking the sounds were gunshots. Both had experience of guns and thought the sounds they heard were similar.

I did feel the metal panel may have been hit and caused the first sounds but then I would have to accept that OP made no sound whilst breaking into the toilet cubicle and I doubt that opinion is realistic.

As far as I am aware there was no construction taking place at 2.58 am.

I don't believe he Shot Reeva through the door .I put the reasons for that some way back ,but basically the forensic /ballistic reports of both Mangena and Wlmerans say that the bullet hole's height and angle , don't match Pistorius' height at 5ft firing through the door ; neither do the projected shots match the hits behind the door .

I can't explain how the thing occurred , whether 'the state arranged for the door to be a factor ' .......

But the fact that even Pistorius version of 'having fired from waist height- , meaning that along with downward projection , the bullet holes could not have been caused except at about 1 to 2 ft high, wasn't even considered by the prosecution ........

 

[Mr Fossil]

I don't believe he Shot Reeva through the door .I put the reasons for that some way back ,but basically the forensic /ballistic reports of both Mangena and Wlmerans say that the bullet hole's height and angle , don't match Pistorius' height at 5ft firing through the door ; neither do the projected shots match the hits behind the door .

I can't explain how the thing occurred , whether 'the state arranged for the door to be a factor ' .......

But the fact that even Pistorius version of 'having fired from waist height- , meaning that along with downward projection , the bullet holes could not have been caused except at about 1 to 2 ft high, wasn't even considered by the prosecution ........

BIB 1a I disagree.Where does it say this in the reports?
BIB 1b Could I draw your attention to 'The bullet trajectories', which is based on Wolmarans's measurements
BIB 2 He doesn't say this, he says about shoulder height (transcript p529).

Nel: When you fired the shots, could you just indicate to the court where your gun was? Where did you hold your gun?
OP: I held my gun up like this, My Lady.
Nel: Now you have got your arm in a normal shooting position?
OP: No, I do not think that is a normal shooting position at all, My Lady.
Nel: Is that not a normal shooting position?
OP: No, My Lady.
Nel: But it is at least shoulder height?
OP: It is probably about shoulder height. I remember that.

 

[janicelongbright]

Sorry , also the thing about the construction site sounds is that people are familiar with eg. wood on wood bangs and they have a percussive sound even if very load, they are very distinguishable from the sound of essentially explosions , a car backfiring can be quite similar though.
Had the defence OR the prosecution played recordings of both it would have demonstrated the fact? ....

 

[janicelongbright]

BIB 1a I disagree.Where does it say this in the reports?
BIB 1b Could I draw your attention to 'The bullet trajectories', which is based on Wolmarans's measurements
BIB 2 He doesn't say this, he says about shoulder height (transcript p529).

OK, Pistorius has been measured to be 5ft high .

The bullet holes are between 3ft 10 inches and 4ft 2inches high .

The angle of the holes through the door were said be 7deg. in a downward trajectory .

Mangena has the distance from the door to range from 6 ft away to 9ft away .


Is that right so far ?

 

[Colin de France]

I don't believe he Shot Reeva through the door

.....that would mean that seven shots at least were fired .....?

 

[Mr Fossil]

OK, Pistorius has been measured to be 5ft high .

The bullet holes are between 3ft 10 inches and 4ft 2inches high .

The angle of the holes through the door were said be 7deg. in a downward trajectory .

Mangena has the distance from the door to range from 6 ft away to 9ft away .


Is that right so far ?

Can we talk metric and use the measurements in the reports (or 'the bullet trajectories') please. It's a real pain to convert everything!

And no, you're wrong about the angle. Mangena says 5-6 degrees for bullet B to hit mark E. He says nothing about the other bullets' angles but you can see from our diagram and calculations that bullet A is fired in an upwards trajectory, C is level and D is downwards.

 

[janicelongbright]

Anyway I'll press on a bit . Im sorry I don't have the transcript or references . But I would suggest that the trranscript has already been found not to match the trial elswhere , and if possible looking at the trial itself is the best source as well as some the ballistic records that are available .

Mangena himself states at the trial that "Pistorius would have held the gun 7 cms above his shoulder " .


Common sense tells you that a 5ft person would have a hard time producing the downwards projections at a heigh vey near to his own The distance from head to shoulder is a universal proportion and is 12 inches. Even according to your assertion of firing straight from the shoulder with no downward trajectory , 2 bullet holes would be 2inches or more short of the height in the door .

 

[Mr Fossil]

Anyway I'll press on a bit . Im sorry I don't have the transcript or references . But I would suggest that the trranscript has already been found not to match the trial elswhere , and if possible looking at the trial itself is the best source as well as some the ballistic records that are available .

Mangena himself states at the trial that "Pistorius would have held the gun 7 cms above his shoulder " .


Common sense tells you that a 5ft person would have a hard time producing the downwards projections at a heigh vey near to his own The distance from head to shoulder is a universal proportion and is 12 inches. Even according to your assertion of firing straight from the shoulder with no downward trajectory , 2 bullet holes would be 2inches or more short of the height in the door .

I do have the ballistics reports, the trial videos and Oscar's transcript in front of me. What I report Oscar said about firing from shoulder height is exactly what he said.

Mangena explains the 7cm difference in his report at 18.7.1

I don't agree with your last paragraph at all because it takes very little arm or wrist movement to change the height of a bullet through the door (bullets B, C and D).

 

[janicelongbright]

Can we talk metric and use the measurements in the reports (or 'the bullet trajectories') please. It's a real pain to convert everything!

And no, you're wrong about the angle. Mangena says 5-6 degrees for bullet B to hit mark E. He says nothing about the other bullets' angles but you can see from our diagram and calculations that bullet A is fired in an upwards trajectory, C is level and D is downwards.

I'm sorry , I don't have my notes to hand now , and I cant remember the metric figures , roughly , 98cms to 110.4 ?

Since you seem to say that there are not using the angles from ballistic report . Aen't you just making the evidence fit the alleged fact ?

I tried to find the calculations on here , can you tell me the page please .

Any way without looking for definitive statistics , I don't see how we can be sure now .

A couple more things though , which I thought I had seen at the trial

1. Nel questioning Pistorius on where he was standing shooting and then Nel asks him Did he shoot at shoulder height arm straight out. To which Pistorius says : "No"
Nel then asks him therefore to demonstrate how he was holding the gun .

Pistorius holds the at waistr height with arm bent in towards his waist .

Nel says : like that , with your arm bent?

Pistorius : "Yes"

If the transcript says otherwise , I think you look at the trial recording , or maybe someone else can remember the same .