Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Interested Bystander]

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

Thank you Mr Fossil. Glad you have all the details to hand. I cannot remember after all the elapsed time. I think you did say that the number of bullets left in the gun was never divulged. That seems to suggest that only the four that were found were used. I cannot think the PT would miss something so important. So one can ignore any suggestion that he might have fired in anger out of the window, unless he reloaded at any point which I think is very unlikely.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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 ........

How does one explain the very characteristic splintering from the door found on her body which, according to the ballistic forensic teams indicated she was standing very near to it.

 

[Mr Fossil]

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 .

I'm not sure what the heights you give refer to. They're not the bullet heights, which are between 93.5-104.5 cm at entry.

The angle of bullet B is the angle Mangena quotes was necessary to align the laser through B to hit E. He states this in the trial and in his report.

We have calculated the horizontal and vertical angles of all the bullets using the entry and exit measurements through the door. This is simply trigonometry and the answer is what it is and can be verified. I give the formula in the tables. So no, it's not trying to fit anything to anything. It is what it is with the caveats that Wolmarans quotes in his report at paragraph 16 (which we reiterate).

The quote I gave for what Oscar says is correct and I have listened to the video again.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thank you Mr Fossil. Glad you have all the details to hand. I cannot remember after all the elapsed time. I think you did say that the number of bullets left in the gun was never divulged. That seems to suggest that only the four that were found were used. I cannot think the PT would miss something so important. So one can ignore any suggestion that he might have fired in anger out of the window, unless he reloaded at any point which I think is very unlikely.

That's correct, it was never mentioned. I had a go at figuring it and concluded that it was possible that as many as 7 bullets could have been fired but it was very speculative.

 

[janicelongbright]

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).

I don't know what to say about that , I'll have to watch it again myself to be convinced , no offence.

The facts remain that a person would not naturally or even possibly could shoot at adownward angle to a height roughly the same as their upperlip and if at an upward angle the heights of the holes would be much higher . The fact is that wrist angle cannot compensate for the fact that bullets travel in straight lines and must have originated via a staght line which a bent wrist can't do unless the arm is raised higher ie than shoulder ht eg .

Another thing though ,if I may .....the arms lenth shoulder ht thing would be obviously deliberate and aimed so how did he claim not to have aimed , he'd have had to have held his shoulder rigid ,( and I still say we have to establish the given angles , because shouldr ht level with even the lower door holes wouldn't have any angle .

 

[Colin de France]

....in post 1229 i said i had two new theories which i wanted to keep for the new thread but due to the way the conversation is developing i think it's best to bring out one now. The gap between the violent dispute and the shooting is huge, i don't think Pistorius is a psychopath and neither do i think his anger would of been such that he just murdered her, in fact i still stand by the idea that he fired on the door without the intention to kill her but i am going to put that aside for the moment in the interest of being objective....So why did he stop with the cricket bat before shooting, why did things escalate out of control, how did it go from a dispute to shots, how could Pistorius reconcile or even justify himself to shooting......the question is, was it possible that Reeva was armed in the toilet ?

 

[Mr Fossil]

I don't know what to say about that , I'll have to watch it again myself to be convinced , no offence.

The facts remain that a person would not naturally or even possibly could shoot at adownward angle to a height roughly the same as their upperlip and if at an upward angle the heights of the holes would be much higher . The fact is that wrist angle cannot compensate for the fact that bullets travel in straight lines and must have originated via a staght line which a bent wrist can't do unless the arm is raised higher ie than shoulder ht eg .

Another thing though ,if I may .....the arms lenth shoulder ht thing would be obviously deliberate and aimed so how did he claim not to have aimed , he'd have had to have held his shoulder rigid ,( and I still say we have to establish the given angles , because shouldr ht level with even the lower door holes wouldn't have any angle .

Please read 'the bullet trajectories'. Everything you need is there. Feel free to cross-check against the ballistics reports.

 

[Mr Fossil]

....in post 1229 i said i had two new theories which i wanted to keep for the new thread but due to the way the conversation is developing i think it's best to bring out one now. The gap between the violent dispute and the shooting is huge, i don't think Pistorius is a psychopath and neither do i think his anger would of been such that he just murdered her, in fact i still stand by the idea that he fired on the door without the intention to kill her but i am going to put that aside for the moment in the interest of being objective....So why did he stop with the cricket bat before shooting, why did things escalate out of control, how did it go from a dispute to shots, how could Pistorius reconcile or even justify himself to shooting......the question is, was it possible that Reeva was armed in the toilet ?

With Oscar's gun? How so and what happened next?

 

[Colin de France]

With Oscar's gun? What happened next?

.......it's not to be dismissed lightly ...

 

[Mr Fossil]

.......it's not to be dismissed lightly ...

Well are you going to answer my questions and explain what you think happened?

 

[lithgow1]

....in post 1229 i said i had two new theories which i wanted to keep for the new thread but due to the way the conversation is developing i think it's best to bring out one now. The gap between the violent dispute and the shooting is huge, i don't think Pistorius is a psychopath and neither do i think his anger would of been such that he just murdered her, in fact i still stand by the idea that he fired on the door without the intention to kill her but i am going to put that aside for the moment in the interest of being objective....So why did he stop with the cricket bat before shooting, why did things escalate out of control, how did it go from a dispute to shots, how could Pistorius reconcile or even justify himself to shooting......the question is, was it possible that Reeva was armed in the toilet ?

Re BIB. I think you left the 'h' off the front of the word. Or is that just a French pronunciation?

 

[Colin de France]

Well are you going to answer my questions and explain what you think happened?

......Yes Sir........there may of been more than one gun in the building and even the possibility that the gun Reeva had simply "disapeared" with the telephone.....

 

[janicelongbright]

How does one explain the very characteristic splintering from the door found on her body which, according to the ballistic forensic teams indicated she was standing very near to it.

I don't know that I trust any of it ! But if the door had been splintered by battering before the shooting , could splinters
have become embedded if not driven in to an open wound , from being dragged across the toilet to the bathroom, and would have stuck into her hip , but not likely in the arm and head ? seems possible even likely to me .

It is so difficulttto tell anything really , because the C.S. photographs I,ve seen here , are actually TOTALLY different to those I've seen elsewhere , and those were all different in any case !

And I read on a Guardian blog the other day , that the C.S.I. wasn't begun until a month thats 4 wks !!! after 13th Feb. ???

 

[Mr Fossil]

......Yes Sir........there may of been more than one gun in the building and even the possibility that the gun Reeva had simply "disapeared" with the telephone.....

OK, so why is she in the toilet (with it, I assume)? And why would Oscar feel threatened if she is in the toilet with this other gun and she can't see him?

 

[Colin de France]

OK, so why is she in the toilet (with it, I assume)? And why would Oscar feel threatened if she is in the toilet with this other gun and she can't see him?

.......because she warned him off when he was trying to break the door with the bat ......

 

[janicelongbright]

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

Yes , well it would fit with the ear witnesses, 4 through the door , to fake the door thing: 3......to be sure of no witness ?

 

[janicelongbright]

....in post 1229 i said i had two new theories which i wanted to keep for the new thread but due to the way the conversation is developing i think it's best to bring out one now. The gap between the violent dispute and the shooting is huge, i don't think Pistorius is a psychopath and neither do i think his anger would of been such that he just murdered her, in fact i still stand by the idea that he fired on the door without the intention to kill her but i am going to put that aside for the moment in the interest of being objective....So why did he stop with the cricket bat before shooting, why did things escalate out of control, how did it go from a dispute to shots, how could Pistorius reconcile or even justify himself to shooting......the question is, was it possible that Reeva was armed in the toilet ?

Very funny ..ha.. ha...

 

[Mr Fossil]

.......because she warned him off when he was trying to break the door with the bat ......

So Oscar bats the door first (I agree with this) and isn't worried at that point about Reeva having a gun on the other side of the door but is threatened enough later to shoot her? Sorry, doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Colin de France]

Very funny ..ha.. ha...

.....why ?.....so far there hasn't been a valid explanation for explaining away the escalation between the dispute and the shooting......

 

[Colin de France]

So Oscar bats the door first (I agree with this) and isn't worried at that point about Reeva having a gun on the other side of the door but is threatened enough later to shoot her? Sorry, doesn't make any sense to me.

.......he wasn't worried simply because he didn't think she would use it, until then.....i gave a lot of thought to your theory about the gun handle i expect at least you give my ideas some consideration....