Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[Duchy]

When asked by Roux, Dr. Stipp testified that "it didn't appear to be open".



IMO, that window had been open all night, which is the reason why the ear-witnesses were able to hear Reeva's terrified screaming and the subsequent sounds of the gunshots.

Maybe OP opened it when he went back upstairs - to back up his story of thinking it was an intruder.

 

[minor4th]

OP's story is as it appears on his statement. The Judge will listen to him, have her own thoughts, and will give weight to some things more than others. She will try and get an angle on OP's frame of mind at the time.

Eventually she'll make a decision, and apply the rule of law based on her decision. What I can guarantee is that there is no x = y, therefore judge has to do z.

This is such an excellent point that everyone discussing this should keep in mind (including me). No one, and I mean no one, can say that all this evidence conclusively = murder/culpable homicide/innocence and that's the only possible verdict from the judge.

 

[steveml]

X never equals Y, X always equals X

:nevermind:

 

[Rumpole]

Blood spatter was photographed above Oscar Pistorius's headboard the morning he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

This was the testimony of police Warrant Officer Barend van Staden during Pistorius's murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

He said he photographed the blood spots on the wall as part of the extensive collection of pictures of the scene following her death on February 14 2013.'

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/17/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-11

Admittedly it does not detail whose blood...yet. but there was blood.

SPOTS were photographed... thought to be blood no doubt. (by a photographer)

BUT ... no evidence that it was sampled, tested to confirm it was blood. No blood type (or DNA) to show whose blood. No evidence that it relates to the night in question.
The blood spatter guy did not inspect and/or did not report on it.

I put it to you it is not important evidence in this case.

 

[Rumpole]

Mr. Nel has has shown the patience of a saint with Roux's antics and badgering. It seems to me that he is not objecting to small things just to allow the court days to be more productive. But the window was open in that photo though, so it must not really matter to the State.

IMHO Nel is a wuss :floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

IMHO Nel is a wuss :floorlaugh:

IMHO Nel has a crap case and he knows it, so there's not much he can do about it :moo:

 

[steveml]

You are skimming over the fact that it was presented as blood spots....My Lady...I would doubt they would present them as such if they turned out to be chocolate.

And the account of spatter...in general..not specifically. Oscar will have to answer this in cross examination of his exact movements.

If the blood spots were favorable to the state's case, surely their expert witness would have been only too happy to tell us all about it?

 

[Rumpole]

IMHO Nel has a crap case and he knows it, so there's not much he can do about it :moo:

IMO he is arguing a case that he can not prove even by predominance of evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

He has set himself the task (in effect) of proving beyond reasonable doubt that OP is lying... his entire description of event is false. He did not think there was an intruder at all, but rather he chased and trapped Reeva in the toilet and then shot knowing she was behind the door.

I put it to you that even if that were the case... Nel does not have a snowball's chance of proving it. How do you prove what OP believed in his mind? Nel certainly has not proved the case that OP shot knowing Reeva was behind the door. Can anybody here say they know that for sure... proved beyond reasonable doubt? You can ASSUME he is guilty (most defendants are) but to prove it beyond reasonable doubt requires some evidence and for it to be presented effectively.

 

[G.bng]

'speaking with Reeva a few moments before'....


before what?? and what does she say back to him?? 'speaking with ' implies responses back and forth.. it changes his entire story.

before he got out of bed?? before he went out on the balcony and bought in one fan??

before he bought in the other fan?

before he plugged in one fan ( in the dark) that was still blowing away when Van Rensburg went upstairs??

before he murdered her??

Yes, it changes his entire story... like why then did he not immediately ask her if she heard the noise, and tell her calmly to ring the police instead of shouting it out in passing as he goes gun in hand down the passage.

And did OP rush down the passage or creep slowly so as not to make a noise... well apart from announcing his presence by shouting that is. And if rushing, would not Reeva have heard him coming and shouted back to him ?

 

[Gavel Rash]

If the blood spots were favorable to the state's case, surely their expert witness would have been only too happy to tell us all about it?

Yes the spatters are in keeping with 'Oscars version', the definitive point,which is going to be duly tested once he takes stand and is asked to explain as I said his exact movements post shooting incident he claims happened first.

 

[G.bng]

Interestingly enough, this is a state prosecution case that has declined to use close neighbours or first person on the scene as witnesses.

Read into that what you will.

Yep, it appears all are OP's friends. No confusion I think just common sense... something about loyalties.

 

[Viper]

It's OP night! arty:

 

[Rumpole]

Yes the spatters are in keeping with 'Oscars version', the definitive point,which is going to be duly tested once he takes stand and is asked to explain as I said his exact movements post shooting incident he claims happened first.

I do at least agree that Nel has a chance to redeem himself... and at least get back in the game if he can trip OP up during cross... over significant points rather than trivial nit-picking details. But even so.... unless OP breaks down in a "Perry Mason esque" moment and confess all... I do not see Nel proving beyond reasonable doubt that OP fired knowing that Reeva was behind the door.

Op's testimony AND Nel's cross will certainly be key.

 

[Rumpole]

It's OP night! arty:

A moment of clarity!.... It will pass :floorlaugh:

 

[Viper]

The fairy tale talked a lot about OP being a victim of crime(s), and yet there were no crimes reported to the police. How is that going to be addressed by Roux?

 

[Gavel Rash]

I do at least agree that Nel has a chance to redeem himself... and at least get back in the game if he can trip OP up during cross... over significant points rather than trivial nit-picking details. But even so.... unless OP breaks down in a "Perry Mason esque" moment and confess all... I do not see Nel proving beyond reasonable doubt that OP fired knowing that Reeva was behind the door.

Op's testimony AND Nel's cross will certainly be key.

They do say....the truth is easier to remember...than a lie. lets hope so.

 

[Rumpole]

They do say....the truth is easier to remember...than a lie. lets hope so.

ALWAYS telling the truth has certainly helped me in cyber friendships

I tend to forget what I have told to who... but the worse that can happen is I repeat myself

 

[K.T]

So... you are one of those who think that Nel's lack-luster performance and shortage of evidence presented somehow indicates that he is actually a "Tiger" playing rope-a-dope... about to come off the ropes in the last round? :floorlaugh:

A bit risky to NOT present evidence that he has and hope he can sneak it in during the Defense case via cross examination.

Once again I apply Occams Razor... Nel looks to be a bit limp as an advocate, because he is a bit limp.
And the lack of conclusive evidence was because he has none.

We'll see


"including a air gun pellet hole in one door"

WHEN did it become an "air pellet hole"?

It is a HOLE shown in photos. No mention of it being inspected, let alone confirmed as a bullet hole? Ballistics expert on the scene did not inspect, or at least did not report. I would have expected the hole to be probed for bullet or pellet fragments... if it was thought relevant.Door damage guys did not report on damage to that door (or inspect it)
We do not even know that the damaged door was relevant to the night in question.

Similarly... a photo showing spots on wall by the bed and on duvet..... nobody has testified it was blood, whose blood, when it was deposited. Blood spatter guy did not inspect, or at least did not report. There are a lot of assumptions being made... and theories running off from those assumptions. It all seems to stem from a Presumption of Guilt such that any photo is seen as important evidence, regardless of no details provided.

I've been trying to keep up with all the recent posts... as a longtime lurker I realized thats harder work than keeping up with the trial. So many points I would love to question/disagree but y'all move along fast

I would love to hear Pistorius' response on why he made that hole, or who made that hole and why it was there because it's very strange. It's definitely not appropriate to the implication that early evening in Feb 13th was a calm, normal night his statement clearly attests.

If the hole was done on an earlier occasion, that is also interesting (even for the defense) because why does anyone shoot doors in a high security, wealthy Silver Lakes estate. Or leave holes in doors that look like pellet or airgun holes. Could it be a party occasion hole or another accident? Hope the prosecution questions Pistorius on the bedroom door. Its is definitely not something you would see from a 'reasonable' man/home.

 

[Rumpole]

The people who already presume OP is guilty will see his testimony as lies....

The slightest point made by Nel or hesitation by OP will be seen as HUGE proof that his entire testimony is lies.

I think we will still all be of the same opinion as we are now after OP testifies.

 

[G.bng]

That's a possibility, but it would suggest that the guy's an Olympian athlete and strong enough to bash in the bedroom door,
but he's not strong enough to stop Reeva overpowering him to get to the toilet?

I just can't picture him letting Reeva get to the toilet on purpose and then re-enacting a scene from The Shining.

That does the first premise have to result in the second. Why couldn't Reeva have run to the toilet while OP was still bashing in the bedroom door... say, just before he got in? Not saying it happened that way just working with the theory presented.