Trial Discussion Thread #16

[MeeBee]

IMO, that the trajectory was low down shows me, just MO, that OP was trying to shoot to scare rather than kill. If he were you'd more expect the aim to be higher, to have a better chance of hitting something useful as opposed to the legs. Unfortunately, Reeva collapsed.

 

[Gryffindor]

Might be a stretch BUT might the bin liners/bags have been used for the purpose of suffocation to ensure finality of death?? Just pondering . . .

Easy enough to quickly transfer them over a wound for the cessation of bleeding, when visitors suddenly arrived??

 

[Viper]

Death has different definitions.

Those arterial spurts where over by the couch downstairs. At first it was thought that he may have injured here downstairs (i.e. fight happening in other areas of the house) but that was ruled out because the blood by the couch was an arterial spurt pattern.

The heart can beat after breathing stops or a head wound.

People can be resuscitated through CPR, but not after they bleed to death.

I don't think walking down the stairs can mimic the beating of someone's heart.

I also think it is hard to believe that her heart was still beating downstairs and would love to ask the pathologist or blood spatter experts these questions.

Thanks! I think what is happening here is that many are assuming that the blood spatter guy read the autopsy report before he did his investigations and wrote up his investigation report, he obviously did not.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Perfect/good aim = 1 head shot.

Reeva would be silenced, neighbours have less chance to hear or report, easier to convince intruder story with 1 shot.

All these factors show that this was anything but a perfect or even a good aim. It was 4 shots in a general area, and OP did not have a specific target. Where and if the bullets hit would be totally unknown from OP's side of the door.


This is why I maintain OP did not aim at a specific target, he fired 4 shots through the door just in a general area.

BIB 4 shots of which 3 wounded Reeva and 2 were mortal wounds. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that he was either horrified or couldn't see where he was shooting at. I am of course no expert, this is all my uneducated opinion.

 

[MeeBee]

It might be OP's version but I don't think I've seen anywhere where the state has said he was not wearing prostheses.

They had been saying it but were forced to change their theory at the last minute when it was revealed their own ballistics expert said Oscar was not wearing prosthesis at the time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-Olympian-stumps-killed-model-girlfriend.html

 

[nastasya]

If you just pick a single post you will get the wrong idea.
The whole point of this explanation was because it was suggested that the head shot made was intentional to quieten Reeva.

It was also suggested that Reeva's voice was followed to determine where her head was. The explanation was given to show how difficult it would be to make a shot like this. I think most understood it, and hopefully found it helpful.

I'm not prepared to argue about something just for the sake of it.

I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make.

Yes, it's a difficult shot.

But hitting target three times in the dark, with no visual target, and no sound to track, makes it an event more difficult.

Seeing Reeva through a broken panel, and hearing the sound of her voice, makes it a much less difficult target.

Don't you agree?

 

[Trotterly]

Have the defence actually said Reeva was shot at 3am?

Yes they have. Mrs Stipp heard the first shots at 2.58 or so.

 

[nastasya]

You're forgetting her head ended up over the toilet, her gunshot wound bleeding out directly into the bowl. I'd imagine the reason for the relatively small amount of blood (still looked like quite a bit though) was that she lost most of it in the toilet.

Personally, I've seen enough bestgore and watched enough trials to need to google a bit of gore *advertiser censored* to know how much blood the human body contains or how much a gunshot to the head bleeds.

When do you think the toilet was flushed, and who do you think flushed it?

 

[seattlechiquita]

I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make.

Yes, it's a difficult shot.

But hitting target three times in the dark, with no visual target, and no sound to track, makes it an event more difficult.

Seeing Reeva through a broken panel, and hearing the sound of her voice, makes it a much less difficult target.

Don't you agree?

I completely agree with this.

 

[steveml]

I do accept it was random but I don't think that will make any difference to OP being found guilty of murder, or at very least culpable homicide, because even if OP did not consciously "intend" to kill a burglar or Reeva, he reasonably should have known that shooting blind 4 times through a door of such a reduced space with the knowledge there was someone in that space would likely cause death... and, from how I understand it, SA law only requires it to be "possibly" and not "likely" as I used.

I'm sure he will get a long sentence.

It's a tragic situation that is hard for any of us to imagine. That aside, there is such a huge difference between killing your girlfriend without realizing she was there, and stalking and terrorizing your girlfriend before killing her.

That is the most important thing I want the trial to ascertain. Reeva's family deserve no less, and OP should receive the correct punishment. If he did kill Reeva unintentionally, he will still probably serve many years in prison, and will have to live with the fact that he killed his girlfriend.

If the court gets it wrong then he has a triple punishment. Serving many years in prison, having to live with the the fact that he killed his girlfriend, and being labelled as a man who terrorized his girlfriend.

 

[Trotterly]

They had been saying it but were forced to change their theory at the last minute when it was revealed their own ballistics expert said Oscar was not wearing prosthesis at the time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-Olympian-stumps-killed-model-girlfriend.html

We do not know what will be the prosecutions version yet. The expert evidence did not rule out shots from the hip. Nel can change he theory of the killing as and when he likes.

 

[MeeBee]

One of the experts had said, I think it was Mangena, that the space was so small that it would be very difficult to avoid being shot in there if you were being fired at. He made it sound like it'd have been futile. I don't think it would have taken a great deal of skill or required the ability to see the person with such a small space. It would not have been difficult for OP to hit his target, even firing blindly.

 

[MeeBee]

When do you think the toilet was flushed, and who do you think flushed it?

Was it flushed?

 

[Val1]

Je ne pense pas.

Et pourquoi pas? .. Btw, that's about the extent of my conversational skills in French.. sorry. Just used to using certain phrases like n'est pas... must be a Canadian thing.:/

 

[Insp.Dots]

Yes they have. Mrs Stipp heard the first shots at 2.58 or so.

The defense, not witnesses. The post said the DT said Reeva was shot at 3am.
I have not seen or heard them state that in court.

 

[BritsKate]

IMO, that the trajectory was low down shows me, just MO, that OP was trying to shoot to scare rather than kill. If he were you'd more expect the aim to be higher, to have a better chance of hitting something useful as opposed to the legs. Unfortunately, Reeva collapsed.

I think its highly likely the defense will use the same reasoning. OP simply meant to scare, maim, or injure as opposed to kill.

However, I think they will still struggle to explain why there was no warning shot; why the panic alarm was never used; why Reeva wouldn't call out, or more likely, scream after the first shot; the lethality of his chosen ammunition; and why he shot four times.

It isn't unreasonable imo for someone familiar with guns to assume, once hit, a target will fall. Especially with that type of ammunition. (And I'm not stating he knew exactly where he was shooting - just that I don't believe a slightly downward trajectory gets us away from murder with intent.)

 

[MeeBee]

We do not know what will be the prosecutions version yet. The expert evidence did not rule out shots from the hip. Nel can change he theory of the killing as and when he likes.

It was reported before the trial that state had changed its theory that OP was on his prosthesis at the time. Their own expert, Mangena, said this and the state's case is over. They won't be changing theories at this point. It would be a bad idea anyway.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/20...ile-on-his-stumps-ballistics-expert-testifies

Captain Christian Mangema, the state's ballistics expert, testified that Mr Pistorius most probably fired four shots through the toilet door while on his stumps, from no closer than 60cm to the door.

 

[Gryffindor]

I dare say even I could target someone in that small room through the splintered part of the door... :moo:
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

Was the right hand side gap in door from missing splinters/wood out from the door before the shots were fired? Thanks

 

[Lyra500]

Nope.

Well both Mrs & Mrs Stipp were awoken at around 3am by a first lot of bangs. They then heard screaming for 15-17 minutes before the second lot of bangs. If the first lot of bangs were not the gun shots, when did they occur? The defence have already argued very strongly that the second lot of bangs could not have been gunshots.

Indeed, Roux expended a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade Dr Stipp that he was mistaken and that the first lot of bangs could have been shots and the second lot the cricket bat.

 

[MeeBee]

Et pourquoi pas? .. Btw, that's about the extent of my conversational skills in French.. sorry. Just used to using certain phrases like n'est pas... must be a Canadian thing.:/

My husband's from Montreal, I had to ask him. :blushing: