Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[shane13]

More bad news for the defence
https://za.news.yahoo.com/top-pathologist-hired-pistorius-wont-testify-142633899.html

I think the respected experts have really got to think about their credibility in appearing in this case.

Great article. https://za.news.yahoo.com/top-pathologist-hired-pistorius-wont-testify-142633899.html

Thanks for finding.
Everyone should read. Dr Perumal--who us early birds from a year ago are well familiar with refuses to testify for Oscar.
He won't speak in Oscar-Speak!

See him in the BBC3 doc. He said Reeva died at the top of the stairway. I presume this means no more blood was pumped by her heart further down the starway.

Good for him that he would not be bought by Oscar, Roux and Co.,

Excellent article.

To paraphrase a well-known athlete:

"Get the fvck off my team"

 

[DebinGA]

ABC news headlines
http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-expert-witness-contradicts/story?id=23359406
Oscar Pistorius' Own Expert Witness Contradicts Him

On a serious note OP needs to go on suicide watch. It wouldn't surprise at all if he was a no show after 2 weeks of contemplating life in Jail, lets face it he is not cut out for that

From your ABC News link:

"When pressed, Dixon added, "My lady, when the deceased fell, the magazine rack was there. I do not know what happened to it afterwards. It wasn’t there when Mr. Pistorius went in. That is his version of the events."

I'd forgotten about that OP lie that he'd found Reeva sitting on the floor [where the magazine rack was later found] when he got the WC door open. If most of her body weight was still on the magazine rack with her head/arms/chest draped on the toilet lid, OP should have had no trouble picking her up by himself. He didn't need Stander's help picking her up, but OP certainly needed an excuse for calling Stander first.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Thanks for the link .
It was interesting ,might do some more reading and find out how it was proved the print definitely came from a glass and not a DVD case.
Particularly as we have a long break to fill

so dixon was the state's expert, and his fingerprint findings helped disprove the state's case. hmmm interesting.

"The Lotz murder remains one of the country’s most puzzling mysteries."

 

[Mr Ron]

<respectfully snipped>
If the first noises heard are gunshots, any subsequent voices heard must be those of OP, irrespective of what people thought they heard.

That's true. What the defence team seems to be doing is muddying the waters with regards to what the ear witnesses actually heard.

If the witnesses cannot reliably differentiate between gunshots and cricket bat strikes then it creates a reasonable doubt as to what the first sounds were.

It reduces the prosecution to relying on the number of noises heard. We know 4 shots were fired and (I believe) we know from extrapolation from tests that there were three cricket bat strikes.

I haven't yet read/listened to the prosecution case. Is there reliable testimony to the effect that there were four separate noises associated with the first set of noises that night?

 

[asanque]

Nobody contests there were gunshots but without the demonstration it is hard to believe that hitting a door with a cricket bat could sound similar.

The PT thanks Dixon.

It has now been established that a cricket bat sounds like gunshots but softer.

That explains the 3 a.m. loud noises heard by the Stipps (but not the other 3 witnesses who were further away).

 

[steveml]

NO, it was not just a 'general observation.' It was a very specific accusation, trying to discredit Dr. Stipps, attempting to 'prove' that Stipps would not have been able to see OP on his stumps, thus he was either lying or mistaken.

I'm not aware that Mr Dixon ever said that he used someone the same height as OP? In any case, I think it can be concluded from the pictures (despite the 10cm difference) that it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would have been able to see a man on stumps in the top half of the window, don't you?

They did at least make an attempt to show this to the judge. Again the PT elected not to show any information to the contrary. The judge may well prefer this to the alternative of nothing.

I could spend quite a while discussing the evidence that the SAPS and PT have purposely not included because it weakens their case. I won't though, as it doesn't surprise me and is only to be expected.

 

[liesbeth]

Please watch the videos I just posted. He clearly gives his opinion about the sequence - he said the gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door. I'm just repeating what the state's witness determined. if you don't believe him, that's fine too.

Watched the videos below. This is what I found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8
All in the first 3 minutes of the video above.

Roux: Colonel, just before the adjournment you explained the basis why you testified that the shots were fired first and then it was the cricket bat hitting the door and you specifically referred to the crack that run down into the hole and then down into a different place.

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady, and I just quickly draw (sic) this diagram on this piece of paper here to show you what I'm referring to. If you look at the bullet hole on the furthest to the right, I hope it's visible from there, but there's a crack coming into the bullet hole, or a piece of wood that broke, and..uh..the breakage was into the bullet hole on the right hand side of the bullet hole and then the crack goes out on the left hand side of the bullet hole and that is why I said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken. Because if it was the other way around the crack would have been in a straight line. It happened like this (pointing to the diagram) because of the bullet hole that the crack going down initiated in a different position.

Roux talks about the defense which will present evidence that it was first the shooting then the hitting of the bat and the breaking of the door. He asks Vermeulen if that would be his evidence as well.

Vermeulen: (2:35 on video above)
For that specific crack? Yes, my lady, it was after the firing of the bullets took place, yes, my lady.

Then the next day Nel is back in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

Nel: Now, Colonel, I took a specific note of an answer you gave yesterday to Adv. Roux pertaining to what happened first the shots or the bat. You said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken?

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady.

Nel: (Looking at the bat marks on the door) Can you say scientifically, if we take the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: (Looks at the door for a few seconds.) My lady, scientifically I would not think that it would be possible to say whether that small mark..if I'm correct you're referring to that small mark there (points at door with laser to mark above door handle) on the side I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

 

[sleuth-d-]

From your ABC News link:

"When pressed, Dixon added, "My lady, when the deceased fell, the magazine rack was there. I do not know what happened to it afterwards. It wasn’t there when Mr. Pistorius went in. That is his version of the events."

I'd forgotten about that OP lie that he'd found Reeva sitting on the floor [where the magazine rack was later found] when he got the WC door open. If most of her body weight was still on the magazine rack with her head/arms/chest draped on the toilet lid, OP should have had no trouble picking her up by himself. He didn't need Stander's help picking her up, but OP certainly needed an excuse for calling Stander first.

yes. having called for help to pick her up, he then proceeded to pick her up on his own, and carry her down the stairs.


can op not see that he constantly contradicts his own information?

 

[james83]

You know I never realised Oscar's toilet was outside in the middle of a field until I heard about those test's.
You learn something new everyday.

 

[IfIMay]

It's important to remember that when the case proceeded nothing had been conceded by the PT. They were still alleging that OP was wearing his prosthesis when he shot through the toilet door.

The order of cricket bat/gunshots has been a major player throughout the case. It doesn't affect the outcome, as we know Reeva was killed by gunshots, however if the PT can prove that the bat was used first it carries huge weight towards their claim of intent. Once they had to concede this did not happen it weakened their case considerably.

The order of the sounds also helps to establish when, if at all, Reeva was able to scream.

If the first noises heard are gunshots, any subsequent voices heard must be those of OP, irrespective of what people thought they heard.

So he shot her first... then why did it take nearly 20 minutes for the first call for help? I don't think that the PT has conceded anything in questioning and testing the witnesses. We will see in argument. I believe the gunshots were last.

 

[DebinGA]

Old news maybe, its his reasons for refusing that would be interesting.

I don't know the rules concerning expert witnesses, but it seems unfair for the DT to have someone they'd asked to represent them at the post mortem to then publicly state, in the middle of the trial, that he'd agreed with the PT pathologist's findings.

 

[steveml]

Thanks for the link .
It was interesting ,might do some more reading and find out how it was proved the print definitely came from a glass and not a DVD case.
Particularly as we have a long break to fill

No problem at all. I think there's another link within the document showing that somebody was very unhappy with his findings after the acquittal, so it could make for an interesting read.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

so dixon was the state's expert, and his fingerprint findings helped disprove the state's case. hmmm interesting.

"The Lotz murder remains one of the country’s most puzzling mysteries."

Yes I think he agreed with an American expert brought in by the defence.
I will definitely find the time to read up on this case.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just a reminder - Vermuelen has an undergraduate degree in Geology and a Masters in Chemistry. Dixon has a Masters in Geology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ

I don't think that is quite right not that it changes much. Neither appears to have exactly the qualifications that were needed but Vermeulen has undertaken many courses in various aspects associated with his work. I imagine, in his time with the police, that Dixon probably did too.

Vermeulen has a BSc degree majoring in Chemistry and Zoology not Geology.

He also has an Hons Degree and MSc in Chemistry.

All obtained from North West University.

Vermeulen has obviously studied a great deal more than Dixon but in their jobs I think it is experience that matters. Vermeulen was expected to be able to comment on something he had no real training for. Just like poor old Dixon.

 

[IfIMay]

I'm not aware that Mr Dixon ever said that he used someone the same height as OP? In any case, I think it can be concluded from the pictures (despite the 10cm difference) that it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would have been able to see a man on stumps in the top half of the window, don't you?

They did at least make an attempt to show this to the judge. Again the PT elected not to show any information to the contrary. The judge may well prefer this to the alternative of nothing.

I could spend quite a while discussing the evidence that the SAPS and PT have purposely not included because it weakens their case. I won't though, as it doesn't surprise me and is only to be expected.

they made an attempt!? They mislead the court by using a different height person and took photos from a different visual frame of reference. That clears it up. :eye roll:

 

[Feynman]

how does that really change anything, though? They heard loud sounds. Who really thinks "gee.. that sounds like someone is terrorizing their girlfriend with a cricket bat" at 3am? Not sure when they may have learned that Oscar used a bat to scare his victim, but when relaying what they heard, I'm sure they assumed it was all the same.

So they sound alike. What does that really get you? I don't understand. They heard series of loud noises that sounded like gunshots and screams from a woman intermittently among them. That in itself, is damning to Oscar.

But the Stipps say they heard screams and then gunshots as do Burger and the nonmusical Johnson. But if those later "gunshots" are bat bangs instead, then these witnesses are wrong on that. This backs up the DT's contention that it's gunshots, then screams (Oscar's), then bat banging.

 

[Clutchbag]

oscars ever changing testimony is full of glaring holes..he killed her deliberately IMO.Nel will win the case, he will get sent down otherwise the judge is gonna look real stoooooopid

And his piss poor defence give other murderers an excuse

 

[james83]

Wil done Reggie Perumal, clearly a man of dignity and class, unwilling to bend his views for a quick buck.
Clearly he was in agreement with Saayman over the time of last meal, interesting.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't know the rules concerning expert witnesses, but it seems unfair for the DT to have someone they'd asked to represent them at the post mortem to then publicly state, in the middle of the trial, that he'd agreed with the PT pathologist's findings.

I guess that is true but it would be even worse if he was a hostile witness to the defence case.
Maybe if Dixon had been given a better brief and ALL the full facts before he testified things may not have turned out to be so embarrassing for him.
It seems pretty bad that he was not told that the balcony lights were on and that he didn't know OP's correct height on his stumps .
On the other hand it was extremely unprofessional of him to not put himself at the same height that the witness's was .
I am only a housewife but would have done a better job .
He is either incompetent or willing to maybe bend facts to suit the defence which I would prefer to think is not the case.
Anyone at the top of their profession should not want to risk their reputation.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Watched the videos below. This is what I found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8
All in the first 3 minutes of the video above.

Roux: Colonel, just before the adjournment you explained the basis why you testified that the shots were fired first and then it was the cricket bat hitting the door and you specifically referred to the crack that run down into the hole and then down into a different place.

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady, and I just quickly draw (sic) this diagram on this piece of paper here to show you what I'm referring to. If you look at the bullet hole on the furthest to the right, I hope it's visible from there, but there's a crack coming into the bullet hole, or a piece of wood that broke, and..uh..the breakage was into the bullet hole on the right hand side of the bullet hole and then the crack goes out on the left hand side of the bullet hole and that is why I said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken. Because if it was the other way around the crack would have been in a straight line. It happened like this (pointing to the diagram) because of the bullet hole that the crack going down initiated in a different position.

Roux talks about the defense which will present evidence that it was first the shooting then the hitting of the bat and the breaking of the door. He asks Vermeulen if that would be his evidence as well.

Vermeulen: (2:35 on video above)
For that specific crack? Yes, my lady, it was after the firing of the bullets took place, yes, my lady.

Then the next day Nel is back in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

Nel: Now, Colonel, I took a specific note of an answer you gave yesterday to Adv. Roux pertaining to what happened first the shots or the bat. You said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken?

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady.

Nel: (Looking at the bat marks on the door) Can you say scientifically, if we take the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: (Looks at the door for a few seconds.) My lady, scientifically I would not think that it would be possible to say whether that small mark..if I'm correct you're referring to that small mark there (points at door with laser to mark above door handle) on the side I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

i watched this and the state's witness only got time to talk about one bullet hole.
see how hastily roux calls time.

nel covers the fact that we are only talking about one of the bulletholes.


some people have inferred that the cricket bat sounds had to come after the shots from this, but it clearly isn't the case.

at best the cricket sounds only had to come after ONE of the shots. and even this isn't conclusive, from what the expert says to nel towards the end.

'''''
add to this that cricket bats and shots sound similar and the order can still easily have been a mixture of gunshots and cricket bat sounds. or cricket bat sounds before gunshots.