Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feynman said:
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 the these witnesses are wrong on that. This backs up the DT's contention that it's gunshots, then screams (Oscar's), then bat banging.
Click to expand...



<mod snip>

it was a woman screaming before first gunshot and after.... The defence would have us believe op was shouting and screaming at reeva so many times and she never answered and he never thought once it could have been her in toilet! And she didnt scream after being shot!!!! In the hip
 
liesbeth said:
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.
Click to expand...

:goodpost: Thank you Liesbeth!

You know folks we have all been following the trial and discussing various aspects with one another. But I would think that by now, more than halfway through the trial, we could all get past this particular piece that many want to continue to use in their argument.

It just seems senseless for anyone to say that the State concedes that the bat strikes were first and the gunshots were second. Because whenever that is posted someone will quickly do exactly as Liesbeth has done! And it makes the original argument look uninformed, or worse. In addition, Mr. Nel spoke in Court and specifically said that the State's case is that the shots were fired at 3:17 (paraphrasing), so there is no way that the State concedes anything but that the bat struck the door first and later the gunshots were fired.

So I would think that we can/could work from the same facts and discuss other aspects of the case, instead of this fallacy.
 
sleuth-d- said:
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?
Click to expand...

One deep aspect of Oscar Speak is the relativity effect.

Oscar does not realize that he speaks in Oscar-Speak. He believes that he is speaking in the same language as everyone else, and that he lives in the same world all the time as everyone else--when he is really in Oscar-World.
 
liesbeth said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, and now combine this with OP's testimony in which he described how the first hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

OP himself testified that he subsequently broke the panel by pulling it into the bathroom so it wouldn't hit Reeva.

Bat - woman screaming - gunshots - broken door panel

That's the sequence that fits all the witnesses' testimony.
 
Feynman said:
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 the these witnesses are wrong on that. This backs up the DT's contention that it's gunshots, then screams (Oscar's), then bat banging.
Click to expand...

Dr. and Mrs. Stipp testified OP's bathroom light was ON when they looked straight out into his bathroom within seconds of hearing the first bangs of whatever kind. I consider Dr. Stipp a true hero for going to that house to protect children he thought might be in serious danger, and I have no reason whatever to believe he or his wife lied or were mistaken about OP's bathroom light being ON when OP claimed it was pitch dark. OP's house of cards is wholly dependent on "the dark" to support his "panicked and terrified" lie. Thank God for the Stipps.
 
liesbeth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fantastic work and thank you for this, it has allowed my theory to live on.
 
Feynman said:
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.
Click to expand...

problem is... It's Oscar's "version". He's the source of that story and we've seen how easily he can change it when confronted with actual evidence. I believe the witnesses who had no reason to lie.
 
Viper said:
I only caught the last 45 minutes or so of Dixons testimony today. It was excruciating to watch. I had intended to pull it up on YouTube but I may not now that I am thinking about it. I started to read through some of the reporters tweets and that too looks horrible. Did anyone find his testimony today compelling or interesting in any real way? Please share with others like me that can't handle watching him for hours at a time.
Click to expand...

Well I don't see why you should get away with it .. the rest of us had to sit through it :scared::floorlaugh:
 
nastasya said:
Yes, and now combine this with OP's testimony in which he described how the first hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

OP himself testified that he subsequently broke the panel by pulling it into the bathroom so it wouldn't hit Reeva.

Bat - woman screaming - gunshots - broken door panel

That's the sequence that fits all the witnesses' testimony.
Click to expand...

yep simple [occam's razor]



that order explains
how he was able to get such a good grouping on the shots.
hit three times out of four

that order explains
why op 'versioned' such a complicated story to swap the shots and the bat.
 
DebinGA said:
Dr. and Mrs. Stipp testified OP's bathroom light was ON when they looked straight out into his bathroom within seconds of hearing the first bangs of whatever kind. I consider Dr. Stipp a true hero for going to that house to protect children he thought might be in serious danger, and I have no reason whatever to believe he or his wife lied or were mistaken about OP's bathroom light being ON when OP claimed it was pitch dark. OP's house of cards is wholly dependent on "the dark" to support his "panicked and terrified" lie. Thank God for the Stipps.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you are responding to me about the bathroom light. Someone suggested it doesn't really matter if gunshots and bat bangs can sound similar. I was responding to that issue only.
 
:
jay-jay said:
Well I don't see why you should get away with it .. the rest of us had to sit through it :scared::floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

I feel sorry and embarrassed for the man but he didnt enough talk some utter sh***** at times


Plus hes done nothng to help the defence case IMO in fact the opposite

Dont agree with the aggro he has received online either frm gissipy journos or alledged death threats, totally unwarranted, he was a sh** unqualified witness, there it should end
 
shane13 said:
Thanks.
I don't know if u had a chance to check posts upstream?

I did one where he described sound pulses as I have stated here for 2 months.

He described the differences between batshot and gunshot pulses. And then said their audio equipment can process and minimize those differences. [Or words to that effect.]

While it was clear to me from the beginning what his main purpose was--to try to claim that Reeva was reaching or touching the door handle when shot. So as to give OP's claim of shooting after hearing the door try to open or such. Much of what he said was just piss poor, obvious in intent, and I could go on, but no need.
Click to expand...

BIB .. yup .. only problem is with that though is that it could also confirm that she was standing behind the door trying to hold the door shut with her right hand on the handle, in case OP somehow managed to break his way in ..
 
Mr Ron said:
If you go up, you will experience that the ledge moves down more swiftly than the head/ torso. If you go down, then the ledge will move up more quickly.

Anyone can perform this test with two objects, the one behind the other - just move your head up and down. I just practised with a coffee cup and a screwdriver. The defence 'expert' witness should try it with a slice of humble pie and his p45.
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh:


Nobody unaware or incapable of deducing the basic laws of parallax should be employed as an expert in an experiment where parallax is the single most important variable. It beggars belief.
Click to expand...

.. it does, doesn't it ..
 
IfIMay said:
problem is... It's Oscar's "version". He's the source of that story and we've seen how easily he can change it when confronted with actual evidence. I believe the witnesses who had no reason to lie.
Click to expand...
You're making a different point now. Earlier you suggested it doesn't really matter if gunshots and bat bangs could have sounded similar. I think it does, and I gave a reason.
 
Interested Bystander said:
Nel has two arrows to his bow &#8211; LOL.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyl...-prosecutor-by-day-wrestling-teacher-by-night

Gerrie Nel: Prosecutor by day, wrestling teacher by night
Click to expand...

Very interesting .. from that link:

"In the evenings prosecutor Gerrie Nel teaches tots aged between three and six the finer points of the sport, said Sunday's Rapport"

Mentions Nel is "kneeling on the mat" so it sounds like he's teaching these "tots" actual wrestling moves. Awesome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 182 more.
Total: 3,053 (members: 183, guests: 2,870)

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,870
Total visitors
3,053
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,561
Messages
18,158,629
Members
231,767
Latest member
Yoohoo27
Back
Top