Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[Cherwell]

It does establish that cricket bat sounds are similar to gunshots and were apparently mistaken for gunshots by the Stipps

Since the state's own expert testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door, then the earlier sounds were gunshots - not cricket bat.

:banghead:

Why do you persist in misrepresenting Vermeulen's testimony?

 

[Mr Fossil]

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.

According to OP, didn't the first strike hit the door frame? Also, if he looked through a small hole after the next strike, it suggests that the strikes were not a rapid succession.

 

[minor4th]

No he was referring to a bat mark and kick mark.

No he wasn't. I urge you to go listen again. It was specifically about a kick mark.

 

[liesbeth]

Nothing scientific really. I imagined that if the person was raised in height by the length of my hand, I would still not be able to see the torso and head in the top window.

If we raise the person by 20 cm and then raise the camera to the level of the Stipp's bedroom it would make a huge difference, no?

 

[minor4th]

:banghead:

Why do you persist in misrepresenting Vermeulen's testimony?

I'm not. Why do you persist in dismissing exactly what he said?

 

[Clutchbag]

I don't particularly believe in Oscar, I just don't believe he intentionally killed Reeva. I don't know the guy and have only ever seen him on TV a couple of times before this trial.

I don't particularly like him to tell you the truth.

My opinion is different to yours, and I'm comfortable with that.

Stick to your guns if you believe you're correct. Nothing wrong in that. It's exactly what I'm doing.

So all his shifting and lies are ONLY because he doesnt want to go to prison?


What is a zombie stopper?
milady I dont know what a zombie stopper is
have you ever uttered a word about a zombie stopper
milady if I dont know what it means I cant have ever said it

prosecution plays video where he fires and mashes a melon at shooting range
Op caught saying not as soft as brains but a zombie stopper! (dont recall the whole exact sentence but ZS was there)


OP : I have never said I whispered to reeva

LIAR, he said it half a dozen times both in bail plea and in testimony

etc

 

[Britlaws]

So I've been thinking

Even if we were to believe Oscar that he thought there was an intruder (which I don't).

What on earth did he think would happen when he fired 4 shots into a tiny toilet? I still can't see him getting out of this. Although I do think he knew it was Reeva.

I wouldn't and have ever locked a toilet door with just myself and husband in the room.

She did, and in the dark, if we are to believe the toilet light was not working at that particular moment??!! Doesn't make sense.... The poor girl must have been petrified...

Does anyone know if the Judge believes he thought it was an intruder and not Reeva would the verdict be the same ie premed murder or does this only pertain to Reeva?

Also does anyone know what penalty or jail time comes with the other charges with the gun and ammunition?

However the appearance of the psychologist during the trial makes me think that no matter what the sentence outcome, he will not spend an hour in jail due to his 'mental state'. I think he's got all his bases covered? That worries me.....

BBM Any medical evidence/testimony about OP's state of mind at the time of the killing may be relevant to the events and his defence, e.g. his excessive paranoia about crime and his reactions to stressful situations etc. but then, isn't much of being an olympian the 'mind over matter' thing and being able to deal with the stress of huge expectations, media attention etc? Evidence of his subsequent/present mental state wont have anything to do with deciding any conviction, he was found fit to stand trial, but may be considered relevant to his sentencing.

He's not going to walk! The SA taxpayers don't pay for 3 years of legal extradition costs and private planes to bring one alleged wife killer to stand trial in SA, to see another walk away after being convicted.

 

[Johnbhoy]

First post from sunny (believe it or not!) Scotland:

If a lone intruder had actually broken into Oscar’s house and, due to being frightened by screams from the homeowner (I know!), he had locked himself in the toilet, only for the homeowner to kill him with four shots through the door using Black Talon bullets . . .
Would that not still be murder?
There seems little chance that four dumdum bullets shot into such a confined space could fail to be fatal.
And, with the door locked and no sound of shouting and threats, the gunman has no legitimate excuse of Self Defence.
For the record, I believe he deliberately shot Reeva.
But could he be convicted of murder even if the Judges were to somehow believe there is a reasonable doubt as to whether Oscar knew Reeva was behind that door?
He knew someone was.

 

[Onlyamum]

I don't particularly believe in Oscar, I just don't believe he intentionally killed Reeva. I don't know the guy and have only ever seen him on TV a couple of times before this trial.

I don't particularly like him to tell you the truth.

My opinion is different to yours, and I'm comfortable with that.

Stick to your guns if you believe you're correct. Nothing wrong in that. It's exactly what I'm doing.

Would you concede then according to his version that he intended to kill whomever was behind the door assuming his intruder theory?

 

[steveml]

No, they didn't put up the whole transcript. They put up selections to support their argument.

I agree it's getting silly, with all the contortions about one gunshot then cricket bat then the remaining three gunshots. That's not the state's case at all; it's a message board theory that is unsupported by any evidence or any witness testimony.

Vermuelen said the gunshots were "before the cricket bat hit the door" <---those were his exact words.

Mangena said that all 4 shots happened at the same time in quick succession. So that does away with the theory that there was one gunshot and then cricket bat hitting the door and then additional gunshots or whatever that theory is.

If I had to guess, quick would be top of my list from the following statements :-

Johan Stipp - 'almost on top of each other'

Annette Stipp - as above

Charl Johnson - 'rapid succession'

Estelle Van der Merwe - 'consecutive noises'
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Cherwell]

This is so funny to me because Vermuelen was a bumbling and dishonest witness - and Dixon was actually Vermuelen's commander in the materials department, the position Vermuelen now holds. Yet, somehow a conclusion is made that "obviously" Vermuelen has studied a great deal more than Dixon and has more job experience. :waitasec:

Both witnesses testified about things that are not within their field of expertise. Vermuelen was actually caught lying about the "tests" he performed with the cricket bat and he specifically told Van Staden to withhold photos from album that were beneficial to the defense.

Yet, it's Dixon who is being ridiculed and mocked and Vermuelen is not doubted at all.

Fact is Vermuelen helped the defense a whole lot by confirming that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door and by lying so blatantly as to undermine the investigation.

So why are you purporting to take any of Vermeulen's evidence seriously? You have been using his testimony (although misinterpreting it) to show "proof" that the gunshots came first. I find this disingenuous.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Nothing scientific really. I imagined that if the person was raised in height by the length of my hand, I would still not be able to see the torso and head in the top window.

Just out of interest did Dixon say how high the window was from the bathroom floor .
I would hazard a guess at between 110cm to 120cm

 

[Onlyamum]

BBM Any medical evidence/testimony about OP's state of mind at the time of the killing may be relevant to the events and his defence, e.g. his excessive paranoia about crime and his reactions to stressful situations etc. but then, isn't much of being an olympian the 'mind over matter' thing and being able to deal with the stress of huge expectations, media attention etc? Evidence of his subsequent/present mental state wont have anything to do with deciding any conviction, he was found fit to stand trial, but may be considered relevant to his sentencing.

That's exactly what I worry about, his state of mind at the present moment, but the sentencing is my problem, that's why I think he's got all his bases covered. Should he be convicted then will they put him in the jail or will his team get him out of that

 

[steveml]

Would you concede then according to his version that he intended to kill whomever was behind the door assuming his intruder theory?

Yes, absolutely.

I don't buy into the involuntary shooting idea, four times is too improbable for me to believe that.

 

[liesbeth]

I don't know squat about SA law, but shouldn't he get in trouble for talking about the trial while it's still going on? I think here in America, there'd be firestorm over his comments like that on social media as the trial is in process (perhaps not after a verdict was reached, but certainly prior to it). And at the very least, his reputation would be destroyed and he'd never be allowed near a courtroom again (in essence, fired).

What a dumb***. I know most people already thought that on here (and some of the funny posts about him are truly knee-slappers) but this kind of behavior on social media really shows how unprofessional he truly is. Yuck.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[HauntsForHope]

What I took away from it:

If her arm was extended, she was locking the door.

Looks like he was kicking and banging on the door before the shooting and finally broke it open after the shots.

He didn't carry the gun back and forth to the bedroom. He left it right there on the floor after firing it and picked up the bat.

 

[Onlyamum]

Yes, absolutely.

I don't buy into the involuntary shooting idea, four times is too improbable for me to believe that.

In that case, would it carry the same weight in the conviction? Or must it be involuntary shooting of Reeva?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I don't know squat about SA law, but shouldn't he get in trouble for talking about the trial while it's still going on? I think here in America, there'd be firestorm over his comments like that on social media as the trial is in process (perhaps not after a verdict was reached, but certainly prior to it). And at the very least, his reputation would be destroyed and he'd never be allowed near a courtroom again (in essence, fired).

What a dumb***. I know most people already thought that on here (and some of the funny posts about him are truly knee-slappers) but this kind of behavior on social media really shows how unprofessional he truly is. Yuck.

Maybe our expert doesn't attach importance to ever again appear in court as a witness? :smile:

 

[minor4th]

:banghead:

Why do you persist in misrepresenting Vermeulen's testimony?

Roux: When we look at this door, it is consistent, and I think it's conclusive in fact - if you disagree we can go through it - that when the shots were fired, the door was intact. It was not broken.

Vermuelen: That is true, Mi'Lady

Roux: What is your view? When was the door hit with the bat - before or after the shots?

Vermuelen: M'Lady, I would say the door was hit after the shots. ...if you look at the crack down here, it enters this bullet hole on the one side and then exits on the other side... so what this tells me is there had to be a hole in the door before this piece broke off, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through.

[video=youtube;jGKRZIuBxLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc&feature=share&t=52m28s[/video]

Nel: ...which happened first, the bullet shots or the bat. You said the hole was there before the panel was broken.

Vermeulen: That's correct M'lady.

Nel: Can you say scientifically - the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: M'Lady, scientifically I would not think it would be possible to say whether small mark on the side - I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

Nel: Do you know if the kicking happened before the shots, if it's a kick - that mark?

Vermuelen: That would also be very difficult to say, and I doubt one would be able to say that the kicking happened before or after the shots M'Lady.

Nel: Mr Roux put to you that the only reason why the accused would have kicked the door was to open it- remember that - get it open because it was locked.

Vermeulen: Yes ..

Nel: Could there be other reasons?

Vermeulen: I guess if we say other reasons, it might ...

Nel: Let us speculate, you're asked to speculate - could it have been to scare someone? Is it possible?

Vermeulen: If we speculate, it's possible.. (chuckle). We also cannot prove that that mark was caused during the unfortunate incident.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 13 March 2014 Session 2 - YouTube

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't know squat about SA law, but shouldn't he get in trouble for talking about the trial while it's still going on? I think here in America, there'd be firestorm over his comments like that on social media as the trial is in process (perhaps not after a verdict was reached, but certainly prior to it). And at the very least, his reputation would be destroyed and he'd never be allowed near a courtroom again (in essence, fired).

What a dumb***. I know most people already thought that on here (and some of the funny posts about him are truly knee-slappers) but this kind of behavior on social media really shows how unprofessional he truly is. Yuck.

Surely this is not a genuine account I kind of just assumed it was fake ?
If it is genuine .....well wow