Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[Cherwell]

I just watched it again and I don't see how you can conclude that he's talking about two different marks. It seems like he's talking about the one mark on the side that he pointed to with the lazer. And then Nel said "if that's a kick mark" - I assume he's talking about the same mark. No?

But in your stated opinion he's a bumbling and dishonest witness and a blatant liar, so why are you taking any of his testimony seriously?

 

[minor4th]

No. Vermeulen used a laser pointer and pointed at the mark above the door handle and to the right. It was one of the marks identified earlier by Vermeulen as a bat mark.

And you left this bit out of yours...

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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

I didn't leave that out - they are looking at one single mark on the door and there's no mention of bat mark. Nel goes on to clarify that he's talking about a kick mark.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

As far as I can tell it is very recent news that Perumal will not testify. It broke in the media only today.

A fellow pathologist has ventured the opinion that he refused to testify because he was unwilling to "amend his version" and twist the truth to suit the defense. His colleague applauded his decision for professional and ethical reasons.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...t-hired-by-Oscar-wont-testify-report-20140417

I'm impressed! :fireworks:



Reeva's parents will send to him a letter full of Thanks.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I just watched it again and I don't see how you can conclude that he's talking about two different marks. It seems like he's talking about the one mark on the side that he pointed to with the lazer. And then Nel said "if that's a kick mark" - I assume he's talking about the same mark. No?

No. And I can see why you think that because Nel says "if it's a kick, that mark" as if referring to the first mark he had just been discussing. But he's not. He's referring to the kick mark lower down and this is confirmed by V looking lower down (and by the logic that OP couldn't possibly have kicked as high as the first mark!)

 

[minor4th]

But in your stated opinion he's a bumbling and dishonest witness and a blatant liar, so why are you taking any of his testimony seriously?

His lie tends to indicate that he was tailoring his evidence to fit the state's theory - or at least he was withholding evidence that would benefit the defense. That doesn't mean all of his evidence is unreliable.

 

[Britlaws]

BBM - his state of mind hasn't been normal for a long long time. At least in jail, he'll have time to meditate, read the Bible, have some 'me me me' time, reflect upon the error of his ways, watch "Liar Liar" and "Dude, Where's My Gun?". Really, jail will be good for him. Spiritual. And as a bonus, no more women will be shot to death by him for taking a pee.

LOL :floorlaugh:

I have to say, on a more serious note, given what has been demonstrated in this trial about the recklessness with guns, the violent incidents and this tragedy itself, I fail to see how it was in the interests of public protection to give him bail in the first place. I have to admit, I have little knowledge of the bail proceedings but I find it strange that a man of 27 has been involved in all these negative incidents (quite apart from the murder itself). I have 2 boys now men around the same age who live life to the full and they have never been involved in anything like what OP has gotten himself into.

 

[minor4th]

No. And I can see why you think that because Nel says "if it's a kick, that mark" as if referring to the first mark he had just been discussing. But he's not. He's referring to the kick mark lower down and this is confirmed by V looking lower down (and by the logic that OP couldn't possibly have kicked as high as the first mark!)

You could be right, but I don't get that from watching it.

Did anyone else's font just suddenly change and become smaller?

 

[soozieqtips]

I think it's despicable that 'experts' feel free to deliberately mislead at trials just to collect money. People's lives are on the line, and if they're found to have misled the court in order to support the defence, they should do :jail: time too. And I'm talking about all experts, not one in particular. We have one (had one) in the UK that the police would wheel out every time they wanted their 'facts' backed up. The expert has since been struck off (and the police 'chastised' for their part in it) and it turned out his evidence in loads of other cases had been inept and 'less than professional'. Corruption is everywhere.

 

[TipDog]

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

And another example - OP not recalling any conversation with Baba or saying "Everything is fine," yet Roux previously grilled Baba and suggested that OP said "I'm fine." Huh? Did OP just conveniently forget what he told Roux?

I don't mean this with any sarcasm or aggression, so please don't anyone think I do:

For those of you believe OP's version that night, how do you come to terms with his lying boldly in court? The examples above don't cover even a fourth of all the inconsistencies and discrepancies in his testimony.

If he wasn't Oscar Pistorius and had overcome his disabilities to become a top athlete, instead just any ol' Joe Schmoe, would you be in his corner?

After all, telling blatant lies about your own actions and words is a form of admitting guilt, is it not?

 

[minor4th]

So she lay dying for 20 minutes? Or are the Stipps lying about hearing shots at 3?

You are saying our theories here are all fabricated? Not based on evidence or witnesses? Why bother coming here then?

No I'm not saying the Stipps are lying or that they didn't hear shots at 3:00 - I'm not sure their time is precise, and if it is then I agree there's difficulty making sense of how long she could have lived after the headwound.

 

[Linda7NJ]

And another example - OP not recalling any conversation with Baba or saying "Everything is fine," yet Roux previously grilled Baba and suggested that OP said "I'm fine." Huh? Did OP just conveniently forget what he told Roux?



I don't mean this with any sarcasm or aggression, so please don't anyone think I do:



For those of you believe OP's version that night, how do you come to terms with his lying boldly in court? The examples above don't cover even a fourth of all the inconsistencies and discrepancies in his testimony.



If he wasn't Oscar Pistorius and had overcome his disabilities to become a top athlete, instead just any ol' Joe Schmoe, would you be in his corner?



After all, telling blatant lies about your own actions and words is a form of admitting guilt, is it not?

Every single trial I've followed here over the years... Murderers always have a few supporters. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TipDog]

Here again I think it may differ because there is no jury involved. The judge can be trusted not to be swayed by tattle in the media and on the likes of FB and twitter.

Oh, duh...I should have thought of that. Thank you, Cherwell. Makes sense.

 

[Mr Fossil]

You could be right, but I don't get that from watching it.

Did anyone else's font just suddenly change and become smaller?

Also, the scuff mark that is assumed to be the kick mark is much lower down (as was being discussed today with Dixon).

(No problem with fonts here).

 

[soozieqtips]

LOL :floorlaugh:

I have to say, on a more serious note, given what has been demonstrated in this trial about the recklessness with guns, the violent incidents and this tragedy itself, I fail to see how it was in the interests of public protection to give him bail in the first place. I have to admit, I have little knowledge of the bail proceedings but I find it strange that a man of 27 has been involved in all these negative incidents (quite apart from the murder itself). I have 2 boys now men around the same age who live life to the full and they have never been involved in anything like what OP has gotten himself into.

I don't think he should have ever got bail, and he actually said in his affidavit: "I fail to see how I could be charged with murder"... like he was indignant that anyone could have the nerve to charge him murder after shooting his girlfriend dead in the toilet! I think he was very confident of getting off, just like he's got off with everything else his whole life. He left his affidavit very sketchy without thinking of the repercussions later. But that's typical him. All he cared about was getting bail.

 

[minor4th]

Also, the scuff mark that is assumed to be the kick mark is much lower down (as was being discussed today with Dixon).

(No problem with fonts here).

Phew, my font is back to normal now.

Like I said, you could be right - I just didn't get that from the video of Nel and Vermuelen.

 

[Britlaws]

I think it's despicable that 'experts' feel free to deliberately mislead at trials just to collect money. People's lives are on the line, and if they're found to have misled the court in order to support the defence, they should do :jail: time too. And I'm talking about all experts, not one in particular. We have one (had one) in the UK that the police would wheel out every time they wanted their 'facts' backed up. The expert has since been struck off (and the police 'chastised' for their part in it) and it turned out his evidence in loads of other cases had been inept and 'less than professional'. Corruption is everywhere.

I agree, without Roy Meadows, Sally Clark wouldn't have spent 5 yrs in jail and would be alive today

 

[steveml]

LOL :floorlaugh:

I have to say, on a more serious note, given what has been demonstrated in this trial about the recklessness with guns, the violent incidents and this tragedy itself, I fail to see how it was in the interests of public protection to give him bail in the first place. I have to admit, I have little knowledge of the bail proceedings but I find it strange that a man of 27 has been involved in all these negative incidents (quite apart from the murder itself). I have 2 boys now men around the same age who live life to the full and they have never been involved in anything like what OP has gotten himself into.

Bail is handled in such a way that it shouldn't be seen as a punishment, due to the right for people to be presumed innocent.

It can get very difficult to justify this with certain cases, hence the need for OP to provide much more information prior to trial than would normally be expected.

 

[liesbeth]

I didn't leave that out - they are looking at one single mark on the door and there's no mention of bat mark. Nel goes on to clarify that he's talking about a kick mark.

Okay then. I'll add the sentence at the bottom here just as it appears on the video.

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.

Nel: Then there was a long discussion this morning about the kicking. Do you know if the kicking happened before or after the shots?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

 

[zwiebel]

I've been thinking all day about Dixon's testimony. The casual approach to reports, when he was going to face Nel, was a mistake. Even if he didn't know what was coming himself, Roux should have, and should have warned him to be thoroughly prepared.

But, I do think now, if he had just been used as a defence consultant in the background, he could have helped much more.

For example; the mag rack. I don't recall any prosecution experts mentioning the rectangular rack feet marks in the blood pool. One by the toilet showed a white mark in a thick pool - so maybe indicating a foot already there, and blood congealed around it?

The other foot mark seemed to be made in blood, by the wall, (where the mag rack was photographed in the first crime scene photo, and Oscar disputes it was ever there when he shot Reeva).

So perhaps that could indicate the mag was somewhere else, and was moved beside the wall when blood had already been spilled and got on the bottom of the foot?

Armed with that tip from Dixon,Roux might have just been better off putting that to state experts in his cross; 'You never noticed the mark in the blood?'. a la Nel?

It might have been more powerful coming from him, than Dixon?

During the sound experiments too, Dixon mentioned someone mistook the bat sounds for gunshots and told him off, thinking he had started firing without permission. So it's made me think the sounds can be similar, and I don't understand why that has come across so poorly?

By the way - I have no illusions. Nel would make mincemeat of my ideas if I was on the stand in front of him. By the time I got to the end of this, I wasn't even sure myself what I was trying to say in the beginning!

 

[aa9511]

Nel's just asked if the sounds of the bat were amplified as he thinks they maybe were.

D says he didn't do so and explains how they may have been, to make the sounds 'clearer'.

He did not produce the recordings though.

bbm

Then wth is he testifying about them?? This makes 0 sense.