Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[aa9511]

N: Why did you not ensure person was correct height?

D: Milady a scale is a range....Idon't know (if OP) was standing or kneeling...

bbm

His subconcious thoughts are coming out there. He probably looked at everything and has an idea of how everything happened (not Oscar's version).

 

[minor4th]

By the way are you confident it was a 15 minute gap?, i'm still a bit sketchy on how long it actually was.

Not at all sure - it was somewhere between 5 and 17 minutes. I just picked a number in between.

 

[TipDog]

If Colonel Vermeulen is right about the marks being consistent with O.P on his stumps, then is it not possible that he hit the door with the bat first, then fired the gun and then pried the door open on his prosthesis?.
Explains what the Stipp's heard first if the state are correct.

Good grief, this is all so confusing. The bat, the gun, shots, sounds of shots, screams of woman or a man, helps cried, on stumps, with prosthesis, etc. I think I've finally settled on what makes sense to me and then back into a tailspin I go.

 

[liesbeth]

I don't think that is possible. So he had on his prostheses while whacking the door and breaking it through .. and then took off his legs and shot through the broken door 15 minutes later.

Oh but wait - at least one shot happened before the bat broke through the door. So how could the bat noises be first and the gunshots be later? Serious question - I am really not following how this can even be possible.

What if....on his stumps, as Vermeulen suggested, he uses the bat to hit the door three times. In the process the door breaks as he (OP, I mean) described in his testimony. The neighbours hear three loud sounds. And lots of bloodcurdling fearful screams.

Then, still on his stumps, he gets his gun and shoots Reeva through the door. The fearful screams stop.

He then goes to the bedroom, puts on his legs and goes back to the toilet to break open the door with hands and/or using the bat as a lever.

It is possible, no?

 

[Emz73]

OP's testimony is what has given me the most doubt, and not the ear witnesses. I still don't think the state has proved premeditation though. And I'm not sure if this is because they can't because Oscar's version is basically true (mistaken intruder) or because they did a sloppy job with the investigation and didn't do testing they should have.

Not the screaming? Didn't that make you doubt his version.

 

[minor4th]

If Colonel Vermeulen is right about the marks being consistent with O.P on his stumps, then is it not possible that he hit the door with the bat first, then fired the gun and then pried the door open on his prosthesis?.
Explains what the Stipp's heard first if the state are correct.

Vermuelen's testimony about that has been discredited. Remember when he was called back to the stand? Roux had a picture showing Vermuelen holding the cricket bat to the upper bat mark and it appears to match that mark - only Vermuelen was trying to hide that photo from the defense because it totally contradicts his opinion that OP was on his stumps when wielding the cricket bat.

Also, OP demonstrated swinging the bat from his legs and how it completely matched all three cricket bat marks. And he demonstrated from his stumps that he could not have made the higher mark from his stumps.

 

[strydohj]

The American company's graphic artists are "reanimating" like mad as we speak!

Several patches probably brought out already... Two per day...:floorlaugh:

 

[Emz73]

I don't think that is possible. So he had on his prostheses while whacking the door and breaking it through .. and then took off his legs and shot through the broken door 15 minutes later.

Oh but wait - at least one shot happened before the bat broke through the door. So how could the bat noises be first and the gunshots be later? Serious question - I am really not following how this can even be possible.

That depends whether he shot from the hip or not. Or crouching so he wasn't seen at the window.

 

[minor4th]

Not the screaming? Didn't that make you doubt his version.

It did when the witnesses first testified. But then when Dr Stipp said all the noises sounded like gunshots and Merwe talked about mistaking Oscar's loud cries for those of a woman. And then Vermuelen said the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door and the ME said Reeva wouldnt have been able to scream after the head wound. And then during cross examination it came out that the witnesses' initial statements didn't say anything about a man and a woman both screaming during that time, and the witnesses added to their initial accounts.

From all of that, I am satisfied that the screaming the witnesses heard was from Oscar.

 

[minor4th]

That depends whether he shot from the hip or not. Or crouching so he wasn't seen at the window.

Well give me the scenario you're talking about and when the cricket bat noises and gunshots happened and then maybe I can comment.

The state has conceded on the record that it is their case that OP was not on his legs when he fired the gunshots.

 

[James50]

I still don't see any smoking gun. All I see is an aggressive prosecutor who is good at making the accused LOOK guilty with cheap, below the belt, statements like "you're a liar", or "you're lying", which to me is a terrible distortion of the ideal that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. These are smear tactics in my opinion, not true legal arguments. Nel comes across as cantankerous and rather weak at arguing his case, which will only satisfy those who don't really understand what persuasive argument should set out to achieve.

The chronicle of minute details and so called inconsistencies is neither here nor there and a proof of nothing very much because memories fade over time and one can in all innocence believe a certain fact that never happened, not because you're lying but because the human mind has a tendancy to remember things inaccurately after the passage of time (surely Nel knows this, so is he willfully ignorant?)

 

[steveml]

Sorry ST but I don't think if you want "to be fair" as you say that you can compare an independent lay witness trying to do their civic duty as best they can with a professional paid to give testimony for a defence (unless you want to imbue Mrs Stipp with some kind of psychopathic personality). That is simply not a fair comparison.

And sorry again, but for the photo you are referring to the curtain had to be held back to take a picture of OP's window because the camera was not taking the picture from what would have been Mrs Stipp's view but from around a metre above and around a metre back from where she would have been lying down or sitting up in bed. A low position from which she would have had a very good view under and through the gap created by the ties while the camera being high up was "looking" slightly down from above. A "photo deception" as Roux now calls them having already been picked up on one.

It is in the interest of all parties that they put their case in the best light possible. Whether people like it or not this is how it happens. If something is done incorrectly it will be dealt with. It would be totally naive for me to believe the state will not try everything possible to secure a conviction, and the same goes for the defense with regard to acquittal.

I listen to witnesses and decide what I believe to be correct, it's nothing personal. Witnesses have a difficult job to do, but they don't come packaged with guaranteed excellent recollection skills. Not a single one of the five witnesses can remember the time-span from noise 1 to noise 4. That bothers me. Not in a conspiratorial way, but certainty with regard to their recollection abilities.

 

[Viper]

I don't think that is possible. So he had on his prostheses while whacking the door and breaking it through .. and then took off his legs and shot through the broken door 15 minutes later.

Oh but wait - at least one shot happened before the bat broke through the door. So how could the bat noises be first and the gunshots be later? Serious question - I am really not following how this can even be possible.

BIB Here is what you posted as a transcription that you created yourself:

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.

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.

What is your take on the BIB? Do you also have Vermeulen's previous testimony transcribed? I would like to point out to you where Vermeulen said that the tip of the bat was used to pry the slender panel out, causing that panel to tear through a bullet hole. Are you following now?

And there is this for plain English reference:

Quote:
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked police forensic expert Johannes Vermeulen whether he could conclude that all four bullet holes appeared in the door before the dents made by the bat.

The question was aimed at testing the veracity of Pistorius's version of events, in which he fired four shots into the door then, after realising that Steenkamp was not asleep in bed, fetched a cricket bat to break down the door.

Vermeulen responded that he could not prove that this was indeed the case.

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2014/03/13/oscar-trial-expert-can-t-fix-sequence-of-shots-bashing

 

[Hatfield]

Quote from the link:

<snipped> "the judge overseeing the case warned spectators watching the televised proceedings in an adjacent room for their "unruly" behavior.


Judge Thokozile Masipa said she had been made aware that people watching Pistorius' trial on television feeds in a courtroom next to the main trial room were shouting and cheering at times during the proceedings."

Hmm... Maybe I should watch all of Dixon's testimony, sounds like people enjoyed it a lot! :smile:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2014/04/17/pistorius-trial-steenkamp-murder/7813375/

Re BBM

Oh no. Now I am absolutely worried. People in SA love him. There is definite bias to find him not guilty and the judge knows this.

There was a lady that cheered as OP entered court this morning.

I knew a lot of people liked him but in SA he is most likely their HERO.
This is very scary and I think it will influence the judges decision in this case.

I am leaning towards what Minor is thinking . That maybe just the gun charges or something may be the end result of his punishment.

I no longer have faith that we will get a just decision because of his popularity in SA.

 

[minor4th]

What if....on his stumps, as Vermeulen suggested, he uses the bat to hit the door three times. In the process the door breaks as he (OP, I mean) described in his testimony. The neighbours hear three loud sounds. And lots of bloodcurdling fearful screams.

Then, still on his stumps, he gets his gun and shoots Reeva through the door. The fearful screams stop.

He then goes to the bedroom, puts on his legs and goes back to the toilet to break open the door with hands and/or using the bat as a lever.

It is possible, no?

That makes no sense though. Why break through the door and then shoot and then pry or break open the panels?

Vermuelen's testimony that the bat broke through the door and while in that position, it was used to break out the panels. OP says he broke them with his hands. But in either event, the state's case is that all the gunshots happened together and all the cricket bat hitting happened together.

Also at least one of the cricket bat hits happened after the gunshots because of that one piece that is missing and the crack that goes through it

 

[liesbeth]

Vermuelen's testimony about that has been discredited. Remember when he was called back to the stand? Roux had a picture showing Vermuelen holding the cricket bat to the upper bat mark and it appears to match that mark - only Vermuelen was trying to hide that photo from the defense because it totally contradicts his opinion that OP was on his stumps when wielding the cricket bat.

Also, OP demonstrated swinging the bat from his legs and how it completely matched all three cricket bat marks. And he demonstrated from his stumps that he could not have made the higher mark from his stumps.

It was not discredited. Vermeulen explained that his brief was to determine if that particular bat broke open the door. He showed photos to prove his case and did not need any other photographs. So he never thought of the other photographs because they weren't necessary to prove his case.

W/O van Staden backed up V's testimony when he said that he, Van Staden, chose the photographs in consultation with Vermeulen, and that at no time did Vermeulen request any photographs to be left out.

Roux was looking for a "Hilton Botha" figure to discredit as he did in the bail proceedings. Vermeulen was it.

Fortunately this time the proceedings was open for all to see and we are all free to decide for ourselves.

 

[Viper]

Re BBM

Oh no. Now I am absolutely worried. People in SA love him. There is definite bias to find him not guilty and the judge knows this.

There was a lady that cheered as OP entered court this morning.

I knew a lot of people liked him but in SA he is most likely their HERO.
This is very scary and I think it will influence the judges decision in this case.

I am leaning towards what Minor is thinking . That maybe just the gun charges or something may be the end result of his punishment.

I no longer have faith that we will get a just decision because of his popularity in SA.

Carole70 confirmed to the forum last week that 90% of South Africa hates OP and believes that he is guilty.

The lady that cheers him and hugs him and gives him flower bouquets is his super fan, she is looney!

All of the cheering in the overflow rooms today was apparently for Mr. Nel as he was destroying that fake expert! :smile:

 

[jay-jay]

Open the link in my post. After the image of the message that is posted to FaceBook, there is a confirmation from Dixon to a reporter that it was posted by him.

Blimey, so it does .. I hadn't read the whole of that DM link previously .. am just always so sceptical of these things on facebook and twitter because anyone can set up an account in someone else's name .. but thanks for confirming that .. what an idiot that man is!

 

[turaj]

Been gone this week and catching up on this week...up to Thursday and will finish that today. I am dumbfounded at Dixon...for anyone that saw Jodi A trial this is worse that Alyce La Violette and the other guy that JM went after. I just love watching the face and body language of the prosecution team, the defense and the gallery (they don't show as much today). You can just see Nel's team get the look on their face as he discovers so much as he goes and Dixon is giving him way more than he ever planned on...meantime Roux sinks lower in the chair. Can't wait to see if Dixon shows up tomorrow with all the homework Nel gave him...kind of one the spot "discovery". Also Oscar covering his face and ears is, in my opinion, making an impression on the judge and that is his inability to face what he has done and that will make it very difficult for her to release him back into society. He seems to be disgusted with himself and as he listens to Dixon disgusted with his counsel.

Nel is absolutely fascinating to watch...I love it when he gets onto something....he then starts making notes and frankly just shredding the credibility of Dixon. South Africa really has a great prosecutor here and I'll bet very few criminals escape after he "puts it to them"!

 

[minor4th]

It was not discredited. Vermeulen explained that his brief was to determine if that particular bat broke open the door. He showed photos to prove his case and did not need any other photographs. So he never thought of the other photographs because they weren't necessary to prove his case.

W/O van Staden backed up V's testimony when he said that he, Van Staden, chose the photographs in consultation with Vermeulen, and that at no time did Vermeulen request any photographs to be left out.

Roux was looking for a "Hilton Botha" figure to discredit as he did in the bail proceedings. Vermeulen was it.

Fortunately this time the proceedings was open for all to see and we are all free to decide for ourselves.

I disagree.