No, because they were already on.
Among the things OP possibly had to go back upstairs (as seen by Dr Stipp) to do.
Break that light in the bathroom. Which we still do not know from both sides, just how was/is it broken.
No, because they were already on.
Let's be clear
No Gunshots or Batshots were heard in Court
As I've said, recordings of gunshots and batshots are not the same as directly hearing those things. The recording or playback devices have many adjustable parameters to make them sound similar, if so desired.
An honest Judge will go (easier here than in the USA where the whole jury must go) to the scene of the event and/or go to where the witnesses were. Actual gunshots and bat strikes would then occur.
When he went into the bedroom, he didn't call out her name as I recall.
Do you recall the same thing?
I was wondering why he's feeling for her instead of calling for her, [or turning on the lights].
When he went into the bedroom, he didn't call out her name as I recall.
Do you recall the same thing?
I was wondering why he's feeling for her instead of calling for her, [or turning on the lights].
BBM - Can you imagine what his police statement would have looked like if he'd made one?? He had five days to come up with his affidavit and it's still been ripped to shreds. Oh wait. That was Roux's fault for not 'interpreting' his words correctly, and the medication's fault for dulling his senses so he didn't realise that half the details in his affidavit were missing.BIB. OP did not give a statement to the police. His attorneys asked for a continuance; that gave them time to create his Affidavit. OP sat in jail for 5 days before he went before the Magistrate for his bail hearing and presented his Affidavit through his attorneys.
When he went into the bedroom, he didn't call out her name as I recall.
Do you recall the same thing?
I was wondering why he's feeling for her instead of calling for her, [or turning on the lights].
Just maybe he's lying. You know, maybe?
Among the things OP possibly had to go back upstairs (as seen by Dr Stipp) to do.
Break that light in the bathroom. Which we still do not know from both sides, just how was/is it broken.
It must have been the magazine rack opening the door that caused him to involuntarily shoot the gun in sheer terror.
That's what I said. He asked me about an angry person and I said he looked scared, not angry, standing where he did, off to the side over by the entrance.
I agree with you.
This is one of the stranger aspects of the story that makes me doubt it. From whispering to her in bed to get down and call the police, to being half way down the hall and screaming to her to call the police, to getting to the bathroom and again screaming for her to call the police, to being shot, to going back to the bedroom screaming for her, to feeling his way around, not once did she respond. She was in the toilet all the time and never responded?
The devil is in the detail in this case and I reckon Gerrie Nel has got it by its slippery horns. he is so right about thingsbeing so "improbable"
Am I right??
:floorlaugh:
BBM - on the plus side, he has a new life to look forward to - Oscar Pistorius, inmate.But..he wasn't actually doing any of the above.
He was stood in the bathroom, listening. Heart pumping. And thinking. Hard.
And the lights were on.
Next stop, a cricket bat and the start of his new life as Oscar Pistorius, killer.
Among the things OP possibly had to go back upstairs (as seen by Dr Stipp) to do.
Break that light in the bathroom. Which we still do not know from both sides, just how was/is it broken.
BBM - on the plus side, he has a new life to look forward to - Oscar Pistorius, inmate.
IMO the sounds could be 'replicated' under proper test conditions in the actual scene of the crime.The Judge and Assessors could witness same in same conditions in location. Less than this means its academic and open to wide interpretation adding to 'blurring' the sounds and therefore the evidence.
The Court needs to test what the reasonable person heard 'in situ' IMO.
The neighbours heard what they heard. I, for one, do not believe that the cricket bat and gun would sound identical. One is wood on wood wielded by human force; the other is metal on metal discharged in the heated, high powered friction of firing.
IMO the sounds could be 'replicated' under proper test conditions in the actual scene of the crime.The Judge and Assessors could witness same in same conditions in location. Less than this means its academic and open to wide interpretation adding to 'blurring' the sounds and therefore the evidence.
The Court needs to test what the reasonable person heard 'in situ' IMO.
The neighbours heard what they heard. I, for one, do not believe that the cricket bat and gun would sound identical. One is wood on wood wielded by human force; the other is metal on metal discharged in the heated, high powered friction of firing.
I haven't seen any evidence that the WC light was broken. OP says it was, but what are his words worth after that meltdown in the box? The Stipps say it was working and on. I'll go with what the Stipps say on this one.
On the first question: Why give yourself away by turning the light on? The intruder doesn't know your house, but you do - like the back of your hand. Why even the playing field with the lights on?If you are scared of an intruder and were armed, why wouldn't you turn the light on?
After you shoot the intruder and back off without checking their status ( and looking for someone), why wouldn't you turn the light on?
Finally, for Reeva, if you knew your partner was awake and you were going to the toilet in a pitch black room, why wouldn't you turn either the bedroom or bathroom light on? (Especially with the Toilet light supposedly broken).
I haven't seen any evidence that the WC light was broken. OP says it was, but what are his words worth after that meltdown in the box? The Stipps say it was working and on. I'll go with what the Stipps say on this one.
Experts, right.
It's been pointed out more than once that Vermeulen was only referring to one specific crack which he said was preceded by a gunshot. He didn't say that all the bat marks came after the gunshots. He said it wasn't possible to draw that conclusion.
No one is denying that the bat was used after the shots to help break the door, but that does not preclude it being used to strike the door before the shots too.