Trial Discussion Thread #29

[canny]

I really enjoyed listening to those guys.

One of them said that Oscar's performance on the stand and towards the intruder could be explained by a syndrome his son had, a head injury, and he thought the defense should bring on someone to speak about this injury.

I didn't get the name he used.

Head injury...how sad that explains the sudden ringing in his ears after firing four shots, yet his beloved family allowed him to fool around with guns, and he was in the process of purchasing seven more macho weapons.

“It’s a lot softer than brain but ... it’s like a zombie stopper",...blame this on his head injury too ?

 

[dianebowen]

The chances are 100 percent.

Some heard screaming after the [second set of] 'gunshots.'

We know they are wrong.

Just because the rest thought it was a woman, doesn't mean it was a woman.

We know the gunshots sound like the bat strikes. So, if gunshots were first, they are all wrong.

The State, in fact, says that the gunshots come before the bat strikes, so how do they explain the earlier 'gunshots' if those were not gunshots.

If they are gunshots, and there is no reason to presume they are not since they sound like gunshots, then all the witnesses are wrong because Reeva could not have screamed after the head wound.

The witnesses Burger/Johnson reported intermingled screams and gunshots with screams fading out right after last gun shot. There is no testimony that new screams were initiated after the last gunshot. Gunshot sounds and screams may travel differently and Burger/Johnson were a ways away.

 

[Hatfield]

To believe that OP is not guilty of premeditated murder is not to be a "supporter" of him, or to have "chosen" a side. This is a murder trial, not a sporting event.

I follow trials because I'm fascinated by the law and frankly enjoy trying to puzzle through the evidence to reach my own conclusions. I had never heard of OP before this trial, and only in the past week or so have begun paying attention. The more I delve into the evidence the less convinced I am that OP meant to kill Reeva. If I end up concluding for myself that he absolutely did not intend to kill her that will not make me an OP supporter, just a person who examined the evidence, used logic, and who reached a different conclusion than most folks here.

I enjoy reading different perspectives and I agree the evidence needs to match whatever verdict is reached.

Re BBM
Is there 1 or 2 things that have got you leaning this way that he did not intend to kill her?

 

[molly333]

BIB 1 No, they didn't.

BIB 2 Source, please. Source for BIB 1 as well, while you're at it, please.

I can go dig up the witness statements again, but I'm not going to do it right now.

 

[Val1]

If we believe Dr Stipp is a credible witness, then we must apply the same belief to his testimony

When Dr Stipp was asked if he believed OP wanted Reeva to live, he replied, 'He definitely wanted her to live, yes'.

That doesn't meant OP didn't want her to die just a few minutes before... though I don't recall OP making sure(re his dramatic entrance on the staircase) there were any witnesses to either confirm or deny that.

 

[Hatfield]

Head injury...how sad that explains the sudden ringing in his ears after firing four shots, yet his beloved family allowed him to fool around with guns, and he was in the process of purchasing seven more macho weapons.

“It’s a lot softer than brain but ... it’s like a zombie stopper",...blame this on his head injury too ?

IMO the head injury had nothing to do with the ringing in his ears. I know from personal experience of having shot a handgun off without ear protection. Mine is not even as powerful as his 9mm as mine is only a 380 and the sound was incredible and I was outside.

When inside a closed in place if you are shooting a 9mm i can guarantee that your ears would be ringing even without head injury.

People do not realize how loud a handgun is without ear protection. Especially inside a room.

ETA-Here is another fact to help people if you are ever around others shooting weapons. You want to stay behind the muzzle. Anyone who is in front of the horizontal line of the muzzle even if off to the side will get an incredible loud noise. If you are behind that horizontal line of the muzzle it helps to lessen the noise. Anyone in front of that horizontal line will experience a much louder noise.

But no matter where you are located if you are close enough like being the shooter it is incredibly loud shooting handguns. Especially inside a room. Multiply it by many times louder inside a room

 

[Really?]

Unless I missed it when OP was being cross examined, why do you think the PT never introduced the jeans that were found on the ground outside of the bathroom window?

I saw the pic....it was on the screen at some point in a testimony. How else did we see it?.....the fact we saw it is because it has a number attached to it. It is in evidence.moo (I didn't mean this to be sound snarkish, sorry.)

I believe the handsome Mr. Nel is saving the best and truest 'version' for his grande finale. yup.moo:blushing:

 

[Cherwell]

The only reason RS is named in that charging document is because she was the victim, if it had been a burglar, that person would have been named, I don't understand the confusion... All the prosecution had to prove is that he killed "someone" with intent.

Is that what the charge says? Or does it say he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent?

The charge specifies the name of the victim, who was Reeva Steenkamp. No one else was killed. That is why it says Reeva Steenkamp. Because that is who he killed.

 

[molly333]

IMO the head injury had nothing to do with the ringing in his ears. I know from personal experience of having shot a handgun off without ear protection. Mine is not even as powerful as his 9mm as mine is only a 380 and the sound was incredible and I was outside.

When inside a closed in place if you are shooting a 9mm i can guarantee that your ears would be ringing even without head injury.

People do not realize how loud a handgun is without ear protection. Especially inside a room.

I believe you. That site I found said it was much louder than an airplane engine at takeoff.

I wonder how police do it.

PS He didn't say ears were ringing because of head injury. He said that particular head injury would explain Oscar's performance on the stand AND his actions the night of the 14th.

 

[Viper]

The chances are 100 percent.

Some heard screaming after the [second set of] 'gunshots.'

We know they are wrong.

Just because the rest thought it was a woman, doesn't mean it was a woman.

We know the gunshots sound like the bat strikes. So, if gunshots were first, they are all wrong.

The State, in fact, says that the gunshots come before the bat strikes, so how do they explain the earlier 'gunshots' if those were not gunshots.

If they are gunshots, and there is no reason to presume they are not since they sound like gunshots, then all the witnesses are wrong because Reeva could not have screamed after the head wound.

The state does not say that the gunshots were fired before the bat strikes. That was something posted here by some who were reading a single sentence and were apparently unwilling to read any further. Below is the relevant testimony. I hope it helps to clear up any remaining confusion about this. ->

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? 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/20...-shots-bashing

 

[molly333]

The charge specifies the name of the victim, who was Reeva Steenkamp. No one else was killed. That is why it says Reeva Steenkamp. Because that is who he killed.

Then to my mind, the prosecutor has to prove he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent, not some imaginary burglar

There's no evidence of premeditation to kill Reeva.

Unless he can prove the screams are hers, and so far, he can't.

 

[Really?]

Maybe it's just me, but how important is the missing phone, really.

If RS had phoned anyone during the crucial evening/night. If she had, it would most likely be friends/family who would have come forward in any case. If she tried and a call didn't go through it would be meaningless.

Can't think of anything else that could be on the phone.:maddening:

maybe the last number dialed and started with 9-1-.....then nothing, bang she drops the phone (which is by now covered in blood).....dunno

 

[molly333]

The state does not say that the gunshots were fired before the bat strikes. That was something posted here by some who were reading a single sentence and were apparently unwilling to read any further. Below is the relevant testimony. I hope it helps to clear up any remaining confusion about this. ->

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? 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/20...-shots-bashing

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

 

[nastasya]

Is that what the charge says? Or does it say he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent?

Legally it doesn't matter if he killed some intruder with intent or Reeva with intent.

1. The killing of an innocent bystander in the commission of another murder is still murder with intent.

2. There is no mistaken identity defense. If I hired a hit man to kill somebody, and they killed the person's twin instead, it's still intent to murder.

Imagine this scenario:

If Lee Harvey Oswald aimed for JFK's head, and instead hit Jackie Kennedy, do you think he would get manslaughter or culpable homicide?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

 

[Viper]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

That is incorrect. Others will no doubt share information, again, to clarify this.

O/T. But I have to run, my wife is making me paint our French doors and she is about to strangle me if I don't pick up a paint brush! Check back in 45 minutes or so. Cheers!

 

[nastasya]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

The states expert only said the crack through Hole D came last.

He said it would be scientifically impossible to determine if the bat strikes happened before or after the gun shots.

Nel clarified this point on re-direct. The state's expert testified that it was hypothetically impossible the bat hits were intended to scare Reeva.

This isn't that complicated.

 

[asanque]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

Read it again carefully.

It is confusingly put but the testimony that the bat strike preceded the gun shots only referred on one mark on the door.

There was nothing said that the bat didn't hit the door elsewhere prior to the gunshots.

 

[molly333]

Legally it doesn't matter if he killed some intruder with intent or Reeva with intent.

1. The killing of an innocent bystander in the commission of another murder is still murder with intent.

2. There is no mistaken identity defense. If I hired a hit man to kill somebody, and they killed the person's twin instead, it's still intent to murder.

Imagine this scenario:

If Lee Harvey Oswald aimed for JFK's head, and instead hit Jackie Kennedy, do you think he would get manslaughter or culpable homicide?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, but he has to be charged. I don't see how he can be convicted of something he's not charged with.

I don't know. I'll leave it for the lawyers. Let's see what they say.

 

[Val1]

Is that what the charge says? Or does it say he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent?

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/6nav90m20w35290g/images/2-5f34c81e0e.jpg

bbm - Like I said, "the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit," then it names the "person" he killed who in this case is RS.

 

[vansleuths]

I saw the pic....it was on the screen at some point in a testimony. How else did we see it?.....the fact we saw it is because it has a number attached to it. It is in evidence.moo

I believe the handsome Mr. Nel is saving the best and truest 'version' for his grande finale. yup.moo:blushing:

I did see the PT introduce it into evidence so it is part of the case, but that is all they have done with it.

Not that I'm an expert, but I would think this would have been an ideal piece of evidence with which to cross examine OP.

There is nowhere else that they can really speak about this now except in the closing arguments.