Trial Discussion Thread #31

[minor4th]

stipp also mentions only three bangs [in the second set of noises].

And the first

 

[soozieqtips]

One of the watches was stolen by police already according to van Rensburg. Aimee asked if she could take one, the police said OK. Maybe it was a present from her to OP, sentimental value; maybe she was afraid that one would go "missing" too. Who knows? The police stealing a watch is a big deal. Aimee asking for one and being granted permission is not.

Do you know if Aimee took the watch while Reeva's dead body was still lying downstairs? If so, I think that would be a big deal, since Uncle Arnold (or another family member) stressed that they feel Reeva's loss as much as her own family does. I can't see that taking a watch before Reeva has even been removed from the scene indicates any affection for her at all. Same thing with removing things from the safe. The priority seems to have been in taking things or removing things, all while the person they loved as much as Reeva's own family loved, was lying dead downstairs.

 

[molly333]

Viper, here's the "pale heart" that you've suggested I'm the only one to note. And, I'll throw in a pale liver as well, both from "blood loss".

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Reevas-final-breaths-20140310

It also supplies us with the "missing blood" - if there was bleeding from the liver this would be huge.

And so, to recap :

Evidence for blood loss : A pale heart and pale liver.
Evidence that there was some cardiac activity after Reeva's final breaths ;
1) Prof Saaymans testimony that she would not have necessarily died immediately after the last breaths.
2) The blood splatter expert identifying arterial spurts on the landing.
3) Basic human physiology. In spite of your assertion that a heart beating for minutes after breathing stops is "impossible" I think crasshopper explained succinctly that the body's reservoir of oxygen allows this to happen. So much so that the layman CPR guidelines have been amended to only use chest compressions in a community cardiac arrest. It's also the reason that people with asthma, near drownings, drug overdoses, some head injuries (etc etc) survive a period of respiratory arrest. Furthermore, when resuscitating a birth asphyxiated infant the entire algorithm is based on the heart rate, NOT the breathing which is frequently absent.

You're saying :
1) I don't believe that the heart beat for some minutes after she stopped breathing because not breathing = dying.
2) The characteristic, reproducible blood splatter identified by the blood splatter expert on the landing is not arterial blood and caused by some odd flinging around of the body. I can't remember exactly what your reasoning was, you lost me when you likened it to a "compression stocking".
3) The blood splatter expert got it wrong because he didn't read the autopsy repost, even though he attended the autopsy. And I don't like his findings so I'm going to say he's wrong.

Finally, you seem fixated on there being no blood loss because she died of head trauma and resistant to any suggestion that the head shot killed her, incapacitated her and stopped her breathing but that the significant blood loss certainly didn't help.

So where is all that blood--because it's not in the toilet room or bathroom.

And, where is all the arterial spatter everywhere from toilet room to front hall?

And, where is the high velocity gunshot blood spatter? I don't see it on the walls of the toilet room.

 

[minor4th]

This is photo #55 that was taken by Van Staden at 5:58 a.m. This was shown to OP during cross exam and asked if anything was out of place, etc.

Then Nel also refers to this pic as #55, taken at 5:58 a.m. I believe one of the two is #55 and the other is #56, both taken at 5:58 a.m.

^^ so those were supposed to be the first photos taken of the bedroom after the incident. OP claims that the fan, duvet, jeans, curtains were not in those positions immediately after the incident and says they must have been moved.

This is another photo of the fan and same general area - #894 (?) that Van Ransburg testified about and said that this was not how things looked when he first viewed the crime scene. No time was given for this photo

I am not sure what to think. If 55 and 56 are really pics of the actual scene before anything was moved, then that does undermine OP's account - it couldn't have possibly happened the way he described. Unfortunately, we know that the crime scene was not handled properly, and we know that Botha and Van Rensburg went up and looked at everything before Van Staden went up and started taking photos.

If there weren't so many instances of mishandling the crime scene, we might be able to conclude that those pics are true depictions of the untouched crime scene. Given the mistakes during the investigation, however, there's no way to know for sure.

These pictures were shown and discussed during OP's cross examination on April 9 and April 11 if you want to view the archives and see it all for yourself.

 

[JuneBug67]

And the first

If accurate, and if Pistorius is fundamentally telling the truth, I wonder if he was awoken by the first shot but only consciously heard the three that were likely fired together in that tighter group. The three shots heard second might correspond to three bat strikes there are marks for.

 

[Viper]

So where is all that blood--because it's not in the toilet room or bathroom.

And, where is all the arterial spatter everywhere from toilet room to front hall?

And, where is the high velocity gunshot spatter?

He will be back and say Reeva had massive internal bleeding. Unfortunately Dr. Saymaan did not find that. This should be good!!!

 

[minor4th]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZA03eu9NM

At about 53:00

Dr. Stipp says at that he wasn't sure so he didn't include it in his statement but he did mention it to Capt. van Aardt at the time. While the woman was screaming, he could also hear a man’s voice at the same time that sounded softer and lower. He believes he heard two different voices at the same time.

And later (not on the link above) under cross examination Roux suggests that both voices could have been OP. Stipp then asks: “Am I to believe that he was screaming in two voices or two tones”?

On cross exam he also says the voices were not at exactly the same time.

 

[liesbeth]

Thank you for that. So Van Rensburg was the first on the scene. And he was the first to view the crime scene on the 1st floor. Was Botha with him at that time or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY

14:13:40

Van Rensburg stayed downstairs talking with Carice Stander until Botha arrived. Then they both followed the trail of blood up the stairs for the first time. So they viewed the first floor for the first time together.

 

[BabaJ]

Just wondered
Have there ever been any clear photo's of the blood on the duvet in relation to the blood that has been mentioned on the carpet near it
Also I am a little confused about the jeans in relation to the Duvet . Was that fully resolved with regard to whether the jeans were in fact partly on top of the duvet( I thought yes ) . Was this the point where OP alleged they both must have been moved by the police or forensic's ?

TIA

I am not sure if I remember right and have to go back to the cross examination but didn't Nel mention that there was "blood streak" or kind of a pattern running from the carpet onto the duvet?

 

[BritsKate]

I love our medical posters. Wanna know why? I struggle to understand even basic concepts of physiology or anatomy because I get squeamish over sneezes!

So...putting aside for a moment the debates over arterial spray and pale organs...could any of you, assuming you have the time and inclination, just confirm or refute the timelines provided by the State and defence? In simple terms? Pretty, pretty please? (Admittedly, I'm becoming very confused over arterial spray and blood loss and I think we're all at a disadvantage since Saayman's testimony was on lockdown.)

Defence states gunshots shortly after 3am and door broken down at 3:17am. (OP estimates he fired at 3:12.) Call to netcare at 3:20. Reeva dies downstairs a few minutes later.

State contends gunshots at 3:17am. Unlikely Reeva dies downstairs based on testimony by both pathologists (2-3 breaths, swift death) but we have, afaik, only OP's testimony for this anyway.

My medical understanding is extremely limited but based on logic alone, considering the testimony given so far, I just cannot see how the defence assertion is remotely even possible? Is it made possible with 3:12 as the shooting time even though that time contradicts an earlier time?

TIA for your patience with me! (And I'm so sorry if you've already answered this and I missed it!)

 

[Jake18]

I read your link. Nothing new. Certainly not death by exsanguination as you would like it to be.

I will stick with Professor Saymaan on this. He determined that Reeva died within 2-3 breaths of being shot in her head, and he determined the cause of her death was "gunshot wounds." Reeva did not bleed to death. :facepalm:

ETA: Why would you post "if there was bleeding from her liver...?" There is absolute nothing about that in your link! You are again speculating to suit what you want her death to be, and confusing people. You are trying to create injuries and internal bleeding that Dr. Saymaan would have found and noted if they had existed, but they did not, they are just your personal speculations. I really must read carefully anything that you post.

BIB 1) From my post : "Finally you seem fixated on there being no blood loss because she died of head trauma and resistant to any suggestion that the head shot killed her, incapacitated her and stopped her breathing but that the significant blood loss certainly didn't help."

BIB 2) From the link : :Her heart, however, just like her liver, was pale in colour as a result of the blood loss, said Dr Saayman".

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Val1]

The bottom line is that we have two distinct groupings of witnessed sounds credited as gunshots. Not three or more, but two. We have from physical evidence both shots and strikes to the door that must be accounted for. We have testimony that at least one bat strike occurred post shooting, and the logical conclusion rightly drawn by the state witness from that is that all of them occurred post shooting, despite concessions about what is theoretically possible due to lack of evidence either way.

Battling pathologists happen in every trial. The evidence is by nature reconstructed and somewhat subjective and that is why both sides can virtually always find people to lend some support to their versions. If Reeva can't have been screaming after the first set of sounds as reason and the evidence suggests to some here then pathologist testimony is of interest but unlikely to be more definitive than that.

Call me dim if you like, but why exactly do we or the court need proof exactly what the other set of sounds could have been?

The fact that 5 different witnesses all heard a set of sounds that they all identified as gunshots at the same approximate time in the same vicinity that a set of gunshots took the life of an unarmed defenseless woman in a toilet cubicle is I believe, all the court needs to know, well besides that someone confessed to having shot and killed said woman at approximately the same time as those 5 witnesses all had heard what they all identified as gunshots and in fact said woman had died from at least 3 of 4 identifiable and linked bullets in that someone's toilet cubicle.

 

[IfIMay]

On cross exam he also says the voices were not at exactly the same time.

so more like arguing back and forth, not screaming together like a woman?

 

[liesbeth]

On cross exam he also says the voices were not at exactly the same time.

Where does he say that?

 

[minor4th]

This is also interesting -- during Van Staden's cross examination on March 18, the photo below is shown and it is one of Col Motha's photos, but it also shows a left hand pointing. It could not have been Col Motha's hand pointing because the camera grip is on the left side of the camera. Even Van Staden is unable to explain it.

This picture was taken at 6:03 a.m. So that suggests that Van Staden was not alone phtographing an untouched crime scene very early in the process.

Video Link

 

[minor4th]

so more like arguing back and forth, not screaming together like a woman?

I don't know that he described arguing, but some kind of back and forth is how I interpreted it.

 

[minor4th]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY

14:13:40

Van Rensburg stayed downstairs talking with Carice Stander until Botha arrived. Then they both followed the trail of blood up the stairs for the first time. So they viewed the first floor for the first time together.

Thank you! I do recall Van R testifying that Botha was with him viewing the crime scene, but I couldn't remember if that was the first walk through or a subsequent trip

 

[liesbeth]

I was looking at the pictures above under the pictures section.

I can't find the almost 200 photos entered into evidence. I would like to look at those.

Here's a new [to me] picture of the toilet. Scroll down, first picture.

I'm just amazed at how little blood is there and no arterial spurts all over the walls.


http://news.sky.com/story/1097557/pistorius-images-show-bloody-scene-of-killing


Oh, and no magazine rack.

There is arterial blood spatter low down on the toilet wall but not higher up. It means he didn't pick her up inside and that the spurting started once she was close to the floor.

 

[minor4th]

Where does he say that?

I'll put that next on my list to look for Right now I'm looking for Van Staden's photo from outside where you can see someone standing in OP's bathroom through the open window.

 

[Feynman]

....hidden in small print..
WhatsApp’s server until it can be delivered. If the message is undelivered for thirty (30) days, the undelivered message is deleted from our servers. Once a message has been delivered, it no longer resides on our servers.

Also, I don't think WhatsApp messages are automatically deleted from the phone after 7 days as was previously stated. What would be the point of that?