Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Feynman]

This is why i have always said that it makes far more logical, scientific sense that the second set of noises around 3:17 which were heard by all five ear witnesses were far more likely to be the gun shots, since some of the ear witnesses were some distance away and i simply do not think the sound of the cricket bat hitting the door would have travelled that far.

As many people keep saying, there is a choice between a logical simple explanation which fits the evidence so far with no requirement for suspension of disbelief, or an outlandish fabrication cobbling together a whole string of unlikely actions and unbelievable coincidences. I know which one seems more compelling for me at the moment.

Did you see the youtube video of the cricket bat vs 9 mm gunshot sounds at 180 meters?

 

[G.bng]

Ok, I am going through what pictures I can find, looking for the alleged, non existent arterial blood spatter all over the house, and I am having trouble finding pictures.

Do we have access to all the pictures introduced in court?

If I were the conspiratorial type, which I am not for purposes of this trial, I would say she was killed elsewhere and placed in the bathroom after the fact, and Dr. Stipp really did hear two sets of gunshots. [second set shot into the toilet door to make it look like she was killed in the bathroom]

There is almost no blood in the toilet or the bathroom to speak of--certainly not what you would expect for her extensive wounds.

I wonder if that house has a basement...

The toilet IMO is exactly where there is a lot of blood, i.e. down the bowl where the water looks positively black so to turn a couple of litres so opaque would imo need a lot of blood. In respect of arterial spatter, not including that found around bathroom and toilet, Van der Nest testified to arterial spurting over the void of the landing and falling onto the chair/sofa below as OP carried Reeva downstairs as well as all down the stairs. I also seem to recall one of them, Rensburg or Nest I think, saying there was a lot of blood going from toilet to the hall downstairs.

 

[Mango33]

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.

The problem is, it is just not clear he did say this.
We have no autopsy report to read.
No full transcripts of Saayman's testimony. No audio. We are all just trying to interpret reported speech.

I do understand your interpretation of the situation.

But when I read:
"After being shot in the head, she would not have been able to breathe more than a few times and would likely have fallen unconscious, said Saayman."

...that does not sound immediately dead. Sounds unconscious for a while.

http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f5...judge-bans-live-coverage-of-autopsy-testimony

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

It seems to me this makes sense only if you see no criminal difference between a deliberate targeting of Reeva Steenkamp in anger and her accidental murder in the course of some kind of misplaced self defense. Surely that can't be what you mean?

 

[minor4th]

Can't remember who asked earlier, but here is the photo that Van Staden took at 6:31 a.m. from outside, looking into OP's bathroom. (Notice, you can also see the exact position of the mysterious jeans)

The photo was then zoomed and 2 people were seen through the window (although I can't see them myself)

Here's the video cued to the point where they are discussing this during the trial: Link

 

[BritsKate]

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.

I think it needs to be questioned if the defence timeline is refuted by all the forensic testimony why they've held on to it so doggedly? Why not just concede the shots at 3:17?

Unless simply attempting to disprove the earlier bangs might have been part of an altercation outweighs the weight of the forensic testimony? To preclude direct intent?

Hmm.

 

[Feynman]

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.

I've often thought the same thing. Stipp seems like a clear-headed guy, and that would explain it.

 

[liesbeth]

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.

Thank you. Found it.

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

At about 26:00

Roux says both voices was OP and they will call a witness to testify that OP sounds just like a woman.

Stipp says it would be curious because intermingled (mixed together) with the woman's screaming, he heard the man's voice so must he then believe that OP can scream in two voices, two tones?

In Afrikaans (also in Dutch) when two people sing in harmony you say the song is sung in "tweede stem." Literally it means "second voice." Dr. Stipp is saying that it would be curious because one person alone can not sing in two voices or two tones (in harmony with himself).

 

[nastasya]

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”?

:goodpost:

I wish I could give you 10000000x THANKS for posting this.

I'm so disgusted with the misrepresentation and distortion of the witness testimony by people who should know better.

 

[minor4th]

i always assumed that op took out two or more panels to be able to reach in for the key on the toilet floor... wherever it was on the floor.

this photo only shows one panel removed.
is it generally accepted that only one panel was removed?

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

That is a great question and one that I have not been able to answer for myself. Some of the first pics seem to show one panel missing and others show several panels missing. Would love for someone to clarify this if it's known

 

[Feynman]

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.

Because the state's case is bat bangs first, gunshots second. (Although Nel has been quiet about this of late.)

 

[nastasya]

Here are some other photos of the duvet/jeans, etc. from Juror 13; still hard to see, IMO, because of the graininess of the images:

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/oscar-trial-day-21-oscar/

This isn't grainy at all.

It's easy to see. So easy that OP testified that the jeans were right where he remembers dropping them.

He was a bit flummoxed when Nel pointed out that the jeans being on the duvet made his version impossible.

 

[Val1]

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

That watch strap sure looks like the one that OP wears to court. Just saying.

 

[BritsKate]

That watch strap sure looks like the one that OP wears to court. Just saying.

If any future cases I follow never ever include a watch, in any capacity, I will be so very happy! :biggrin:

 

[Val1]

Because the state's case is bat bangs first, gunshots second. (Although Nel has been quiet about this of late.)

I thought that was only because the DT was trying to show that the first set of sounds were gunshots, which as it turns out, does not fit with what all 5 witnesses heard or the blood evidence, correct? Seems like a red herring that got the DT spending much of their resources trying to prove something that in the end makes no difference to what actually caused RS's death.

 

[Viper]

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.

Wait a minute! Where did all of that stuff you posted a few minutes ago about Reeva's bleeding liver just go? Poof, like magic it is gone.

And since you are pasting stuff now, from your link:

"Pathologist Gert Saayman told the court that Steenkamp did not take more than a few breaths after suffering her head wound."

The trouble is that you are taking what he said to mean she only stopped breathing, that Dr. Saymaan was not describing Reeva's dying. And then you go off on your speculation that her heart was still beating and pumping blood, and she was alive for 6-20 minutes to be able to have arterial spurts on the way downstairs, and the reason that there is only a small amount of blood is because she was bleeding internally from the gunshot to her hip so we don't see the blood. And <modsnip>, her severed artery in he right arm stopped bleeding, the two gunshots wounds to her head too, and her hip as well. Did I get all of that right?

 

[nastasya]

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.

Can you provide a link or quote from van Rensburg said the police stole a watch?

 

[liesbeth]

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!)

The 3:12 was mentioned by Roux as a time he found in Johnson's notes. OP never gave a time.

The brachial artery is a large artery running close to the upper arm bone. The shot amputated this bone so it must have severed the artery. A severed brachial artery will bleed out in about 5 minutes.

The shot to her right side did a lot of damage to the interior of her hip. If it severed the femoral artery bleed-out could happen in seconds to a minute or two.

Head wounds also tend to bleed quite a lot.

Saayman said any of these wounds on their own (without immediate medical attention) would cause someone to bleed to death within a few breaths.

Now put the blood loss from all three wounds together. She could not have lived very long.

 

[Val1]

That is a great question and one that I have not been able to answer for myself. Some of the first pics seem to show one panel missing and others show several panels missing. Would love for someone to clarify this if it's known

Hmm I thought that was cleared up weeks ago, those are the ones that iirc would have been taken on the 15th when they were trying to reassemble the door.

 

[jilly]

Oh yeah. They're both liars too. I forgot about that. The liar's list is too long for me to keep up with! I find it ironic that OP's efforts to 'defend' himself against a crime he 'failed' to see he should be charged with, have actually shown him to be the :liar: and the least credible witness of all.

This is all so incredible. They couldn't write a movie like this. He is totally delusional.