Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[Val1]

In his defense, he probably didn't hear "wood moving" that time. :smile:

bbm - Is it just a generational or regional context that makes me blush whenever I see that phrase.... I know when I first heard OP say that was when shane13's references certainly made more sense to me.

 

[steveml]

Do you know you can just input "1.23m in feet" in your browser's Google search box and it gives the answer?

HTH

Thanks,

Yep, it was easy enough to make a guesstimate, but it wouldn't have made any difference as I was using the incorrect original height anyhow.

 

[Cymbaline]

Remember that his prosthetics go up much higher on his legs. They go up to his knees.

links for photos:
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24082011/2/photo/24082011024215.html
http://totallycoolpix.com/2012/08/coolest-sports-pix-of-2012-week-31/

I think Dixon said his stumps are different lengths.

JMO

 

[liesbeth]

According to OP's cross with Nel, the defense is going to call witnesses that will testify to the police tampering. According to OP there were hundreds and hundreds of examples in the photos of tampering. I am listening to OP's cross again, as I type, to find out the part about the "open zone" in his security system.

Nel made a point of the so called tampering during Carice Stander's cross. He showed a photo with a towel on the floor and then asked Stander if that was how she left the scene. When she said it was, Nel said something like "at least that scene wasn't disturbed."

Also during Carice Stander's testimony. Stander mentioned that a policeman took her and Aimee upstairs. Nel asked her who the policeman was. She said the one sitting behind Nel. Nel turned around and stuck his finger under Bennie van Staden's nose. "This one?" Carice said yes. Then she said that Van Staden's face was burned into her mind and she would never forget it for as long as she lived and...Nel finished her sentence...and unfortunately it's his face.

 

[Mr Fossil]

We still work in feet/inches and stones here. Am I abit wrong?
:blushing:

So do I, but I was quoting the testimony!

 

[Val1]

No blood on the walls in the toilet room and the floor is only pooling.

JMO

That's the pic I was wondering about... noone has made any reference to those magazines being where they are or any blood evidence or fragments they may have contained(perhaps even help messages scrawled in them), that seems very odd to me what with all the talk about tampering, moving the body, bloody stumps/prosthetics wiping the wall, etc.

 

[BritsKate]

Premeditation is really murky. I've read it can be formed in an instant but also have read in SA premed is held to a higher standard than in the US. Interestingly, the amount of wounds, lying, and cover up can all be argued towards premeditation.

In this case, it's all about those screams. Think about how impossible the defence timeline is - wouldn't it make sense that they'd concede the gunshots were the bangs heard at 3:17? Only they can't because if they did, it would require them to explain why Reeva was screaming for so long before she was killed (this is where premeditation is shown). So it became, out of necessity, Oscar screaming like a woman while also yelling like a man after shooting his girlfriend dead through a closed door, running out to the balcony and all through the house to cry like a high-pitched man, breaking the door down, stopping screaming, calling netcare (at least) 8 minutes after shooting her, and Reeva leaving arterial spray, despite her injuries and time of infliction, below the stairs. It's a very messy, inconceivable timeline. Which makes me wonder why a legal team with decades of experience would put it forth? The only reasonable conclusion is that they're simply trying to mitigate damage. Disproving premeditation seems to be most important, even at the cost of a logical, cohesive version of events.

But I hasten to add that even if the State cannot prove premeditation or that he intentionally murdered Reeva, it does not mean Oscar cannot still be convicted for murder. Even if Oscar, in a rage, deliberately went after who he believed was an intruder - it is still very much murder. The only thing that can absolve the intent required for murder is the court believing Oscar's claim for putative private defence. And I would argue that being in a rage very much contradicts the fear required to make such a claim plausible. Assuming that defence is valid, of course, considering Oscar's testimony that he never intended to shoot anyone.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Viper]

I'm betting shane13 has something to say about Frank....

This runs deep. Frank was in on it from the beginning. Why wouldn't Frank talk to either the PT or the DT? Because he would implicate himself.

Just one guess out of many.

It's more likely that Frank just does not want to play any role in what happened that night. Sgt. Schultz Syndrome. But it sure would have been nice if Frank had walked in on the arguing to calm the situation, or at least made a discreet call to Security before the shots were fired. So perhaps he feels some responsibility or guilt for not doing something before it became murder.

 

[lithgow1]

Thanks to you as well for the good discussion. I'm wondering if you're thinking of this previous post?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Oscar Pistorius Defense

If so, a second reading should indicate that I wasn't at all comparing the open mindedness of the general camps here. I was specifically defending the general open mindedness of those who lean to Oscar's version from the very specific statement that there was general and hopeless closed mindedness. Sorry I didn't address your follow up - I've read it again just now.

I can see where the perception of avoidance comes in and I think again that everybody could make that argument because it's human nature to see our own thinking and points as the important ones. For example the evidence that at least one bat strike happened after the shooting - and the fairly straightforward inference that they probably all did - is HUGELY sidestepped and downplayed by those who believe other facts are the ones that tell the real story. Conversely I place very little importance on something like Oscar saying he felt on the floor for Reeva then seeming to switch it to 'walked on the floor'. To you that might be avoiding the difficult things or sidestepping something very important, but that is not the intent. It just genuinely seems far less definitive of events than other things to me. I'm sure the same applies to those who think he's guilty of targeting Reeva.

I think that's the one so thanks for that. I see your points but will explain how I came to my 'avoidance theory'. It may take a little while but it was interesting, for me at least, so hopefully ...

I followed much of the trial from the start but didn't find this site till post Mr Dixon. So, I embarked on a mammoth reading before joining and as I said in my very 1st post when I did join, that read-a-thon was interesting as I had the benefit of foresight as to what was to come. I noticed then that some posters had obviously made their minds up as to guilt or at least tilted heavily in that direction while others said their minds were open and they would see what the evidence produced. I did notice though from early on that the open minded ones were being very quick to doubt the testimony of the state's witnesses which others were finding credible.

Fast forward to OP's cross-exam, where I thought some of the open minds would start to doubt his honesty and it just didn't happen, or in very few cases. Straight away every inconsistency was explained away, Nel criticised for nitpicking by people who had defended Roux's cross style and so on. So I began to wonder just how open those minds really were. Ah well, Roger Dixon will persuade a few I thought but again, despite it quickly becoming apparant that he was a bit of a dud, something most expert commentators were saying, his results were mainly staunchly defended. By the time I had gotten to the end of his cross, I had the strong impression that the people who had claimed to be impartial were just as keen to find what supported them and reject or downplay what didn't as those who thought OP was a murderer right from the start. Ultimately, those impressions are what informed my response to your earlier post - I'd witnessed people who claimed to be open to what the evidence showed then shying away from that same evidence when it was presented and cast Pistorius in a bad light. Not all of course, and I haven't seen some of those open minds since, but that was what came through to me. I was disappointed to be honest as I was expecting a few 'converts' and they were much thinner on the ground by the time we got to Mr Dixon leaving the stand than I thought they'd be. Anyway, if you've made it this far, well done!

 

[james83]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 5m
@fernwehmm Wolmarans is up tomorrow, so the defence team’s door and shot analysis will be tested. Should be interesting.

 

[Nausicaa]

It does look like it but his stumps fit inside the prosthetics so you can't simply add this height to his height without prosthetics to get his height with prosthetics.

Well, I'm about the same height as OP and 50 cm from the ground has already reached the middle of my knee, so 62 cm would be well up my thigh. I don't see how he could bend his knees if he was wearing prosthetics that reached above the knee. Unless the figure of 62 cm includes flexible straps - in which case it may accurate but not relevant to anything we've been discussing.

 

[DebinGA]

According to OP's cross with Nel, the defense is going to call witnesses that will testify to the police tampering. According to OP there were hundreds and hundreds of examples in the photos of tampering. I am listening to OP's cross again, as I type, to find out the part about the "open zone" in his security system.

Please let us know if you come across Nel asking OP if his screaming voice was tested, and he answered, "Yes". Nel then asked why Roux didn't present that test during his direct of OP, and OP answered, "I don't know." [per a BBC tweet stream of that day's testimony I just read, who knows where now]. TIA, TorisMom003.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Well, I'm about the same height as OP and 50 cm from the ground has already reached the middle of my knee, so 62 cm would be well up my thigh. I don't see how he could bend his knees if he was wearing prosthetics that reached above the knee. Unless the figure of 62 cm includes flexible straps - in which case it may accurate but not relevant to anything we've been discussing.

Like you say, it probably isn't relevant as we have his height with and without prosthetics. I included the height of the prosthetics because it was one of the measurements given in Mangena's testimony, which I've just listened to and can confirm he does say 62cm.

 

[thewagesofsin]

Thank YOU for the refreshing civility! What do I think? I think they had an intense argument that night. I think that Reeva was a pleaser who wanted to make it all go away, and that when OP went out on the balcony she slipped quietly out of the room to go to the loo. I think she locked the door because she didn't feel safe, given OP's anger. I think OP heard her movement in the bathroom and already feeling angry, went to rage mode that there might be an intruder in the house. I believe he didn't think for a minute about where Reeva was, NIR do I believe he acted to protect her.

Rage sent him with a gun into the bathroom, and rage had him fire 4 shots. I think he knew when he saw her dead that the very worst of him--all his demons-- were going to be brought out into the open. I think he grieved that as much as he grieved her, if not more, and that ever since he has been willing to do or say anything to escape responsibility.

In a lot of ways it doesn't matter, but as revolting as all that is, for me it does not add up to premeditated murder.

Who's been uncivil? Openly commenting on others isn't exactly "civil" either. If you have a problem with a post or poster, why not just report it?

Back on topic, rage still isn't a good reason to fire four shots through a door, regardless of who's behind it. He went to get his gun and used it. If it had just happened to be on him it would be easier to buy. I don't doubt Oscar regretted it the second it was over and would have done anything for Reeva to not be dead right now.

 

[thewagesofsin]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 5m
@fernwehmm Wolmarans is up tomorrow, so the defence team’s door and shot analysis will be tested. Should be interesting.

Yay. Some "real" testimony again. It feels like the past few days have been more character witnesses for the evidence it's given us.

 

[curiousjo]

i think it is fair to say the stipps view was partially obstructed by trees. dr stipp described how the trees covered part of the bathroom window.

looking at the two attachments, i doubt they could see the bedroom balcony [because of the trees].

interesting how directly adversarial the two properties are... op and stipp.

They had 2 balconies - one partially obstructed and the other not.

 

[DebinGA]

Which day was this? I would like to watch the video.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-with-intensive-crossexamination-9259623.html
.......................................................................................................
You have to create time, in your version," Nel said. "You have to build a time gap for Reeva to get to the bathroom. That's why you invented the blue light.""I'm not trying to create time," Pistorius said. "The state is trying to create time in its case. [Ex-girlfriend and state witness] Samantha Taylor said it takes four minutes for me to put my legs on. I did it in court. It takes 30 seconds."
........................................................................................................

 

[crasshopper]

We still work in feet/inches and stones here. Am I abit wrong?
:blushing:

So do we ;-)

I actually just learned from a post yesterday that in SA the old system is referred to as 'imperial' vs the metric system. Perhaps the comment was tongue in cheek but, who knew?

 

[patCee]

We still work in feet/inches and stones here. Am I abit wrong?
:blushing:

For those who use feet and inches, conversion from Mr Fossil's post.

Originally Posted by*Mr Fossil*
From Mangena testimony (courtesy of Juror13)

With his prosthetics on from head to floor, he is 6' and half inch
Without prosthetics on from head to floor, he is 5' 1”.

His shoulder level with prosthetics is 5' 1”.
His shoulder level without prosthetics is 4' 1 and half inch..

Elbow level with prosthetics is 4' 1 and half inch.
Elbow level without prosthetics is 3' 2”.

His arm length stretched out with hand gripped as if holding a gun is 2' 2”.

The prosthetics themselves are 2' and half inch.

 

[Mr Fossil]

So do we ;-)

I actually just learned from a post yesterday that in SA the old system is referred to as 'imperial' vs the metric system. Perhaps the comment was tongue in cheek but, who knew?

Same here in the UK