Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Val1]

How do you figure that? The bullet holes are mostly in the right side of the door, the only reason they didn't hit the right side of the toilet room is because OP wasn't aiming in that direction, he was aiming towards RS, or the toilet itself if you'd rather believe that... don't forget the shower was on the right and the door was pretty much flush with that wall. Ohhh that must be it, OP was so worried he'd accidentally hit the shower door and be hit with his own bullet that he had to aim to the left side of the toilet room.:facepalm:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73678000/jpg/_73678623_pistorius_door_624in.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ASXTXHoOs48/Uah89M8HYYI/AAAAAAAAD8o/YGhF6LQPc_Y/s400/24-hour-usage-only-1923561.jpg

Just floating off this post to make the point about where OP had to have been standing... W. agreed he had no issues with OP having stood where the tripod is in the following pics, at least for bullets A and B.

Nel was asking about whether W. would also agree that OP would have had to have moved a little further right(a step or two) into the bathroom towards in front of the sinks to have fired C and D to keep the trajectory of those intact because otherwise the angle would be off, but I admit, I have to review that testimony to confirm whether W. had rambled off on something else at that point besides trying to say that OP had maybe bent his wrist, I'd dozed off... or Nel had just taken that opportunity to break for the weekend.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/laser-pointer-2.png?w=300&h=184

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/laser-pointer-showing-trajectory-of-bullet-b.png

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/30.png?w=300&h=225

 

[fox1lady]

Or he heard a noise that he perceived as an aggressive intruder and he shot at the noise.

That makes it murder right there !

 

[Carmelita]

When all is said and done, the only aggressive person that night was Oscar Pistorius. He shouldn't have been allowed to carry firearms, they should do psychological tests on people before giving them licenses. The guy is clearly crazy and obsessed to the point of going shooting on a range in the middle of the night when he can't sleep!!!

I'm sorry but people like that need to be kept off the streets especially those that claim that....
"I wasn't aiming...",
"I didn't pull the trigger.."
"it wasn't my fault.."
those people that take absolutely no responsibility for causing death and danger to innocent people.

I have repeatedly said that I think Oscar is emotionally unstable. I even stated that in my opinion Oscar had no business being a gun owner but it is easy to say now as the fruit of his emotional instability has resulted in Reeva's death.

 

[MsMarple]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how, if they actually do go forward with it, the defense is going to present the “OP screams like a woman” evidence. If it's not done under controlled, double-blind conditions then it's just an informal subjective test. As in, “Here, listen to OP scream; does he sound like a woman to you?” :waitasec: What am I missing here?

There's zero value in that. How is that evidence? It's more like an emotional ploy. I get that it can't be totally objective but done properly it might help clear up some issues.

For that matter I'm looking forward to hearing the full reports on all the sound recordings. So far there's been no testimony about the models they used or gear or results or anything. In order to do a proper simulation of the bang sounds they'd need to replicate conditions as closely as possible to that night, including ground temperature, humidity, distances, structural barriers, topography, etc.. Why didn't they just hire an acoustical engineer?

MOO

 

[Val1]

1) Bullet hole A was fired while Reeva was still standing and before Reeva started screaming bloody murder.

2) Bullet hole B was fired when Reeva's screams were falling, her body and the sound of her screams were moving. That bullet missed.

3) But Val, bullet holes C and D are so close together. Those are the two bullets that hit Reeva in her arm and in her head. Groupings do not get much closer than that.

Yes I agree... btw, I think Monday might be Nel's cross on the light "show" that iirc all the wives came for... if you do a search for W. on lisasalinger's page he does pop up a lot! Dixon mentions the draft report of W.'s... the light tests, the sound tests, the reconstructions... definitely worth rereading over the weekend.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/oscar-trial-day-24-april-16-dixon/

 

[Carmelita]

That makes it murder right there !

I am not versed in SA law its nuances or the judges leeway in coming to a decision. I have read quite a bit of the legal definitions and analysis's of CH and PM. I know it is said that "disability" has not been part of the equation of a judgement as of yet in SA, it has also been stated that extreme situations may play a role in a judges decision.

So it is a bit ambiguous.

 

[Feynman]

Thanks I would disagree with Woolie.

He can be wooly, but the name is Wollie.

Up to down, the grouping is tight. From left to right, A is on its own a some to the left, while B, C, D are pretty tight on the right. OP is certainly not firing randomly. Given the adrenaline and the supposed terror and panic, fairly tight I would say. So I have to go with Captain Kang ..., er, Captain Wolmarans, on this.

 

[Carmelita]

That's good to know I had you as a op worshipers
I think they have more than enough to get homicide the only witness left has lied so many times under oath.. However I think more stuff is yet to be revealed

Interesting.

If I may, what made you think that I am an Oscar groupie :loveyou:?

 

[Fuskier]

And for me, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Putting myself in the position of a person who has mistakenly shot and likely killed a loved one instead of an intruder -- or pretty much anyone other than an intruder for that matter, The absolute last thing I would be worried about is preserving the "crime scene." I wouldn't even be thinking of my actions as a crime and the bathroom as a crime scene. jmo

IMO there's an assumption that the alleged murderer 'loved' his victim. See relationship dynamics in Reeva's text to OP dated 26th January. She was shot to death and her brains blown out by the same person two weeks later. Sorry it's dark, but this is where these things fester. This shut down of feeling does not come from a place of 'love'. My opinion only.

 

[Karmady]

IMO there's an assumption that the alleged murderer 'loved' his victim. See relationship dynamics in Reeva's text to OP dated 26th January. She was shot to death and her brains blown out by the same person two weeks later. Sorry it's dark, but this is where these things fester. IMHO.

No, I absolutely don't think he loved her, nor she him. They'd only been dating three months. Even my teenaged daughter knows you don't "love" someone after three months. That's why I added the part about anyone except an actual intruder. My statement would apply to a family member, a new or old romantic interest, a dinner guest....and so on.

jmo

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Errrrrrr.......Four shots into a teeny tiny space with great odds of ricochet hits? It would've been astonishly terrible shooting if more than one bullet didn't hit whoever was behind the door.

So that right there according to SA law is murder right?

 

[Lochlynsmom]

And for me, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Putting myself in the position of a person who has mistakenly shot and likely killed a loved one instead of an intruder -- or pretty much anyone other than an intruder for that matter, The absolute last thing I would be worried about is preserving the "crime scene." I wouldn't even be thinking of my actions as a crime and the bathroom as a crime scene. jmo

Exactly you would have called the equivalent of 911! Not a friend.

 

[Carmelita]

If I were Oscar’s defense attorney I would raise the trajectory of the bullets to show were they would have gone into the door if Oscar was wearing his prosthetics, it would be a reasonable assumption to argue in the heat of the moment that Oscar would not have made adjustments in his firing for being on his stumps. Giving credence to a why the bullets had a lower impact range.

 

[Carmelita]

I think the poster was just joking....you know humour. Sarcasm.

Yes I certainly did miss the humor if that was the case.

 

[soozieqtips]

IMO there's an assumption that the alleged murderer 'loved' his victim. See relationship dynamics in Reeva's text to OP dated 26th January. She was shot to death and her brains blown out by the same person two weeks later. Sorry it's dark, but this is where these things fester. This shut down of feeling does not come from a place of 'love'. My opinion only.

BBM - I don't feel that OP loved Reeva. From how he treated her in the short space of time they were together, he didn't seem to care much about her at all or respect her. Much of what she did 'displeased' him, and she spent lots of energy trying to placate him over the most minor things he took issue over. OP was used to being number one, and all the stroking, soothing, and odd behaviour we've seen in court from his family and psychologist just highlights how immature and needy he is. Not someone you'd choose for a partner, and Reeva may well have decided to end it with him on the night she was murdered. I wonder if OP is even capable of loving someone unconditionally, given how he expects to have his own needs met as a priority above all others.

 

[Carmelita]

My apologies if that is the case................you do agree though that Oscar knew he was going to kill the person behind the door whoever it was don't you?

Yes or no will do

No.

Do I think it would be a reasonable assumption that firing 4 bullets into a small toilet would very likely kill someone, yes.

 

[Feynman]

BIB : I'm sure he has but making an issue out of the timeline -especially when the DT have been so deliberately vague about it - could have been potentially harmful, I think. For all the PT knew there could well have been a DT ear witness who said something like' "I am a watch repairer and all the time keeping devices in my house keep perfect time, as I am passionate about this. I was awake for hours on the night in question, writing an essay about "Time Keeping Devices in Victorian Literature". I distinctly heard two sets of bangs, one at 3:12 am and the other at 3:15 am. I am absolutely convinced of the times because I was boiling an egg and I am also passionate about perfectly soft boiled eggs..." Had Nel made an issue about it being impossible for OP to see Reeva's last breaths after 10-15 minutes (based on the Stipps' testimonies) he would have had to back track. As it turns out all the DT really gave us was women imitating the wailing/crying they identified as being from a man who says he screams like a woman.

I also wonder if trying to be firm about the time line would have necessitated the PT doing their own sound tests and it's been so much more fun watching the DT bumble through theirs.

Finally, one of the big differences with a judge only trial seems to be that more evidence/information is presented without a lot of explanation. In a jury trial theres a lot more of "Im going to tell you about xyz", followed by "Right now Im showing you xyz" and then "As we have demonstrated with xyz..." whereas more in this trial seem to be left to the judge's discretion.

Anyway, back to the door - I'm lurking whilst supposedly looking after the kids - and I'm enjoying the debate.

OK maybe. But we have these panels on Channel 199 comprising, supposedly, some sharp legal minds, including a judge with lots of experience, various gun experts and the like, and there's no reason for them to be shy on the "last breaths" issue if/when it occurs to them. But it appears that this potential smoking gun has eluded them so far.

 

[fox1lady]

I'm not sure if these articles have already been posted but I found them both very interesting and spot on with my thoughts.

http://www.biznews.com/health-bizne...pistorius-performance-may-prove-mental-state/

http://www.biznews.com/health-biznews-com/2014/04/oscar-pistorius-reason-not-guilty-murder/

 

[Paysee]

I disagree with Woolie on this point because he is wrong.

Wow. On what expertise do you base this opinion?

 

[Karmady]

Exactly you would have called the equivalent of 911! Not a friend.

If someone has a likely deadly injury in my home in the wee hours, I'm not sure that I would call 911 except from the car. I know that if one of my kids was hurt badly I absolutely would not wait for an ambulance, for example. I'd take them to the hospital myself. I might call a neighbor, too. I might not. Idk if his motives for calling the neighbor first were pure, but I wouldn't say it's completely unfathomable if your goal is to get the injured person to the hospital asap rather than wait. You'd want someone to help you, including in the car. Idk how long it takes to get an ambulance in SA or how far the hospital was from his house, though.

jmo