Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[lithgow1]

I'd love to get started on the problems experienced here in terms of crime scene management, but I would probably end up writing a book. Even in this very special case, where everybody involved knew it was going to turn into a media circus, they still would have been faced with the practical problems.

Because of the large number of crime scenes handled, policemen take short-cuts and don't do things "by the book" in many cases. In terms of the police, there is firstly a lack of numbers, some are properly trained, some of the others are not. Some aren't properly motivated and some are just bad policemen. Those who are properly trained take short-cuts. After taking short-cuts for long periods of time because of the work-load, it becomes the norm and when a case like this presents itself they automatically do things wrong.

I would guess if I compared it to the ideal, the SAPS would have less than 50% of the numbers they actually need. If you take into account that 30% of those my not have received proper training in the basics of crime scene management, you have only 35% of its ideal capacity. Then take into account that 30% of those may be demotivated or overworked and you end up with a police "service" that is only 25% effective.

Now, if I take the management of this specific scene into account (which was not too bad), I would give them an 80% pass-rate here, it means they outperformed the average expected by (80/25 = 3.2) by 220%

Additional info:
Just to place some of the forensic stuff in perspective too... The SAPS used to have Electronic Engineers that would do sound tests, etc... They now have zero electronic engineers. They still have the equipment available, but no-one suitably qualified to testify at the level required.... If you wondered why the SAPS did not do sound tests themselves...

Interesting as always so thanks for that. Re the sound tests you mention at the end, I was having a coffee with an Irish friend who is a lawyer and I was telling him about the sound tests. While being quick to clarify that he doesn't know the system in SA he said that if the sound tests weren't done (by either side) in such a way as to convicnce the court of their validity the judge can request that any tests be re-done with all parties present. He agreed, from my summation of them, that the tests as they currently stand did not sound like they would pass muster.

 

[sleuth-d-]

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/is

For me the word is clearly "if" and definitely neither "is", or “she’s”, or anything else, i.e.:

"I wanted to ask Reeva why if she's phoning the police"

I hear “if” just listening to the video without aids as well as after making a loop with a word either side and listening to it at normal, higher and lower speeds. I've also compared it with OP's "is" and it sounds nothing similar. They are completely different sounds because the “f” is a strongly aspirated sound (with a big puff) formed between teeth and lips while an "s" as an end letter (except when part of a double consonant) is pronounced “iz” as in “fizz” which is an unaspirated sound formed by the tongue vibrating (buzzing) behind the teeth up near the top palette.

Click for pronunciation of "if" - phonetically: /if/
Click for pronunciation of "is" - phonetically: /iz/​

But is it important? IMO no. Neither Nel nor the PT picked it up when hearing it in person (it would have been easier to distinguish for sure) and I am sure Nel’s acutely focussed and attentive ear would not have missed it. And it wouldn't prove anything anyway as it could be explained in so many ways, e.g. a simple stumble or mistake due to OP's nervousness and emotional state under cross, the strange SA syntax, or in its context with the part of the cross to which it pertains, it could it could only too easily argued OP was going to say he wanted to ask Reeva ”... why wasn't she phoning the police”, but changed his mind mid sentence to the less accusatory, "...if she was phoning the police”, so Nel wouldn’t accuse him of blaming her yet again. So too much reasonable doubt IMO to even bother as it is just another red herring as we all change track mid sentence x times a day (Nel included;-)) without any sinister connotation being made, so I don’t expect it to even be mentioned in the PT’s final submission nor reflected in Masipa’s judgement as a part of her findings either.
JMHO

that's a very detailed investigation/explanation, for something that you then say is unimportant.

and anyway, i want to ask oscar why he didn't phone the police.

 

[Viper]

I must say i'm enjoying reading everyones views , i don't join in much as i'm not as articulate as most of you ...... ps the real reason for this post was to show off my new profile pic , feel free to like it jk

Why not use it as your avatar? I like it! Maybe I will steal it and use it as the avatar for one of my other usernames. :wink:

Funny thing is though, Nel did LOL in the courtroom at one of OPs answers! Naughty naughty...

 

[DebinGA]

There's police bungling like failure to don booties and picking up the gun OP admitted to arriving officers that he'd fired. And there's police tampering where OP claims the duvet wasn't on the floor, the fan wasn't on the duvet, the fan wasn't blocking the balcony door, the electrical "clutter" wasn't on the balcony bed side he traversed on stumps-in pitch black darkness-holding his cocked gun ... TWICE, etc. ... as clearly shown in VS's pics and left in evidence uncontested by a DT expert.

 

[JudgeJudi]

... and he couldn't sleep before and so went to his private shooting range in the bathroom, to have success as usual when taking a shot to the head, BAM.

Pistorius posted a photograph of himself at a shooting range in November 2011on Twitter, boasting about his score: "Had a 96% headshot over 300m from 50shots! Bam!"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/14/oscar-pistorius-murder-girlfriends-shooting

 

[sleuth-d-]

.. actually, that is something I meant to have asked because I disputed upthread that OP could've knelt (while on his prosthesis) when he shot at the door because I said that would make the angle all wrong (i.e. he would be slightly too low down .. i.e. he's a bit shorter on his knees that he is standing on his stumps) but, I then heard or read somewhere that the trajectory is slightly upwards .. does anyone have the definitive angle of these shots, where they in fact slightly upwards or were they slightly downwards? I think this could make all the difference if we actually know that.

during mangena's evidence, he showed an image of the laser position from behind running through to the back corner of the toilet area. [the bullet that he said missed]. my recollection is high to slightly lower.

or, to confirm, i am sure one of the admirer's here can use this as an excuse to watch mangena again. especially with the reference to 'behind' in mind.

 

[patCee]

I must say i'm enjoying reading everyones views , i don't join in much as i'm not as articulate as most of you ...... ps the real reason for this post was to show off my new profile pic , feel free to like it jk

Great avatar. I would have written 'this is ..er..a board' but love yours.

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC, when last seen Wollie was imitating Reeva falling back with raised chin just before shots C or D hit her head. I fear for his poor back on Monday as he attemps a double axel to position Reeva's head over the toilet bowl.

 

[moomin]

Why not use it as your avatar? I like it! Maybe I will steal it and use it as the avatar for one of my other usernames. :wink:

Funny thing is though, Nel did LOL in the courtroom at one of OPs answers! Naughty naughty...

Lol , i have changed it now , feel free to use it though Yes i remember him laughing , i think it was at the usual " i can't remember" replies !!!

 

[jay-jay]

during mangena's evidence, he showed an image of the laser position from behind running through to the back corner of the toilet area. [the bullet that he said missed]. my recollection is high to slightly lower.

or, to confirm, i am sure one of the admirer's here can use this as an excuse to watch mangena again. especially with the reference to 'behind' in mind.

.. yes, that's what I had always had in mind until I read somewhere (further upthread, I think) that it was slightly upward (maybe whoever said that was looking at it from the perspective of being inside the toilet, in that case .. i.e. going from the toilet back out through the door to where OP was and therefore would be upward. So, if the trajectory (from where OP was) was downward then I think he had his legs on but was crouching as per the vid of OP at the firing range.

 

[Mystymiss]

A noise then evolves into window sliding open, then slamming against the frame. Then the movement in the toilet evolves into the sound of wood moving. In that case for all he knew the mythical intruder could have had a wooden leg, just like the magazine rack.

In his haste to tailor the evidence his version/s are becoming even more of a farce, you could not make it up if you tried.

Huh?? Why would the so called intruder enter the home through an open widow then shut the window by slamming it shut???? Doesn't work for me.

 

[homegirl]

BIB. And that area, to the far right of the door, looking at it from the outside, is exactly where OP says he would have fired if he had wanted to shoot Mr. Armed Intruder.

Looking at the image, you see a very tight grouping of OPs shots, all three of his shots that were fired after Reeva was first shot in her hip. Although we did not get all of Dr. Saymaan's testimony, Nest did note the location of the shot to Reeva's hip. It was the iliac crest; just run you fingers across the top (front) of your hip, that is the area where the bullet entered. When I look at bullet hole B from its entry in the door and its point of impact on the wall, it is still in the bullseye of shots C and D. All three shots (B, C, and D) form a very good grouping on the bullseye, it is just that B was fired too high to hit Reeva. OP was able to lower his shots for bullets C and D and hit her with great accuracy.

BBM Yep.
Bullet B didn't miss by much. Reeva was in motion. It looks pretty deliberate to me and a pretty good shot for a guy who couldn't see or hear his "target". JMO

Link to the photo I used:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pistorius-trial/pistorius-trial-evidence-revealed-n61796

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I had a dream about the trial last night. lol. In my dream Nel was explaining the pros version saying that there was an argument before the shots and explained a very probable reason for the argument with putting kind of evidence in detail. I remember being shocked and saying Yessss.. He killed her because of that!!
I'm struggling for a few hours :tantrum:but unfortunately can't remember what that motive /subject was ?? maybe I should give a break reading here lol :floorlaugh:

I had many suggestions for your dream and wrote it down. Unfortunately the program kicked me out after another log in and now I'm crying: all for the cat!

 

[jay-jay]

.. yes, that's what I had always had in mind until I read somewhere (further upthread, I think) that it was slightly upward (maybe whoever said that was looking at it from the perspective of being inside the toilet, in that case .. i.e. going from the toilet back out through the door to where OP was and therefore would be upward. So, if the trajectory (from where OP was) was downward then I think he had his legs on but was crouching as per the vid of OP at the firing range.

OK, I've found where I got this from:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

It was something that Wollie apparently said during his cross-exam on Friday ..

"W: If you look at the trajectory (of the probe) in this photo, it (bullet) appears to be going upwards. "

I'll have to check that bit of Friday's vid out to see what it was he was talking about ..

 

[jay-jay]

Huh?? Why would the so called intruder enter the home through an open widow then shut the window by slamming it shut???? Doesn't work for me.

Well, that's not really what OP meant (he meant the sliding window hit the frame where it stops the window opening any further) .. but I do agree, none of his version makes any sense!

 

[BritsKate]

Well, that's not really what OP meant (he meant the sliding window hit the frame where it stops the window opening any further) .. but I do agree, none of his version makes any sense!

I was just about to post the same - and the same conclusion - it's just one of many versions to account for the mysterious 'noise'. Here's a link to a pic that will help illustrate for those who haven't seen the window in question:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-2580764-1C48AE7B00000578-464_634x359.jpg

 

[DebinGA]

I had many suggestions for your dream and wrote it down. Unfortunately the program kicked me out after another log in and now I'm crying: all for the cat!

FromGermany, BritsKate offered a great suggestion for us earlier:

Every so often, WS gremlins eat posts. Usually, IME, these are very often posts someone has spent an hour or more carefully writing, researching and editing as needed. :loser: No rhyme or reason - it just happens.

It's become second nature if I've spent a long time on a post to ctrl+A and right click to copy before I press 'submit reply'. That way, if my post gets sent to the ether I only have to paste and try again.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Every so often, WS gremlins eat posts. Usually, IME, these are very often posts someone has spent an hour or more carefully writing, researching and editing as needed. No rhyme or reason - it just happens.

It's become second nature if I've spent a long time on a post to ctrl+A and right click to copy before I press 'submit reply'. That way, if my post gets sent to the ether I only have to paste and try again.

When it's really late at night I find it hard to concentrate after sitting here for so many hours. It's easy to overlook the rubbish because you know in your head what you're trying to say and you just overlook things. When I know I'm getting to that stage I type it up in a Word doc as it's easier to read and when I'm satisfied it's just CTRL+A (copy) and CTRL+V (paste) onto the message, and you still have the Word doc if something goes wrong.

 

[patCee]

BBM Yep.
Bullet B didn't miss by much. Reeva was in motion. It looks pretty deliberate to me and a pretty good shot for a guy who couldn't see or hear his "target". JMO

Link to the photo I used:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pistorius-trial/pistorius-trial-evidence-revealed-n61796

View attachment 43461

Good pic! I hadn't previously thought too much re 'B' other than it ricocheted.

Whether or not he saw/heard her, my early thoughts were also that 'B' would have made one hellova noise. I'm guessing, but the bullets that hit would have been much quieter, and given him a reason to move to the right, to aim for 'C' and 'D'. If he wanted to kill, RS' scream would have been reason to change his aim in this way. Hmmm! I'm still leaning towards him seeing her.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Ooh. If I were Oscar's defence attorney I would:

- Not introduce witnesses who clearly only heard a portion of events.
- Not put forth that Reeva was the love of his life.
- Admit the relationship was never perfect.
- Solely attack the credibility of the State's ear-witnesses instead of offering malleable variations that only confuse the issue.
- Concede the 3:17 bangshots were likely what caused Reeva's death (while praying like hell the judge believes my client screams like a woman and those pesky State witnesses were confused with the lateness of the hour and the dramatic events involved.)
- Not imply, ever, that the head shot occurred first - because it was well remembered weeks and months later after every witness, to include the defence, testified the hip shot was first.
- Not suggest double taps only to have to later admit culpability for a mistake.

In reality though, Roux will does have a next to impossible task. It's difficult to refute what five witnesses heard but I think some of what the defence has put forward (like the neighbours) has very little legal merit and does nothing to raise reasonable doubt at all - much less refute the State's assertions. Even if I were the attorney in this case and followed my own advice there are still big glaring inconsistencies I'd struggle to explain. The 3:17 bangshots killing her fits the medical testimony and provides a more cohesive timeline BUT then who was Oscar screaming like a woman at for about 15 minutes before shooting Reeva/intruder? KWIM?