Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Val1]

Just pondering the possibility . . .

There was argument/disagreement. Reeva slept in spare bedroom. Early hours, Reeva did go to the bathroom. Oscar thought intruder . . the rest unfolds.

His hedging at times whilst on the stand possibly due to if he says they had argued etc, he'd immediately be deemed guilty??

Wouldn't he have then shot her in the spare bedroom's bathroom? OP's own testimony stated he had his own bedroom locked down with a cricket bat wedged into the door for added security, unless you think she somehow managed to climb up to his bathroom window just to use his loo with the "broken" toilet room light, or did he chase her from the spare bedroom into his toilet room all the while still thinking she was an intruder?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00386/122359026__386289b.jpg

 

[wb180]

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

OMG, for the sake of your loved ones, please please call the ambulance. This is basic stuff. Don't people get educated with this stuff anymore?? Second time hearing this. That's what they are there for!!

They have professional paramedics onboard, response time training, medical equipment, direct contacts with hospital, flashing lights!!

So if your loved one has a critical injury (or was shot three times, and one was to the head), do NOT call your mate and drive ur own car to the hospital without even calling for 911.

I know people dont like common sense but this is as common sense as possible.

 

[alioop]

Hi Alioop,
Nice to see you on the Thread. Captivating case IMO. Agreed the 'woman's blood-curdling screams' before the last 'bangshot' is the most outstanding piece of critical evidence in the murder Trial IMO. :seeya:

Big hi back to you Fuskier. Yep I too have sucked into the strange vortex of this trial though I don't post much as everything is well covered by so many clever posters here. It's certainly passing time for me while we await the Gerard Baden Clay Brisbane trial next month. For those not familiar with this case he is another man charged with murder of his partner, though in that case his wife and mother of 3 young girls. He claims she was watching the footy show on tv when he went to bed. Her badly decomposed body was found 10 days later stuck in mud under a bridge 14 Kms from the family home, her car and purse at home. He had a mistress plus several girlfriends and his wife had lots of life insurances. Oh and he was in big financial trouble and had been begging people for substantial loans.

 

[wb180]

No.

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

What's with the Oscar speak?

So you don't believe Oscar knew he was going to kill someone but then it is a reasonable assumption that firing 4 bullets a small toilet would very likely kill someone.

Given OSCAR pulled trigger, your two statements MUST mean Oscar should know if he started shooting he will kill someone.

Unless the gun shot itself or he was mentally insane at the time. If that's ur argument then fine.

 

[atthelake]

Judge is a bit of a media *advertiser censored*, wouldn't you say? I mean that with all due respect.

Nothing comparable to Nancy Grace in USA . I have very much enjoyed the SA links shared

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[atthelake]

No.

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

Yeppers ...see you are on board with reasonable and very likely .

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Suthrnqt]

Judge is a bit of a media *advertiser censored*, wouldn't you say? I mean that with all due respect.

Conflicting statements there, don't you think?

 

[atthelake]

I am unsure how many know about the good Judge Christopher Greenland's site on You Tube. Lots of the legal round table discussions together with others. I have found them all very interesting. Many raise issues we cover here. This is the link

http://www.youtube.com/user/chrisng53

Feynman here labeling him a media *advertiser censored* ...yet i find him very informative .

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[jassy writer]

I'm sorry I don't know where the confusion is. The noise he heard before Oscar shot was Reeva's movement in the toilet. He did not hear noises after the first shot he just shot.

Only according to Oscar's version.

This is what OP supporters do.... they accept his version as the truth, over and above all evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that he has already been proven to lie under oath.

 

[toevlugsoord]

I am unsure how many know about the good Judge Christopher Greenland's site on You Tube. Lots of the legal round table discussions together with others. I have found them all very interesting. Many raise issues we cover here. This is the link

http://www.youtube.com/user/chrisng53

Just started watching the videos and am loving them - thanks!

 

[PPKik]

BBM - Here you go. I typed it word for word from the Sky News round up a few threads ago.
Martin Hood is a defence attorney, expert witness, and licensed firearm holder.
-------------------------------

"The evidence has been that Oscar was shooting one handedly from a position where the gun was at his waist level, and in my experience, and I own more than one firearm, in order to shoot a group like that, you have to have a very firm grip on the firearm, and normally that group is with two hands. And the fact that the group is relatively small, shows that Oscar knew how to hold the firearm properly, and in all probability in my view, and if I were called to be an expert, I would say this -
he held it with two hands, and he held it very deliberately to get that grouping at that level.

When you're holding a firearm with one hand, and you're in that very excited state of mind that Pistorius said he was in,
you're going to have a lot of shake, and you're not going to get such a small group as that. It's going to be all over the place. The fact that it isn't, in my view suggests that he had far more control than he actually is prepared to admit".

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #29

Thank you for taking the time to type all that out. I did, in fact, read that, when I was trying to research "tight grouping" in this case.

I completely disagree with Martin Hood. I found his claims and/or assessment bizarre.

(Martin Hood specializes in firearm law, which is totally different than knowing about shooting. As far as owning firearms, OP owned firearms, too, so that is not a convincing statement of knowledge or authority.

At the distance OP shot, a tight group would look like a bullseye, whether he shot with one or two hands. With two hands, from that distance, a tight grouping might even look like a big hole, or maybe four holes within size of a small gas cap.

The rounds OP fired looked to me as if he were shooting for maximum coverage, as shooting in a tight group would not make sense, unless he could see his target.

I am neither an attorney, nor a paid "expert," but I am trained in the use of multiple firearms and have taken a 40 hour instructor course, on top of many hours of shooting and advanced training at ranges. Martin Hood's assertion may be trying to prove something from his view, but I don't see what is is, pro or con Oscar.

After trying in vain to listen to and understand Mr. Wolmarans, and enduring the mind-numbing idiocy and dishonesty of "expert witnesses," such as Doc $camuels and LaViolette in the Arias trial, I would not put much faith in the idea of expert witnesses (or gun owners for that matter!) until they prove they know what they are talking about.

OP was a licensed firearm holder.


ETA: Link of explanatory photo

http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/wp-c...3-FWB-300S-target-air-rifle-BKL-RS-target.jpg

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HauntsForHope View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 At 16:59 the truth comes out....

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

I'm glad this one has come back up for renewed discussion. I have listened to it several times now and each time I'm getting what sounds like a short word beginning with "h" between "why" and "she's". This leaves me unsure of exactly what he was saying. Can anyone fill in that blank or tell me I'm as deaf as Woollie?
Certainly that statement looks very bad for OP but the conveniently blurred articulation might get him off the hook. If for instance he meant to say, "I wanted to ask Reeva whether [or if] she was phoning the police," this might save his bacon.

Nope, he definitely said, "I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police." Perhaps it was the sinus noise from his "sobbing" that has you confused? Also, he keeps saying he was screaming... long after everyone testified that the screaming had stopped and before the witnesses claimed to have heard a man wailing/crying. Obviously he was then "screaming" like a man... in a tone that noone could hear. :facepalm:

 

[PPKik]

Conflicting statements there, don't you think?

I think Feynman meant it that way!

I love Judge Greenland whether or not he is labeled. His facebook page is cool too.

 

[Karmady]

OMG, for the sake of your loved ones, please please call the ambulance. This is basic stuff. Don't people get educated with this stuff anymore?? Second time hearing this. That's what they are there for!!

They have professional paramedics onboard, response time training, medical equipment, direct contacts with hospital, flashing lights!!

So if your loved one has a critical injury (or was shot three times, and one was to the head), do NOT call your mate and drive ur own car to the hospital without even calling for 911.

I know people dont like common sense but this is as common sense as possible.

haha...please don't concern yourself with my loved ones. I guaranty I will get my kid to the ER faster than the ambulance would arrive. Probably by a good ten minutes. Depends on where one lives, I suppose, but I'm not wasting 15 minutes calling 911 and waiting for the EMT's if I have a choice and can manage to drive myself.

Common sense would tell you that if the waiting time for an ambulance is longer than it would take you to get to the ER yourself, don't waste the time. Seems pretty simple to me

 

[lithgow1]

haha...please don't concern yourself with my loved ones. I guaranty I will get my kid to the ER faster than the ambulance would arrive. Probably by a good ten minutes. Depends on where one lives, I suppose, but I'm not wasting 15 minutes calling 911 and waiting for the EMT's if I have a choice and can manage to drive myself.

Common sense would tell you that if the waiting time for an ambulance is longer than it would take you to get to the ER yourself, don't waste the time. Seems pretty simple to me

Common sense would tell me to not pick up someone with brain matter coming out of wounds to their head and carry them down the stairs. I'm also very dubious that an ambulance or other emergency service would advise that course of action if they were aware of the full extent of the injuries.

 

[Val1]

Thank you for taking the time to type all that out. I did, in fact, read that, when I was trying to research "tight grouping" in this case.

I completely disagree with Martin Hood. I found his claims and/or assessment bizarre.

(Martin Hood specializes in firearm law, which is totally different than knowing about shooting. As far as owning firearms, OP owned firearms, too, so that is not a convincing statement of knowledge or authority.

At the distance OP shot, a tight group would look like a bullseye, whether he shot with one or two hands. With two hands, from that distance, a tight grouping might even look like a big hole, or maybe four holes within size of a small gas cap.

The rounds OP fired looked to me as if he were shooting for maximum coverage, as shooting in a tight group would not make sense, unless he could see his target.

I am neither an attorney, nor a paid "expert," but I am trained in the use of multiple firearms and have taken a 40 hour instructor course, on top of many hours of shooting and advanced training at ranges. Martin Hood's assertion may be trying to prove something from his view, but I don't see what is is, pro or con Oscar.

After trying in vain to listen to and understand Mr. Wolmarans, and enduring the mind-numbing idiocy and dishonesty of "expert witnesses," such as Doc $camuels and LaViolette in the Arias trial, I would not put much faith in the idea of expert witnesses (or gun owners for that matter!) until they prove they know what they are talking about.

OP was a licensed firearm holder.

I suggest he was shooting for maximum coverage, at least until he shifted to the right after missing the second shot and caught a glimpse of where RS was on the magazine rack.

 

[Laf]

haha...please don't concern yourself with my loved ones. I guaranty I will get my kid to the ER faster than the ambulance would arrive. Probably by a good ten minutes. Depends on where one lives, I suppose, but I'm not wasting 15 minutes calling 911 and waiting for the EMT's if I have a choice and can manage to drive myself.

Common sense would tell you that if the waiting time for an ambulance is longer than it would take you to get to the ER yourself, don't waste the time. Seems pretty simple to me

Just wondering how you would practice CPR or apply pressure on a bleeding wound while driving? Seems to me that after the 10 minute drive the patient would no longer need a hospital. If your loved one had suffered a cardiac arrest or serious injury an ambulance would be medically necessary.

 

[Karmady]

Common sense would tell me to not pick up someone with brain matter coming out of wounds to their head and carry them down the stairs. I'm also very dubious that an ambulance or other emergency service would advise that course of action if they were aware of the full extent of the injuries.

Idk, if I saw brain matter, I'd think either this person is dead already or will die pronto absent a miracle. I'd probably take the chance of doing something rather than nothing if I were thinking rationally. Which I wouldn't be if I'd just shot my house guest such that their brain matter was coming out.

jmo

 

[Suthrnqt]

Thank you for taking the time to type all that out. I did, in fact, read that, when I was trying to research "tight grouping" in this case.

I completely disagree with Martin Hood. I found his claims and/or assessment bizarre.

(Martin Hood specializes in firearm law, which is totally different than knowing about shooting. As far as owning firearms, OP owned firearms, too, so that is not a convincing statement of knowledge or authority.

At the distance OP shot, a tight group would look like a bullseye, whether he shot with one or two hands. With two hands, from that distance, a tight grouping might even look like a big hole, or maybe four holes within size of a small gas cap.

The rounds OP fired looked to me as if he were shooting for maximum coverage, as shooting in a tight group would not make sense, unless he could see his target.

I am neither an attorney, nor a paid "expert," but I am trained in the use of multiple firearms and have taken a 40 hour instructor course, on top of many hours of shooting and advanced training at ranges. Martin Hood's assertion may be trying to prove something from his view, but I don't see what is is, pro or con Oscar.

After trying in vain to listen to and understand Mr. Wolmarans, and enduring the mind-numbing idiocy and dishonesty of "expert witnesses," such as Doc $camuels and LaViolette in the Arias trial, I would not put much faith in the idea of expert witnesses (or gun owners for that matter!) until they prove they know what they are talking about.

OP was a licensed firearm holder.

So the experts in this case, Wolmarans and Mangena, witnesses, and Hood, commentator, Do Not know what they are talking about, but you Do?
Imagine that!!
opcorn

 

[Karmady]

Just wondering how you would practice CPR or apply pressure on a bleeding wound while driving? Seems to me that after the 10 minute drive the patient would no longer need a hospital. If your loved one had suffered a cardiac arrest or serious injury an ambulance would be medically necessary.

I did say you'd want help and that's what the help would be for. Driving or first aid, if needed. Sure, there are circumstances where it would make more sense to wait. But a gunshot to the head doesn't seem to be one of them if you've got help handy.

Just for example, when my son was little he had very bad asthma. He'd start sucking air and turning blue lipped very quickly. I drove him to the ER in the middle of the night several times. No problems. I never would have waited for an ambulance with my baby turning blue and not being able to breath.

jmo