The "hurdle" meeting earlier that day is a key piece of the puzzle imo. Reeva sent a consoling msg to OP that afternoon about fully understanding if he felt the need to be with his family that night. Valentine's Eve + OP Horrible Hurdle Day + Reeva's Tropica debut 2 days away created a deadly emotional brew.
Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
The "hurdle" meeting earlier that day is a key piece of the puzzle imo. Reeva sent a consoling msg to OP that afternoon about fully understanding if he felt the need to be with his family that night. Valentine's Eve + OP Horrible Hurdle Day + Reeva's Tropica debut 2 days away created a deadly emotional brew.
Thanks for that pic, sleuth-d. I bet if all 4 bullets missed Reeva their ricocheting/fragmenting around that tiny cubicle would have seriously injured her, even in that untouched back right corner.
Suthrnqt
Verified Luddite
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 102
Yes, my last post never appeared either. After 5 yrs on WS, I have learned not to take it personal. Besides, mods know better than us mere forum members.
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.
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
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.
turaj
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,782
- Reaction score
- 17,574
I rather liked Woolie and found him to be too upfront and experienced to do anything other than telling it as he sees it. His statement to the effect that no one honestly knows what went on behind that toilet door is spot on and quickly agreed to by Nel despite the fact that everyone goes on endlessly about the events behind the door. Because I am not into all the details of this trial as so many experts and watchers it seems so clear that she was shot dead and there is no dispute on that...and no one knows what happened behind that door and I'm not sure at the end of the day it makes that much difference (a statement that probably shows my ignorance of the case). What I heard Woolie do besides providing some lighthearted moments in the courtroom was to basically validate that Capt. Magena knows what he is doing and he would agree with him. Don't see what he is really doing for the defense. Time to get him off the stand before Nell gives him more homework (finding papers) and makes a date to have a beer with him.
:floorlaugh:
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
also, is it natural to shoot downwards rather than straight at a perceived/hidden target? these 'random' shots all followed the same basic trajectory. slightly dipped. high to lower.
another factor which makes the shots look 'aimed'. imo.
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 31,364
Nice try Lithgow, and all the rest of the gang, but you're "flogging a dead horse". It's the biggest windup and as the kids say, "Like, I'm so over it".
Thank you it has been annoying me like everything else in this case that is unclear and unsubstantiated
I'm not so sure .. I was absolutely stunned by the way he changed his opinion about Reeva sitting on the magazine rack .. he initially said, in no uncertain terms, that she would've been sitting on it and then later, after an adjournment, he then said she was sitting on the floor (and I dearly hope that the DT had not consulted with him during that adjournment for him to so drastically have changed his, previously fairly firm, opinion on that).
i agree that ricochet had a high chance of hitting, but i don't think he was shooting and hoping to hit with ricochet. [hope that makes sense.
] i think the 'lines' of the shots show aiming at a relatively small area [corridor] within the toilet space.BarnacleZA
New Member
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...
.. 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.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
What did I miss? I'd like to party too!
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
Erm .. sadly we can't see it, moomin! Hopefully your avvie is a moomin one, love those!
From my understanding its importance is in the time spent to fire the shots into the door - the state claims there was a gap between shot 1 and shots 2, 3 and 4, giving RS time to scream and for OP to hear her - if he heard her and kept firing that is the muder of RS charge 'proven'. The defence are claiming it was four swift shots, not allowing him time to hear whoever was behind the door. So they are trying to work out what shots hit and when to see which version is the most likely based on her wounds, where she was found etc. All this means that tomorrow's continued cross-examining of Mr Wolmerans should be interesting.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/is
For me the word is clearly "if" and definitely neither "is", or shes, 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.
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 Nels 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 wouldnt 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 dont expect it to even be mentioned in the PTs final submission nor reflected in Masipas judgement as a part of her findings either.
JMHO
For me the word is clearly "if" and definitely neither "is", or shes, 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/
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 Nels 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 wouldnt 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 dont expect it to even be mentioned in the PTs final submission nor reflected in Masipas judgement as a part of her findings either.
JMHO
i thought more would be made of this - even if only to establish state of mind on the day.
reeva mentioned it as some kind of headache [can't remember the actual word used].
i can only assume it has been investigated and nothing conclusive - for either side - happened at the meeting.
- Status