Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8

[minor4th]

Also bringing this from last thread:

From poster Minor4th:

Did you watch that videotape demonstration? Yes, the sound of the cricket bat hitting the door did indeed travel that far and sounded almost identical to the gunshots.

****Minor, I was following another case where we were asked to watch a video demonstration and believe that what they were suggesting could be possible from watching the demonstration. And I did not agree that it was as easy as portrayed in the video. So, in this case it is beginning to take on the same current, as in, watch the video and believe it. Well sorry, I am not going to suspend common sense just on the basis of one videotape, where I was not there to witness the making of the tape. Where the circumstances and surrounding of the video are far different from the circumstances and surroundings of Reeva's murder.

So I can see any number of video tapes wanting me to believe otherwise, I am still going to go on my common sense, which tells me that a cricket bat sound hitting a door will not travel and sound like those of a gunshot.

The door was not moving. Only the bat was. It is going to have a different sound from say, a cricket bat hitting a fast-moving ball during a match, b/c the ball is moving at a great velocity. In this case, it was a bat hitting a stationary door.

JMO.

Well, I agree that a youtube video should not be taken as conclusive proof. We'll have to see what evidence is brought forth in trial. In my mind, however, it was helpful to hear the two sounds and their similarity.

 

[Trooper]

He gives an affidavit that incriminates himself - and when faced with being charged changes his story to incriminate Oscar in order to avoid being prosecuted. Hmm

that sequence is incorrect..

Checking the audio tape of this segment will define the exact sequence of the affidavit , the bail hearing affidavit, then the trial affidavit, then the negotiated immunity under strict conditions with harsh penalties.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all of you who post updates for us. Thank you so, so much - your efforts are really appreciated!

------------------------

RE: Bathroom photo

I agree with the person who wrote that if the head shot had come first, Reeva would have been instantly down, likely on the far side of the toilet.

Look carefully at the photo of the door. Notice where the portion of the door is gone. Look at the edge of the upper panel remaining. That does NOT appear to be a solid wood door. It appears to be a "composite" door. Of about a 1 inch (2.5 cm.) thickness - or maybe a little more.

Doors can be: Solid wood - made with thick pieces of solid wood; "Hollow core" - there is nothing but air "inside" the panels; or of "composite" composition, which will be sold as a "solid core door". That lighter colored interior is usually a pressed sawdust and glue product. They laminate a thin veneer of wood over the composition product and it has weight and is called a solid core door. Which is different from a solid wood door.

There is enough thickness to that upper panel to actually determine the DIRECTION of the bullets that went through it. My understanding is that it has already been stated that the bullets went through the door from high to low. Indicating the shooter was up high, not down low.

I am hoping for very good forensics on this door. Oscar would never have thought of these kind of telltale things during the commission of this murder.

-------------------------

Re: Variations in witness stories

I am more than sure that the judges are used to hearing eyewitnesses tell their stories in court. Think about it. We think WE "follow trials" - these people do it for a living! Every day, all day. (Well, in South Africa a "day" of court time seems to be a bit shorter than here in the U.S.) But we also have great variations in court trials within the U.S. California trials are often quite lengthy - think O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson cases. East Coast cases usually move right along. Especially cases in the Northeast around New York, New England, etc.

I would think that an experienced judge has an almost built-in "judgement scale" that allows them to separate the truth-tellers from the liars. I also think these judges are quite familiar with the defense technique being used by Mr. Roux. The man has nothing else to work with here!

I do NOT think Oscar Pistorius is going to do well on the stand. And I think Mr. Roux well knows this. What do we think the chances are that at some point early in this, Mr. Roux advised OP to take a plea?

------------------

Who here thinks that after court ended yesterday the Judge communicated to Mr. Roux that she would NOT put up with another "Day of Puking" in her courtroom and that he (Mr. Roux) had better do whatever is neccessary to see to it that this behavior did not EVER happen again?

---------------------

Last but not least, I want to say something to those on the board who are residents of South Africa.

I had no idea until this trial started and I began reading about your country about the problems of violence, home invasions, robberies, etc. within your country. When I heard that your murder rate is six times ours here in the U.S. I was genuinely shocked. Because I thought we were IT. I honestly thought the U.S. had the highest rates of everything.

And I want to say to you, that we understand what it is like to love your country and to be proud of it, and yet to be so very unhappy at some of the things that are going on. And to really not know what to do about it.

It is easy enough to say "Well I would not want to live in a country where things like this happen all the time". That does not change that THIS is where we live. And yes, we are uneasy about the numerous school shootings, mall shootings, theatre shootings. This is not the way we grew up in the U.S.
And we don't know what to do about it.

My youngest grandson is almost 8. They have "lockdown safety drills" at his school on a regular basis now. I asked him about this and he said "They tell us it's because there might be a bear outside, Grandma. But we all know it is because it might be a bad man with a gun." Out of the mouths of babes, at eight years old!

Hang in there South Africa - we feel your pain!

 

[Really?]

The context of this interchange was Roux was insisting that Darrin was wearing track suit pants at the restaurant... that Roux claimed Darrin said this. to the owner that the gun caught in his track suit pants pocket.

Darrins voice got a little bit firmer at this point.. he said that nonsense came from twitter... he himself has NEVER worn tracksuit pants, and not to a restaurant.. it really offended Darrin that this lapse in sartorial normality could even be considered. Shorts were what he was wearing.. I assume tailored walk shorts, summer uniform for SA's..

he didn't admit to following the trial, on twitter, but the jumble of stuff that's been going on for a year.. It was a moment in the trial that made me grin.. Darrin was more cranky about being accused of wearing track suit pants, than all his speeding, gun carrying , taking-the-blame days of yesteryear.

BBM ...this made me laugh. Being married to a Brit I have to agree.....How dare they suggest tracky bottoms to a restaurant !!

 

[canny]

He gives an affidavit that incriminates himself - and when faced with being charged changes his story to incriminate Oscar in order to avoid being prosecuted. Hmm

Epic fail. In accepting a plea bargain he has accepted to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing by the truth, the State can revoke his immunity from prosecution at any given time in the future if incriminating evidence is produced that he has lied under oath in the trial,as he has accepted his sworn affidavit was malafide. Now, tell me why will any accused commit suicide twice?

Your same logic is applicable to the man accused of premeditated murder in this case however I find it perplexing that you refuse to debate OP's BH affidavit and not surprisingly you have given it a clean bill of health even though now his lawyer has virtually rewritten the whole document.

Can you educate us on the penalty reserved for an accused charged with premeditated murder who submits an false affidavit under oath in his Bail hearing ?

 

[Onlyamum]

I think also that the height of OP without prosthetics should be taken into consideration. I have a link that may or may not be 100% true but near enough. It says he is 5 ft without prosthetics and 6 ft with them. 5ft is a height to be well enough above the half way mark of the door no?

Although feel free to have a go at me as I am a 99% lurker and no professional but I thought this may be of use

<modsnip>

 

[minor4th]

Epic fail. In accepting a plea bargain he has accepted to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing by the truth, the State can revoke his immunity from prosecution at any given time in the future if incriminating evidence is produced that he has lied under oath in the trial,as he has accepted his sworn affidavit was malafide. Now, tell me why will any accused commit suicide twice?

Your same logic is applicable to the man accused of premeditated murder in this case however I find it perplexing that you refuse to debate OP's BH affidavit and not surprisingly you have given it a clean bill of health even though now his lawyer has virtually rewritten the whole document.

Can you educate us on the penalty reserved for an accused charged with premeditated murder who submits an false affidavit under oath in his Bail hearing ?

Seriously? The State is trying to convict Oscar Pistorius - do you not see Darrin's motive to give a version the state likes in order to get a deal? It's just like jailhouse snitches who testify for the prosecution and receive probation or immunity or time off their sentence. I'm sure you've followed other trials before where a witness' testimony is suspect because of a deal he received from the prosecution.

And I have not given Oscar's statements a clean bill of health - I very specifically made a list of contradictions and concerns I had about it.

 

[21merc7]

I think also that the height of OP without prosthetics should be taken into consideration. I have a link that may or may not be 100% true but near enough. It says he is 5 ft without prosthetics and 6 ft with them. 5ft is a height to be well enough above the half way mark of the door no?

Although feel free to have a go at me as I am a 99% lurker and no professional but I thought this may be of use

<modsnip>

:wagon: to Websleuths Onlyamum!

I agree about the height. If he is 5 feet without prosthetics, then that is certainly tall enough for the 92 cm (36 inches) for the bullet holes.

 

[katydid23]

Seriously? The State is trying to convict Oscar Pistorius - do you not see Darrin's motive to give a version the state likes in order to get a deal? It's just like jailhouse snitches who testify for the prosecution and receive probation or immunity or time off their sentence. I'm sure you've followed other trials before where a witness' testimony is suspect because of a deal he received from the prosecution.

And I have not given Oscar's statements a clean bill of health - I very specifically made a list of contradictions and concerns I had about it.

But the boxer corroborates the story. Is he lying too?

 

[Feynman]

So what---who cares if he paid his speeding ticket or not???????????

Well if he didn't, it's yet another demerit in their gun-crazy, self entitled, rich and famous and sorry lives.

 

[Onlyamum]

Thank you !

 

[minor4th]

At the beginning of this video, the judge reads the plea agreement:

http://new.livestream.com/wildabouttrial/events/2811169/videos/44826550

 

[minor4th]

But the boxer corroborates the story. Is he lying too?

No. But Darrin gave the additional evidence that they leaned their heads so close and Oscar definitely heard "one up" and that seems an embellishment. Also, Darrin's testimony about shooting through the sunroof seems to paint himself in a more flattering light than what Samantha Taylor had to say.

The gun went off in the restaurant, and it seem fairly clear that Oscar had the gun at the time.

And Oscar shot a gun through the sunroof - that has so far been established.

I think he will be found guilty on the gun charges, but I think Darrin and Oscar were both reckless and at fault in the restaurant gun incident and I believe that both of these guys have a history of recklessness and risky behavior. I mean - Darrin was driving 155 mph when he was stopped!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Well, I agree that a youtube video should not be taken as conclusive proof. We'll have to see what evidence is brought forth in trial. In my mind, however, it was helpful to hear the two sounds and their similarity.

Did anyone also notice the sound wave from hitting the door with the bat arrived .5 seconds later. The wave packet from the gun was instantaneous.

 

[minor4th]

Did anyone also notice the sound wave from hitting the door arrived .5 seconds later. The wave packet from the gun was instantaneous.

There was definitely a delay with the bat, but I don't think it showed the microphone in the distance recording the gun shooting. Did it?

 

[Trooper]

Seriously? The State is trying to convict Oscar Pistorius - do you not see Darrin's motive to give a version the state likes in order to get a deal? It's just like jailhouse snitches who testify for the prosecution and receive probation or immunity or time off their sentence. I'm sure you've followed other trials before where a witness' testimony is suspect because of a deal he received from the prosecution.

And I have not given Oscar's statements a clean bill of health - I very specifically made a list of contradictions and concerns I had about it.

BBM

Immunity is not granted to jailhouse snitches in South Africa.. or in any country that is based on the British System of Jurisprudence..

in fact I doubt if it is, in Texas where you speak from. to gain Immunity wouldn't the jailhouse snitch have to be involved with the crime the snitched-upon is accused of?? Immunity is a vastly different concept than merely time off or probation.. one can be called back from those two positions.

Immunity from Prosecution, under the law that Darrin is burdened with is hemmed in and barbed wired with very strict and enforceable conditions.. often the penalty is actually harsher than the sentence for the original offence. . it is usually added onto that original penalty. Darrin isn't on probation, or under any sentence for which time off is applicable. ..

hope this helps..

 

[Amber29]

So my question for OP and Roux remains. If she was shot in the head first, would her hip remain at 36 inches or would the head shot dropped her like I think it would. JMO

I'm postulating her hip would have been lower than 36 inches if she was shot in the head first.

I agree. If I understand that the shot went through her arm and into her head, then IMO she was already in a "defensive" position when that shot hit. That to me proves the shot to the head was not first and there was something to be scared of already. Hence the screaming heard by many witnesses before the shots.

 

[Interested Bystander]

There was definitely a delay with the bat, but I don't think it showed the microphone in the distance recording the gun shooting. Did it?

I am assuming we all watched the same video but if I can find the link to the one I watched I will (a) watch it again to double check and (b) post the link.

 

[Trooper]

Frankly, this unattributable youtube clip referred to here of someone's idea of a 'demonstration' cricket bat v gunshot is absurd. Even to call it a 'demonstration' is a terrific leeway with the English language.

 

[Trooper]

No. But Darrin gave the additional evidence that they leaned their heads so close and Oscar definitely heard "one up" and that seems an embellishment. Also, Darrin's testimony about shooting through the sunroof seems to paint himself in a more flattering light than what Samantha Taylor had to say.

The gun went off in the restaurant, and it seem fairly clear that Oscar had the gun at the time.

And Oscar shot a gun through the sunroof - that has so far been established.

I think he will be found guilty on the gun charges, but I think Darrin and Oscar were both reckless and at fault in the restaurant gun incident and I believe that both of these guys have a history of recklessness and risky behavior. I mean - Darrin was driving 155 mph when he was stopped!

Sure.. Darrin is a nutter.. but Darrin didn't plug 4 Black Talon bullets thru a door at an 'unknown' target, killing her, did he?