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

[lisasalinger]

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.

The other thing to consider with that video is that the man was shooting and hitting the door in a wide open space outside. That's different than doing it indoors in a house. I would imagine that sound would carry very differently under those conditions.

 

[minor4th]

Do you have a transcript to back that up?

She did not say that she could only hear one voice from what i understood - she said she heard arguing which by definition would mean at least two voices even if she was unable to distinguish them any further.



<modsnip>

Even if this witness was unable to guarantee that the arguing she heard came from op's house, i don't think it is fair to suggest that she said she only heard one voice - or are you suggesting that by pure coincidence she heard some lunatic arguing with themselves for an hour on the night of the shooting?

Michelle Burger also said that she heard a woman and a man shouting before hearing shots. I would have thought that could also be interpreted as having heard an argument.

Before assuming that my recollection is biased or wrong, consider that I may be correct. She heard one voice before the shots.

[video=youtube;uadnpxsXaKY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uadnpxsXaKY[/video]

 

[lisasalinger]

The other thing to consider with that video is that the man was shooting and hitting the door in a wide open space outside. That's different than doing it indoors in a house. I would imagine that sound would carry very differently under those conditions.

Oops, sorry Trooper. Just saw that you posted the same thing. I'm three pages back, catching up

 

[lisasalinger]

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 don't think it necessarily means she was standing. That was my immediate thought too but then I realized that if he is measuring from her foot up, it doesn't matter if she's sitting or standing at the time it happened, it's still 36 inches up on her leg. See what I mean?

What's more relevant is the hole in the shorts. I really wish we could see it. It indicates the shorts were on at the time of the shot, meaning they weren't pulled down to pee.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Indeed if she was just innocently using the loo without a care in the world, why would she have had her arms shielding her head in the way that the gunshot wounds suggest?



(Not that she was using the loo anyway because her shorts were up.)

I hear you. Unless she was drunk out of her mind (which we know she was not) and puking her guts out in the toilet (which we know she was not, either); there is no reasonable explanation for her being in such position.

 

[lisasalinger]

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

What is Kevin Lerena's motivation to lie?

 

[james83]

Was there ever an explanation given for the blood spots on the couch that was shown in the leaked photo's from last year?.

 

[minor4th]

What is Kevin Lerena's motivation to lie?

I don't think he's lying

 

[Zinn]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I finally had a chance to listen to Dr. Stipp's testimony from last week and it was very detailed and compelling. The cross was interesting, as well. The objections from Nel during cross gave a glimpse into part of the State's case, IMO. I would encourage anyone interested to seek it out. I won't go into detail here as it's from last week and I don't want to derail discussion about the more recent testimony.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

 

[atthelake]

It makes me wonder if the first bullet just missed Reeva's head, causing her to adopt that defensive position, the second hit her in the head and arm, causing her to drop her arms, and then the third hit her hip as she was already dropping to the floor.

But where did the fourth bullet end up?

I'll nix that one..as it was entered (one of the FEW) into evidence that her gunshot to hip/buttocks was 36" from bottom of her feet/height.. and on my body, is exactly (for a 5 foot 6 inch person with long legs) is height standing up when I measured today..

Do we know that that is the exact level of gunhole as again.... foundation evidence isn't being entered into evidence in South Africa which is driving me crazy..... Just the judge has it and therefore is not entered into court records :banghead:

 

[sorrell skye]

Last year, we had a discussion about the placement of the bullet holes in the toilet room door, as well as OP's ability to reach through the broken portion of the door, which compelled me at that time to look up standard doorknob heights, standard interior door heights, etc.

Here's what I found from last year:

The standard height for doorknobs on a typical 80-inch tall, household door is 36 inches.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6578119_standard-doorknob-height-door_.html

If the toilet room door is 80" tall, and if that doorknob height is the standard 36", the two bullet holes that are visible (in the photo @ the link below) are below 36". I mentioned in my post last year that the bullet holes appeared to be lower in the door than I had previously imagined. I'll also add that the broken portion of the door panel is lower than I had expected.

The cross rail on the door directly below the bullet holes & the broken portion of the door panel appears to be several inches higher than the toilet seat, but it's hard to tell due to the angle of the photo. In the US, the standard height for toilet seats is between 14" & 15". I would assume that toilet seat heights in SA are similar for ease of manufacturing.

I'd say (based on the crime scene photo) that the cross rail beneath the broken panel is less than 36" high, but more than 15" high (if measured from the base of the door and if using the toilet seat height for a point of reference). I'd guess the bottom of the broken panel to be roughly 24" high.

Based on the photo, I think the two bullet holes are less than 36" high, but more than 15" high (again, if measured from the base of the door). If I had to guess, I'd say they're roughly between 26-30" high.

These are my estimations and are certainly not conclusive.

Link to article with photo of broken door (WARNING!!! Graphic crime scene photo!):

http://news.sky.com/story/1097557/pistorius-images-show-bloody-scene-of-killing

 

[lisasalinger]

I don't think he's lying

His and Darren's stories match about the restaurant incident. Therefore, Darren isn't just making up a load of bologna to avoid consequences.

 

[minor4th]

His and Darren's stories match about the restaurant incident. Therefore, Darren isn't just making up a load of bologna to avoid consequences.

I don't think Darrin is making it all up. But I think he embellished and honed his testimony to be most damaging to Oscar and to paint himself in a more innocent light - whereas I believe Oscar and Darren were both a couple of reckless thrill-seekers.

 

[atthelake]

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

Not sure of the background on this, can you share a link or background? TIA

I had assumed that he had taken the blame at the beginning - and then - later for trial had agreed to share the experience, which is supported by everyone else at the table, with the agreement that he would not be prosecuted . That it was not his gun.

Yep, agree a hmmm, ONLY due to he was protecting Oscar and got a "free pass" at the time...and now could be prosecuted if he testified on the stand the other scenario.

"Hmmm" to me doesn't mean in any way he is lying AT ALL at this time IMHO. But perhaps that is what you meant too!

 

[minor4th]

Not sure of the background on this, can you share a link or background? TIA

I had assumed that he had taken the blame at the beginning - and then - later for trial had agreed to share the experience, which is supported by everyone else at the table, with the agreement that he would not be prosecuted . That it was not his gun.

Yep, agree a hmmm, ONLY due to he was protecting Oscar and got a "free pass" at the time...and now could be prosecuted if he testified on the stand the other scenario.

"Hmmm" to me doesn't mean in any way he is lying AT ALL at this time IMHO. But perhaps that is what you meant too!

Hmmm. Just meant that I was thinking about it and wondering if it influenced his testimony. At the beginning of this video, the judge reads the plea agreement:

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

 

[MeeBee]

I don't think Darrin is making it all up. But I think he embellished and honed his testimony to be most damaging to Oscar and to paint himself in a more innocent light - whereas I believe Oscar and Darren were both a couple of reckless thrill-seekers.

I do agree with this.

 

[atthelake]

His motive is his plea bargain that kept him out of jail

Yep. I'll give you that minor! You are a good atty. Stating fact that may look bad...but I'm... "so what" and agree.

Yes... he did perhaps do a plea bargain to tell the truth. It, to me, only REINFORCES that he is telling the truth. Why else would he go through all of that to get the truth out and do a plea when he could have just denied it.

<modsnip> :giggle:

 

[lisasalinger]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I finally had a chance to listen to Dr. Stipp's testimony from last week and it was very detailed and compelling. The cross was interesting, as well. The objections from Nel during cross gave a glimpse into part of the State's case, IMO. I would encourage anyone interested to seek it out. I won't go into detail here as it's from last week and I don't want to derail discussion about the more recent testimony.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

Hi Zinn,

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think it derails anything. Stipp is very much a big part of the equation and we all love to talk about what came first, the bullet or the bang :floorlaugh:

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't think Darrin is making it all up. But I think he embellished and honed his testimony to be most damaging to Oscar and to paint himself in a more innocent light - whereas I believe Oscar and Darren were both a couple of reckless thrill-seekers.

That may be true, and probably is (both are reckless thrillseekers), but only 1 of them has killed another person, only 1 of them shot a gun in a restaurant, and 1 of them shot a gun out the sunroof of a car (that we are aware of), and they are all the same "thrillseeker," Oscar Pistorius.

ETA: Though driving in excess of 100 mph is idiotic to the point where I would never forgive him for such a thing were I in a car with him & he did that. He's lucky he hasn't killed someone yet.

ETA (yet again): As far as Darrin's motivation to embellish, I don't see it because he is bound by the rules of his plea agreement to tell the truth. If someone had evidence to show that Darrin's behavior was 'worse' than Darrin made it sound, he (Darrin) could be in trouble and it could affect his deal. Fear of indictment for not telling the simple truth has got to be a strong motivator. Besides, he already looks bad, having driven 100+ mph. I consider that uber-jerky behavior.

 

[Zhooter]

Hello newbie here. Thanks for letting me join!

I am wondering if anyone else is seeing this: if you look at the bathroom pic of the bashed in door, the opening where the panel fell out seems to be right next to the lock. In other words, all OP had to do was reach in and unlock the door - no need for any key. Why did he put in anything about a key?? Who keeps a key to the bathroom INSIDE the bathroom - unless, it was hanging outside the bathroom and RS took it out when going in to make sure that he couldn't come after her? It just seemed like an odd thing to mention that he saw the key on the floor...

Also, when Dr Stipp testified that he saw a person walking from right to left in the lit up bathroom (in between the 2 volleys for bangs and while the screams were going on), I could be wrong but it sounded to me like he meant that the windows were closed (frosted pane)? If closed, why did OP say that he heard them opening? They weren't talking about the toilet windows.

Thanks for your thoughts!