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

[zwiebel]

R saying the bits of wood laying right next to door so why didn't col see them.

Confusing - maybe it's a pic of door in lab, not crime scene, as Col said he was not at crime scene?

Col is admitting, from pic 'I made an oversight. I did not pay attention to that stuff'

 

[zwiebel]

R saying that is 'crucial evidence'.

Col says he did not see that wood in photos.

 

[zwiebel]

First and only time Col went to scene was Mar 8th 2013.

R checking that. Witness affirms.

 

[zwiebel]

Col was asked to test door for 'material analysis'.

R showing Col distinct mark by handle, asks if he investigated it.

Col says yes but he could not find any sign it was made by a cricket bat.

R: "On behalf of Mr P we will present evidence that it was made by a prosthesis and the fact is the fabric of the sock was found embedded in it.'

 

[sorrell skye]

I wonder if this mark is from when OP says he kicked the door?

 

[Cher352]

Well, the door in court has really surprised me. That bottom panel is much lower than it looked in the leaked phots. Pistorius may well have been able to reach a key from that height, assuming the key was there to be taken, and was not hidden under Ms Steenkamp's fallen body.

I've attached a pic where I have edited the banner out that goes across the court screenshot.

View attachment 41738

Thanks for the pics.

Gosh, that is so much different looking, I would doubt it was the same door if we hadn't been told it was.

And I guess they glued the broken out portion back in?

 

[jassy writer]

By the handle??? What is he, a ballerina? more than likely, he hammered away at the door with his leg in his hand, before abandoning it for the cricket bat!

 

[zwiebel]

Col now speculating that OP falling into door could be reason for mark but R insists fabric of sock was found within mark and it was a kick. He adds it would make no sense for OP to have kicked plank when it was on the floor.

Col says 'He could have stumbled over it....kicking is not the only reason'

 

[zwiebel]

Roux is getting close to 'proving' OP had his legs on, imo.....

 

[zwiebel]

Col 'Stumbling, you could very easily get the same amount of force as kicking it'

 

[sorrell skye]

It seems to me that kicking the door should have caused at least a shallow indentation.

The Col stated that mark was not indented.

 

[zwiebel]

Col: 'If it can be proven there's material similar to prosthesis in door, to me it's proof there was some contact....no evidence to me that he kicked the door.'

 

[james83]

https://twitter.com/pieter_sm/status/443721395088793600/photo/1

 

[zwiebel]

R: 'Was anyone asked to investigate that?'

Col says as far as he knows, no-one was asked to investigate the possibility of a kick to the door.

 

[zwiebel]

Judge asks if R is asking about the lab protocol for marks in general, or just this one? R says marks in general.

 

[zwiebel]

R quoting OP's bail statement where he says he put his legs on and bashed the door and wants to know why Col didn't look at it.

 

[FrancesB]

Thanks for the pics.

Gosh, that is so much different looking, I would doubt it was the same door if we hadn't been told it was.

And I guess they glued the broken out portion back in?

Yes, it was a surprise to me, absolutely.

Here's a screenshot of the door as it was stored by police, it's the photo they are talking about in court.

 

[zwiebel]

Col: 'I was not privy to that.'

Then adds he saw it later, in forensics dept. Can't remember who else was there.

 

[zwiebel]

Roux homing in - 'How did it 'happen' that you saw the file? Was it open on the version? Did you read it?'

Col: 'I just scanned through it.......I didn't want to have my view determined by external fators....I want to be objective without favoring one side or another'.

 

[zwiebel]

Col saying he did not reopen his closed case when new evidence came to light. Roux wants to know why. Col giggles?