Trial Discussion Thread #57 - 14.16.10, Day 46 ~ sentencing~

[JuneBug67]

How do you explain the blood trail over the duvet?

Again, people focus on such circumstantial and nebulous information seemingly to avoid the big, direct obvious truths. Who the hell knows how the blood got there or if it was a 'trail' at all with the duvet necessarily on the floor. There was some blood on the rug and there was some blood on the duvet. It's not like the duvet broke up a perfect line of blood from one end of the room to the other. As Roux pointed out, the duvet could have been on the bed when it got stained. Or I suggest that Oscar could have zero recollection of the duvet ending up on the floor at some point in the madness of the aftermath. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. Because the shots came first. The state's case was dead by the time it was barely alive. That's why Nel was reduced to arguing about frivolous things like 'on' vs 'onto' and non-trailing blood 'trails' and about millimetres in the position of a duvet in a frantic scene. Stuff like actual timelines and an actual explanation for major pieces of evidence like the first sounds? The defence covered that stuff. BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Like the state, nobody here can reasonably contest that the shots came first. Still thinking otherwise is what is flawed. I suggest people at least CONSIDER not being so invested in their positions that they refuse to see such simple logic.

It's not simple logic as you put it. It's what OP wants us to believe and it is quite plausible in itself. But it is not consistent with the ear witness testimony. The alternative sequence is just as feasible and supports a completely different scenario. Like I said, the fault is the State's for not spelling it out (and missing what I feel to be vital evidence contained in the phone records which, when combined with this alternative scenario, point to OP being guilty as charged IMO).

 

[LemonMousse]

It amazes me that certain posters think that Nel is so stunningly dumb, he let evidence stand that disproved the State's case!

He didn't.

 

[JuneBug67]

You are simply wrong. 100% wrong.

Refusal to go back and listen to the evidence, which would show you that you are wrong, strongly suggests that it is you who are very heavily invested in your position.

I know and understand the evidence very well. I am not wrong. Pointing out that two of the bat strikes could not be pinned to a point in time is not contesting that the evidence supports that the bat strikes came after the shots. At all. People are seriously, seriously reaching. It's so incredibly illogical.

 

[Mr Fossil]

But Nel did. He clarified with Vermuelen after Roux had finished his cross that the bat could have been used on the door before the shots.

Vermuelen said that there was no scientific way to determine when the majority of the marks were made on the door.

Thank you, I'll check this out. Nel certainly didn't argue this later (he didn't argue anything) and I, for one, was left suitably confused by V's testimony. I don't recall such an explicit statement but will go back and listen as it certainly strengthens my belief.

 

[LemonMousse]

Again, people focus on such circumstantial and nebulous information seemingly to avoid the big, direct obvious truths. Who the hell knows how the blood got there or if it was a 'trail' at all with the duvet necessarily on the floor. There was some blood on the rug and there was some blood on the duvet. It's not like the duvet broke up a perfect line of blood from one end of the room to the other. As Roux pointed out, the duvet could have been on the bed when it got stained. Or I suggest that Oscar could have zero recollection of the duvet ending up on the floor at some point in the madness of the aftermath. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. Because the shots came first. The state's case was dead by the time it was barely alive. That's why Nel was reduced to arguing about frivolous things like 'on' vs 'onto' and non-trailing blood 'trails' and about millimetres in the position of a duvet in a frantic scene. Stuff like actual timelines and an actual explanation for major pieces of evidence like the first sounds? The defence covered that stuff. BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD.

The shots came first?

The shots came before the prising out of the panel (which would have made no bang sound) THAT IS ALL.

I don't understand the difficulty here.

 

[LemonMousse]

I know and understand the evidence very well. I am not wrong. Pointing out that two of the bat strikes could not be pinned to a point in time is not contesting that the evidence supports that the bat strikes came after the shots. At all. People are seriously, seriously reaching. It's so incredibly illogical.

Sorry...but are you joking?

It may not contest the bat strikes coming after the shots, but it certainly goes nowhere to prove that they did, which is what you are suggesting.

What do you think Nel meant when he asked whether the bat could have been used to scare Reeva? Scare her after the shooting when she was dead?????

No one is reaching. You are ignoring.

 

[toevlugsoord]

I thought the judge smirking with regard Roux's comment quite rude and disrespectful to Nel. She's been biased against Nel and in favour of Roux, who has always been extremely obsequious to her, since the start it appears to me.

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

Totally -- and Nel talks about it for a bit and then there's a long pause. I think he wanted her to reprimand Roux and gave her plenty of time to think about it but she just kept asking him to rephrase. Guessing someone else told her it wasn't good so she had Roux apologise later. Awkward moments!!!! Ugh.

 

[JuneBug67]

I don't think he argued it because at that time he endowed Masipa with more intelligence than she appears to have. I am sure he wishes now he had but it was so clear to him and to 90 per cent of this forum that most of us find it difficult to understand why the other 10 per cent cannot listen to the proceedings and work it out for themselves.

He didn't because he couldn't. Not because he didn't. I mean seriously. Come on.

 

[toevlugsoord]

I noticed that with the phone, too .. Schultz said on the radio interview that someone had typed a message on the phone to say they shouldn't be sitting where they were sitting (words to that effect .. I think) and it was passed to the security guards for them to read and presumably for them to sort something out, and then the phone got passed back again.

That lady that passed the phone is a cousin of Pistorius.

 

[Interested Bystander]

He didn't because he couldn't. Not because he didn't. I mean seriously. Come on.

Do what? I give up! Please go and watch the relevant testimony very carefully. I somehow think you have never done this.

 

[4MrsB]

N: There was a witness yesterday said she knows for a FACT there are no rails in SA showers?

M: That is not correct.

And Nel mentions photos of rails in showers that were taken yesterday.

Sorry...I'm a bit behind. Just finished watching today's proceedings & now catching up on WebSleuths.

Re RAILING in prison showers. Shouldn't it have been mentioned that OP has NO railing in his own shower at home? However did he manage?
(Not to mention the hard tile in his bathroom, shower, on stairs and throughout his entire lower floors and all hallways).

Discussing how poorly prepared the prisons were for poor disabled OP was sickening. Roux whining on about problems & extra expense there'll be to poor "penniless" Oscar, having to pay more for a private doctor or psychologist to visit him if incarcerated. Oscar penniless....right!!! Will Roux be totally surprised when OP (if given house arrest) goes out and buys a brand new luxurious house after the trial? Will he be surprised that OP doesn't run around to "training sessions" 24/7 in something flashier than a used Toyota? Penniless...yah right! More like $$$ (off shore accounts before, on the flashdrive) hidden and I doubt he liquidated any of those off shore accounts.

Perhaps he should have thought about all the inconvenience of this "extra expense" before he decided to kill someone trapped in a tiny cubicle.

 

[LemonMousse]

Photo 55 proves that OP is lying. It proves it. That's not "circumstantial". No evidence was raised that demonstrated the wholesale tampering on the part of the police that would be required for OP to be telling the truth.

So some people will just believe that happened, in the absence of any evidence, because it supports their own entrenched position. Then they accuse others of being entrenched in an idea.

Amazing.

 

[JuneBug67]

Sorry...but are you joking?

It may not contest the bat strikes coming after the shots, but it certainly goes nowhere to prove that they did, which is what you are suggesting.

What do you think Nel meant when he asked whether the bat could have been used to scare Reeva? Scare her after the shooting when she was dead?????

No one is reaching. You are ignoring.

You have at least one strike coming after the shots. No evidence that can point to any time on the other two. The evidence is that there is are two distinct sets of sounds. Not more. Asking if a bat could be used to scare Reeva is NOT EVIDENCE. It's a question snuck in that had nothing to do with the expert on the stand meant to distract from their lack of EVIDENCE that the bat came first and the clear EVIDENCE that it came second.

 

[JuneBug67]

Photo 55 proves that OP is lying. It proves it. That's not "circumstantial". No evidence was raised that demonstrated the wholesale tampering on the part of the police that would be required for OP to be telling the truth.

So some people will just believe that happened, in the absence of any evidence, because it supports their own entrenched position. Then they accuse others of being entrenched in an idea.

Amazing.

It does not prove Oscar was lying. It doesn't prove the police moved stuff. It doesn't not prove police moved stuff. It only proves that the scene when photographed does not line up with Oscar's recollections. Roux led evidence on why we should have some doubt about the scene that was credible enough. The problem here is people's inability to reason and sort facts on their relevance and importance. It doesn't matter if there were monkeys swinging off the fans in bedroom by the time the police photographed it because the state's case is already deal on the the crack in the door.

 

[soozieqtips]

An expert witness in Oscar Pistorius's murder trial was uncertain on Thursday about the sequence in which bullets and a cricket bat hit the door through which he shot his girlfriend.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked police forensic expert Johannes Vermeulen whether he could conclude that all four bullet holes appeared in the door before the dents made by the bat.

The question was aimed at testing the veracity of Pistorius's version of events, in which he fired four shots into the door then, after realising that Steenkamp was not asleep in bed, fetched a cricket bat to break down the door.

Vermeulen responded that he could not prove that this was indeed the case.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/aa2967...-cant-fix-sequence-of-shots,-bashing-20140313

 

[JuneBug67]

Do what? I give up! Please go and watch the relevant testimony very carefully. I somehow think you have never done this.

I know the testimony very, very well. You are ascribing weight to it that it doesn't have and sidestepping completely the weight that it does have. I can't do anything about that.

 

[LemonMousse]

You have at least one strike coming after the shots. No evidence that can point to any time on the other two. The evidence is that there is are two distinct sets of sounds. Not more. Asking if a bat could be used to scare Reeva is NOT EVIDENCE. It's a question snuck in that had nothing to do with the expert on the stand meant to distract from their lack of EVIDENCE that the bat came first and the clear EVIDENCE that it came second.

Wrong.

You have evidence of a panel being prised out of a door after the shots. That is not a "strike" and would have made no bang.

The other marks could have been made at anytime so you cannot use them for evidence of anything.

And there is NO evidence that demonstrates that the first set of bangs heard was the cricket bat on the door.

No one knows what they were for sure....which does not entitle you to assume that it must have been what Roux says. There is still a smashed in bath panel to explain.

 

[LemonMousse]

It does not prove Oscar was lying. It doesn't prove the police moved stuff. It doesn't not prove police moved stuff. It only proves that the scene when photographed does not line up with Oscar's recollections. Roux led evidence on why we should have some doubt about the scene that was credible enough. The problem here is people's inability to reason and sort facts on their relevance and importance. It doesn't matter if there were monkeys swinging off the fans in bedroom by the time the police photographed it because the state's case is already deal on the the crack in the door.

I think you should stop being rude about people's "ability to reason". We're reasoning just fine.

If just one of those things out of place in photo 55 was there when the police arrived, then Pistorius must be lying.

And, since the defence raised no evidence whatsoever that the police tampered with anything, i am not quite sure what it is you consider credible.

 

[JuneBug67]

An expert witness in Oscar Pistorius's murder trial was uncertain on Thursday about the sequence in which bullets and a cricket bat hit the door through which he shot his girlfriend.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked police forensic expert Johannes Vermeulen whether he could conclude that all four bullet holes appeared in the door before the dents made by the bat.

The question was aimed at testing the veracity of Pistorius's version of events, in which he fired four shots into the door then, after realising that Steenkamp was not asleep in bed, fetched a cricket bat to break down the door.

Vermeulen responded that he could not prove that this was indeed the case.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/aa2967...-cant-fix-sequence-of-shots,-bashing-20140313

You we don't have ANY information about all four bullets either way. We have information about one bullet though, and it matches the defense story and doesn't match the state's story. There is no evidence of a third sound or set of sounds to suggest that there is any reason to think there was two periods of bat strikes. NONE. There is absolutely no reason to conclude anything other than what the court did conclude, and Nel couldn't and didn't do anything about those devastating facts.