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

[Nali87]

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

Well wouldn't that be an impossible thing to prove?

 

[LemonMousse]

If the curtains were open, Pistorius is lying.
If the lights were on, Pistorius is lying.
If the large fan was in the door, Pistorius is lying
If the clippers were plugged in, Pistorius is lying
If the jeans are lying on the duvet, Pistorius is lying
If the duvet was on the floor, Pistorius is lying
If the small fan was unplugged in the corner, Pistorius is lying

And this should all be dismissed because of non-existent evidence of police tampering?

This is sound reasoning? No, it really isn't!

Anyway, I shall stop now as it seems like I am badgering you, which is not my intention.

 

[soozieqtips]

Just watching the Sky News round up and this is the glare from Aimee I mentioned just as Kim was saying that the suggested punishment didn't fit the crime. She glared at her pretty much all the time she was talking.

 

[WilliamMunter]

If you see this from their perspective Oscar made a terrible, fatal mistake and is a shattered person because of it. If the state and the public turn his horribly misplaced and fatal judgement that night into vicious domestic violence and a man trying to escape his murderous actions his family has a right and even obligation to be angry about that. To resist it without exception. That's what families do for an 'innocent' man or woman. It is that disconnect between what the facts say and what the state and public say that makes their position almost an impossible series of damned if you dos, damned if you don'ts. I think it's absurd to think they don't care about the loss of Reeva and her family's pain. Of course they do. But they're in a tough spot walking a tough line. And Nel IS an a$$ sometimes. I can see why she said that. I wasn't really bothered by what Oscar said to Gina Myers, and though I totally empathize with her discomfort, I think if you speak publicly about a trial and appear at a public trial you should not expect to be insulated from the environment of that trial, including the defendant.

The verdict and fact finding of Masipa and the assessors is thoroughly misunderstood in my view. It was NOT pick and mix. It was a logic and reason based verdict of elimination - if fact A is true and unopposed and supported by evidence then facts B and C cannot be true. It was perfectly reasoned on facts and arguments that were proposed and supported here by a few posters for months.

When I said accidentally I meant that the wiping of the phone might have happened through incompetence or lack of knowledge rather than just happenstance. For example he might have been trying to make targeted changes to files or folders but screwed up and deleted the entire contents. Or wanted to just wipe out some embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant things and not known how so just reset the whole thing. Or might have wiped out the phone trying to do an OS upgrade or other maintenance. We really don't know. I'm not trying to make excuses, and I agree that it is completely appropriate to view it with disapproval and suspicion, but I'm just not comfortable jumping to conclude the worst. We simply don't have enough information.

BIB

So the fact that all Gina, Kim, or their parents for that matter, have ever said about the trial is that all they wanted was for the truth to come out justifies abuse by Carl Pistorius? Unless of course you can point me to tweets, interviews, videos articles etc that show otherwise.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thanks LemonMousse, I've listened again:

Firstly, Vermeulen to Roux, in cross examination says that the bat was almost certainly used the lever the panel out.

Then, Vermeulen to Roux: "I would say the door was hit after the shots ... or at least some part of it broke after the shots"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc @ 53:00

Nel: "I took a specific note of a (sic) answer you gave to Advocate Roux pertaining to what happened first: the shots or the bat. You said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken."

He then asks whether it is possible to say scientifically whether the first bat mark on the side of the door and the 'kicking' came before or after the shots. Vermeulen says it isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY @ 12:40

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

I'm sorry if it seems rude. I don't mean to be rude. But people do have varying abilities in life though, and reasoning is one of them. I can't ballet dance for crap for example but I'm good at logic and reason. 'Pistorius must be lying' IS poor reasoning, even with your assumption that nothing relevant was moved. Pistorius could have compromised memory in such a frantic scene, for example. Simply mistaken about his actions. Forgot he himself moved things. Was unaware he moved things. Whatever. I'm not suggesting there is any evidence for this, but pointing our the assumption that makes it poor reasoning. Pistorius could have just been wrong. He doesn't have to have been lying.

However there is little reason to be certain the scene was intact. To my recollection Roux argued that the fan might have been moved because Van Rensburg went on to the balcony but didn't recall seeing it initially at all, and then later recalled seeing a fan but didn't know if it was on. We don't have Botha's testimony at all. The police had to acknowledge some errors in recollection and we know some things were moved. Nobody is suggesting that the scene was 'tampered' with but it is very easy to imagine a large item like a fan being moved to get to access places or views in that small bedroom without anticipating how important it might be later.

 

[Cherwell]

Just watching the Sky News round up and this is the glare from Aimee I mentioned just as Kim was saying that the suggested punishment didn't fit the crime. She glared at her pretty much all the time she was talking.

My grandmother used to warn me "Keep pulling that face, and one day your face will stay like that!"
That must be what happened to Aimée Pistorius. :giggle:

 

[jay-jay]

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.

~snipped~

LOL ... well, seeing as the photos show a distinct trail of blood going across the carpet, then up onto the duvet and across, in one continuous line, how do you think that must've happened? Do you think that the police saw blood on the carpet, and then blood on the duvet, then put the duvet on the floor and painstakingly tried to match up the blood trail on each of them in order to make it look like a continuous blood trail that wasn't previously a continuous blood trail, just so as they (and we) could all try to frame OP? :floorlaugh:

 

[Mr Fossil]

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.

IMO it doesn't take any bat strikes after the shots to prise the panel out.

 

[katydid23]

I'm sorry if it seems rude. I don't mean to be rude. But people do have varying abilities in life though, and reasoning is one of them. I can't ballet dance for crap for example but I'm good at logic and reason. 'Pistorius must be lying' IS poor reasoning, even with your assumption that nothing relevant was moved. Pistorius could have compromised memory in such a frantic scene, for example. Simply mistaken about his actions. Forgot he himself moved things. Was unaware he moved things. Whatever. I'm not suggesting there is any evidence for this, but pointing our the assumption that makes it poor reasoning. Pistorius could have just been wrong. He doesn't have to have been lying.

However there is little reason to be certain the scene was intact. To my recollection Roux argued that the fan might have been moved because Van Rensburg went on to the balcony but didn't recall seeing it initially at all, and then later recalled seeing a fan but didn't know if it was on. We don't have Botha's testimony at all. The police had to acknowledge some errors in recollection and we know some things were moved. Nobody is suggesting that the scene was 'tampered' with but it is very easy to imagine a large item like a fan being moved to get to access places or views in that small bedroom without anticipating how important it might be later.

Sometimes, when people claim to be better than others with reason and logic, they are just more stubborn, not necessarily more reasoned or more logical. Just in my experience anyway. :wink:

 

[jay-jay]

I'm sorry if it seems rude. I don't mean to be rude. But people do have varying abilities in life though, and reasoning is one of them. I can't ballet dance for crap for example but I'm good at logic and reason.

~snipped~

BBM .. many people are also not able to see that they are not quite as good at what they claim to be as they think they are .. singing, for instance, plenty of people think they are fantastic singers only they're not (you've only got to watch the XFactor to know that), so 'one' might think one is good at logic at reasoning but might not actually be.

 

[Mr Fossil]

JuneBug67: Do you believe it is physically possible that the bat strikes could come before the gunshots and that the panel was then subsequently prised out, causing the crack though the bullet hole? If not, please explain why.

 

[soozieqtips]

My grandmother used to warn me "Keep pulling that face, and one day your face will stay like that!"
That must be what happened to Aimée Pistorius. :giggle:

My grandmother told me the same thing, and I believed her!

 

[JuneBug67]

IMO it doesn't take any bat strikes after the shots to prise the panel out.

And did Nel suggest in court that that that was the explanation for the crack that bisected the bullet hole? Did he ask Vermulen, who had just expressed his believe that the shots came before the bat strikes about this alternate scenario? I know Vermulen qualified his answer on cross, but his inital wording supports how reasonable the conclusion is. Nel didn't do anything to challenge it, he instead focused on the other marks that provided little of value. I think it is pretty absurd to call this an oversight. His own witness had just testified that the bat strikes came second.

 

[WilliamMunter]

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.

BIB

In all the pictures of the shower cubicle I have seen there do not appear to be any rails. I have only seen a fold down shower seat. No rubberised shower mat just tiles. The bathroom floor just had those really annoying fabric mats that slide everywhere. I wonder if the prosecution has a better photo of the shower that has has already been submitted? Would be good in Heads.

 

[east2west]

Someone on this thread is delusional. JMOO

 

[4MrsB]

I have never seen a trial, where the prosecutor has to bring in a professional expert, just to try and convince the judge, that prison 'is not too bad' so the killer can be sentenced accordingly. :doh:

I was thinking the same. It is just so bizarre. OP is treated with such uniqueness. He killed Reeva in a painful, scary, horrific way and his lawyer is arguing he should get house arrest because OP's personal physician might charge extra for "cell visits".

 

[JuneBug67]

JuneBug67: Do you believe it is physically possible that the bat strikes could come before the gunshots and that the panel was then subsequently prised out, causing the crack though the bullet hole? If not, please explain why.

I believe it would be completely irresponsible for any observer of something as serious as a murder trial to effectively make up evidence. There was nothing offered in court - where it matters - even hypothetically, that that particular crack appeared through that particular bullet hole because of a specific action by Pistorius other than a bat strike. Nel didn't even suggest it. He didn't come back to it later in the cross of the defence expert. He didn't profer it in his Heads of Argument. There is absolutely no reason for any of us to assume that the evidence in fact supported that scenario despite the loose idea that, yes, a crack could appear in a door from a prying action in certain circumstances.

 

[JuneBug67]

~snipped~

BBM .. many people are also not able to see that they are not quite as good at what they claim to be as they think they are .. singing, for instance, plenty of people think they are fantastic singers only they're not (you've only got to watch the XFactor to know that), so 'one' might think one is good at logic at reasoning but might not actually be.

Because I'm good at reason I actually have a reason to think I'm good at reason.

 

[Marfa Lights]

It says a lot that to support their beliefs people have to make up scenarios that have absolutely no basis in evidence. While ignoring totally the scenario that does have a basis in evidence that forms a foundation of the judgement they so dislike.

Okay, then. BAT - GUN - KICK if you prefer. No one knows exactly what went down that night except for OP. The "basis in evidence" to which you and Masipa subscribe is simply Oscar's own version of events, artfully re-ordered by Roux in his timeline.

I did not find Oscar to be a credible witness which leads me to consider other possible scenarios for how the toilet door was damaged. I have learned he is a man prone to jealous rages, capable of indulging in frightful full-on uncontrolled outbursts of temper, that he is controlling and obsessive in his relationships with women, and can be aggressive, bullying and confrontational, particularly when alcohol is involved. We have recently learned he was engaged in a lengthy (for him) phone conversation with his long-term ex-girlfriend Jenna Edkins even as he drove up to his house that evening. After which it was said he left Reeva alone downstairs preparing dinner while he went upstairs, bathed and watched a little *advertiser censored*, IIRC. It is not exactly reaching to find his version of events less than the most likely scenario for what happened that night.