Trial Discussion Thread #8 - 14.03.17, Day 11

[Cher352]

I saw a tweet somewhere about a picture of the ladders, all laying in the garden away from the bathroom window. I wonder if anyone got a screen shot, or has found a media one? I'd like to see how tall they were.

Saw the photo last week just don't remember where I saw it.

It appeared to me like several of those long extension ladders stacked one on top of each other laying down on the ground, horizontally right up against a white wall (house?).

I will look around and see if I can find it again.

 

[nastasya]

And the defense will argue that an able-bodied person's reaction cannot be considered equivalent to a disabled person's. That's where we're headed.

OP is an amputee. Doesn't mean his disabled. He has ample mobility without his stumps. Read this article. It describes him playing rugby and continuing on running even after a defender tried to tackle him and knocked off his prosthetic legs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2193556/Oscar-Pistorius-story--impossible.html

After reading this article I'm convinced more than ever that OP's affidavit and excuse of "feeling vulnerable" it patently false. OP is an experienced, competitive athlete. World-class. He was armed with a 9 mm pistol standing low in the dark hallway.

Why would he feel vulnerable?

 

[Really?]

OP is an amputee. Doesn't mean his disabled. He has ample mobility without his stumps. Read this article. It describes him playing rugby and continuing on running even after a defender tried to tackle him and knocked off his prosthetic legs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2193556/Oscar-Pistorius-story--impossible.html

After reading this article I'm convinced more than ever that OP's affidavit and excuse of "feeling vulnerable" it patently false. OP is an experienced, competitive athlete. World-class. He was armed with a 9 mm pistol standing low in the dark hallway.

Why would he feel vulnerable?

Near the end of his elaborate affidavit he stated he was "extremely vulnerable"......yeah, right.

 

[minor4th]

Watching part of the replay - Roux spent a loooooooong time on the PR testing. What was that all about? Is this going to be some whamee Roux presents tomorrow or was this just tedious questioning - any guesses?

 

[minor4th]

OP is an amputee. Doesn't mean his disabled. He has ample mobility without his stumps. Read this article. It describes him playing rugby and continuing on running even after a defender tried to tackle him and knocked off his prosthetic legs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2193556/Oscar-Pistorius-story--impossible.html

After reading this article I'm convinced more than ever that OP's affidavit and excuse of "feeling vulnerable" it patently false. OP is an experienced, competitive athlete. World-class. He was armed with a 9 mm pistol standing low in the dark hallway.

Why would he feel vulnerable?

Yes, being an double amputee does mean he is disabled.

 

[minor4th]

A Cape judge has reprimanded a long-winded prosecutor in a completely different case, saying he doesn't want it 'to turn into an Oscar Pistorius trial'.....

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Cape-judge-warns-against-Oscar-trial-20140317

Haha! I do wish our judge would interrupt now and then and get to the point or clarify things. Sometimes it seems to me she is sedated or something. :facepalm:

 

[minor4th]

I am questioning the bloodstains on BOTH sides of the cricket bat too.

This pic shows the logo side, before the photographer turned it over. I don't have it now, but know there is a photo of the other side too, with all the black signatures and a thick bloodstain.

Now I can understand the cricket bat being used to bash the door and then, when it was dropped into blood, getting a big smear on the underside, but how did all the blood get on top of it too? And why was there so much blood on the underside, when in this pic it appears to be resting on just spots. There is an awful lot of blood on both sides of it, I think.

I think it was dragged around in the blood (sorry!) after the door was broken. I saw the blood on the signature side as well and it looked like heavy smear marks to me.

 

[minor4th]

At one point, even after being pressed by Roux Van Staden said unequivocally that he took 9 shots of OP in the garage and then moved outside, but later on he contradicted himself...

1:03:39 --->
First he backs down from all 9 photos in the garage to "some of the photos" :banghead:

1:04:15--->
When pressed by Roux "some" becomes 4 :banghead:

And as far as the other 5 photos go... "I took them at a later stage" :banghead:

ROUX: "After you had been through the rest of the house"

VAN STADEN: "YES" :banghead:

It's like pulling teeth with every witness. It sure looks like they are pushing a narrative to me.


I do wonder when people are so evasive over small points if they have an agenda and narrative they are trying to impose?

Did you happen to catch the time stamps of the second set of photos of Oscar's prosthetics? I'm listening again to see if I can catch it.

 

[minor4th]

LOL at Roux referring to the sandals as "slip slops" and "slops" hahahahah

 

[Really?]

OT...jeopardy is taking my time now.....bbl

They are really not sure how to refer to her shoes.....

why would the holster be on her side?

From previously posted pics I believe he kept it out and on the bed side table nearest him whilst retiring for the night.

 

[sorrell skye]

I have not seen the testimony that every spot photographed has been confirmed as blood. Confirmed as Reeva's blood. Confirmed as deposited on the night in question.
Even if all that is confirmed, they are small "splashes" most likely off OP and not necessarily an indication of violence near the bed, certainly not any of the gunshot wounds which would have caused a LOT of mess wherever they occurred.

I doubt the State would have presented the photos as evidence if the blood spatter had not been confirmed to be Reeva's and/or OP's blood.

I don't think OP shot Reeva near the bed. As you said - there would likely have been evidence of that if he had.

I don't know how the blood spatter on the wall above the headboard on the left-hand side of the bed could have been deposited there. Even if it was cast-off blood when OP may have been getting his phone, how did it get so high on the wall?

Speaking of cast-off blood - IIRC, there were no blood droplets on the floor on the left-hand side of the bed. If OP was dripping in Reeva's blood, and went to the bedside to get his phone, I would expect there to be blood droplets on the floor in that vicinity- or bloody footprints, since he was wearing his prosthetics when he bashed in the toilet door and when he pulled Reeva out of the toilet room.

Plus, the duvet was found crumpled on the floor at the foot of the bed. There were apparent blood drops on it, and when Van Staden uncrumpled the duvet, he discovered more blood drops on the previously unexposed part.

I hope the blood spatter analyst will shed some light on this. All I know is the blood spatter tells a story.

 

[canny]

Yes, being an double amputee does mean he is disabled.

Nevertheless his handicap did not prevent him from taking down his target hiding behind the toilet door with pin point accuracy in pitch darkness.His mobility oscillated from limited to unlimited in a few seconds murdering Reeva to suit his narrative.

 

[minor4th]

OT...jeopardy is taking my time now.....bbl

They are really not sure how to refer to her shoes.....

why would the holster be on her side?

From previously posted pics I believe he kept it out and on the bed side table nearest him whilst retiring for the night.

I believe the holster was in the drawer in the bedside table, while the gun itself was under the bed (without holster)

 

[minor4th]

Nevertheless his handicap did not prevent him from taking down his target hiding behind the toilet door with pin point accuracy in pitch darkness.His mobility oscillated from limited to unlimited in a few seconds murdering Reeva to suit his narrative.

I don't find that unusual, as he was describing different aspects of his mobility and the reason for his claimed vulnerable state of mind.

 

[Trooper]

In regard to the photos Van Staden took of Oscar...there was nothing confusing or evasive about it.... the photos were being tendered as evidence exhibits.... Van Staden had made no deletions.. this was testified to.. the Admin Clerk has the master copy.. this was tendered as evidence also..

Van Stad took 9 pics of Oscar in total.. they were numbered in sequence as to the categorizing of them.. Oscar = 9 pics.. 4 of him, 5 of his prosthetic legs..

All the pics Van took were divvied up into Albums, . 15 Albums in all. Once the pics were taken, STILL retaining their original sequence, pics were assigned to a specific Album as it related to the crime..

At the x-examin of Van by Roux Roux was obstreperous about there only being 4 pics of Oscar in a particular Album . the one Van was testifying about. It was Oscars contention that a great many pics had been taken of him.. where are the others, says Roux.. where are the 'great many'. my client says you took??

VS.. they are in the next Album.. I didn't take a 'great many'.. I will produce the entire total of just how many I did take of Oscar.. 10 mins adjournment....

Van Stad produces the remaining 5 pics.. of Oscars legs.. categorized as another aspect of the case in the next Album.. STILL retaining their original sequence number in regard to the actual photo .

4 pics of Oscar in the garage..with his prosthetic legs ON . 5 pics of Oscars legs once removed from Oscar. Still in the garage. .. 9 in total..

It was a small error by Roux.. he didn't clarify with his client just what a 'great many' meant to Oscar.. he took it and ran with it , and ran into a brick wall with it.. no big deal. Except its the third time the same error has come up.

.When VanRensburg testified of seeing Oscar and Clarice Standar talking, Roux wanted it re interpreted as Clarice COMFORTING Oscar.. then when both Van Rensburg and Van Stad saw Oscar in the Garage.. they said he was quiet.. Roux wants that re interpreted as VERY emotional...

As it turns out.. 4 pics of oneself with one's slaughtered girlfriend still laying in the hallway of ones home doesn't seem a 'great many'.. Of course , it may have felt like a great many to Oscar.. 5 pics of ones prosthetic legs , ditto.. but that was the total of pics taken that early morn in the garage of his homw of (a) Oscar and (b) his legs.. 9

no deletions.. in fact there are no deletions of any pic.. Every photo taken that morning and on subsequent days, is in the Master copy.. tendered as evidence. and delegated a file number in the court record.

 

[Trooper]

Watching part of the replay - Roux spent a loooooooong time on the PR testing. What was that all about? Is this going to be some whamee Roux presents tomorrow or was this just tedious questioning - any guesses?

it was Roux re grouping.. nothing more. A perfectly legitimate tactic..

 

[sorrell skye]

I believe the holster was in the drawer in the bedside table, while the gun itself was under the bed (without holster)

Vermeulen testified that he observed it on the top of the bedside table on the left-hand side of the bed.

Van Staden (crime scene photographer) took a photo that supports Vermeulen's observation.

The gun holster was on top of the bedside table (left-hand side) next to a lamp, resting sort of against the wall. I saw the photo during the testimony.

 

[sorrell skye]

Van Staden said he knows time from "looking at his watch" which is not exactly a "scientific" approach if in fact he has photos with meta data accurate times down to seconds

When Van Staden said that he looked at his watch, he was answering Roux's question about how did Van Staden know when he arrived at the crime scene. It didn't have anything to do with the photographs or when they were taken.

 

[minor4th]

When Van Staden said that he looked at his watch, he was answering Roux's question about how did Van Staden know when he arrived at the crime scene. It didn't have anything to do with the photographs or when they were taken.

That is correct. (Just listened to that part)

 

[Unique]

In regard to the photos Van Staden took of Oscar...there was nothing confusing or evasive about it.... the photos were being tendered as evidence exhibits.... Van Staden had made no deletions.. this was testified to.. the Admin Clerk has the master copy.. this was tendered as evidence also..

Van Stad took 9 pics of Oscar in total.. they were numbered in sequence as to the categorizing of them.. Oscar = 9 pics.. 4 of him, 5 of his prosthetic legs..

All the pics Van took were divvied up into Albums, . 15 Albums in all. Once the pics were taken, STILL retaining their original sequence, pics were assigned to a specific Album as it related to the crime..

At the x-examin of Van by Roux Roux was obstreperous about there only being 4 pics of Oscar in a particular Album . the one Van was testifying about. It was Oscars contention that a great many pics had been taken of him.. where are the others, says Roux.. where are the 'great many'. my client says you took??

VS.. they are in the next Album.. I didn't take a 'great many'.. I will produce the entire total of just how many I did take of Oscar.. 10 mins adjournment....

Van Stad produces the remaining 5 pics.. of Oscars legs.. categorized as another aspect of the case in the next Album.. STILL retaining their original sequence number in regard to the actual photo .

4 pics of Oscar in the garage..with his prosthetic legs ON . 5 pics of Oscars legs once removed from Oscar. Still in the garage. .. 9 in total..

It was a small error by Roux.. he didn't clarify with his client just what a 'great many' meant to Oscar.. he took it and ran with it , and ran into a brick wall with it.. no big deal. Except its the third time the same error has come up.

.When VanRensburg testified of seeing Oscar and Clarice Standar talking, Roux wanted it re interpreted as Clarice COMFORTING Oscar.. then when both Van Rensburg and Van Stad saw Oscar in the Garage.. they said he was quiet.. Roux wants that re interpreted as VERY emotional...

As it turns out.. 4 pics of oneself with one's slaughtered girlfriend still laying in the hallway of ones home doesn't seem a 'great many'.. Of course , it may have felt like a great many to Oscar.. 5 pics of ones prosthetic legs , ditto.. but that was the total of pics taken that early morn in the garage of his homw of (a) Oscar and (b) his legs.. 9

no deletions.. in fact there are no deletions of any pic.. Every photo taken that morning and on subsequent days, is in the Master copy.. tendered as evidence. and delegated a file number in the court record.

Thank you for posting this