Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Well, it seems that the stomach contents must be dismissed (since it doesn't support OP's versions because it's "unreliable") and the pathologist's report stating Reeva had time to scream after the first shot must also be dismissed (since it doesn't support OP's versions, and Reeva was no doubt bravely maintaining her silence after being shot in the hip so as not to disturb the invisible intruder who had entered the bathroom in the few seconds it had taken her to leave the bed and enter the toilet) and the police ballistics expert who said there was a pause between the first and second shots (remembering that the second shot missed...) must also be dismissed (since it doesn't support OP's versions, and apparently all four shots, including OP repositioning himself to take another shot, only took "a second".) It seems the only things which shouldn't be dismissed are OP's plethora of lies and contradictions. Am I right??

All the witnesses who testified to the stomach contents also testified that it's not a precise test and that many things can influence it so it's not something that can be relied upon, no. And even if she did eat later on it doesn't prove an argument or that OP was awake at the same time. The pathologist didn't put in his report that she would have screamed - he was asked by Nel and agreed that if primed a person receiving a severe injury probably would scream. But on the defense version, she wouldn't be expecting to be shot so this doesn't matter, even if we accept that a pathologist is professionally qualified to make such a statement. If you thought there was an intruder and your partner was yelling to him to get out from another room, would you start screaming and therefore be unable to hear what was happening and draw attention to yourself? I wouldn't. The defense ballistics expert disagreed with the state ballistics expert (and Mrs VdM heard 4 shots in a row). So yes I do dismiss the pause between the first and second shot. How long does it take to fire 4 shots in quick succession? - surely no more than a few seconds at most. I have logic to support my views and am not just blindly dismissing evidence 'because it doesn't support OP's version'.

 

[lithgow1]

If you aren't familiar with the evidence then on what basis have you decided that he's guilty? Yes, she did say that and she's the only witness we can be sure heard the actual shots whereas it's quite likely that Mrs Burger heard the bats and at any event the sounds she heard were heard as 3 bangs by the Stipps (and their housekeeper in her affadavit) and as a volley or about 5 or 6 shots by her husband. None of them heard 1-3 bangs and you'd think at least one of them would have identified such a specific combination of sounds.

Yes there is a difference between sobbing and screaming but it doesn't matter here. He sounded like a woman crying at some point at least. Female crying is what Mrs VdM said she heard. Mrs Stipp's housekeeper heard female crying at the same time as the Stipps heard female screaming so not everyone heard a woman screaming for her life. The housekeeper's description of the crying as being like that of a baby and then of a woman sounds very similar to the close neighbour's demonstration of what they heard. The close neighbours made perfectly clear that they were not referring to sobbing when they said they heard crying - it sounded more like wailing from the sounds the close neighbours made. It really isn't too much of a leap to see that it's possible they all heard the same thing but just interpreted it differently because it sounded different in different places.

Re Dixon - why not? Do you need a light meter to tell you it's dark at night or do you rely on your eyes? And when did the State demonstrate what the light level was in the room?

Re BIB / I am not as familiar with all the debate re timelines and who heard what when but am quite familiar with the overall case having watched the trial and followed it here. Other people have followed those aspects so they could answer your questions I am sure. I believe he is guilty on the basis that screams were heard and I do not believe they were OP's, on the basis of the ballistics and other forensic evidence, including the state`s assertion that the `wood moving` sound was her falling onto the magazine rack and Pistorius re-aimed to fire his killing shots, the stomach contents, the crime scene photos, the shabby defence `experts` such as Roger Dixon, the changes between Pistorius`s bail affidavit and his testimony in court (partic the went out onto balcony versus did not go out onto balcony which are two very different things and there is no excuse that can be made since he made that statement a number of days after the incident), and his lies, evasions and tailoring, on everything to the Tasha`s incident to being shot at on the highway to killing Reeva Steenkamp. Add to that his sister taking evidence from the crime scene and his bizarre behaviour post shooting (no one had even called an ambulance until Stipp arrived) and that is enough to convince me. Oh and BTW, was it the same Mrs VdM who heard arguing earlier in the night, when according to OP`s version they were asleep.

And even if his intention to kill RS cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, what do you think he intended to do to the person he knew was inside the toilet when he pumped it full of Black Talon ammo? Scare them? Inflict a flesh wound? He knew what he was doing would kill and that is why the vast majority of legal experts in SA were surprised at Masipa`s judgement and why the state is appealing it.

No not everyone heard a woman screaming but some people did, though I know you will just say that is what they thought they heard.

As for the Dixon comment, it may be enough for you but not for me. If it was as dark in there as OP claims, how did he even make his way onto the balcony, sorry not onto the balcony, to retrieve the fans? It was almost pitch black according to him and yet he moved around moving things in the dark without switching on a light ot make it easier and when RS was already awake. His story is a crock.

 

[GR_Turner]

.....do you really believe that ? You know fully well that all of the people can't be wrong all of the time but some of the people can be wrong some of the time which means that of those who heard the screams at least some of them are right....in other words you're wasting your time trying to deny reality....in fact you're just wasting your time...

lol - Is this some kind of philosophical point? If we all look at an optical illusion we all see the same thing but we are all wrong. In this case we have some people who heard one thing and others who heard something else and there is some evidence that they might be talking about the same sounds but you for some reason just don't want to see this evidence and prefer to blindly insist that people hearing screaming can't be wrong. Do you think that the Stipps' housekeeper actually described terrible screaming as a baby/woman crying? Sounds rather like she heard what the close neighbours heard.

 

[Colin de France]

If that was Reeva then she must have screamed during the shots and if it wasn't her then it's irrelevant whether she might have screamed during the shots as OP wouldn't have heard her and it wouldn't invalidate his defense anyway.

......going back to the intruder version, what you have described happens to make the situation far worse than it was....going on the supposition that he coudn't hear due to the shots, why fire four times ? ....he gave no chance to whoever who was in the toilet to come out because he coudn't hear any submission from whoever was in the toilet, that alone is murder....regardless how one puts it, four shots was an execution......

 

[Colin de France]

lol - Is this some kind of philosophical point? If we all look at an optical illusion we all see the same thing but we are all wrong. In this case we have some people who heard one thing and others who heard something else and there is some evidence that they might be talking about the same sounds but you for some reason just don't want to see this evidence and prefer to blindly insist that people hearing screaming can't be wrong. Do you think that the Stipps' housekeeper actually described terrible screaming as a baby/woman crying? Sounds rather like she heard what the close neighbours heard.

......i don't find anything funny about it at all....even if only one honest person heard a womans screams which concluded with an execution of a woman at exactly the same moment, that would be enough for me......

 

[lithgow1]

.....for a start the defense is wrong and secondly i find your post more than distasteful.....you show a complete lack of respect for the murder victim......what do you think she went ran into the toilet for ? ....what do you think she screamed for in the middle of the night.....you're on a losing battle if you haven't already lost...

I agree with the earlier post that she was screaming in fear before he shot her and then in pain for a few moments until he dealt his killing blow. As for the attitude, the other Pistorius supporter refers to the shooting as the `stupid thing` he did. I find that very unpleasant.

 

[Colin de France]

.....it's true that if he coudn't hear due to the shots then he coudn't hear anyone pleading for him to stop.......he carried on regardless.......that is murder

 

[GR_Turner]

Re BIB / I am not as familiar with all the debate re timelines and who heard what when but am quite familiar with the overall case having watched the trial and followed it here. Other people have followed those aspects so they could answer your questions I am sure. I believe he is guilty on the basis that screams were heard and I do not believe they were OP's, on the basis of the ballistics and other forensic evidence, including the state`s assertion that the `wood moving` sound was her falling onto the magazine rack and Pistorius re-aimed to fire his killing shots, the stomach contents, the crime scene photos, the shabby defence `experts` such as Roger Dixon, the changes between Pistorius`s bail affidavit and his testimony in court (partic the went out onto balcony versus did not go out onto balcony which are two very different things and there is no excuse that can be made since he made that statement a number of days after the incident), and his lies, evasions and tailoring, on everything to the Tasha`s incident to being shot at on the highway to killing Reeva Steenkamp. Add to that his sister taking evidence from the crime scene and his bizarre behaviour post shooting (no one had even called an ambulance until Stipp arrived) and that is enough to convince me. Oh and BTW, was it the same Mrs VdM who heard arguing earlier in the night, when according to OP`s version they were asleep.

And even if his intention to kill RS cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, what do you think he intended to do to the person he knew was inside the toilet when he pumped it full of Black Talon ammo? Scare them? Inflict a flesh wound? He knew what he was doing would kill and that is why the vast majority of legal experts in SA were surprised at Masipa`s judgement and why the state is appealing it.

No not everyone heard a woman screaming but some people did, though I know you will just say that is what they thought they heard.

As for the Dixon comment, it may be enough for you but not for me. If it was as dark in there as OP claims, how did he even make his way onto the balcony, sorry not onto the balcony, to retrieve the fans? It was almost pitch black according to him and yet he moved around moving things in the dark without switching on a light ot make it easier and when RS was already awake. His story is a crock.

You have very clearly summarised exactly what I was trying to discuss with Mr Jitty. If we just throw everything in together and say it looks bad then there's nothing to stop a prosecutor just putting a lot of dodgy evidence together and getting a conviction. The first point must surely be to question the evidence. You haven't done that.

Screaming: there's several witnesses that indicate that something else other than Reeva screaming might have happened so you can't just blindly accept that it must be true. If you don't believe they were OP's then explain why - not the usual '4 witnesses can't be wrong' approach but explaining why you dismiss Mrs VdM's and Mrs Stipp's evidence (about the latter's housekeeper's female crying). Where did the state produce their own acoustics expert to demonstrate that female screams and high pitched male cries can't ever be mistaken?

Ballistics: there were 2 ballistics experts and they disagreed. Neither won the argument imo. And there's Mrs VdM's description of the 4 shots she heard too.

Wood moving and re-aiming: The state are saying both that he didn't hear wood moving and that he did - huh? They say that OP was actually able to re-aim at a person he couldn't see falling in such a way to accurately shoot her? I don't agree about the ballistics so I don't agree there's evidence of a gap between the first and second shots.

Crime scene photos: you aren't bothered by the fact that the police couldn't even agree who arrived first, what they did or who was there when the photos were taken?

Shabby defense experts: don't confuse shabby experts with a false defense. What about the shabby state experts. Do they invalidate the state's case?

The changes between affidavit and court: yes, I agree this doesn't look good. Adding things in is fine as far as I can see as all witnesses did that. I'm not sure about the going out onto the balcony - it could have been a misunderstanding - he could have said 'I brought the fan in from the balcony' or 'I went up to the door onto the balcony to bring in the fan that was outside ' which became ' I went onto the balcony to get the fan'. It shouldn't have happened though and does look bad.

Mrs VdM didn't hear arguing - she heard a woman talking in an angry voice far away. This is not the same thing as actually hearing an argument.

 

[lithgow1]

All the witnesses who testified to the stomach contents also testified that it's not a precise test and that many things can influence it so it's not something that can be relied upon, no. And even if she did eat later on it doesn't prove an argument or that OP was awake at the same time. The pathologist didn't put in his report that she would have screamed - he was asked by Nel and agreed that if primed a person receiving a severe injury probably would scream. But on the defense version, she wouldn't be expecting to be shot so this doesn't matter, even if we accept that a pathologist is professionally qualified to make such a statement. If you thought there was an intruder and your partner was yelling to him to get out from another room, would you start screaming and therefore be unable to hear what was happening and draw attention to yourself? I wouldn't. The defense ballistics expert disagreed with the state ballistics expert (and Mrs VdM heard 4 shots in a row). So yes I do dismiss the pause between the first and second shot. How long does it take to fire 4 shots in quick succession? - surely no more than a few seconds at most. I have logic to support my views and am not just blindly dismissing evidence 'because it doesn't support OP's version'.

According to Trotterly the whole thing took one second. I asked how they knew that so hopefully when he or she returns we might get a definitive answer.

Anyone who has logic supporting their views would be much more critical and skeptical of OP`s version of events than you are, even if you believed the state didn`t prove their case. From my reading of your posts believe everything he said unquestioningly and when it is something that is tricky to explain you make up excuses for him or trot out some generalisation along the lines of `we all act differently'. I have not seen you once acknowledge any lies or embellishments of the killer's. Did you believe that he didn`t pull the trigger in Tasha`s until he turned around and admitted he did?

Anyways, I`d like to hear your logical view on what OP intended to do and to happen when he fired those bullets.

 

[GR_Turner]

.....it's true that if he coudn't hear due to the shots then he coudn't hear anyone pleading for him to stop.......he carried on regardless.......that is murder

This makes no sense at all - lol.

 

[Colin de France]

This makes no sense at all - lol.

....getting tired, are we ?......think about it, if he coudn't hear due to the shots, how could he hear someone giving in/wanting to come out peacefully/pleading for mercy/screaming....one shot due to fright is partly explainable, but the following three knowing that he coudn't hear, that is outright murder....an execution.....so even going by your intruder version it's still murder.....

 

[lithgow1]

I won`t quote your post above GR Turner but what is good for the goose ... You never question any of the defence`s claims and witnesses, including OP`s story.

I felt that Mangena was a much more credible witness than Wolmerans and believe that the direct and cross examinations of both of them showed that. If you choose to call it a draw so be it but I had more confidence in Mangena.

I agree that there were many issues with the initial investigation but the legitimacy of the photos was never disproven and the chances of the police deliberatly moving things to discredit Pistorius before they knew his version are slim to none. The positioning of the fans and the blood splatter are strong evidence for me that he was lying about those things are hence a big part of his story. And to return to the crime scene, you aren`t bothered that a family member of the accused walked out the door with the deceased`s handbag and a suss story for doing so.

With the wood moving thing, remember it was OP`s story that he heard wood moving and that is what prompted him to fire (!). The state`s contention is that the wood moving was the sound made when she fell against the magazine rack, which let him know her position and he re/aimed in that direction. There is a definite grouping on the right hand side of the door, lower down from the first shot. With the size of that cubicle and the ammo he was using he didn`t need to be able to see to know he would hit her and let`s face facts, he did, three times out of four.

Re the balcony story, no it was not a misunderstanding. This is the quote from his bail app:

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom."

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://ewn.co.za/2015/07/09/OPINION-Stephen-Grootes-When-SA-judges-said-Enough-to-the-ANC

OPINION: WHEN THE LAND'S JUDGES SAID 'ENOUGH!' TO THE ANC

Then Mogoeng goes on to say, “There have been suggestions that in certain cases judges have been prompted by others to arrive at a pre-determined result. This is a notion that we reject. However, in a case in which a judge does overstep, the general public, litigants or other aggrieved or interested parties should refer the matter to the judicial conduct committee of Judicial Service Commission.”

This is surely a reference to a story by Eyewitness News last month, in which it emerged that police minister Nathi Nhleko had told the provincial heads of the Hawks, in a closed meeting, that certain judges “colluded with people to produce certain judgments”.

When asked if that was indeed what Mogoeng was referring to, he wouldn’t be drawn, not wanting to go into specifics. He also wouldn’t say this was about the al-Bashir case, but did drop a wonderful hint when he said that, “It would not take a rigorous exercise to work out which court orders have not been obeyed”. He’s probably right to be cautious here, he won’t want to get tangled in specifics, in public at least.

The upshot of all of this is that all the heads of courts have now mandated Mogoeng to request a meeting with President Jacob Zuma to discuss it all. He says it’s ‘always healthy’ to discuss these kinds of things, and yes, he will want it to happen behind closed doors.

 

[GR_Turner]

According to Trotterly the whole thing took one second. I asked how they knew that so hopefully when he or she returns we might get a definitive answer.

Anyone who has logic supporting their views would be much more critical and skeptical of OP`s version of events than you are, even if you believed the state didn`t prove their case. From my reading of your posts believe everything he said unquestioningly and when it is something that is tricky to explain you make up excuses for him or trot out some generalisation along the lines of `we all act differently'. I have not seen you once acknowledge any lies or embellishments of the killer's. Did you believe that he didn`t pull the trigger in Tasha`s until he turned around and admitted he did?

Anyways, I`d like to hear your logical view on what OP intended to do and to happen when he fired those bullets.

The problem is that either the state are basically right or the defense are basically right so there's not much middle ground. I approach this from the perspective that the state must prove their case. Their evidence is all over the place and much of the cross was predicated on the assumption that the state's evidence was right. If we dismiss much of the state's evidence as I think we must because it is contradicted by other evidence or is unreliable, we are left with an accused who made himself look bad but who actually stuck to his story. It doesn't matter that he was trying to make himself look good - who wouldn't?

 

[Colin de France]

The problem is that either the state are basically right or the defense are basically right so there's not much middle ground. I approach this from the perspective that the state must prove their case. Their evidence is all over the place and much of the cross was predicated on the assumption that the state's evidence was right. If we dismiss much of the state's evidence as I think we must because it is contradicted by other evidence or is unreliable, we are left with an accused who made himself look bad but who actually stuck to his story. It doesn't matter that he was trying to make himself look good - who wouldn't?

....but didn't you prefer the intruder version ? ......too late now to be objective....

 

[GR_Turner]

I won`t quote your post above GR Turner but what is good for the goose ... You never question any of the defence`s claims and witnesses, including OP`s story.

I felt that Mangena was a much more credible witness than Wolmerans and believe that the direct and cross examinations of both of them showed that. If you choose to call it a draw so be it but I had more confidence in Mangena.

I agree that there were many issues with the initial investigation but the legitimacy of the photos was never disproven and the chances of the police deliberatly moving things to discredit Pistorius before they knew his version are slim to none. The positioning of the fans and the blood splatter are strong evidence for me that he was lying about those things are hence a big part of his story. And to return to the crime scene, you aren`t bothered that a family member of the accused walked out the door with the deceased`s handbag and a suss story for doing so.

With the wood moving thing, remember it was OP`s story that he heard wood moving and that is what prompted him to fire (!). The state`s contention is that the wood moving was the sound made when she fell against the magazine rack, which let him know her position and he re/aimed in that direction. There is a definite grouping on the right hand side of the door, lower down from the first shot. With the size of that cubicle and the ammo he was using he didn`t need to be able to see to know he would hit her and let`s face facts, he did, three times out of four.

Re the balcony story, no it was not a misunderstanding. This is the quote from his bail app:

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom."

I have questioned the defense evidence but it's role is to produce reasonable doubt and it does that. I do question OP's version but I just don't see the problems that some claim - it is possible.

I don't agree about the ballistics experts. I thought they were both wrong as it happens. So they cancel each out rather. But I did think that Wolmarans was right that other experts would probably come up with some other version.

How do you prove that the photos weren't legitimate? By producing a video of the scene from the moment it happened to when the photos were taken?? The only way to show there were problems or might have been is to show that the police didn't protect the scene or that they might have been untruthful about who was on the scene before the photos were taken. I think the defense did that. It's the only thing they could do and yet it's not good enough?

Wood moving - Yes, and the state disputed OP's version so they were arguing that he didn't hear wood moving. And also that he could follow Reeva down in his shooting by hearing (amidst the gunshots) a woman falling down on the other side of a closed door. Seriously? Perhaps he didn't need to see her or hear her but that's a different point entirely isn't it.

Yes, I know what the bail application statement said and agree it's different. I was referring to how a misunderstanding between the lawyers and OP might have arisen.

 

[lithgow1]

The below is from his bail application. No mention of telling Reeva (in a soft tone) to get down and call the police. Totally different description. Too scared to turn a light on but he grabs his gun from under the bed (with no difficulty in a pitch dark room) and heads off screaming down the hallway.

"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.

I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

 

[Colin de France]

The below is from his bail application. No mention of telling Reeva (in a soft tone) to get down and call the police. Totally different description. Too scared to turn a light on but he grabs his gun from under the bed (with no difficulty in a pitch dark room) and heads off screaming down the hallway.

"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.

I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

.....too scared to put the light on but not enough to go off screaming in the dark..........to face the unknown !!

 

[lithgow1]

Snipped from your post GR Turner: Yes, I know what the bail application statement said and agree it's different. I was referring to how a misunderstanding between the lawyers and OP might have arisen.

I know it has been pointed out before but it is worth repeating: with all that was on the line don`t you think they would have gone over that statement line by line, word by word, making sure it was a totally accurate retelling of his version of events? That they wouldn`t have is not um `logical`.

 

[Colin de France]

...." and for Reeva to phone the police."...yes my love, i'll do it straight away.......did someone mention Benny Hill ?