Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

.............he didn't...........but the fact that just after someone had received bruises they were found with their head blown open one can ask the question if the two episodes are related.........even to the point of having an opinion....

One certainly can and should ask that question. The pathologists report should help to answer that question. Nothing wrong with having opinions-

 

[cottonweaver]

..............i totally agree but i feel obliged to reply being polite as i am ..............please excuse me.

no, it was my posting error - have edited it now.

 

[Colin de France]

One certainly can and should ask that question. The pathologists report should help to answer that question. Nothing wrong with having opinions-

........just to make sure that this part of the pathologists report won't get lost in the jungle of tripe and that we are completely clear .......bruises on her body that were not as a result of the shooting....bruises on the upper part of the right thigh that were not linked to the shooting and behind the left knee and the left shin............................

 

[aftermath]

........just to make sure that this part of the pathologists report won't get lost in the jungle of tripe and that we are completely clear .......bruises on her body that were not as a result of the shooting....bruises on the upper part of the right thigh that were not linked to the shooting and behind the left knee and the left shin............................

Anything else along the lines of...'consistent with a blow of some force/ an attack...' ?

 

[Colin de France]

Anything else along the lines of...'consistent with a blow of some force/ an attack...' ?

.....flop...........that's not within the remit............

 

[Trotterly]

:facepalm:

accidental dead bodies?
non crime scenes?

If you don't understand my post just ask me. I won't be offended by that.

 

[aftermath]

.....flop...........that's not within the remit............

How about in his testimony?

 

[cottonweaver]

a more experienced (aka adequate) judge would have allowed the path to make the report fully televised but simply not shown all the gruesome images on any screen for the TV audience. That's how it's typically done.

another bad judgement. think only the media lawyer objected in court chambers.

 

[cottonweaver]

If you don't understand my post just ask me. I won't be offended by that.

I do understand. I am expressing incredulity at the posts.
There is absolutely no point me asking.

Whoever mentioned the word "offensive"?

 

[aftermath]

How about in his testimony?

Or anywhere in Nel's questioning/ final summation?

 

[Interested Bystander]

It's only a crime scene once it has been established that there has been a crime. Otherwise we wouldn't need trials.

I think it illustrates how easy it is to see how Aimee's motives can be misinterpreted if we use hindsight to judge her actions. Remember it is quite possible that Aimee thought and still does think it was an accident.

BIB

This makes absolutely no difference. It is an absolute that nothing is removed from a scene where there is a violent death involved.

 

[Trotterly]

I do understand. I am expressing incredulity at the posts.
There is absolutely no point me asking.

Whoever mentioned the word "offensive"?

I did.

 

[Trotterly]

a more experienced (aka adequate) judge would have allowed the path to make the report fully televised but simply not shown all the gruesome images on any screen for the TV audience. That's how it's typically done.

another bad judgement. think only the media lawyer objected in court chambers.

I thought it was the pathologist himself who did not want to broadcast his more gruesome evidence?

 

[cottonweaver]

Before we leave this behind, I have something else to say on whether or not it was possible for screams to be heard.

I am sure those of you who think that it was impossible to hear screams from a distance should try to remember what Stander’s daughter said. She said she could hear a man shouting help, help, help. Did you know that Stander’s house is 220 metres from OP’s? That is around 40-50 metres further away than the Johnson’s and with the wind blowing in the wrong direction she still heard shouts. Quite interesting don’t you think? If the PT had employed an acoustics specialist he would have proved without any doubt that those witnesses who heard screams were telling the truth. The PT not calling one was one of the biggest mistakes in the trial. If shouts were heard by Clarice, which was never questioned or doubted at any stage in the trial, one must accept it would have been possible to hear screams from a nearer (by 40-50 metres) position and with the wind in a more favourable direction. Also it must remembered that the Johnsons heard the help, help, help too. For me this shows just how ‘off the ball’ the PT team was. A good acoustics engineer would have been able to completely refute the DT Sound Engineer’s testimony or perhaps it would be better to say would have introduced the evidence that hearing the screams would have been possible. If a shout could be heard from 220 metres away, a scream would definitely have been heard at 170 metres and if screams were heard (as I think they were), OP would have been found guilty of DE without a doubt.

Remember too that at some stage Mrs Stipp clearly stated it sounded as though the screams were coming closer. I think that suggests Reeva was screaming as she came down the passage way towards the bathroom and when she was in the bathroom before entering the toilet cubicle. Sadly this is now "water under the bridge".

I think the PT failed because they thought they had a watertight case and didn't follow up every clue.

[video=youtube;2cW8gWbXjCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cW8gWbXjCQ[/video]
@ 1.33.58

:goodpost:

and BIB I think in terms of the preceding argument heard many posters have also, previously, made many cogent suggestions of why it was only partially heard in terms of the arguers relative and possibly moving positions in the house and the respective location of EVDM that night.

 

[cottonweaver]

I thought it was the pathologist himself who did not want to broadcast his more gruesome evidence?

I am fully aware of the petitioner and the supporters. It was not the point.

 

[cottonweaver]

I did.

Exactly!

 

[Trotterly]

BIB

This makes absolutely no difference. It is an absolute that nothing is removed from a scene where there is a violent death involved.

I agree that it is an absolute. She should not have done it, no question. But I think the suggestion was that she had been aware of this at the time and had taken the bag for nefarious reasons. I am saying that in the situation her motives could well have been otherwise.

 

[Trotterly]

I am fully aware of the petitioner and the supporters. It was not the point.

I got the impression that he did not want any of it broadcast i.e. it was all (that which was never broadcast) unsuitable for a wider audience.

It may be acceptable for a court but trials are not usually broadcast so it's a somewhat unusual situation.

 

[Trotterly]

Before we leave this behind, I have something else to say on whether or not it was possible for screams to be heard.

I am sure those of you who think that it was impossible to hear screams from a distance should try to remember what Stander’s daughter said. She said she could hear a man shouting help, help, help. Did you know that Stander’s house is 220 metres from OP’s? That is around 40-50 metres further away than the Johnson’s and with the wind blowing in the wrong direction she still heard shouts. Quite interesting don’t you think? If the PT had employed an acoustics specialist he would have proved without any doubt that those witnesses who heard screams were telling the truth. The PT not calling one was one of the biggest mistakes in the trial. If shouts were heard by Clarice, which was never questioned or doubted at any stage in the trial, one must accept it would have been possible to hear screams from a nearer (by 40-50 metres) position and with the wind in a more favourable direction. Also it must remembered that the Johnsons heard the help, help, help too. For me this shows just how ‘off the ball’ the PT team was. A good acoustics engineer would have been able to completely refute the DT Sound Engineer’s testimony or perhaps it would be better to say would have introduced the evidence that hearing the screams would have been possible. If a shout could be heard from 220 metres away, a scream would definitely have been heard at 170 metres and if screams were heard (as I think they were), OP would have been found guilty of DE without a doubt.

Remember too that at some stage Mrs Stipp clearly stated it sounded as though the screams were coming closer. I think that suggests Reeva was screaming as she came down the passage way towards the bathroom and when she was in the bathroom before entering the toilet cubicle. Sadly this is now "water under the bridge".

I think the PT failed because they thought they had a watertight case and didn't follow up every clue.

[video=youtube;2cW8gWbXjCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cW8gWbXjCQ[/video]
@ 1.33.58

A good point and Roux even invited the state to do a test with someone screaming from the closed toilet which he claimed could not be heard at 177m.

They did do some tests but they didn't seem to be very useful.

 

[Colin de France]

I agree that it is an absolute. She should not have done it, no question. But I think the suggestion was that she had been aware of this at the time and had taken the bag for nefarious reasons. I am saying that in the situation her motives could well have been otherwise.

.....and the telephone .....which went missing for pleasure, all on it's own......even wiped it's contents off on the way .....................coo coo..