Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

....they weren't described at all.....if i'm right..........except that they occured before the shooting..and where they were situated...

I think Nel would have made the most of any hint of violence if the bruises had suggested it as a possibility.

 

[Colin de France]

I think Nel would have made the most of any hint of violence if the bruises had suggested it as a possibility.

.....too difficult to prove, i think............but it does fit in nicely with an escalating dispute........leading to running off to the WC with the phone .....

 

[aftermath]

.....too difficult to prove, i think............but it does fit in nicely with an escalating dispute........leading to running off to the WC with the phone .....

Definitely difficult to prove, but worth getting it out there in court. Firstly by getting confirmation from both pathologists that the bruises suggested or could possibly suggest a recent physical attack, and then by using this to rattle pistorius on the stand. Nel was happy to try and make the watermelon-headshot link... I think it unlikely that he would have passed up an opportunity to unsettle pistorius by linking a pathologists report (bruises on the legs), to a possible physical attack.

 

[Colin de France]

Definitely difficult to prove, but worth getting it out there in court. Firstly by getting confirmation from both pathologists that the bruises suggested or could possibly suggest a recent physical attack, and then by using this to rattle pistorius on the stand. Nel was happy to try and make the watermelon-headshot link... I think it unlikely that he would have passed up an opportunity to unsettle pistorius by linking a pathologists report (bruises on the legs), to a possible physical attack.

.....considering Reeva's not around to explain how she got the bruises that's no reason not to bring them up at her murder trial............

 

[aftermath]

.....considering Reeva's not around to explain how she got the bruises that's no reason not to bring them up in a her murder trial............

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Nel not to pursue the detail of the bruises?

 

[GR_Turner]

I don't think he needs to plant his legs strongly and steadily, just steady himself sufficiently before launching each strike. I think he uses the left hand wall to initially steady himself before launching the first strike, and he uses the door itself to steady himself before strikes 2 and 3, moving back further before launching 3. I would imagine him overbalancing after each strike and needing to steady himself again on the wall or door before continuing. I also therefore think this is part of why he stops. He wasn't having much success and, were he to succeed, it would have been futile to break into the toilet on his stumps. But all this comes down to a matter of opinion, so we'll have to accept that ours differ on this point. And like I've said before, even if the bat/gun scenario is reasonably feasible his version is not disproved. That needs something else.

I don't have such a problem with why he says he was on his prostheses in his version but I'll answer that later because it's a good question along with a few others of a similar nature. Essentially, I have taken the bat/gun scenario from the moment after he fires the gun, ignored his version and thought through the process of what he needs to cover to explain the evidence and support a mistaken intruder story (e.g. what must follow what and when), both immediately that night and then in the short time he has before giving a version to Oldwadge and Webber. Of course, there are variations on any story but essentially I came up with his version and it was straightforward to do so. He also had his legal team to ask questions if he omitted (failed to recollect) something. Later.

BIB1 How does this fit with what the Stipps heard though? They heard 3 bangs in a row and quickly, the same as the second bangs.

BIB2 I tried this too some time ago. He'd have to guess that bats can be mistaken for shots though, wouldn't he - or do you think that he knew about the Stipps' evidence even before the bail hearing? And he'd have to explain female screaming for about 5+ minutes as that would certainly be heard. Yet in his version his screams before the shots can't be the 'female' screaming as it couldn't have taken 5+ minutes to get into the bathroom. If they'd been up and fighting I'd expect him to say that they were up (the lights or noise might have been heard) and watching a DVD for example, certainly not that they were asleep in bed. How did you reconcile these points?

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think he needs to plant his legs strongly and steadily, just steady himself sufficiently before launching each strike. I think he uses the left hand wall to initially steady himself before launching the first strike, and he uses the door itself to steady himself before strikes 2 and 3, moving back further before launching 3. I would imagine him overbalancing after each strike and needing to steady himself again on the wall or door before continuing. I also therefore think this is part of why he stops. He wasn't having much success and, were he to succeed, it would have been futile to break into the toilet on his stumps. But all this comes down to a matter of opinion, so we'll have to accept that ours differ on this point. And like I've said before, even if the bat/gun scenario is reasonably feasible his version is not disproved. That needs something else.

RSBM

Bold 1 - in this scenario of prosthetics off - this is totally logical.
Bold 2 - in this scenario -don't think you even need to add that - him simultaneously rationalising his next step whilst in a great rage.

Must say I am looking forward to reading this, esp. as you are also factoring in the differences between the versions from bail version to disclosure of state's case/witness details etc.

Do you know off the top of your head when "Discovery" occurred pre- trial? ie. how many months pre-trial? I'm still bemused why Roux went with double-tap initially and the last-minute nature of many of D' experts' tests. ( Sure, reason could be simply be that they worked out so many versions & timelines...)

P.S. Incidentally, whilst it's not relevant to this scenario, did you ever rationalise why Baba stated the order of his calls to OP and vice versa compared to the phone data Roux gave. ( Baba was abs adamant.)

 

[Colin de France]

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Nel not to pursue the detail of the bruises?

....one of your funny questions again ..........maybe lack of proof ! ....

 

[GR_Turner]

I would also add that, in the bat then gun scenario, it is perfectly plausible for OP to be on his prostheses to fire the shots. Mangena's report does not exclude this possibility. OP could not have said prostheses for this in his version because if he had time to put them on, he'd have known Reeva was not in bed amongst other things.

The height at which the shots were fired suggests he was on his stumps, he fired from the hip or he crouched down before firing. I don't know how likely it is for someone to fire from the hip whilst in a state of rage. I'd guess it's not the obvious way to shoot. And once we have him crouching down then the whole thing becomes someone planning a defense before he commits the crime, which I just don't see in this case. Which of these options do think it is in the bat-gun scenario?

 

[Colin de France]

He'd have to guess that bats can be mistaken for shots though, wouldn't he - or do you think that he knew about the Stipps' evidence even before the bail hearing?

......no......but he is expecting us and all savoury to take the bat as gun shots............

 

[aftermath]

....one of your funny questions again ..........maybe lack of proof ! ....

Ah yes.. I forgot that I was prohibited from asking questions in response to certain posters.
Definitely lack of proof: plus, if the bruises were consistent with a possible physical attack, Nel would have mentioned it. He didn't raise it with the pathologists, to my recollection, and he didn't mention it to Pistorius. Not even to rattle him and explore his response.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

.....considering Reeva's not around to explain how she got the bruises that's no reason not to bring them up at her murder trial............

I think OP doesn't know at all how thankful he can be: the battlefield throughout the house, the bruising - no questions, no answers necessary. Only a few shots at an "intruder" and a few bat strikes, some questions and answers - and the thing was done. Any embarrassment because DV was spared. He can always say and will continue to believe himself half of it, I fear, that there was only a little mistake because of the "burglar", nothing else. And he will say, his penalty had got him very hard and ruined his future somehow. And he will think "all Reeva's fault", I'm sure. Hadn't she ...., then I would not have ... and so on.

Add: I wonder whether he would be an "first-time offender" re DV, if something will happen in the future? So he will then be able to escape his rightful punishment again ......

 

[Colin de France]

The height at which the shots were fired suggests he was on his stumps, he fired from the hip or he crouched down before firing. I don't know how likely it is for someone to fire from the hip whilst in a state of rage. I'd guess it's not the obvious way to shoot. And once we have him crouching down then the whole thing becomes someone planning a defense before he commits the crime, which I just don't see in this case. Which of these options do think it is in the bat-gun scenario?

...........wasn't he afraid of bullets coming back round to hit him...............that's why he knelt down.........he's not thick you know ....

 

[Colin de France]

Ah yes.. I forgot that I was prohibited from asking questions in response to certain posters.
Definitely lack of proof: plus, if the bruises were consistent with a possible physical attack, Nel would have mentioned it. He didn't raise it with the pathologists, to my recollection, and he didn't mention it to Pistorius. Not even to rattle him and explore his response.

............and ..?....

 

[aftermath]

............and ..?

Just me not allowed to ask questions, it would seem!

And.... He didn't raise it because the three bruises on her legs were not especially consistent with a physical attack, or he would have mentioned it as a viable possibility.

Eta. - Thought I had covered that with: 'if the bruises were consistent with a possible physical attack, Nel would have mentioned it...' (in my previous post.)

 

[Colin de France]

Just me not allowed to ask questions, it would seem!

And.... He didn't raise it because the three bruises on her legs were not especially consistent with a physical attack, or he would have mentioned it as a viable possibility.

........that doesnt change a blind iota to the fact that they were there ......does it now ? .......and how do you know this.. "were not especially consistent with a physical attack".....?

 

[aftermath]

........that doesnt change a blind iota to the fact that they were there ......does it now ? .......and how do you know this.. "were not especially consistent with a physical attack".....?

Erm... Of course not.

And....?

ETA - how do you know they occured as a result of pistorius? (another question - sorry about that)

 

[Colin de France]

Erm... Of course not.

And....?

....how do you know they were not consistent with a phsyical attack................you don't..

 

[aftermath]

....how do you know they were not consistent with a phsyical attack................you don't..

How do you know they are? You don't.

 

[Colin de France]

How do you know they are? You don't.

.....now you're awnsering a question with a question......the bruises were there, they were there before the shooting, there's no proof how they got there......but one thing is for sure..she had bruises on her the night she was shot by her boyfriend after having had a dispute........i think their relevant....