Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder

Botha went into the garage, where Pistorius, in a bloody shirt and shorts ...

Mr Fossil and JudgeJudy,

to where the bloody shirt might have disappeared ... and why ...? Important or not so much?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I was thinking of Dr Garavaglia, too. She's extremely impressive, IMO.

I wonder whether Lisa might contact her as she has all the photos to hand but I don't think Lisa visits WS regularly and she is going to be in SA for the Appeal, I believe.

 

[Giles]

Mr Fossil and Judge Judi explore 'The bullet trajectories':

https://cc11313.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/the-bullet-trajectories/

 

[Interested Bystander]

I promised I would upload some of the information I retrieved from the internet. Please remember I know nothing about gunshot wounds and have been looking for info that might throw some light on the injury on RS’s back. This is the first piece.

I found the diagram below (on the right) which shows a similar shape to the abrasion on RS. This is of an entry wound but we know that if it were to be from a ricochet it likely would have been travelling too slowly to cause an entry wound and maybe would have only stretched the skin, causing the abrasion collar. The skin is stretched by the force of the bullet contacting the skin. As there are two marks on RS’s back, had the bullet sheared into two pieces or, given that this is a bony part of her back did the bullet “skip” (much as a stone skips on water) creating two marks. As I pointed out earlier there are satellite haemorrhages around these marks which might also be fragments of the bullet OR fragments of the tiling that was damaged during the ricochet. As far as I have read, bullet fragments create a cone shape. However this may only be in the case of a direct shot not a ricochet. The photo is very close up and it is impossible to really see whether the pattern has a specific shape to it. However, they do look almost equidistant from the graze on RS’s back (ie possibly associated with - or is that a photo anomaly such as foreshortening). Do we have any keen photographers who would care to offer an opinion. The photos to which I refer are on Mr Fossil and Judge Judy’s blog and also on Lisa’s blog,Juror13.

http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/evaluation-of-gunshot-wounds/


"The distant or indeterminate gunshot wound of entrance is one which results when the weapon is discharged at such a distance that only the bullet makes contact with the victim’s skin. When the bullet or projectile penetrates the epithelial tissue, there is friction between the skin and the projectile. This friction results in an abraded area of tissue which surrounds the entry wound and is known as an abrasion collar (Figs 1 and 2). In general,with the exception of gunshot wounds on the soles of the feet and palms of the hands, all handgun gunshot wounds of entrance will have an associated abrasion collar. The width of the abrasion collar will vary depending on the caliber of the weapon, the angle of bullet impact and the anatomical site of entrance.Skin which overlies bone will generally have a narrower abrasion collar than skin supported by soft tissue. Entrance wounds on the soles and palms are usually slit-like in appearance. It is important to note that the abrasion collar is not the result of thermal changes associated with a ‘hot projectile’.The terms abrasion margin, abrasion rim, abrasion ring and abrasion collar are all used interchangeably.”

Figure 1 An abrasion collar is the abraided area of tissue surrounding the entrance wound created by the bullet when it dents and passes through the epithelium. The abrasion collar will vary with the angle of impact.​

 

[Interested Bystander]

Mr Fossil and JJ,

I have just read your excellent description of the trajectories. I am sure you are spot on. OP had to be nearer the door when he fired the final 3 shots. The powder deposits do not lie. The are usually only detectable for 1 metre which confirms that any deposits found nearer the door have to be within 1 metre of the gun. Why did Nel not labour this point. It seems to simple to prove.

Interestingly on one of Judge Greenland's old videos he categorically states (I believe Greenland shoots) that OP had to be mentally totally in charge of his faculties to shoot such a tight set of shots. So none of the "I didn't know what I was doing" or "I did not aim". We know OP lies. With your work we are finding out just how much.

Very well done, again, and brilliantly presented.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil and JJ,

I have just read your excellent description of the trajectories. I am sure you are spot on. OP had to be nearer the door when he fired the final 3 shots. The powder deposits do not lie. The are usually only detectable for 1 metre which confirms that any deposits found nearer the door have to be within 1 metre of the gun. Why did Nel not labour this point. It seems to simple to prove.

Interestingly on one of Judge Greenland's old videos he categorically states (I believe Greenland shoots) that OP had to be mentally totally in charge of his faculties to shoot such a tight set of shots. So none of the "I didn't know what I was doing" or "I did not aim". We know OP lies. With your work we are finding out just how much.

Very well done, again, and brilliantly presented.

Thank you.

BIB I have reworded and expanded the paragraph I think you refer to make it clearer. No powder deposits were found on the actual toilet door. Primer residue was found at the light switch.

 

[soozieqtips]

Mr Fossil and JJ - thanks so much for all the time and effort you've put into this. Fascinating stuff. What a shame Nel didn't dig deeper into it.

IB - Not only Greenland, but Martin Hood (SA legal expert and licensed firearms owner) also said pretty much the same thing - that the tight grouping of shots indicated OP was more in control of his faculties than he let on, and that he was 'most probably' holding the gun with two hands, not one, as OP claimed.

 

[Colin de France]

Thank you.

BIB I have reworded and expanded the paragraph I think you refer to make it clearer. No powder deposits were found on the actual toilet door. Primer residue was found at the light switch.

..Mr Fossil...another excellent job on your blog about the bullets.... i would like to know following the bullet trajectories and your study of them what is your opinion of how Reeva fell afterwards (if you have one), in particular if it was possible that she fell onto the rack ....?

 

[Mr Fossil]

..Mr Fossil...another excellent job on your blog about the bullets.... i would like to know following the bullet trajectories and your study of them is your opinion of how Reeva fell afterwards (if you have one), in particular if it was possible that she fell onto the rack ....?

Thank you.

We have quite a bit of information figured about what we think may have happened in the toilet but we're still working on it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

..Mr Fossil...another excellent job on your blog about the bullets.... i would like to know following the bullet trajectories and your study of them what is your opinion of how Reeva fell afterwards (if you have one), in particular if it was possible that she fell onto the rack ....?

I have listened to the whole of Mangena's testimony this evening. He clearly states he thinks she fell onto the magazine rack, probably in a seated position but was adamant that the magazine rack did not cause the two marks on her back. There were also two fragments of a bullet found inside the magazine rack and one in the toilet bowl. Botha, of course, also said that she fell onto the magazine rack but it is his opinion that the two wounds on RS's back were made by the rack itself. Mangena rejected Botha's opinion out of hand.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you.

BIB I have reworded and expanded the paragraph I think you refer to make it clearer. No powder deposits were found on the actual toilet door. Primer residue was found at the light switch.

I remember Mangena saying that at 60cm there was no residue but that it could be OP shot from that distance or beyond that distance. I have read that it is likely that residue will be found up to 1 metre but his gunshot tests did not find any residue at that distance.

I don't recall any mention of powder residue being found anywhere else in the bathroom other than from the shot when he was reasonably near the light switch. I have listened again this evening to his testimony and he definitely does not mention anything about further residue being found anywhere in the bathroom. Although he said it was possible OP had shot from the back wall of the bathroom, he also thought it was possible he was nearer to the door, even as near as 60cm. Do you think he did not test for residue from 1 metre back to the wall or would there not have been any deposits on the floor? Does the residue completely evaporate if it fails to come into contact with anything nearer than 1 metre? The word residue suggests that there are solids involved.

I have not yet listened to Botha's testimony again yet but in Roux's cross examination of Mangena he clearly states that he has proof that the magazine rack was the cause of the marks on RS's back but I don't recall any proof being presented. He clearly states that he has proof that the rack and the injuries match. Is this another of Roux's falsehoods?

Lastly, I am unsure why the question of whether it was the rack or the bullet fragments that caused RS's back injuries is of any importance in the big picture but everyone else seems to think it is. I must be missing something. What is it please?

EDIT From memory, I think Botha said the bullet would be revolving and therefore could not have caused the injuries. I would understand that better if it was a whole bullet that caused the injuries but Mangena said the ricochet caused the bullet to fragment and certainly two fragments were found in the magazine rack.

 

[KateB]

New thread is ready and open for posting.
Please continue here:
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~