Trial Discussion Thread #16

[Viper]

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Blood-spatter-expert-testifies

Van der Nest testified that he became involved in the case when he was called to attend Steenkamp’s post-mortem.

“I attended the crime scene the same day as the post-mortem, 15 February.”

He said he was called to answer questions by investigators about blunt force trauma on Steenkamp’s body.

“Spatter found in the downstairs lounge was caused by an arterial spurt. The stairs are above the lounge.”

He said there was a distinctive pattern in the shape of the letter ‘S’ which indicated an arterial spurt.

“The blood-soaked shorts and hair of the deceased contributed to the dripping pattern.”

He added that blood smudges on the staircase handrail were probably caused by blood-soaked hair.

Another "expert" like batman! Uhg.. I cannot reconcile his opinion with the blood on OP shown in the images taken in the garage. Looking at OPs blood soak shorts, right side, and considering Reeva's wound to her right hip, does his opinion make sense? And looking at OPs left arm with blood smears that look like bloodied hair was moving across it, does his opinion make sense? IDK. :facepalm:

Edit: I guess he could have carried her out of the WC one way, then switched to carry her downstairs - putting her cleaner left hip against his shorts for that walk. Sorry for the mistake, because that is definitely a possibility.

 

[MeeBee]

Another "expert" like batman! Uhg.. I cannot reconcile his opinion with the blood on OP shown in the images taken in the garage. Looking at OPs blood soak shorts, right side, and considering Reeva's wound to her right hip, does his opinion make sense? And looking at OPs left arm with blood smears that look like bloodied hair was moving across it, does his opinion make sense? IDK. :facepalm:

Edit: I guess he could have carried her out of the WC one way, then switched to carry her downstairs - putting her cleaner left hip against his shorts for that walk. Sorry for the mistake, because that is definitely a possibility.

That's certainly a possibility. I honestly haven't had a good look at the pics of OP taken by the police so I will take your word for it. I might have a look to see.

 

[G.bng]

It's not a completely illogical conclusion. The problem is the state hasn't explained it just might not ever get around to it. So it's all conjecture. The tiles don't look consistent with having been with a bat to my untrained eye. I'm not morphing what I see, that's what I see. And why doesn't the state have a theory on this stuff? Didn't the police question Oscar about the damage? If not why? Surely, at some point, Oscar must have explained the extra damage, if not, then it's just more evidence of shoddy investigative work. So here are the possibilities:

Oscar has explained it, his explanations were, at the least, reasonable so Nel decided to leave it at the power of suggestion and only put the pictures up. He won't ask Oscar about it.

OR

Oscar has not explained it and Nel doesn't want to dig further, again, preferring the power of suggestion

OR

Oscar has explained it and Nel, dissatisfied with his answers, is waiting to bring it up and nail him on cross examination.

OR

Oscar has explained it and Roux is waiting for the opportunity for direct examination to allow him the opportunity to explain the damage.

The trial isn't over yet and I'm not really comfortable with filling in the holes myself. I mean, I could, and the explanation that Oscar was on a rampage is not beyond the realm of possibility, it's just conjecture right now.

No "ORs", OP hasn't explained anything... zilch... rien... nada... nothing... except what he wrote in his bail statement and what was read out for his trial statement. Maybe, just maybe, if OP had explained/said/told more to the prosecution they might have been able to charge him with culpable homicide instead of murder, but with all the things that don't add up with his story (witnesses hearing a woman scream, fear of burglars, etc.) they had no other choice because as Nel said in his brief opening, they don't know what is, but OP's story "cannot be reasonably possibly true" and a prosecution alone, without a judge can't simply discard 5 witnesses hearing a woman scream as rubbish.

So until OP gets on the stand and starts spilling his guts verbally instead of just physically all the strange details surrounding the case will continue unanswered... and perhaps after his testimony too.

 

[Viper]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm certain that pushing on a wound cannot cause the kind of spurt that the heart or a compression sleeve can. Compression sleeves are used to keep blood moving so you don't get blood clots. It's not by pushing blood but by compressing and decompressing. It's just not the same.

I also don't agree with your last statement. Even after the heart has stopped wounds will continue to bleed unless they clot, depending on the nature of the wound. Your assertion that the arterial spray is not actually arterial spray is your opinion and it doesn't make sense. Your other assertion that Roux is fighting this is not something that seems consistent with what I've read. He does not seem to be fighting this.

Like I said, Wikipedia has the information.

But just to give correct information about the subject, if you cut a dead person and turn them the blood may drain out, but in order to actually bleed you need a heartbeat. You bleed because your heart is pumping blood through your body. You can actually have a good idea of how long it took someone to die by the amount of blood surrounding them, assuming they died with a bleeding injury. If there is A LOT of blood around the body it took them a while to die, but if there isn't much blood it didn't take very long, because like I said once the heart stops beating the bleeding stops, as it OBVIOUSLY did for Reeva, in the WC.

 

[MeeBee]

No "ORs", OP hasn't explained anything... zilch... rien... nada... nothing... except what he wrote in his bail statement and what was read out for his trial statement. Maybe, just maybe, if OP had explained/said/told more to the prosecution they might have been able to charge him with culpable homicide instead of murder, but with all the things that don't add up with his story (witnesses hearing a woman scream, fear of burglars, etc.) they had no other choice because as Nel said in his brief opening, they don't know what is, but OP's story "cannot be reasonably possibly true" and a prosecution alone, without a judge can't simply discard 5 witnesses hearing a woman scream as rubbish.

So until OP gets on the stand and starts spilling his guts verbally instead of just physically all the strange details surrounding the case will continue unanswered... and perhaps after his testimony too.

We've already established he never gave a statement and why. :seeya:

 

[steveml]

State expert witnesses should only testify things exactly as they see it, even if it doesn't necessarily help the prosecution case.

:tos:

 

[steveml]

Like I said, Wikipedia has the information.

But just to give correct information about the subject, if you cut a dead person and turn them the blood may drain out, but in order to actually bleed you need a heartbeat. You bleed because your heart is pumping blood through your body. You can actually have a good idea of how long it took someone to die by the amount of blood surrounding them, assuming they died with a bleeding injury. If there is A LOT of blood around the body it took them a while to die, but if there isn't much blood it didn't take very long, because like I said once the heart stops beating the bleeding stops, as it OBVIOUSLY did for Reeva, in the WC.

Viper, I'll take your word for it on the dead body thing, haven't got a stashed corpse to hand. I was just having my tea as well. :sick:

 

[Insp.Dots]

Well if we begin with theory that gun shots and cricket bat noises can be confused, then there's no reason that noises had to be consecutive.

We also can deduce that if OP's story is true, witnesses might have been awakened by gunshot noise, but would not have consciously heard it.

If OP accidentally shot Reeva with first shot, then spent several minutes trying to deal with the situation of her being shot and not being able to get in the toilet area, it might fit the evidence.

Shot 1 - hits Reeva's hip
Shot 2 - misses

OP tries to get into bathroom to save Reeva, shouts for help
Cricket bat breaks a door piece out
Reeva is freaking out, says she'll call police
OP panics because she won't stop screaming

Shot 3 - hits Reeva's arm
Shot 4 - hits Reeva's head

Could this fit the evidence, or approximation of the evidence?

But the shots went through the door?

 

[vansleuths]

I agree with you, Reeva was basically died in the WC and iirc the expert confirmed this only noting arterial spurting in the WC. Down the stairs he noted the blood spots were as being from pools of blood accumulated in her wounds dripping.

I've seen these acronyms a few times but haven't been able to figure out what they mean.

Could someone tell me what is WC, BIB and IIRC

Thank you

 

[MeeBee]

I've seen these acronyms a few times but haven't been able to figure out what they mean.

Could someone tell me what is WC, BIB and IIRC

Thank you

WC = water closet (Brit speak for toilet room, bathroom, washroom, etc.)

BIB = bolded In black? Dunno I just say BBM which is bolded by me. ETA: it means bit in bold. That's gotta be another Brit thing lol.

IIRC = if I recall correctly.

 

[Trotterly]

But the shots went through the door?

All the shots must have gone through the door together because there would not have been time to change weapons.

The door could have been broken before all the shots, OP tries to get to Reeva

Then 4 shots to kill her

Then the remaining parts of panel removed causing the crack to deviate round the 4th hole.

The bat is the first to be used because Mr and Mrs Stipp both saw light in the toilet from the start. The bulb was broken, according to OP. The light was coming through the small hole.

 

[Trotterly]

I've seen these acronyms a few times but haven't been able to figure out what they mean.

Could someone tell me what is WC, BIB and IIRC

Thank you

BIB = Bit in bold

 

[Cherwell]

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Blood-spatter-expert-testifies

Van der Nest testified that he became involved in the case when he was called to attend Steenkamp’s post-mortem.

“I attended the crime scene the same day as the post-mortem, 15 February.”

He said he was called to answer questions by investigators about blunt force trauma on Steenkamp’s body.

“Spatter found in the downstairs lounge was caused by an arterial spurt. The stairs are above the lounge.”

He said there was a distinctive pattern in the shape of the letter ‘S’ which indicated an arterial spurt.

“The blood-soaked shorts and hair of the deceased contributed to the dripping pattern.”

He added that blood smudges on the staircase handrail were probably caused by blood-soaked hair.

The upstairs lounge area and stairs are open-plan, so I think he meant that the spatters downstairs originated from spurting upstairs.

 

[G.bng]

Well, that is strange to me and a huge error by the police, unless it's common to only get statements from witnesses and not the accused in SA.

The photos were already used, jus not explained.

A police error ? The right to remain silent "a huge error by the police ?" I think not, not unless you live in a dictatorship that is. And it's certainly not just in SA because in the US it's called Miranda Rights and here in the UK even though it doesn't have a fancy name, what we refer to as the "right to remain silent" (or a police caution) is the same thing. And it basically goes like this (I've used a US version 'cos it was quicker to find):

[/QUOTE]“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”[/QUOTE]​

And Oscar said... NO!

; - )

 

[Cherwell]

I've seen these acronyms a few times but haven't been able to figure out what they mean.

Could someone tell me what is WC, BIB and IIRC

Thank you

WC is specifically the toilet and/or the toilet cubicle. NOT a bathroom (although a bathroom may contain a WC).

 

[MeeBee]

The upstairs lounge area and stairs are open-plan, so I think he meant that the spatters downstairs originated from spurting upstairs.

I got the impression he was saying the spray happened as he was carrying her downstairs. That's still outside the bathroom though.

 

[steveml]

No "ORs", OP hasn't explained anything... zilch... rien... nada... nothing... except what he wrote in his bail statement and what was read out for his trial statement. Maybe, just maybe, if OP had explained/said/told more to the prosecution they might have been able to charge him with culpable homicide instead of murder, but with all the things that don't add up with his story (witnesses hearing a woman scream, fear of burglars, etc.) they had no other choice because as Nel said in his brief opening, they don't know what is, but OP's story "cannot be reasonably possibly true" and a prosecution alone, without a judge can't simply discard 5 witnesses hearing a woman scream as rubbish.

So until OP gets on the stand and starts spilling his guts verbally instead of just physically all the strange details surrounding the case will continue unanswered... and perhaps after his testimony too.

I agree with the comments regarding more detailed explanation, especially when someone is claiming not guilty.
In a perfect world that would be ideal, but guilty or innocent you're told to keep your mouth shut and say as little as possible.

Prosecution and defense will use anything and everything to win a case. There's very little compassion involved, it's all about winning.
It's unfortunate, but in a case like this almost everything is taken out of the defendants hands until he appears on the stand.

 

[jay-jay]

Originally Posted by jay-jay View Post
But what would the other reason be, though .. why else would he be doing it?

IMO Putting on a show for those that were watching. An attempt to convince them that he really wanted Reeva to live, he was taking action to save the "accidental" victim.

Yes, I think that would be the one I'm more inclined to go along with .. either that or he realised his stupidity (either from mistakenly shooting her, or intentionally shooting her in the heat of the moment of a row) and he was actually attempting to save her. Glad she was clamping down on him, bet that really freaked him out .. good.

 

[TorisMom003]

I've asked before but never got a response. If OP's version is correct and the gunshots that hit Reeva three times came first beginning at 3 am, would Reeva still be alive when he finally carried her downstairs at 3:24 (or so) am? Can a person survive 24 or so minutes with a gunshot to the leg like Reeva had? Can a person survive, let's say 23 or so minutes with a gunshot to the head like Reeva had? If not, then how is it explained that there was arterial spatter from when OP carried Reeva downstairs? And if it is not possible, then doesn't that point to the ear witnesses being correct and the bat actually did come first with the gunshots second around 3:17 am?

 

[MeeBee]

WC is specifically the toilet and/or the toilet cubicle. NOT a bathroom (although a bathroom may contain a WC).

Americans use the word bathroom as a catch all for toilet rooms/powder rooms/washrooms, etc. That's why I put it there, to account for wherever he was from so he could understand. We don't say toilet cubicle.