Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Giles]

Mr & Mrs van der Merwe. But I thought that this related to someone crying, which I don't equate with screaming.

I cannot be sure about this because IIRC Mrs vdM testified in Afrikaans, so there may be a linguistic or translation issue.

Thanks. Yes, that's right. The Defense will try and equate the two, I'm sure.

 

[aa9511]

Seriously Zwiebel don't underestimate how much your efforts are appreciated.

You have been fantastic in transcribing the court care and essential reading for those of us unable (or unwilling) to watch along.

A few typos are nothing to be concerned about.

Hi folks!

bumping this up

Really appreciate all you do on here Zwiebel!

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, I think this is something that lots of people are overlooking. The gun shots occurred BEFORE the cricket bat strikes. If the two sets of noises correlate with the Stipps sequence of events,then this evidence really confirms the Defense case more so than the Prosections.

The Prosecution will either have to explain what made the noises at 3:05 am. Their case is that they were neither gun shots or a cricket bat striking the bathroom door at that time. Also, they will have to explain why no ear witnesses heard the cricket bat strikes shortly after the gun shots at 3:17 am.

This seems to be the biggest hole in the Prosecutions case. Yet Nel has mentioned he will address these issues, so he obviously has an explanation...

BIB is not a proven fact.

Do not dismiss the possibility that the bat was used more than once. Both before the shots, and after the shots. It was certainly used afterwards to prise the door panel off, exploiting the weaknesses caused by the earlier strikes.

 

[04009margaret]

Am i misunderstanding what this chump is saying?

Did Dixon actually say that he disagrees with the professor's testimony because he (Dixon) is not an expert in the matter. Really?

He did

 

[Magdalyn]

Normally I don't post tweets like the one I'm going to...but we've discussed it before. Everyone's reactions, including those of Reeva herself, in treating Oscar like a little boy are just so bizarre to me. I get he probably needs consoling - I'd be hiding under Masipa's robes - but I just don't get treating him like a toddler with a scraped knee. Little wonder he continues to deflect any responsibility. (Not blaming his family at all - it just seems Oscar is surrounded by people who treat him much younger than he actually is.)

Aislinn Laing @Simmoa Pistorius sitting in the dock, his head resting childlike on his aunt's bag as she strokes his hair and neck. #OscarPistorius

https://twitter.com/Simmoa

It's my belief that Oscar has, since childhood, gone into these frightening rages, which, IMO, were anticipated by his family by the jaw clenching, head in hands, face turning exceedingly red...

They learned to soothe him by this head in lap, hair stroking, coddling/petting routine.

His aunt is doing it now after it was clear he was agitated today. Did I read that his psychiatrist pets him when he's 'upset' as well? (minus head-in-lap, I'm hoping.)

It's a pattern. When he's upset, he's stroked and petted in order to 'calm him down'. This can't be a coincidence that this grown man, much to most of our horror, gets petted as most of us have not petted out children since they were very young.

Quiet the coincidence that the seemingly loving thing Oscar described on the night of the 13th--Oscar with his head in Reeva's lap, Reeva stroking his hair--is the same thing odd thing everyone else seems to be trained to do to keep Oscar from exploding into full blown upset/rage.

 

[aa9511]

I can't believe it, it's easy to see something behind the crack. I suppose the light behind will make a difference though.

Sorry, what crack are you referring to? Is it the crack b/w door and frame, or the crack from Oscar hitting the door?

 

[patCee]

Both Stipps saw the bathroom light ON long before OP's tale has him returning to the bathroom from his futile Reeva-search in the bedroom and finally feeling safe enough to turn on the bathroom light.

I posted earlier today about seeing clearly, through the crack in the door, someone moving behind the door, a yellow colour. Later I saw a man standing to the side of the door in a high vis jacket with yellow on it.

The Stipps (Mr I think) said there was also a fainter light in the toilet. He was pressed hard on this by Roux.

If there was a faint light in the toilet it would have been easy for OP to aim correctly at RS moving inside.
The crack that OP made.

 

[aa9511]

It's my belief that Oscar has, since childhood, gone into these frightening rages, which, IMO, were anticipated by his family by the jaw clenching, head in hands, face turning exceedingly red...

They learned to soothe him by this head in lap, hair stroking, coddling/petting routine.

His aunt is doing it now after it was clear he was agitated today. Did I read that his psychiatrist pets him when he's 'upset' as well? (minus head-in-lap, I'm hoping.)

It's a pattern. When he's upset, he's stroked and petted in order to 'calm him down'. This can't be a coincidence that this grown man, much to most of our horror, gets petted as most of us have not petted out children since the were very young.

Quiet the coincidence that the seemingly loving thing Oscar described on the night of the 13th--Oscar with his head in Reeva's lap, Reeve stroking his hair--is the same thing odd thing everyone else seems to be trained to do to keep Oscar from exploding into full blown upset/rage.

Very good observations.

 

[Magdalyn]

Not diagnosing, but has this been discussed with regards to OP?

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/scienc...rder-affects-up-to-16-million-americans.shtml

To be diagnosed with IED, an individual must have had three episodes of impulsive aggressiveness "grossly out of proportion to any precipitating psychosocial stressor," at any time in their life, according to the standard psychiatric diagnostic manual. The person must have "all of a sudden lost control and broke or smashed something worth more than a few dollars…hit or tried to hurt someone…or threatened to hit or hurt someone."

 

[shane13]

Both sides?
It seems you just can't get a good Batman in SA?

 

[steveml]

Oh, here we go down the rabbit hole again! Sorry, most will not follow down.

BIB1 No he did not.

He pointed out that the bat was used to pry a piece of a panel loose and it tore through a bullet hole that was in the door. In that case the bullet came first the bat was used as a prying tool second; that is not bat strikes, that is using the bat as a tool to pry.

In addition he said that it was not scientifically possible to determine which came first, the bat strikes or the bullet holes. Which is easy to understand because none of the bat strikes had bullet holes in them, and vice versa.

BIB2 That link is not to a transcript of the testimony. :facepalm: It is a live updates page written by Josie Ensor, and Aislinn Laing in Pretoria. It is their words, not what the forensic expert testified.

The court reporters, the media, the defense team and the also the Guardian reporters understand Vermeulen's testimony.
What else do you need? We're again going down the same road as we did with the iPod/Whatsapp/messages.

Quote:
Vermeulen did endorse Pistorius's account that the shooting through the door came before the bat was used, a boost for the defence's timeline.

Link

 

[G.bng]

He said they couldn't get the black ones so they had to use the same ones but with the brass jacket, then he reversed it and said yes they did get black tallon. I'm confused :/

He saved it because if they don't have the black coating they ain't black tallons and therefore different would be the ones they used.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I am still confused about this because I thought there was some possibility that the shots were before the panels were ripped out of the door but not necessarily before the bat strikes. It may have been during Nel's redirect ?
I keep meaning to go through all this testimony again to get it clear in my mind

That's what I thought, too. Maybe the cricket bat was used more than once? IDK anymore. Just when I think I know something for sure, another witness takes the stand, and I'm not sure anymore. KWIM? *gathers wood for campfire and heads back to campsite*

 

[Cherwell]

The court reporters, the media, the defense team and the also the Guardian reporters understand Vermeulen's testimony.
What else do you need? We're again going down the same road as we did with the iPod/Whatsapp/messages.

Quote:
Vermeulen did endorse Pistorius's account that the shooting through the door came before the bat was used, a boost for the defence's timeline.

Link

That's all very well, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that the bat was used earlier as well.

 

[Magdalyn]

People with intermittent explosive disorder have a problem with controlling their temper. In addition, their violent behavior is out of proportion to the incident or event that triggered the outburst.

Patients diagnosed with IED usually feel a sense of arousal or tension before an outburst, and relief of tension after the aggressive act. Patients with IED believe that their aggressive behaviors are justified; however, they feel genuinely upset, regretful, remorseful, bewildered or embarrassed by their impulsive and aggressive behavior.

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html#ixzz2z3fa7Rhq

BiB 1: These people don't need a 'logical' reason to lose it-the reaction is disproportionate to the event.

BiB2: Might explain 'mortified'....

 

[Hatfield]

I posted earlier today about seeing clearly, through the crack in the door, someone moving behind the door, a yellow colour. Later I saw a man standing to the side of the door in a high vis jacket with yellow on it.

The Stipps (Mr I think) said there was also a fainter light in the toilet. He was pressed hard on this by Roux.

If there was a faint light in the toilet it would have been easy for OP to aim correctly at RS moving inside.
The crack that OP made.

JMO
I had wondered too if OP somehow looked through the door first to see where exactly she was, then stepped back and took 4 shots very fast at her.

The odds of him hitting her with all 4 shots indicates to me he somehow glanced through the door to get her location.

 

[crasshopper]

Off topic a bit.

When OP went into "combat" mode upon hearing the washing machine why didn't he shoot through a door then? He apparently opened the door and saw it was just laundry in progress. With the benefit of that recent experience would you not think he would have used more caution before shooting Reeva through the door?

Sadly, I'm way behind on the threads and videos, hopefully I can catch up this weekend!

 

[liesbeth]

So here's what I think Dixon established and that he was actually qualified to testify about:

He provided evidence that Oscar kicked the door (can't remember which mark), and he provided evidence that the door was hit with the cricket bat three times and actually tested one of the marks that Vermuelen said he didn't test (although photographic evidence proves otherwise.)

I haven't listened to all of the testimony yet, so I can't say anything about the sound test yet.

BBM. How can Mr. Dixon be sure that OP kicked the door. The panels were on the bathroom floor after OP broke open the door. It is possible that he stepped on the door panels. He could also have used the legs to hit the door. (There was damage visible on the legs on the photographs.) I wonder why the kicking of the door is so important to the defense?

 

[DebinGA]

I posted earlier today about seeing clearly, through the crack in the door, someone moving behind the door, a yellow colour. Later I saw a man standing to the side of the door in a high vis jacket with yellow on it.

The Stipps (Mr I think) said there was also a fainter light in the toilet. He was pressed hard on this by Roux.

If there was a faint light in the toilet it would have been easy for OP to aim correctly at RS moving inside.
The crack that OP made.

Given the shots in the door going left to right and Reeva's corresponding wounds it's not reasonably possible that a terror-filled OP shot aimlessly at the door in pitch dark as he claims.

 

[aa9511]

Here are a few pics I found showing the trajectory

How the Judge can ever think that Oscar was not intending to kill someone in the toilet room? It is so very obvious from these pics you kindly posted that he was aiming at something in the toilet room.

But Oscar himself, I think irrepairably, damaged his own case by saying he was not ever intending to shoot, not intending to kill, and he said specifically he never had the gun aimed at anything. He was meaning to make it like he was just holding the gun, pointed generally ahead of him.

Perhaps he is lying about this, if we want to give him benefit of doubt, like Minor4th mentioned b/c of his attempt to distance himself from words like "intent," for legal purposes.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that, for whatever reason he worded it the way he dd, he is lying.

He is claiming he killed Reeva b/c he thought she was an intruder, but yet at the same time, he is saying he never intended to shoot the intruder - which is a lie that is very clearly a lie.

So to give him not guilty, the Judge will not only have to believe he thought there was an intruder, but then go beyond that and make excuses for him to explain why he was obviously aiming his gun at the door to a specific place.

It's over for his case, I am sure.

JMO.