Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[dianebowen]

All this cricket bat discussion reminded me about the bashed up metal bath panel. I do not recall it being mentioned in Nel's cross of Oscar. What do you think? Was it an oversight?

 

[BritsKate]

Some of the tests he was able to use black talons - but other tests he could not use black talons because they didn't have enough available.

Right. I'd missed 'all' in your post and will take your word for it. It still appears sloppy, to me anyway, for a news station and the State to procure at least some but for the defence expert not to.

JMO

 

[liesbeth]

Vermuelen's testimony - direct exam:

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

At around 40:45 - 43:45 Vermuelen testifies that the cricket bat was used to bash the door and that the cricket bat broke through the door with one of the hits. If you keep watching, he says he only found 2 cricket bat marks.

Vermuelen cross exam:

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

4:25 Nel says that it's his case that OP was not on his prostheses when he fired the shots

Vermuelen further cross exam:

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

At 52:46 the following exchange between Roux and Vermuelen:



Vermuelen also says that when the cricket bat hit the door and broke through it, the cricket bat was then used to pry open the panels from the door

That's right. Vermeulen explained that OP must have used the bat as leverage and also his hands to break open the door (OP confirmed this later in his own testimony). But. Vermeulen never said that this all happened at one occasion.

So it is possible that OP could have used the bat to damage the door. Then he could have shot through the door. Then he could have levered the door open with the bat and his hands.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks for the links . Do I remember rightly Vermuelen took the stand for a second time ? If so do you have a link for when that was ,I can't remember what that was about now .

I don't have the link for when he was called back for a second time - it was right at the end of Nel's case. He was called back because he was supposed to be investigating the higher mark to compare it to the cricket bat, but when he took the stand he (unconvincingly IMO) said he didn't know what he was supposed to investigate so he did nothing.

This is also when Roux produced the pictures of Vermuelen holding the cricket bat up to the higher mark after Vermuelen had denied ever doing that comparison.

 

[minor4th]

That's right. Vermeulen explained that OP must have used the bat as leverage and also his hands to break open the door (OP confirmed this later in his own testimony). He never said that this all happened at one occasion.

So it is possible that OP could have used the bat to damage the door. Then he could have shot through the door. Then he could have levered the door open with the bat and his hands.

Well you need to watch the whole thing because Vermuelen's testimony was that he hit the door and while the cricket bat was through the crack, having just broken through, he used the bat to pry out the panels. So yeah, his testimony is that the cricket bat hit the door and removed the panels at the same time.

 

[liesbeth]

Thanks for the links . Do I remember rightly Vermuelen took the stand for a second time ? If so do you have a link for when that was ,I can't remember what that was about now .

He did take the stand for a second time. He testified that it was his instruction to determine if the bat in question was used to break open the door. He did this by using the two marks he indicated above the door handle. He said the two marks he used was definite evidence that the bat was indeed used to make the holes above the door handle.

 

[wb180]

Just listened to the sound test of gunshots and cricket bat hits.

I don't think it matters that this witness is not a sound expert or that the conditions are exactly the same. The point was sufficiently made that cricket bat hitting the door is very loud and sounds similar to gunshots. If you didn't hear the side by side comparison, it is reasonable to believe that ear witnesses could mistake the sound of the cricket bat hitting the door for gunshots.

There's no evidence of anything else making three loud bangs that sound like gunshots, other than the cricket bat.

This sound expert is now somehow not relevant anymore. Ok...

Even though Roux put him up there testifying on sound to support OP case.

If this guy really was a sound expert and made his case, I am sure there will be numerous posts of "fatal flaw".

 

[nastasya]

The bat comes after the gunshots according to both sides.

Again, that is false.

Just because you've heard others repeat it over and over doesn't make it true.

The prying of the wood that put a crack through the bullet hole came last.

OP testified to this. He specifically testified that the first bat hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

Now stop right there.

The bullet holes could have come before this event, or after. There is no way to know because that hole was far above where the bullets struck the door.

All that is knowable is that the panel being ripped out last came after both the bat hits and the bullet holes.

Forget what anybody has told you, or what any expert has said for a moment and look at the photo of the door. This is just common sense. You don't need to be an expert to understand which part of the sequence CAN be determined. The only thing that is known is one bullet hole had one crack through it and the panels were ripped out last.

Bat hits <> panel being ripped out.

 

[liesbeth]

Well you need to watch the whole thing because Vermuelen's testimony was that he hit the door and while the cricket bat was through the crack, having just broken through, he used the bat to pry out the panels. So yeah, his testimony is that the cricket bat hit the door and removed the panels at the same time.

Nope. He only testified as to the sequence of the events. Never did he testify about when this sequence of events took place. Because he couldn't know for sure, could he?

The only sure thing was that the door was broken after bullet hole D.

 

[BritsKate]

Just listened to the sound test of gunshots and cricket bat hits.

I don't think it matters that this witness is not a sound expert or that the conditions are exactly the same. The point was sufficiently made that cricket bat hitting the door is very loud and sounds similar to gunshots. If you didn't hear the side by side comparison, it is reasonable to believe that ear witnesses could mistake the sound of the cricket bat hitting the door for gunshots.

There's no evidence of anything else making three loud bangs that sound like gunshots, other than the cricket bat.

Conceding the defence position that the bat strikes were at 3.17 though we're still left with this:

- The witnesses who heard the first bangs were incorrect.
- The defence claims the first bangs were the gunshots.
- There is a 20 minute gap between the first bangs and the call to netcare.
- Someone was screaming for at least 12 minutes before shots were fired.
- No one heard gunshots at 3.12 but multiple witnesses heard bat strikes at 3.17.

 

[minor4th]

Again, that is false.

Just because you've heard others repeat it over and over doesn't make it true.

The prying of the wood that put a crack through the bullet hole came last.

OP testified to this. He specifically testified that the first bat hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

Now stop right there.

The bullet holes could have come before this event, or after. There is no way to know because that hole was far above where the bullets struck the door.

All that is knowable is that the panel being ripped out last came after both the bat hits and the bullet holes.

Forget what anybody has told you, or what any expert has said for a moment and look at the photo of the door. This is just common sense. You don't need to be an expert to understand which part of the sequence CAN be determined. The only thing that is known is one bullet hole had one crack through it and the panels were ripped out last.

Bat hits <> panel being ripped out.

I've posted video links and transcribed this on more than one occasion.

What I said is correct. Vermulen very specifically said the gunshots were before the cricket bat hit the door.

If you want to entertain alternate theories that the state is not pursuing and has not even mentioned - feel free. I'm dealing only with what's actually been presented in court.

 

[minor4th]

Nope. He only testified as to the sequence of the events. Never did he testify about when this sequence of events took place. Because he couldn't know for sure, could he?

The only sure thing was that the door was broken after bullet hole D.

Please watch the videos I just posted. He clearly gives his opinion about the sequence - he said the gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door. I'm just repeating what the state's witness determined. if you don't believe him, that's fine too.

 

[patCee]

The Stips testified hearing 3 shots, female screaming, 3 more shots. Bathroom light on the whole time.

Vermuelen testified there are 2 bat marks on the door. One used to pry open the panels. IMO the one where OP could see through into the toilet.

So a possible 6 sounds of possible bat and shots would correspond with both of them.

The poser is what each individual sound represented.

Hopefully the remaining witnesses will make the door/bat/shots clearer on both sides.

 

[minor4th]

This sound expert is now somehow not relevant anymore. Ok...

Even though Roux put him up there testifying on sound to support OP case.

If this guy really was a sound expert and made his case, I am sure there will be numerous posts of "fatal flaw".

I think it's relevant for sure. Not sure how you interpreted my post to mean that the sound test wasn't relevant.

 

[BritsKate]

Nope. He only testified as to the sequence of the events. Never did he testify about when this sequence of events took place. Because he couldn't know for sure, could he?

The only sure thing was that the door was broken after bullet hole D.

Here's an article to back you up. :biggrin: It was all part of redirect.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked police forensic expert Johannes Vermeulen whether he could conclude that all four bullet holes appeared in the door before the dents made by the bat. The question was aimed at testing the veracity of Pistorius's version of events, in which he fired four shots into the door then, after realising that Steenkamp was not asleep in bed, fetched a cricket bat to break down the door.

Vermeulen responded that he could not prove that this was indeed the case.

Oscar trial: Expert can't fix sequence of shots, bashing

 

[aa9511]

Oscar is FUMING! You can see him quivering and his jaw is clenching over and over

This really says it all.

 

[aa9511]

Again, that is false.

Just because you've heard others repeat it over and over doesn't make it true.

The prying of the wood that put a crack through the bullet hole came last.

OP testified to this. He specifically testified that the first bat hit put a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

Now stop right there.

The bullet holes could have come before this event, or after. There is no way to know because that hole was far above where the bullets struck the door.

All that is knowable is that the panel being ripped out last came after both the bat hits and the bullet holes.

Forget what anybody has told you, or what any expert has said for a moment and look at the photo of the door. This is just common sense. You don't need to be an expert to understand which part of the sequence CAN be determined. The only thing that is known is one bullet hole had one crack through it and the panels were ripped out last.

Bat hits <> panel being ripped out.

Thank you for putting this so clearly and easy to understand way.

 

[DebinGA]

...
So it is possible that OP could have used the bat to damage the door. Then he could have shot through the door. Then he could have levered the door open with the bat and his hands.

snipped to save space

OP terrorized Reeva for a bit outside the door, screaming at her and banging here and there. She's screaming/calling for help. OP manages to break through a door panel, which causes Reeva's screams to intensify. Now he sees exactly where she is, and she sees the gun - blood curdling screams erupt. He fires, aiming at her the whole time, moving as she moves.

 

[liesbeth]

Please watch the videos I just posted. He clearly gives his opinion about the sequence - he said the gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door. I'm just repeating what the state's witness determined. if you don't believe him, that's fine too.

Of course I will watch the videos again.

So let us assume that Vermeulen said what you understood. The question remains. How could he possibly testify that the door was broken open right after the bat hit the door and not later?

 

[liesbeth]

Here's an article to back you up. :biggrin: It was all part of redirect.

Oscar trial: Expert can't fix sequence of shots, bashing

Thank you so much.