Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[Emz73]

It did when the witnesses first testified. But then when Dr Stipp said all the noises sounded like gunshots and Merwe talked about mistaking Oscar's loud cries for those of a woman. And then Vermuelen said the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door and the ME said Reeva wouldnt have been able to scream after the head wound. And then during cross examination it came out that the witnesses' initial statements didn't say anything about a man and a woman both screaming during that time, and the witnesses added to their initial accounts.

From all of that, I am satisfied that the screaming the witnesses heard was from Oscar.

Your logic is against experts that are on the rolling news though.

Vermuelen didn't say that though. His version has him screaming between the shooting and the bat??
Wow no wonder you went into law, you'd argue black was white!

 

[zwiebel]

BBM - here you go zwiebel. Godfrey Sefwayi Sengwane.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/amputee-gets-life-sentence-for-murder-1.1677840

Thank you!

I am surprised at the length of the additional sentences - 3 years for (unlicenced) possessing ammo and 15 for possessing a firearm. South Africa seems quite tough in that respect.

 

[james83]

Vermuelen's testimony about that has been discredited. Remember when he was called back to the stand? Roux had a picture showing Vermuelen holding the cricket bat to the upper bat mark and it appears to match that mark - only Vermuelen was trying to hide that photo from the defense because it totally contradicts his opinion that OP was on his stumps when wielding the cricket bat.

Also, OP demonstrated swinging the bat from his legs and how it completely matched all three cricket bat marks. And he demonstrated from his stumps that he could not have made the higher mark from his stumps.

You can't say for sure if it's been discredited to be fair, and if you think that then why are you quoting certain parts from it as fact?.
Can we truly accept Pistorius's demonstration as proof when clearly a lot depends on him matching those marks?.

 

[Hatfield]

Good grief, this is all so confusing. The bat, the gun, shots, sounds of shots, screams of woman or a man, helps cried, on stumps, with prosthesis, etc. I think I've finally settled on what makes sense to me and then back into a tailspin I go.

JMO and I didnt get to see a lot of the trial so my opinion is only based on small bits of actual court watching.

I was confused how a lot of that even pertained to the case. I think a lot of it was brought up by the defense to confuse everyone and it did a good job of that.

Most all of it was not too important to me. What was important to me was the prosecuter trying to prove that OP was lying about the intruder or lying about other specifics where we can then doubt his story.

And I hate to say this but in the little i watched I was disappointed in the prosecuter. I think he fell into the Oscar World and instead of trying to tell me why OP is lying he got caught up in all the small details.

 

[liesbeth]

That makes no sense though. Why break through the door and then shoot and then pry or break open the panels?

Vermuelen's testimony that the bat broke through the door and while in that position, it was used to break out the panels. OP says he broke them with his hands. But in either event, the state's case is that all the gunshots happened together and all the cricket bat hitting happened together.

Also at least one of the cricket bat hits happened before the gunshot because of that one piece that is missing and the crack that goes through it

BBM. Maybe because he was furiously angry?

So it goes like this? Bat sounds and a small hole in the door. Woman's fearful screaming. Gun shots. Screaming stops. Uses the bat as a lever (no hitting) and his hands to pry open the door. Door breaks open through bullet hole. Oscar crying and praying.

 

[minor4th]

You can't say for sure if it's been discredited to be fair, and if you think that then why are you quoting certain parts from it as fact?.
Can we truly accept Pistorius's demonstration as proof when clearly a lot depends on him matching those marks?.

All I'm saying is discredited is Vermuelen's opinion that OP was on his stumps when he hit the door with the cricket bat.

 

[liesbeth]

I disagree.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[james83]

That makes no sense though. Why break through the door and then shoot and then pry or break open the panels?

Vermuelen's testimony that the bat broke through the door and while in that position, it was used to break out the panels. OP says he broke them with his hands. But in either event, the state's case is that all the gunshots happened together and all the cricket bat hitting happened together.

Also at least one of the cricket bat hits happened before the gunshot because of that one piece that is missing and the crack that goes through it

It makes perfect sense if he was on his stumps up until he pried the door open.

 

[minor4th]

BBM. Maybe because he was furiously angry?

So it goes like this? Bat sounds and a small hole in the door. Woman's fearful screaming. Gun shots. Screaming stops. Uses the bat as a lever (no hitting) and his hands to pry open the door. Door breaks open through bullet hole. Oscar crying and praying.

That just doesn't make sense and it's also not the State's case. That theory is even more outlandish than Oscar's intruder/screaming story.

The gunshots had to be before at least one of the cricket bat hits per Vermuelen - even if you believe he was not saying that all the cricket bat hits were before the gunshots.

 

[james83]

All I'm saying is discredited is Vermuelen's opinion that OP was on his stumps when he hit the door with the cricket bat.

Discredited or not, it doesn't mean it wasn't true.
I'm not by the way sitting here saying i thought Vermeulen was a good witness, far from it.

 

[minor4th]

It makes perfect sense if he was on his stumps up until he pried the door open.

You think it makes sense that Oscar shot once, then hit the door with the cricket bat 3 times and broke through, then fired three more shots through a small crack in the door, and then pulled the panels out with his hands (or inserted the bat back in the crack and pried the panels out)?

Yet, you also believe that it is not reasonably possibly true that Oscar thought there was an intruder in the bathroom?

Ok .....

 

[minor4th]

Discredited or not, it doesn't mean it wasn't true.
I'm not by the way sitting here saying i thought Vermeulen was a good witness, far from it.

Right it doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but that was the ONLY evidence of Oscar being on his stumps while hitting the door with the cricket bat. So ....

 

[steveml]

They were having an argument. OP is on his prosthetics throughout. He wants Reeva to leave.

I suggest that he chased Reeva upstairs and she locked the bedroom door. He barged it to open it (the primary door would give, that's why he offers that information to the judge as he's using it in his lies) which leads to the marks on the second door, which probably didn't give because of the latch into the floor.

Reeva has the cricket bat to defend herself and runs to the bathroom with it (as he breaks the bedroom door open) and opens the bathroom window thinking optimistically that it might be a way to escape. Realising it isn't, she drops the bat in the bathroom and locks herself in the toilet. She has her phone with her.

OP is mad. He picks up his gun (or he already had it as he chased Reeva upstairs).

He screams "get the f*** out of my house" at Reeva as he chases her to the bathroom.

If his first shot occurred at the earlier time and was followed by the three bat strikes (from the bat Reeva has dropped in the bathroom), that would account for the earlier sounds. Reeva is hit in the leg and falls, screaming at OP, and threatens to call the police. He sarcastically screams "call the police". OP looks through a crack caused by the bat strikes to locate Reeva and then aims the second set of three shots. The crack that deviates through one of the bullet holes is then caused by OP ripping the panel out. It is after this that Dr Stipp hears OP screaming "help, help, help" (which makes more sense to me than OP's version which he says is after the first 'bangs').

She dies quickly from the head wound as he carries her downstairs but is alive long enough to create the arterial spurts that are found.

Does this all work?

The part that doesn't quite work for me is that Reeva has the cricket bat to defend herself, yet leaves it outside the toilet door as an ideal weapon for OP.
If she was clued up enough to pick the bat up, I'm sure she'd keep hold of it.

Also, if OP can see Reeva, but decides to shoot her through the door instead, this is a preplanned move and not a spontaneous reaction after chasing someone.
I don't think anyone would have the capacity to orchestrate such a ploy in an intense situation like that.

 

[liesbeth]

It was not discredited. Vermeulen explained that his brief was to determine if that particular bat broke open the door. He showed photos to prove his case and did not need any other photographs. So he never thought of the other photographs because they weren't necessary to prove his case.

W/O van Staden backed up V's testimony when he said that he, Van Staden, chose the photographs in consultation with Vermeulen, and that at no time did Vermeulen request any photographs to be left out.

Roux was looking for a "Hilton Botha" figure to discredit as he did in the bail proceedings. Vermeulen was it.

Fortunately this time the proceedings was open for all to see and we are all free to decide for ourselves.

Links:
W/O van Staden's testimony here at about 29:50 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA_pbYMP_DU

Vermeulen's redirect here at about 01 minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO-0buI-xgA
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/03/25/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-15

 

[zwiebel]

Can someone please tell me again where is Nel saying the mag rack was, and where did Oscar say the mag rack was?

TIA.

Please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think:

If a person is standing in front of the toilet bowl, face on:

OP says his housekeeper always put it to the left, against the wall.

Nel says the rack was to the right, against the wall, and Reeva was half sitting on it when she was shot in the head, and her head then dropped forward onto the toilet bowl.

I only caught OP saying Reeva was not sitting on it and it wasn't on the right when he found her - I don't recall him actually saying if it was on the left in the housekeeper's position or where it was, when he got Reeva out. Maybe he didn't recall?

 

[steveml]

Thank you!

I am surprised at the length of the additional sentences - 3 years for (unlicenced) possessing ammo and 15 for possessing a firearm. South Africa seems quite tough in that respect.

The punishments are very harsh.

It would be interesting to know how often they prosecute though as there are meant to be more illegal firearms in possession than there are legal ones.

That's a lot considering there are approx. 6 million civilian guns in SA.

 

[james83]

You think it makes sense that Oscar shot once, then hit the door with the cricket bat 3 times and broke through, then fired three more shots through a small crack in the door, and then pulled the panels out with his hands (or inserted the bat back in the crack and pried the panels out)?

Yet, you also believe that it is not reasonably possibly true that Oscar thought there was an intruder in the bathroom?

Ok .....

No you are putting words into my mouth, cricket bat, all 4 gunshots, door pried open.

And regarding Oscar, no i don't, i believe someone could hear a noise in there bathroom ask there partner if they heard it not get a reply and put 2 and 2 together.

 

[James50]

Re BBM

Oh no. Now I am absolutely worried. People in SA love him. There is definite bias to find him not guilty and the judge knows this.

There was a lady that cheered as OP entered court this morning.

I knew a lot of people liked him but in SA he is most likely their HERO.
This is very scary and I think it will influence the judges decision in this case.

I am leaning towards what Minor is thinking . That maybe just the gun charges or something may be the end result of his punishment.

I no longer have faith that we will get a just decision because of his popularity in SA.

That could be true to some extent, but I've read a few statements from South Africans who first believe he was guilty and are now certain he's innocent. Why they have changed their mind is because, being South Africans, they understand the context better than non South Africans. They totally get the everyday nature of violence in their country and they often have first hand knowledge of all the emotions people go through when their homes are broken into.


The reason I myself believe he's tellingf the truth is because I live in a country where break ins are common. I've had my home broken into several times over the years, and I totally GET where OP is coming from. What he describes is the same panic that overtakes you when you have reason to believe someone is in your home. This is very hard to explain to someone who has never experienced it.

 

[zwiebel]

Just confused myself with that last post, because OP's team say the mag rack wounded Reeva's back....so it must have been on the right, either way? But I still think OP said at one stage it was always kept on the left??

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC Dixon disagreed with OP's claim that the magazine rack was in a different place than in the police photo. He also disagreed with OP's claim that when he finally found Reeva in the WC, she was sitting on the floor with her right arm on toilet seat and head on her shoulder.