Trial Discussion Thread #30

[steveml]

Not an attorney, no.

Involved in the criminal justice system yes. Different profession, but can be utilized as an 'expert witness' - and NO :floorlaugh: I'm not Roger Dixon.

I have an interest in this case that is professional as well as 'dare I say it'; a hunger for the truth.

Shrien Dewani is another wherein my professional interest is seriously matched with my 'personal' desire to know the truth.

From your early posts you mentioned a new SA law that had come into effect. Do you have any further info. on this?

I had it in my head that you were in the medical profession for some reason. I must be getting you mixed up with someone else.

 

[Viper]

I'm just skimming through the posts. But is there confusion here that the blonde psychologist in the courtroom is OPs aunt, the police profiler?

 

[james83]

Rob Opie: Where have you gone Oscar Pistorius? The nation turns its lied-to eyes from you.

Posted on April 20, 2014 in Oscar Pistorius trial

Truthfulness is a highly valued attribute. Just ask the sporting heroes who have fallen, one after the next, after being caught out telling a lie. South Africa’s much-loved Blade Runner is one in a line of the nation’s sporting heroes whose reputations have been shredded amid debate over whether lies are being told. In this case Oscar Pistorius isn’t only fighting for his career, but for how he will spend the rest of his life. He has said as much in the televised trial. Human brand specialist and author Rob Opie analyses how Oscar Pistorius is shaping up in our perceptions. We should never underestimate honesty, we are reminded here. – JCOscar Pistorius
By Rob Opie*

Up until last week Oscars Pistorius’s destiny and fate lay in his own hands, until he effectively played himself out the game on the witness stand. In life, we all have choices to make.

Oscar made his by choosing not to tell the truth and attempting to evade a murder conviction through exploiting technical loopholes. All he achieved was to place his fate and destiny right back into the hands of Gerrie Nel – who is inspired to close any technical loopholes that have recently been exploited in SA law.

Rob Opie Oscar Pistorius and the importance of telling the truth: Human brand specialist Rob Opie highlights the importance of honesty for success.
While the court sequence has brought little relief for Reeva’s family, it has however taught the nation some powerful lessons in life. History always repeats itself. When will we ever learn? Why do we as human beings not ‘tell it like it is? Why do we fail to take responsibility? One can never wish away reality – and opening up to tell the truth is the only way to free oneself from a life time burden.

Ask Lance Armstrong, ask Tiger Woods, ask Joost van der Westhuizen, ask Hansie Cronje. All these great sporting champions were brought down to earth after choosing to lie, as they got caught up in ‘new age grandiosity’ – believing one is above the law and the society that we all live in and contribute towards together .

If Oscar was innocent he would have acted very differently under the Gerrie Nel cross examination and barrage, but it was not to be, as both Gerrie and Barry know exactly what transpired on that fateful day. Oscar ‘het sy moer gestrip’. He knew who was behind that door.

Millions of rands of court time has been wasted in a media fuelled frenzy – or has it been wasted? I believe NOT, as in this case, which will be followed by the Dewani case, powerful lessons have been conveyed to a nation that has to some extent lost its moral compass, due to the actions a select few in leadership and role model positions. Things needed to change fast and the media coverage of Oscar’s trial has certainly highlighted the importance of moral fibre, taking responsibility for ones actions, accountability, consequence, respect for others, and maintaining a balanced perspective in life.

From Oscar’s case comes tragedy and inspiration. Sadly it takes a few tragic incidents for the nation to catch a wake up! But, in a heartfelt way, all South Africans owe Reeva Steenkamp a great deal of gratitude for giving up her life to help restore our country’s moral fibre and put us back on the road of hope and prosperity. Adversity always happens to restore universal balance.

http://www.biznews.com/gone-oscar-pistorius-nation-turns-lied-eyes/

 

[Murphys_Law]

bbm - Well they do kill small game and I bet those pellets could have made the marks on RS's back too, along with a few bat whacks to her legs. Speaking of rabbits, I wonder if that pic of RS with the rabbit hood was from before they met or was it a gift from OP like the black hoodie? Perhaps in his sinister mind, he was hunting "wabbit"...

BIB - Exactly ... Many days ago I bet my first born that those were pellet shot marks.

 

[Lyra500]

Sorry to hear about your injury. It's the absolute worst having to cut back on training or pull out of scheduled events due to injury - so frustrating. :tantrum: (I pull an Oscar when I'm injured. Incredible tantrums)

Because the state have ZERO idea as to what the defense will present in court in terms of evidence, expert witnesses etc (The Defense right to silence) it is rather common within SA law for the state to apply to re-open their case in order to rebut any evidence that has been 'sprung on them'. In this case, a recall of Capt Mangena for starters is not out of the question (after Dixon's waffling and the as yet unknown evidence of Wolmarans), but the state will definitely apply to re-open their case, in order to call their 'expert - Prof Gerard Labuschagne - as soon as a psychologist takes the stand for the defense.

Thank you so much for your informative posts.

It is really good to know that the PT can move to reopen and rebut - otherwise I was thinking how unfair it seemed that the DT could change so much of what they originally said to make a closer fit to the evidence as it has been presented.

 

[Viper]

bbm - Well they do kill small game and I bet those pellets could have made the marks on RS's back too, along with a few bat whacks to her legs. Speaking of rabbits, I wonder if that pic of RS with the rabbit hood was from before they met or was it a gift from OP like the black hoodie? Perhaps in his sinister mind, he was hunting "wabbit"...

Good morning (evening) Val!

A .177 pellet would tear in to the skin of a human being, burrow through it. The mark on Reeva's back showed the striation pattern of Reeva's black vest; the pellet would go through the vest, not bounce off of it. That larger mark is more consistent with a bullet fragment that was moving much slower than a pellet fired directly at Reeva. And besides, the pellets are so tiny (about the size of 2 grains of rice stuck together) , much smaller than that mark IIRC.

My comment is based on experience shooting a pellet gun at rabbits. With rabbits the pellet often times goes all the way through and exits. And that is with my air pistol that fires the pellet at a much slower FPS (feet per second) than a high powered air rifle does.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Good morning (evening) Val!

A .177 pellet would tear in to the skin of a human being, burrow through it. The mark on Reeva's back showed the striation pattern of Reeva's black vest; the pellet would go through the vest, not bounce off of it. That larger mark is more consistent with a bullet fragment that was moving much slower than a pellet fired directly at Reeva. And besides, the pellets are so tiny (about the size of 2 grains of rice stuck together) , much smaller than that mark IIRC.

My comment is based on experience shooting a pellet gun at rabbits. With rabbits the pellet often times goes all the way through and exits. And that is with my air pistol that fires the pellet at a much slower FPS (feet per second) than a high powered air rifle does.

Thanks ... very interesting!

Imagine for a moment a high velocity pellet (ie. super sonic) passing through an intermediate target of wood (.4 to .75 inches thick) and then striking flesh ... is it not possible that it would it just bruise, or puncture but not fully penetrate the flesh?

If you look at the scale on the bruise in the photo above, it is in the range of .5 cm ... that's certainly within the range of .177 calibre pellets.

 

[patCee]

IIRC The fifth bullet was the one that the forensic officer ejected from the gun to render it safe. That involves removing the magazine (clip) that has the reserve bullets and then pulling the slide back to eject the one bullet that was in the chamber - 5th bullet.

Air rifles are used for competition shooting and hunting small game. Many hunters use a silencer because it does reduce the noise to almost nothing when the rifle is fired; this is very helpful because firing the rifle won't scare away all of the other nearby game, rabbit and squirrels usually.

Sounds logical, but...IIRC the 5th bullet was found in the toilet bowl. I also thought OP left the gun on the bathroom floor. If that is true why would the forensic officer eject it into the toilet bowl? Now I'm lost once again.

 

[jay-jay]

BIB - Exactly ... Many days ago I bet my first born that those were pellet shot marks.

I wouldn't mind betting they are, too ..

 

[Viper]

I think we know who the Col. is--van Rensburg. And we already know by his own admission/testimony that he allowed Amee P. all over the crime scene and to take at least one of OP's watches. And van Rensburg got there very early from a nearby crime scene.

So imo it was not a low cop, but a high cop, who allowed what I called IDT (initial defense team of Carl, Aimee, Arnold, Oldwage) to take items.

I have long speculated about Oldwage arriving very early too. and I am "sure" it relates mostly to the 5th phone...

Hi Shane. Hey remember though that there are two safes in OPs house, one upstairs in the closet and one downstairs in the kitchen. Botha closed off the staircase to only forensics. Oldwage, Carl, and the locksmith were allowed in the kitchen to open that safe. Botha was careful to keep that group away from the crime scene - upstairs.

Here is a link, use edit, find, find and the word kitchen:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

From your early posts you mentioned a new SA law that had come into effect. Do you have any further info. on this?

I had it in my head that you were in the medical profession for some reason. I must be getting you mixed up with someone else.

Good afternoon.

Yes, I will provide the link below.

This SCA (Supreme Court of appeals) judgement was made specifically on putative self defense :14th April 2014 - last Monday (I think......my dates and times are as batty as what I am :facepalm

Sorry for making you read through the entire judgement but it is relevant, although one must keep in mind reading it, that the Pistorious matter is a little different considering Oscar refuses to state either way if he intended to shoot and harm the 'intruder', or if acted 'involuntarily' (as you will see).

You will also see (as I mentioned in an earlier post, that once more (in this case) there WAS contact/communication/an altercation of sorts between the accused and the perceived aggressors. (Oscar's circumstances are unique due to there being no 'contact at all' between himself and the 'perceived aggressor'.
Also note the higher standard to which the accused is held being a policeman in terms of 'reasonable man' with regard to the culpable homicide. Oscar is going to be to be held to the standard of 'reasonable firearm owner'.

Also take note of the de Oliveira ruling mentioned in here. (putative vs private self defense)

Sorry I'm waffling. Enjoy the read :scared:

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf



Bottom line; Oscar will be going down for something. Culpable homicide at the VERY least. IMHO.

And then I want to add a few other SA cases which are 'relevant' in terms of case law:

In fact, easier, read this

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sorry to hear about your injury. It's the absolute worst having to cut back on training or pull out of scheduled events due to injury - so frustrating. :tantrum: (I pull an Oscar when I'm injured. Incredible tantrums)



Because the state have ZERO idea as to what the defense will present in court in terms of evidence, expert witnesses etc (The Defense right to silence) it is rather common within SA law for the state to apply to re-open their case in order to rebut any evidence that has been 'sprung on them'. In this case, a recall of Capt Mangena for starters is not out of the question (after Dixon's waffling and the as yet unknown evidence of Wolmarans), but the state will definitely apply to re-open their case, in order to call their 'expert - Prof Gerard Labuschagne - as soon as a psychologist takes the stand for the defense.

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[molly333]

BIB - Exactly ... Many days ago I bet my first born that those were pellet shot marks.

I think I remember Dixon referring to those marks as caused by ricochet from the bathroom wall.

 

[Viper]

Sounds logical, but...IIRC the 5th bullet was found in the toilet bowl. I also thought OP left the gun on the bathroom floor. If that is true why would the forensic officer eject it into the toilet bowl? Now I'm lost once again.

A new / unused bullet cartridge is comprised of two external components: the case (casing) and the bullet (projectile). What was found on the floor was a complete cartridge. What was found in the toilet was a bullet.

 

[jay-jay]

I think I remember Dixon referring to those marks as caused by ricochet from the bathroom wall.

As a matter of fact, he didn't .. he actually disputed that they could've been because he said the ricochet would have suddenly had to change course and travel upwards (up the spine) and therefore could not have been the ricocheted missed bullet .. as well as him saying that he would've expected tears in the skin instead of a smooth injury. He said that all the other bits of bullet were accounted for elsewhere, so the injury couldn't have been caused by those either. Dixon's testimony on that was actually fairly damaging to OP on that basis, as were a number of other things Dixon testified to.

 

[Viper]

Thanks ... very interesting!

Imagine for a moment a high velocity pellet (ie. super sonic) passing through an intermediate target of wood (.4 to .75 inches thick) and then striking flesh ... is it not possible that it would it just bruise, or puncture but not fully penetrate the flesh?

If you look at the scale on the bruise in the photo above, it is in the range of .5 cm ... that's certainly within the range of .177 calibre pellets.

I have no idea. But that seems to be more fantastic than reality, IMO. It is complicated when we have seen in this case that things are simple, not complicated at all. So I would tend not to stretch that far based on that fact alone. Magena said that a ricochet bullet or bullet fragment(s) caused those injuries.

 

[steveml]

Good afternoon.

Yes, I will provide the link below.

This SCA (Supreme Court of appeals) judgement was made specifically on putative self defense :14th April 2014 - last Monday (I think......my dates and times are as batty as what I am :facepalm

Sorry for making you read through the entire judgement but it is relevant, although one must keep in mind reading it, that the Pistorious matter is a little different considering Oscar refuses to state either way if he intended to shoot and harm the 'intruder', or if acted 'involuntarily' (as you will see).

You will also see (as I mentioned in an earlier post, that once more (in this case) there WAS contact/communication/an altercation of sorts between the accused and the perceived aggressors. (Oscar's circumstances are unique due to there being no 'contact at all' between himself and the 'perceived aggressor'.
Also note the higher standard to which the accused is held being a policeman in terms of 'reasonable man' with regard to the culpable homicide. Oscar is going to be to be held to the standard of 'reasonable firearm owner'.

Also take note of the de Oliveira ruling mentioned in here. (putative vs private self defense)

Sorry I'm waffling. Enjoy the read :scared:

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf



Bottom line; Oscar will be going down for something. Culpable homicide at the VERY least. IMHO.

And then I want to add a few other SA cases which are 'relevant' in terms of case law:

In fact, easier, read this

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

Thanks.

There are a few from SA that post on here. It's a beautiful country.

From your name I'm presuming you're from Cape Town. What part are you from and are you native SA?

It'd be good to have some info from a SA poster who has a first-hand perspective of the lifestyle and security issues in a populous area such as Cape Town.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Good afternoon.

Yes, I will provide the link below.

This SCA (Supreme Court of appeals) judgement was made specifically on putative self defense :14th April 2014 - last Monday (I think......my dates and times are as batty as what I am :facepalm

Sorry for making you read through the entire judgement but it is relevant, although one must keep in mind reading it, that the Pistorious matter is a little different considering Oscar refuses to state either way if he intended to shoot and harm the 'intruder', or if acted 'involuntarily' (as you will see).

You will also see (as I mentioned in an earlier post, that once more (in this case) there WAS contact/communication/an altercation of sorts between the accused and the perceived aggressors. (Oscar's circumstances are unique due to there being no 'contact at all' between himself and the 'perceived aggressor'.
Also note the higher standard to which the accused is held being a policeman in terms of 'reasonable man' with regard to the culpable homicide. Oscar is going to be to be held to the standard of 'reasonable firearm owner'.

Also take note of the de Oliveira ruling mentioned in here. (putative vs private self defense)

Sorry I'm waffling. Enjoy the read :scared:

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf



Bottom line; Oscar will be going down for something. Culpable homicide at the VERY least. IMHO.

And then I want to add a few other SA cases which are 'relevant' in terms of case law:

In fact, easier, read this

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

Thanks for the links ,will take some time to read them thoroughly .
What is your view on the other gun related charges and likely sentences ?

 

[shane13]

Alright, the reason I find this whole thing with the family friend suspect is because there is blood between them. How close the family connection is I'm not sure, maybe they're shooting cousins. I was doing some research on it but it's 5:30am here and I need some sleep so it will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I get a little wary when I do a simple search and this info pops up.bbm

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Labuschagne-67

Good job.

Now you can see why upthread I was dubious on him testifying for the Pros.

He's not ony a friend of the family as he told OP not to worry everything will end up oK, he may really be family.

OTOH, we do not now if that is a common name in SA?
So while they may be related, it could be very distantly so.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Thanks.

There are a few from SA that post on here. It's a beautiful country.

From your name I'm presuming you're from Cape Town. What part are you from and are you native SA?

It'd be good to have some info from a SA poster who has a first-hand perspective of the lifestyle and security issues in a populous area such as Cape Town.

Yes I am a born, bred Capetonian. (Must be honest, we Capetonians tend to distance ourselves from the rest of the nation in many respects - we seem to think we're on an island of our own). I am in the Cape Winelands, Stellenbosch. Home of the grape :guitar:

Security....... Oscar's security fears were a crock, and although crime is a very real threat (a VERY real threat), folk such as Oscar are far removed from the fears of those living on (for example) The Cape Flats - gang violence/murder etc, OR the bodily harm that takes place within townships in Gauteng etc. Vehicle hijacking is the fear of most in Gauteng - according to my colleagues and friends who live up there; not home invasions as such.

I always find it rather funny when those with the means to protect themselves are often the first to scream, "fear fear fear", yet 'they' were happy to sit back in an upmarket restaurant and hear a shot go off - yet not one of those 'fearful' wealthy South Africans reported it. I realize the police here do not have the finest reputation, but not one person reported it?

I don't stand in judgement of them, but 'fear' and then total 'apathy' towards it when it DOES just leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for a South African such as I. (I'm different I guess).

One thing I do know though, is that the truly crime conscious certainly don't live without burglar bars etc as per OP.

Fear of crime - subjective at best. Even though it is very real, and victims fears of it ARE real, Oscar does not fall into that category IMHO.