Trial Discussion Thread #31

[jay-jay]

If he was in a murderous rage though, this also does not seem likely - if he was killing her in a rage, I do not think he would be calculating how to position himself to support an intruder version that he hadn't yet fabricated.

The fact that he was against the wall and shielded by the corner, shooting at a fairly severe angle - to me that suggests more that he was afraid of being shot at or attacked and was trying to remain at a distance and behind some cover while shooting.

OP has shown how quickly he can make things up, and I think this is exactly what he was doing all the while he was being violent towards Reeva. Both things can be done at the same time by a violent abuser .. they can be extremely quick thinking, make up all sorts of lies, and be angry and violent, all at the same time.

Re. your second paragraph, I was led to believe that he was leaning against the left hand side of the bathroom wall (as you enter it) and was only just inside the bathroom .. and as such, he wasn't really using the right hand side of the wall as protection .. I don't really have a definite, specific, location for where he actually stood when he shot at the door and am only going by what I remember OP testifying and some other things I've read. Happy to be corrected on where OP actually stood when he pulled the trigger.

 

[jay-jay]

interesting.
are you saying evidence has been [can be] put to the judge by the prosecution, and not to the defence?

I believe so, yes* .. and there were things that were passed directly to the judge, such as one of the WhatsApp messages .. that wasn't read out in court, but was submitted in evidence directly to the judge.


* correction, what I mean is that it isn't provided as evidence in court for the defence to refute .. whether it's made known to the defence beforehand, I've no idea.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

re: your point 1. who can say if the crack was definitely caused by the hard cricket bat hits. as i explained, i am saying the crack in the door running down from top to bottom was caused by the handle meeting the wooden panel as the panel was twisted to be removed in phase three - so the crack was caused after gunshot d

re your point 2. there was a gap in time between the first bangs and the second bangs. possibly he didn't have the gun at first, and went to fetch it.

I agree with your post despite Vermeulen's confusing testimony .
The 4th bullet hole was very close to the hole that was made by the bat so IMO this split could have been done as the bat was inserted and twisted to get a larger section out after the shots . The chances of that twisting action not causing additional splits ( particularly when weakened by a bullet hole ) is very slim .
I live rurally and have on occasion had to split wood for kindling as well as years of doing DIY including pulling up floorboards so have seen how wood can split.
Don't want to be in the middle of a battleground on this point though

 

[jay-jay]

I understand it is policy for him to work alone
But in some respects it would be a better policy for him to be accompanied by at least one person at all times so as to verify that there is no movement of anything .I am not saying he has or would do that but a police photographer working totally on his own could move things
I wonder what the rules are on this in the UK .

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Gb :thumb:

 

[Nausicaa]

Thanks for your response.

Re: point 1 - Vermuelen, Mangena and the defense experts have all agreed that one bat hit caused the crack that intersected with the bullet hole that was already there. That's what I'm going by. I mean, they specifically said that crack was caused by the bat hitting the door and not from a panel being pried out - that seems to be the one thing they all agree upon.

re: point 2 - yes, assuming he didn't have the gun with him and had to go back to get it, it still doesn't make sense that he would stand against the far wall and at an angle to intentionally shoot and kill Reeva. And what would be the purpose of hitting the door with the bat first if his intention was to ultimately shoot her and kill her?

Minor, please stop assuming that all those who think [modsnip] is innocent agree with every detail of the defence version and all those who think he's guilty agree with every detail of the prosecution version. We have minds of our own for one thing. And for another, as sleuths, we are out to find out the exact truth about what happened. Counsel are not: they are out to get him convicted or acquitted respectively and have no need to go beyond that.

 

[jay-jay]

O/T
There has just been a terrible event in England, with a South African Family.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-27122410

I heard about it early this morning, on LBC radio .. absolutely horrific, those poor poor children (I believe all three were disabled .. and an older child, who is alive, didn't have any disabilities)

 

[Gbtaketwo]

What is also interesting about that photo is that the grey pillow on the side where Reeva was supposed to have been sleeping, is propped up against the headboard .. now assuming that bit wouldn't have been touched right from the time OP shot Reeva (and there's no reason why it would've been, either by OP or by crime scene officers) then why is it in that position? Reeva wouldn't have slept with a pillow up like that, surely? That's yet one more thing that indicates to me that neither he or she were asleep, and they had been up pretty much half the night before the shooting.

That is a good point . I only have my pillow like that if I am sat up reading or sleuthing . And is in fact as I am now as I have unfortunately badly sprained my ankle this morning At least i will have plenty of time to re listen to lots of evidence

 

[sleuth-d-]

Thanks for your response.

Re: point 1 - Vermuelen, Mangena and the defense experts have all agreed that one bat hit caused the crack that intersected with the bullet hole that was already there. That's what I'm going by. I mean, they specifically said that crack was caused by the bat hitting the door and not from a panel being pried out - that seems to be the one thing they all agree upon.

re: point 2 - yes, assuming he didn't have the gun with him and had to go back to get it, it still doesn't make sense that he would stand against the far wall and at an angle to intentionally shoot and kill Reeva. And what would be the purpose of hitting the door with the bat first if his intention was to ultimately shoot her and kill her?

bib1. not sure i agree they have said this. let's agree to disagree.

bib2. who said his intention was to shoot and kill her at first? it was a disagreement/argument, followed by an escalation of violence, which ended with the shooting/killing.

 

[Nausicaa]

If he was in a murderous rage though, this also does not seem likely - if he was killing her in a rage, I do not think he would be calculating how to position himself to support an intruder version that he hadn't yet fabricated.

The fact that he was against the wall and shielded by the corner, shooting at a fairly severe angle - to me that suggests more that he was afraid of being shot at or attacked and was trying to remain at a distance and behind some cover while shooting.

To me it looks exactly like my own instinct when shooting vermin close to a solid backdrop such as a wall - position myself so as to avoid any possible ricochet effect. This is what [modsnip] himself said and it is a completely sufficient explanation, though quite incompatible with his claim that he was too panic-stricken to be responsible for the 4 times repeated squeezing of the trigger.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree with your post despite Vermeulen's confusing testimony .
The 4th bullet hole was very close to the hole that was made by the bat so IMO could have been done as the bat was inserted and twisted to get a larger section out . The chances of that action not causing additional splits ( particularly when weakened by a bully hole ) is very slim .
I live rurally and have on occasion had to split wood for kindling as well as years of doing DIY including pulling up floorboards so have seen how wood can split.
Don't want to be in the middle of a battleground on this point though

no battleground on this side. just trying to look at the possibilities.

i have tried with op version... but kept running up against obstacles.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

bib1. not sure i agree they have said this. let's agree to disagree.

bib2. who said his intention was to shoot and kill her at first? it was a disagreement/argument, followed by an escalation of violence, which ended with the shooting/killing.

Agreeing to disagree is a good expression . I sometimes don't know when it is going to be safe to put my head above the parapet .
I do welcome different viewpoint 's though as I regularly read posts of things that I have not noticed or thought of before which is good whether they support my view or not

 

[Viper]

Thanks for your response.

Re: point 1 - Vermuelen, Mangena and the defense experts have all agreed that one bat hit caused the crack that intersected with the bullet hole that was already there. That's what I'm going by. I mean, they specifically said that crack was caused by the bat hitting the door and not from a panel being pried out - that seems to be the one thing they all agree upon.

re: point 2 - yes, assuming he didn't have the gun with him and had to go back to get it, it still doesn't make sense that he would stand against the far wall and at an angle to intentionally shoot and kill Reeva. And what would be the purpose of hitting the door with the bat first if his intention was to ultimately shoot her and kill her?

BIB. Quote:
"Vermuelen, Mangena and the defense experts have all agreed that one bat hit caused the crack that intersected with the bullet hole..."

"One bat hit" did not cause the vertical crack that intersected with the bullet hole. "Using the tip of the bat to pry the panel loose" is what caused the long vertical crack to form and intersect with the bullet hole.

OP hit the door two times causing a defect (small opening) in the door. After he murdered Reeva he inserted the tip of the bat in to that small defect and pryed the slender panel loose causing a vertical crack that ran down through one of the bullet holes.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

no battleground on this side. just trying to look at the possibilities.

i have tried with op version... but kept running up against obstacles.

Yes I know the feeling .
I think most people on here have been open to evidence contrary to our beliefs
But for me it just has not materialised yet .
As I said earlier today I feel the Defence has a mountain to climb .
I am not saying they won't do that but it is going to be tough IMO

 

[BritsKate]

Well, I'm waiting for y'all to convince me so that I can make sense of this I am really trying to get a grasp on how it could have happened this way and still fit with the forensic evidence.

I think for some it remains an 'all or nothing' scenario which makes it more confusing. I think the bat was used two different times. Imagine an argument with Oscar kicking the door and hitting it with the bat (it may explain the damage to his legs because him breaking or kicking the bedroom door he already went through makes much less sense). Something triggers OP into a rage - maybe she has her phone with her and threatens to call the police? He drops the bat and goes to get the gun. Shoots - maybe just once, possibly to intimidate her into opening a locked door (might explain the pause of shots and the change of angle). The pitch of her screaming would instantaneously make him realise he'd actually hit her. And from there it's the point of no return. His lifestyle is ruined if he went to prison for attempted murder. (And before there's the argument - Oscar is the sole witness here and has managed to evade accountability for most of his adult life despite highly reckless and sometimes illegal behaviours. It is not unreasonable to conclude he believed he might not even be charged or beat it if he was.) He then picks the bat back up and uses it to wedge the panel from the door.

I don't think he intentionally stood back to account for an intruder theory. I think he stayed as far away from the door as he could while still being able to fire. Why is anyone's guess really. He couldn't stand her screaming, he didn't want to be hit by splinters, he was expecting her to be terrified and furious both and throw the door open? I just don't know.

It's very difficult, minor, to invite you into my head! :biggrin: I can 'see' it but I have a hard time relating it. If I missed anything crucial or need to clarify, let me know.

 

[lisasalinger]

I found the cup. It's a funny square one, on the right hand side of the bed. I want to see if I can find one on the left now. In Oscar's testimony, didn't he say they took the plates out and Reeva asked if he wanted a warm drink then brought it up to him - but he didn't mention if she made herself one too?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-updates-3412113

He did indeed mention the warm drink twice during testimony. It was very bizarre. I can see how tea would be far more important than remembering what you said to security that night :banghead:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

.. two women a week in the UK, Gb .. which is still higher than probably a lot of people realise.

Even that statistic is far too high .
I know this is off topic but years ago I remember reading about a guy that stabbed his wife to death in front of their children because she had had an affair.
I can't remember how many years he did , not very many because he got out of jail on parole and somehow managed to get custody of his kids.
It still troubles me to this day :-(

 

[Gbtaketwo]

It isn't. In the UK, 2 women a week are killed by their intimate partner. Africa has one of the highest rates of domestic violence though across the board.

There was recently a global review of domestic violence published, based on 86 countries. The first of its kind. The findings are both grim and heartbreaking. 40% of women killed across the world die at the hands of their intimate partner; 30% of women globally experience domestic or sexual violence; and 600 million women live in countries where domestic violence is not even considered a crime. (For comparison - the entire population of South Africa is 51 million, the UK about 63 million, and the US 313 million.) Imagine putting together nearly two Americas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/domestic-violence_n_3474032.html

These are truly distressing statistics . I wish the world was a less violent place .

 

[Mr Fossil]

I believe so, yes* .. and there were things that were passed directly to the judge, such as one of the WhatsApp messages .. that wasn't read out in court, but was submitted in evidence directly to the judge.


* correction, what I mean is that it isn't provided as evidence in court for the defence to refute .. whether it's made known to the defence beforehand, I've no idea.

If so, I guess the clothing reference could be the jeans shown in the photo on the ground below the toilet window, though I'm surprised it wasn't brought up in OP's cross examination when Nel was putting forward his theory that Reeva was leaving.

I also noticed that the only WhatsApp messages that were read out in court came directly from Reeva's phone. OP's phone data was passed to the defence and entered as evidence but the data wasn't specifically analysed in court. I'm guessing this may be because there is no chain of custody for the 0020 phone.

Added: I've watched to the video again and they refer to what she was wearing as being key, so I guess it can't be the jeans.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yep. That bugs me and so does calling Stander to help pick Reeva up before netcare has said to move her at all...only then to pick Reeva up on his own anyway.

Yes particularly with live in staff actually on the premises.
I will be very interested to hear what they have to say if they are called to give evidence.

 

[minor4th]

no battleground on this side. just trying to look at the possibilities.



i have tried with op version... but kept running up against obstacles.

That's what is so aggravating - no matter which perspective I view it, I run into obstacles. I can't make sense of the state's case and at the same time I believe Oscar is not telling the complete truth and is hiding something.