Trial Discussion Thread #31

[sleuth-d-]

The bottom line is that we have two distinct groupings of witnessed sounds credited as gunshots. Not three or more, but two. We have from physical evidence both shots and strikes to the door that must be accounted for. We have testimony that at least one bat strike occurred post shooting, and the logical conclusion rightly drawn by the state witness from that is that all of them occurred post shooting, despite concessions about what is theoretically possible due to lack of evidence either way.

Battling pathologists happen in every trial. The evidence is by nature reconstructed and somewhat subjective and that is why both sides can virtually always find people to lend some support to their versions. If Reeva can't have been screaming after the first set of sounds as reason and the evidence suggests to some here then pathologist testimony is of interest but unlikely to be more definitive than that.

use of the word 'shot', versus the word 'bang' and just looking at witnesses, the first set of bangs, and the second set of bangs. it is the middle of the night. witness wakes up, hears loud bangs. when writing up notes as a witness, is it more likely you would attribute the loud bangs to:

[a] gunshots
[a fairly common event associated with loud bangs]
[you also most likely have the information that the incident in question involved gunshots]

the sounds of cricket bat hitting a door.
[a very rare event associated with loud bangs in the early hours]

cricket bat sounds have been shown to sound somewhat like gunshots. and as the bangs are in two sets - minutes apart - the witnesses do not have a side by side comparison to determine any difference.

........
bat>blood curdling screaming>gunshots>quiet>removal of wooden door panels.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

and another possible lie exposed:
op said he went out onto the balcony to scream 'help, help, help'. but note here, what is reported by van R first on the scene...

"When Botha and Van Rensburg went upstairs, the door to the balcony was locked, but they found the key."

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/ex-cop-tells-of-oscar-crime-scene-1.1660847#.U1ZwpOZdW2U

Yes . I mentioned this a few days ago . OP confirmed to Nel that the photo showing the doors closed was accurate and iIRC it was put on the record .
If they were locked as well then ...... Just wow.
As far as I see it Reeva died around 3.17 at the time of the second set of noises after screaming for around ten to fifteen minutes so in my view OP's version/ story cannot possibly be reasonable true when you look at his own testimony of what he stated he did and the time it took after the shooting of Reeva
Unless the defence have another pathologist to say she could have lived longer than a few minutes after being shot I can't see my view changing on this .
JMOO

 

[Cherry]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/oscar-pistorius-accused-taking-acting-lessons-23406400
Pistorious accused of taking acting lessons before trial.

 

[Hatfield]

As I missed this part of the trial,

Why in the world did Aimee want one of the watches in the first place? Why didnt she take them all?

And whats the short version of how the cell phone disappeared?

If its too hard to describe I can understand because it seems so many things are too confusing to describe the way OP describes things in his testimony.

 

[shane13]

Sorry to interrupt, but what does BIB stand for? I see it in these threads and can't work it out (blush).

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Glad to help you out Hoosgirl.

But I cannot resist: Hoos on first!

 

[JuneBug67]

I'd be interested in the thoughts of those who believe OP's 'version' as to what they make of the photo evidence of the bedroon on the morning of the shooting. Back when I was just reading here and the photo evidence was introduced someone made a very good photos timeline. They marked with an asterix those taken after police moving of items may have made the images unreliable. However, the bedroom photos were taken approx 30 minutes before that time so they were, presumably, reliable.

So, for the sake of debate, taking it that those first photos are an accurate representation of the bedroom that morning, how do you account for the positioning of the fan, duvet, blood splatter etc in terms of OP's story? To my eyes they prove that OP is lying about at least one major part of his testimony.

My issue with giving the scene too much weight is twofold: First, I'm not sure it can be relied on as there is subsequent evidence of a degree of general police carelessness and unprofessionalism. Secondly, can Oscar really say with certainty what happened in those moments after the shooting when he claims he went back into the bedroom? Nel's job is to pin him to precise movements that he may not in fact be able to accurately recall. Who knows what happened to the duvet and the jeans for example when he was, according to his version, in the early stages of realizing what he'd done. Did he knock the duvet off the bed? Kick the jeans a little on the floor as he was going by to get to the balcony? Who knows. These little things (and they are little things) would matter more if the big things didn't tell a different story.

 

[sleuth-d-]

OP has claimed that police moved things around in order to frame him or something to that affect. What I can't figure out is how did the police know what to move around? OP didn't give them a statement, he didn't tell them his version, so how were they able to move all of those things around that messes up OP's version?

The duvet, jeans, fans, cords, curtains, etc all show that OP is not telling the truth so he blames it on police contamination. So does the police have a mind reader working for them? Or does it make more sense that OP is once again lying not only about his version but also about the police moving things around before the first set of pictures were taken?

absolutely. how can anyone tamper with a crime scene, at a point before they know what to tamper with.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Marking my spot....

 

[Viper]

Amy didn't pilfer the watch. She asked for it and was given it by the police.

The other watch was pilfered by the police.

That's true Molly, there are eight watches in the box that was photographed. Aimee took one, and the police did likely take the other.

The brother, the lawyer, the friends, all of them were restricted to the downstairs and the kitchen, where the other safe was. After the photo that included all eight watches was taken only Aimee (with a police officer watching her) and the police were allowed upstairs.

 

[JuneBug67]

use of the word 'shot', versus the word 'bang' and just looking at witnesses, the first set of bangs, and the second set of bangs. it is the middle of the night. witness wakes up, hears loud bangs. when writing up notes as a witness, is it more likely you would attribute the loud bangs to:

[a] gunshots
[a fairly common event associated with loud bangs]
[you also most likely have the information that the incident in question involved gunshots]

the sounds of cricket bat hitting a door.
[a very rare event associated with loud bangs in the early hours]

cricket bat sounds have been shown to sound somewhat like gunshots. and as the bangs are in two sets - minutes apart - the witnesses do not have a side by side comparison to determine any difference.

........
bat>blood curdling screaming>gunshots>quiet>removal of wooden door panels.

As you suggest I don't think anything can be inferred from both sets of sounds being identified as gunshots by the witnesses. But the physical evidence and logic tells us that there were in fact two distinct and different acts, shooting and striking. There is testimony that at least one strike is known to have happened post shots, so a truly quiet removal of wooden door panel is not possible according to testimony and no witness testified to a further crack after the second set of sounds. Your timeline fits a guilty scenario, but two and only two sets of closely grouped sounds is what the evidence supports.

 

[sleuth-d-]

IIRC he testified to the fact that Op or his people ALLEGED that a watch was missing and someone must have stolen it, hence the consequent searches.

He never stated or acquiesced that the police stole OP's watch.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-missing-watch-tainted-gun-and-broken-toilet

When he returned to the garage Van Rensburg was told that another watch had gone missing.

“I said ‘That’s impossible, I’ve just been there’,” Van Rensburg said, explaining his extreme surprise.


...
looks like this is going to be investigated spearately.

 

[jay-jay]

a little here on the boat accident. doesn't sound like there will be anything regarding a 'bangs to the head defence'... well not due to this episode anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-recovers-from-boating-accident

The doctors at the Millpark Hospital were busy mending a number of facial *fractures, especially around Pistorius's jaw and nose. According to Pistorius's *manager, Peet van Zyl, they were pleased with the results.

"The doctors are quite happy with how the operation went and they expect Oscar to make a full recovery," Van Zyl said tonight. "With all the damage to his face and swelling around his airways, the use of a ventilator was purely a safety measure. But still, it is a tremendous relief that he is conscious again now in ICU [the intensive care unit]."

The Millpark principal medical officer, Anchen Laubscher, said of Pistorius: "He is fine. Everything can be repaired *surgically. His brain is functioning normally. He will soon be discharged and taken home to make a full recovery."


interesting additional note from this artice in respect to the 'reasonable man' and 'physical disabilities':
>Pistorius is an immensely popular man who has never considered himself disabled, but rather "differently abled".<

"Everything is fine"!

 

[molly333]

Who knows if the watch was even there in the first place and there is no evidence it was stolen by the police, in fact all the police and they're vehicles were searched at the time.

Could very well have been one of OP's 'friends.'

The chief detective knew they were there in the first place. They were sitting on an open box on the bureau, and he mentioned to his photographer to keep an eye on them and later mentioned to another detective to keep an eye on them.

He noticed immediately when the watch went missing. That's when they searched all the police who were still there.

In US, mistrial! [but I defer to the atty's]

 

[Viper]

RS/BBM
OP claims he screamed to the intruder/s several times, "Get the * out of my house, heard a noise from the WC indicating the fellow was complying with his demand, and immediately fired 4 black talons at him? Sounds like a deliberate execution.

BIB. But he was scared and feared for his life! Textbook example of Putative Self Defense.






:floorlaugh:

 

[sleuth-d-]

As you suggest I don't think anything can be inferred from both sets of sounds being identified as gunshots by the witnesses. But the physical evidence and logic tells us that there were in fact two distinct and different acts, shooting and striking. There is testimony that at least one strike is known to have happened post shots, so a truly quiet removal of wooden door panel is not possible according to testimony and no witness testified to a further crack after the second set of sounds. Your timeline fits a guilty scenario, but two and only two sets of closely grouped sounds is what the evidence supports.

i would add to the panel removal:
cracking the right hand door panel [i.e. post shooting] and removal of the door panels would not necessarily involve loud sound imo.

just trying to fit witness reports into the timeline. i have tried with op version, and struggled - partly due to the ridiculous fan/balcony/lack of immediate call to netcare or police, but especially re: the screams after the shots.

 

[jay-jay]

As I missed this part of the trial,

Why in the world did Aimee want one of the watches in the first place? Why didnt she take them all?

And whats the short version of how the cell phone disappeared?

If its too hard to describe I can understand because it seems so many things are too confusing to describe the way OP describes things in his testimony.

I don't understand that, either .. it's not like OP died and she wanted it as a keepsake or something. Everything should've been left exactly where it was .. oh, hang on though, OP had already contaminated the crime scene himself :facepalm:

 

[molly333]

Was this testified to by Col Van Rensburg ? If not, can you name the one who did say it, please.

Yes, known to me as the Colonel.

Sweet guy with bald head and lots of integrity.

 

[BritsKate]

The bottom line is that we have two distinct groupings of witnessed sounds credited as gunshots. Not three or more, but two. We have from physical evidence both shots and strikes to the door that must be accounted for. We have testimony that at least one bat strike occurred post shooting, and the logical conclusion rightly drawn by the state witness from that is that all of them occurred post shooting, despite concessions about what is theoretically possible due to lack of evidence either way.



Battling pathologists happen in every trial. The evidence is by nature reconstructed and somewhat subjective and that is why both sides can virtually always find people to lend some support to their versions. If Reeva can't have been screaming after the first set of sounds as reason and the evidence suggests to some here then pathologist testimony is of interest but unlikely to be more definitive than that.

Vermeulen did not conclude all the bat strikes occurred after the shots - but rather that he couldn't establish a definitive sequence - which the second link I posted very clearly states.

Considering I did provide links to the assertions in my post, at this point I really can't do anything but simply agree to disagree with those who feel the limited forensic evidence available substantiates OP's testimony.



Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-missing-watch-tainted-gun-and-broken-toilet

When he returned to the garage Van Rensburg was told that another watch had gone missing.

“I said ‘That’s impossible, I’ve just been there’,” Van Rensburg said, explaining his extreme surprise.


...
looks like this is going to be investigated spearately.

It is astonishing that so much attention might be put towards investigating a missing watch when the removal of vital evidence ie phone from a crime scene seems to be being ignored .

 

[molly333]

It is astonishing that so much attention might be put towards investigating a missing watch when the removal of vital evidence ie phone from a crime scene seems to be being ignored .

Police investigators have to be above reproach. If they are not, who or what evidence can you trust?

Throw the case out of court. Evidence destroyed and gone missing.

[I'm not in a good mood today].