Trial Discussion Thread #32

[TorisMom003]

Was he asked why didn't he just unlock it? TIA Seems pretty lame to me. In fact, had he really want to protect RS wouldn't the obvious move be to tell her to unlock the door and get downstairs to be safer and call police while he kept an eye on the passageway?

BBM ...I don't remember what OP said on the stand, but the "I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps" was straight from his bail affi iirc.

OP said something along the lines of he didn't know why he didn't. Then he changed that to it was difficult for him to go on the tiles without his pros. legs on. Yet he went into the bathroom, which has tiles, without his pros. legs on (according to him). Of course he also said it is not in his nature to go away from the danger, or words to that effect.

MOO

 

[Viper]

I was NOT intending to join in with movie casting, but.....

Vermuelen looks (and behaved) exactly like Ricky Gervais... perhaps not so well known to US audiences, though he has had parts in Hollywood movies. I am thinking of RG in the original UK "The Office" TV series, which was his original concept, he co-wrote and stared in it.

Ricky is pretty well known here, he was the MC of some big awards program involving actors, maybe the Oscars? IDK because I don't watch celebrity awards programs.

But I did watch all of the "Idiot Abroad" shows with Karl, those were hilarious. I was hoping that they would reverse the roles and have Karl send Ricky off to experience stupid things abroad, but they didn't. Also, his live stand up comedy routine, IIRC "Out of England" was really funny!

 

[sleuth-d-]

Prof Saayman testified that a scream initiated before the head shot would tail off after it.

this actually makes ms burger's testimony, and that she steadfastly stuck by it, under heavy duress from roux... even more compelling.

 

[Suthrnqt]

OP said something along the lines of he didn't know why he didn't. Then he changed that to it was difficult for him to go on the tiles without his pros. legs on. Yet he went into the bathroom, which has tiles, without his pros. legs on (according to him). Of course he also said it is not in his nature to go away from the danger, or words to that effect.

MOO

That is one of the many things that just didn't make sense to me. He didn't go out the bedroom door because of the tile floor, yet he went into the bathroom--which had a tile floor?
Doesn't make sense. And if he felt so vulnerable....why go towards the danger? Just doesn't ring true for me.
MOO

 

[minor4th]

But remember: OP has said numerous things on the stand that were either absent or different from his versions presented many months ago. OP's incentive/motive for changing his story is much greater than anyone else has.

We were talking about Burger's testimony and when she first said there was a pause between the first and second shots. The first time she said it was at trial - it was not included in her prior written statement.

Nothing to do with whether OP is lying or not.

 

[sleuth-d-]

detail from ms burger's testimony

call to security from burgers: 03:16 [call duration 58 seconds]

this call was completed before the final scream and the four shots.

 

[Suthrnqt]

We were talking about Burger's testimony and when she first said there was a pause between the first and second shots. The first time she said it was at trial - it was not included in her prior written statement.

Nothing to do with whether OP is lying or not.

But what does Burger have to gain by adding this info to her testimony?

 

[minor4th]

But what does Burger have to gain by adding this info to her testimony?

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

 

[PPKik]

RBBM

I really do believe that's a ruse by Roux to make it appear the scene was 'contaminated, tampered, disturbed'. If there were really this elaborate plan to implicate OP, don't you think the police would have buried the evidence that anything even was moved? Some items necessitated moving for photographs (as testified to) but there are photographs of the crime scene before anything was touched...further, the items 'moved' in OP's testimony would had to have been moved by the police before they even knew his version of events. All they knew at the point of the photographs is he'd shot Reeva, whom he'd thought was an intruder. That was it.

I'm not saying the crime scene was kept pristine when obviously it wasn't. I just don't buy this master plan of corruption and ineptitude Roux is trying to sell either.

JMO and FWIW

I'm not sure about a ruse by Roux. Or a master plan of corruption.

Since I have been unable to watch most of the testimony (until I watched/listened to most of Michelle Burger's testimony on the Ws "ear witness" thread), I am solely basing my opinion on the photos I have seen, not on anything Roux has said/ alleged.

I two saw different photos of OP's gun on the rug, the gun is not in the same place in the two photos and neither is the position of the rug; it's disturbed. There seems to be no reason. Why was it photographed in two positions?

This is only my observation of something which is clearly noticeable. Then there is Col. van Renburg's claim that someone cocked OP's gun while standing behind him.

The fan pictures that have been posted show two pictures of the fan with a cord seemingly connected to a wall outlet and one with cord doubled back. Same fan, but different configuration. Why? Who moved it, and then photographed it, and why?

All I am saying is that nothing should have been moved, and most definitely at least those two objects, gun and fan, were moved for different photos.

Does that make a difference? I don't know, but if it were my crime scene, either as an investigator or as a suspect, I would be extremely concerned. I would want to know why anything was touched and moved, and then re-photographed.


[Col. G.S van Rensburg: Bob Hoskins? Michael Caine?]

 

[shane13]

Prof Saayman testified that a scream initiated before the head shot would tail off after it.

I also said here weeks ago that most bullets are shot out at supersonic speeds. Some at several times the speed of sound.

Even if the scream and shot were at the same time, at the larger distances of the witnesses, say 177m, the supersonic sound waves of the gunshot would arrive at some part of a second ahead of the last scream, even if the two occured at the same time or if the scream occurred a bit before the shot. I've said for year here I hope PT has got a physicist there to testify. Sorry they didn't.

 

[Viper]

IIRC Baba and the Standers saw OP standing at the top of the stairs holding Reeva in his arms when they arrived at 3:25. Would someone please tell me if there was a "blood pool" or arterial spurts found at the top of the stairs where he was standing, for whatever period of time, while he was apparently waiting for "help" to arrive so that he could present Reeva's corpse to them and pretend that he wanted her to live?

 

[crasshopper]

bbm - For a pic of what has been called arterial spurt on OP's walls, check at 1:32-1:35 on this video. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/31/graphic-new-photos-crime-scene-where-pistorius-shot-girlfriend/,

or from http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-11/

in my untrained intruments(eyes), it does look like it could be cast off, compared to what is used to portray the typical arterial spurt online. I would think that the pulsatile pattern you mention could possibly be caused by OP's gait while descending steps with the unaccustomed dead weight of RS's body.

Hi again Val,

Thank you so much for posting all of those. I have no expertise or experience with blood spatter. So far, I accept the PT's expert's testimony. The pictures from the Fox site do keep in perspective the amount of "spurting" &"spatter" we are dealing with, excluding the toilet.

To quote myself from post 1118-
"...I would conclude from the latter that squeezing or compressing an injured limb with said injured artery, would consequently NOT yield an arterial pattern, although it might 'eject' blood." So, I am not certain how this got misinterpreted or any of my other opinions on the matter keep getting misinterpreted and incorrectly paraphrased.

I just gave myself a massive headache re reviewing the dialogue on this issue. I will spare you the headache and save that for Viper;-)

Nutshell, I'm going with the expert until I have sound reasons or data to discredit or weaken his conclusion. To date, I have none.

For the above reasons, I can conclude NOTHING about those pictures except that we're not dealing with a lot of blood. I can speculate or speculate on the likelihood of someone else's speculation but I would never want that to be misinterpreted.

These experts have significant experience and an understanding of the applicable physics & hemodynamics that I do not.

Plus we have no idea of all of Nests' reasoning/ rationale for making his determination in the areas in question. For all we know, and can't evaluate, in addition to the undulation there are probably other criteria and honestly without reading a textbook or paper, which I'm not about to do, it is best for me not to weigh in.

Thank you so much for the informative links and images!!!

 

[minor4th]

RBBM

<snip>

I'm not saying the crime scene was kept pristine when obviously it wasn't. I just don't buy this master plan of corruption and ineptitude Roux is trying to sell either.

JMO and FWIW

I do not think Roux is trying to sell a master plan of corruption and ineptitude.

I think he is rightfully laying a case that much of the crime scene evidence, and the photos in particular, are not reliable as depictions of an untouched crime scene.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

We were talking about Burger's testimony and when she first said there was a pause between the first and second shots. The first time she said it was at trial - it was not included in her prior written statement.

Nothing to do with whether OP is lying or not.

My point was:

So, why is it when OP changes or adds to his story, a number of posters insist that he is telling the truth. That being the case, why would one think that Burger is lying/misrepresenting/making stuff up? What is her investment in misleading the judge? In contrast, OP has everything invested in his changes and additions to his original statements.

 

[Viper]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

BIB. How could you possibly know that to be a fact?

 

[wb180]

We were talking about Burger's testimony and when she first said there was a pause between the first and second shots. The first time she said it was at trial - it was not included in her prior written statement.

Nothing to do with whether OP is lying or not.

This is what's so good about this case for me You can dismiss this witness and yet there is still other witnesses to choose from. It's like a buffet. Haha

And this doesn't even contemplate OP bs testimony and DTs bad experts.

 

[minor4th]

My point was:

So, why is it when OP changes or adds to his story, a number of posters insist that he is telling the truth. That being the case, why would one think that Burger is lying/misrepresenting/making stuff up? What is her investment in misleading the judge? In contrast, OP has everything invested in his changes and additions to his original statements.

I think the posters here who believe that Oscar believed there was an intruder have all conceded that Oscar is a terrible witness and has hurt his own credibility and defense.

Why is it that those who believe he's guilty of murder cannot concede even a tiny point that a state's witness could be mistaken or embellishing their testimony?

 

[minor4th]

This is what's so good about this case for me You can dismiss this witness and yet there is still other witnesses to choose from. It's like a buffet. Haha

And this doesn't even contemplate OP bs testimony and DTs bad experts.

No one is dismissing this witness. We were talking specifically about when Burger first reported the pause between shots. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is this even a point of contention?

 

[Suthrnqt]

My point was:

So, why is it when OP changes or adds to his story, a number of posters insist that he is telling the truth. That being the case, why would one think that Burger is lying/misrepresenting/making stuff up? What is her investment in misleading the judge? In contrast, OP has everything invested in his changes and additions to his original statements.

Thanking your post wasn't enough.
ITA with your post.

 

[wb180]

I think the posters here who believe that Oscar believed there was an intruder have all conceded that Oscar is a terrible witness and has hurt his own credibility and defense.

Why is it that those who believe he's guilty of murder cannot concede even a tiny point that a state's witness could be mistaken or embellishing their testimony?

Not me. I don't mind u pointing out weakness in witnesses or stuff about couples colluding, etc. Coz there is too much other evidence to show he didn't act in self defense or whatever bs defense OP wants to make.