Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[BritsKate]

What does AFAIK mean? Tnx

As Far As I Know

There's also AFAICT and AFAICR and probably still many others.

(As far as I can tell, As far as I can recall/remember)

 

[TorisMom003]

In his defense, he probably didn't hear "wood moving" that time. :smile:

Thank goodness, for the washing machines sake, that there was no tennis shoes or something heavy like that going in the wash at the time. Imagine what OP would have done if he had heard loud thumps from them spinning around.

 

[Viper]

This picture looks like her back wound.

Yes it does! Reeva's t-shirt had a vertical or horizontal pattern woven in to the fabric. That pattern is seen clearly in the close up photo. The ricochet bullet still had a great deal of energy when it hit her and caused the mark that we see with the striated pattern from her shirt embedded in the skin.

 

[Val1]

On the edge:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/in-one-mo...-lurking-behind-the-smile-20131129-2yh2k.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...enced-to-18-years-for-fiancees-murder/5251168

Striking similarities... right down to that watch that looks oddly familiar. :/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-27/evidence-in-the-gittany-trial/5120230
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/simon-gittany-rachelle-louise/5116994

 

[patCee]

try this

http://abcnews.go.com/International/pistorius-housekeeper-inside-home-shooting/story?id=23602899

That one works,

Thank you:star:

 

[BritsKate]

in the interests of justice, can the judge have any say? wtf, the man was in the house on the night of the shooting.

What's the judge really to do if any witness comes forth who answers every question with 'I don't recall'? Either attorney could subpoena Frank, Nel could 'threaten' Frank with a charge like perverting the course of justice if the situation rises to a chargeable offence, but realistically no one can compel him to testify if he's unwilling.

In the pursuit of justice, we all hope people concede to a higher moral calling to do their 'duty', but in reality for a whole host of reasons some just don't, won't or can't.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Something new to watch. Just started myself so I make no claims about nuthin'

oscar trial legal panel 13 - YouTube

Very interesting discussion. Right at the end the Judge said:

"Assuming the court imposes a sentence and Oscar appeals it, the State can then cross-appeal to have the sentence actually increased".

 

[Cymbaline]

It took Kato K. almost 20 years until gave up what he knew... how long until the laws of SA give Frank the same leeway?

http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/kato-kaelin-oj-simpson-killed-his-wife/

Carice

Roux: Okay, you say you arrived and saw Frank the gardener and a person there.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 2:41 AM

Viljoen: Yes.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 2:41 AM

Roux: What car did you drive?
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 2:41 AM

Viljoen: A mini, a silver mini.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 2:41 AM

Viljoen: We asked what is going on, they said they don't know. I remember as we approached the house the door was slightly open. I remember I just touched the door and it opened.
by Sky News court reporter May 5 at 2:42 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Oscar

OP: I then phoned 911, they told me I need to get her to a hospital. I went back to Reeva and tried to carry her down stairs but her weight was to much for me.
by Sky News court reporter 8:48 AM

OP: I ran downstairs to open the front door, because I knew I wouldn't be able to open the door while carry Reeva.
by Sky News court reporter 8:48 AM

OP: I went back upstairs to fetch Reeva and took her downstairs.
by Sky News court reporter 8:48 AM

OP: Mr. Stander and Miss. Stander arrived and he told me to put Reeva down on the floor.
by Sky News court reporter 8:49 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Front door is ajar. Kitchen light is on. Frank's room is off the kitchen. Frank is outside with security when Carice arrives. Frank didn't see or hear anything and he just happened to wake up and go outside.

JMO

 

[DebinGA]

Ironically, in looking for an article to describe blame-shifting, I found one stating blame-shifting being a recurring theme to Oscar Pistorius. :biggrin:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/9957975/Pistorius-blame-shifting-a-recurring-theme

RSBM ... Very interesting, BritsKate. This bit caught my eye:

The athlete was also accused of using his tearful outbursts to avoid difficult questions

I think OP used the same gambit with Netcare, Mr. Baba, and the early post-murder arrivals to his home. His family's immediate and bizarre rush to soothe him seems to me a learned response to temper the over-the-top weeping and wailing that OP habitually and consciously resorts to when stressed.

 

[Viper]

Okay, but shouldn't blood be on the toilet room walls?

That's a great question! A severed artery "gushes" massive amounts of blood with every heartbeat for ~30 seconds. The blood can travel 6" vertically and 18" horizontally. That is what Reeva had, an exposed "severed" artery in her right arm and a "severed" artery deep within her brain. That is why we don't see blood all over the walls.

A "nicked" artery on the other hand is still under pressure and can spurt blood over a great distance both vertically and horizontally. This is the image you will see if you Google arterial spurt or spatter and there are images showing what looks like waves of blood on a wall or a ceiling.

 

[sleuth-d-]

It is assumed by all of the testimony that the alarm was on, I am assuming that too. The thing that bothers me is that OP could open the patio door and moments later someone else could open the bathroom window and yet the alarm, though armed, did not go off. I guess OPs system could have his bedroom disarmed while the rest of the house is armed, but it does not make sense for a security conscious person to do that, even if it could be done.

if you are assuming that the alarm was on, why do you think he switched it off when going downstairs to open the front door?

 

[wb180]

Stay away from my large screen TV!!!

Interpretations of state of mind are always gonna cause conflict, because everyone has their own history and beliefs about what is rational or normal or whatnot. I disagree with you about OP's paranoia.That's that.

I'm old enough to have learned that very little in the world is black and white. Lots of gray. Lots of little square pegs that can't be smacked into round holes no matter how much we want them to go there.

As I've said again and again and again. I don't like OP. I think he has a serious anger problem. I think he should never be allowed to own a gun again, no matter what the verdict. I think he is incapable of taking responsibility for himself and his actions. I think he has not told the whole truth about what happened that night.

When I add all that up with the "evidence" I see a man who could very well have flown into a frenzy when he believed he heard an intruder. I believe OP could fire 4 shots in a situation where another would fire none or one. I do not think he is "innocent, " but I think he is not guilty of the premeditated murder of Reeva. Big difference.

Ok, so in summary, premeditation can never occur in your world unless we had direct evidence from the accused (who is also proven not to be under duress) admitting to premeditating to the crime.

Other than that scenario, all other scenarios will not lead to premeditation because by definition if accused thinks in a certain way (i.e. scared), that's that. Too much gray as you say.

 

[crasshopper]

So you yourself have not seen a pic which you think corresponds to arterial spurt pattern either ? I went through the pics pretty carefully and I couldn’t find anything close, but I’m wide open to seeing what is claimed to be definitely arterial.


His actual words were: "the deceased probably didn't breathe more than a few times after sustaining this wound" and "The wound to the head was incapacitating and probably almost instantly fatal." As you know there is no video or audio of his evidence but you can find those words reported here. I was summarizing what I understand to be the meaning.


To my mind it makes it so unlikely that I want clear proof that the heart was still beating when he was carrying Reeva down those stairs. Moreover, even if there was some residual heartbeat there had been massive blood loss and there were several major arteries severed, which makes for dribbles rather than spurts.

I don't think Nest's reference to arterial "spurt" was seen as an issue. Neither the defence case nor the prosecution case rests on when exactly Reeva died as long as it can't be proved to be before 3.15. Nest may even have been influenced by OP’s story that Reeva was still alive as long as that hadn’t been challenged. I was watching the debate with Viper as a fence-sitter seeing strong arguments for both sides, until I realised that one of the strong arguments I was relying on was my impression that Standers, Stipp and co. had seen Reeva still alive. When I realised no one but OP had seen any sign of life I then checked the pics against what is set out on arterial spurt in my modest forensics library…

RBSM

Thank you for the thoughtful response. The only picture I saw of purported arterial spatter was from Lisa Singer's blog and it showed what appeared to be single droplets forming a single arc, very different from the picture I later saw as an example and used to suggest the spatter found wasn't arterial. Without close up views of the droplets, I don't think this conclusion can be made, without hearing how the expert concluded this. There are discriminators in the appearance of the droplets, hence my analogy of needing to look at the cells with a microscope with the small breast cancer to distinguish it from benign etiologies.

A patient can have no 'signs' of life and have the heart still beat, proven fact. I don't believe OP so his version has nothing to do with my opinion. I think he thought she was dead almost immediately and wanted to move the body and disrupt the scene, the latter is pure conjecture on my part.

Who is to say a small injured, weakened artery in the remnant of tissue still connecting her shattered arm didn't tear and spurt while she was being moved. Traumatized vessels can tear under acute forces.

You are certainly welcome to accept what makes sense to you. In my view the only importance of the spurt is that it proves the gunshots were last and that OP's entire story is just that...fiction.

I apologize for the brevity especially in light of your painstaking, thoughtful, breakdown of the salient points. I would be happy to discuss is further with you later... once again a little tired, need some lightness.

Tnx.

btw I started the process of verification but it won't be on my avatar.

 

[Cymbaline]

That's a great question! A severed artery "gushes" massive amounts of blood with every heartbeat for ~30 seconds. The blood can travel 6" vertically and 18" horizontally. That is what Reeva had, an exposed "severed" artery in her right arm and a "severed" artery deep within her brain. That is why we don't see blood all over the walls.

A "nicked" artery on the other hand is still under pressure and can spurt blood over a great distance both vertically and horizontally. This is the image you will see if you Google arterial spurt or spatter and there are images showing what looks like waves of blood on a wall or a ceiling.

No blood on the walls in the toilet room and the floor is only pooling.

JMO

 

[BritsKate]

RSBM ... Very interesting, BritsKate. This bit caught my eye:

I think OP used the same gambit with Netcare, Mr. Baba, and the early post-murder arrivals to his home. His family's immediate and bizarre rush to soothe him seems to me a learned response to temper the over-the-top weeping and wailing that OP habitually and consciously resorts to when stressed.

And there's some very strange soothing responses afforded a 27 year old man too, like him laying his head in his aunt's lap. I'm not blaming his family but like you, I think they're probably 'conditioned' in a sense. Loving someone with mental illness is never easy but loving someone with something so impervious as a personality disorder is hell. And though usually from the best of intentions, the worst actions of someone disordered are very often justified, minimised, or denied by those who love them.

JMO

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

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousjo View Post
Quote: Gunshots/bangs & screams reported to security on 14th Feb

1:56am - Mrs. van der Merwe (very loud woman's voice over an hour)

3:00am (approx) - Mrs. van der Merwe (gunshots/bangs)
3:00am (shortly after)- Security guard on bike. (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mrs. Burger (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mr. Johnson (gunshots)
3:04am - Dr. Stipp. (gunshots)
3:04am - Mrs. Stipp (gunshots)
3:16am (before) - Mr Nhlengethwa (gunshots)
-----------
Can someone add the time that Dr Stripp heard 2nd round gun shots

I'm working my way through this (backwards)! Baba says that the guard reported hearing rifle shots 'around, past three' (this is through translator) and after a few moments Baba receives telephone calls from Dr Stipp and Mr Nhlengethwa. 'After a few moments' suggests to me that the 'around, past three' may be nearer 03:14 and that the guard is reporting the same shots being reported by Stipp and Nhlengethwa. Does anyone else have a view?

Yes I had tried to make the point weeks ago that just because some have 3:02 stuck in there heads as the first "bangs", doesn't mean that that is when they occurred, same for the second set of "bangs"... it all depends on a specific witness's explanation of what constitutes "shortly" or "moments" to them. Imo, any of the times given for any of the bangs that do not correspond directly to having happened whilst on a call, that can be linked to a verified time source, should be given up to 10 minutes leeway, perhaps even a bit more given the time of night this occurred and the varying levels of awareness and/or activity after being abruptly awoken.

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks again. Just a question if you have time and inclination. When you say you don't think he has told the whole truth of what happened, what omissions or falsehoods are you referring to? Do you think that it's likely he did genuinely think it was an intruder but has told the story so as to try and paint himself in the best possible light?

Thank YOU for the refreshing civility! What do I think? I think they had an intense argument that night. I think that Reeva was a pleaser who wanted to make it all go away, and that when OP went out on the balcony she slipped quietly out of the room to go to the loo. I think she locked the door because she didn't feel safe, given OP's anger. I think OP heard her movement in the bathroom and already feeling angry, went to rage mode that there might be an intruder in the house. I believe he didn't think for a minute about where Reeva was, NIR do I believe he acted to protect her.

Rage sent him with a gun into the bathroom, and rage had him fire 4 shots. I think he knew when he saw her dead that the very worst of him--all his demons-- were going to be brought out into the open. I think he grieved that as much as he grieved her, if not more, and that ever since he has been willing to do or say anything to escape responsibility.

In a lot of ways it doesn't matter, but as revolting as all that is, for me it does not add up to premeditated murder.

 

[KarenUK]

I know I'm very late to the party but I've only seen the two women "reenacting" the screams they heard - that was such a bizzare moment I had to rewind and watch it again. Exactly what on earth posessed them to do that and who could have thought it was a good idea - one sounded like a chicken! The mind boggles....

 

[TorisMom003]

I know I'm very late to the party but I've only seen the two women "reenacting" the screams they heard - that was such a bizzare moment I had to rewind and watch it again. Exactly what on earth posessed them to do that and who could have thought it was a good idea - one sounded like a chicken! The mind boggles....

Thanks goes to Roux for that display as he was the one that gave the verbal cue to at least one of the women to do it. Apparently OP thought that would be a good idea for them to do. I doubt that Roux himself thought it would be a good idea.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

looking at his personality, i imagine he will appeal all charges...

If he's allowed to. Hopefully that won't be the case.