Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[james83]

Future book release

Frank Chiziweni- If I heard it, confessions of a Gardner.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Are they? Then why are a lot of the "innocent" dressed in orange jumpsuits, traipsed around in handcuffs, and held behind bars?

I have no idea how this pertains to this case???

 

[james83]

Agree that Kelly Phelps is an utter joke of a journalist.

 

[DebinGA]

Not very important, but there seems to be a general assumption that Reeva had not said ILY before the Valentine card. There is no way at all that we can know this. I don't infer it from the wording of the card. Valentines Day is a good day to say ILY - whether it's been said before or not.

Based on her tweets, Reeva regularly sent some form of "I love you" to many people. She was a warm, loving, and kind person it seems.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...-steenkamp-i-loved-her-oscar-pistorius-n76461

The sprinter maintained they were in the "foundation phase of their relationship," adding: “I never got the opportunity to tell Reeva that I love her.”

 

[Interested Bystander]

The prosecution cannot risk calling him, because he could say anything.

OK, I understand, but why wouldn't the Defence call him. I suppose they too would be afraid of what he might said during Nel's Crossx.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I'll try and answer and hopefully someone will correct any errors. Yes, most of them did. I didn't catch it all but one did after checking that she wouldn't be called as a witness and the others did to varying degrees. I guess when it is such a big news story it is hard to avoid. I'd of thought it would be problematic and IIRC the defence seemed to make a big thing about Darren Fresno following the trial so dunno really. Not much of an answer I'm afraid but at least I didn't say anything contentious!

There was an interesting radio discussion about all this in terms of the judge and they were saying that even though she would be avoiding ALL media it is hard to block out completely. They were even saying that's likely why she didn't know about today's election - she's studiously not reading papers, watching TV etc.

another reason to look favourably at burger's testimony, right at the start of the trial. she stuck to her 'version' even under heavy cross from roux, and the bang...bangbangbang was then shown to be v v possible from that point. both in its division and its time of the morning.

 

[Budgie]

Obviously the Pistorius family are reading this forum. It must be bad news for them as about 98 per cent of "voters" feel he is guilty of a serious crime. If a jury were to be formed from a random selection of us OP would undoubtedly be found guilty.

I'd be more worried about their bank accounts than what the forum voters think....
He's not only draining RS's family and friends he's draining his family too....and also the person(s) funding his keep me out of prison palaver he's got going on with his legal team.

 

[Really?]

And that OP was the head of the neighborhood Welome Wagon---let's not forget that little nugget in their testimonies.:facepalm:

lmao...:floorlaugh:

 

[lithgow1]

But suppose he is found guilty on the firearms charges and given a custodial sentence for those? What are the chances of his appealing those? I can't see that being allowed.

Well done! Hadn't thought of that - I guess he could appeal them all but apparantly any first appeal/s go back to M'lady and she decides if there are grounds to proceed from there. If she says 'Nuh', it moves on to the next stage. Think someone posted all that but can't recall when/where I'm afraid.

 

[DebinGA]

OP's response to Ms. Myers' claim, that he'd whispered a sinister message to her yesterday, was to paint the Myers as ingrates for refusing to meet his eyes when he magnanimously held doors open for them. I'm pretty sure in U.S. trials the murderer of their loved one is kept away from the victim's family, but OP seems to stalk them in the courthouse halls. He is seriously disturbed imo. If Roux produces a psychologist to explain him, I'll be listening in rapt attention.

 

[crasshopper]

Where to begin!? Dr. Saymaan was not put on the stand to determine the order in which the shots were fired. He does seem to indicate that the bullet to Reeva's brain caused her death, but I do not think he described that fact so that laymen would understand the order of the shots fired, it is simply the fact of what caused Reeva to die.

The bullet to Reeva's head was a perforating GSW, it had an entry wound and an exit wound. The bullet split in to two as it entered her head. One piece destroyed the front of Reeva's brain and the other caused a major fracture of her base of skull. Dr. Saymaan determined that Reeva would have taken 2-3 last breaths. That indicated that her brain would have died and her breathing would have died within the few seconds of time she would have had for those 2-3 last breaths. Remember that there was no blood found in her airways. You correctly point out that Reeva's heart could have still lived for a short time. Dr. Saymaan pointed that out very clearly, but he said, "she would have died a few minutes later." A few minutes after 3:15-3:16 when she was shot in the head. Where you and Dr. Saymaan part ways is you take "a few minutes" without brain function, without breathing function, with two severed arteries bleeding out, and massive injuries to her pelvic region, you want others to believe that Reeva's heart was still beating as OP carried her down the stairs at ~3:24-3:25; that's 8-10 minutes!

I have posted information that I received from the Director of the Forensics (CSI) unit in my city, a large suburb of Dallas. I described to her the debate that we are having here. She was very open and honest with me and said with absolutely no hesitation, "This is a subjective science not an exact science, mistakes are made in every case but it never affects the outcome of the case." She also told me that, depending on how much time had passed after Reeva died (including her heart), applying force against her body could cause blood to exit her wounds. In this case Reeva's body weight of ~125lbs was being exerted upon her back through her chest as she was bounced up and down in OPs arms as he walked down the stairs; that would cause pressure that would move blood.

I know you want to have your cake, what Dr. Saymaan reported, and eat your cake too, what Nest says the blood tells him, but the absense of significant blood pools and arterial spurt / spatter between the bathroom and the stairs, and the extended time of 8-10 minutes does not support your opinion. Reeva's heart could not have been beating for more that a few minutes, that is what Dr. Saymaan determined and I don't think anyone but you would dispute that.

Viper, I know where to begin and I would like a truce. From my perspective, you keep putting words in my mouth I just didn't say. I never said 8-9 or 10 minutes, ever. We have discussed this before. OP could have picked up Reeva right away because the door wasn't locked, he didn't need to bash it in with the bat, he probably had his prosthetics on and if not that takes him 40 seconds, and could have been on the landing at 5 minutes after 3:17 which brings us to 3:22. Reeva was dead...you just need one little pump from the heart to get that spatter. Also maybe arterial blood was ejected far below as the staircase is open.

Oscar was expecting Stander, he may have waited til he heard Stander arriving to finish walking down the stairs...for show.

You make a lot of very good points but I happen to disagree with this spatter issue until I learn otherwise. From what I read, which is not a whole lot, mistakes can be made between cast off and arterial put the presence of the tail on the cast of is usually a discriminator. I'm not going to dispute what your criminalist knows from their experience. I accept that mistakes are made, no one is infallible and the minute someone thinks they are, they're dangerous.

I have my opinion, yours has it's merits and certainly might be correct.

If that turns out to be the case I would be the first to congratulate you and buy you a bourbon if you didn't make comments like "I don't think anyone but you would dispute that. In turn if I said, "I don't know anyone with medical training who claims a healthy cornea is vascularized," that wouldn't be a respectful comment either.

I'm certain your 30 years of experience brings a great deal to the table, I have 23 under my belt. Experts of all disciplines can reach different conclusions. I however, never misstate what your position or claims are. Maybe you forgot we already discussed the 9 minutes. I have never claimed more than six.

My position or opinion is not a personal attack at all just a difference of opinion based on multiple things. It's ok for us to disagree.

 

[Budgie]

Me bed on this side of the world ...see you all at the trial tomorrow you passionate bunch.

 

[Viper]

Actually, and I hate to point this out, but corneas are AVASCULAR and devoid of capillaries. Yes, they can become cloudy within minutes of death but the time of onset of corneal clouding is highly variable.

It is usually used working backwards. For instance if the corneas on a corpse are clear you can reliably say the death occured within the past 36 hrs.

Are just mincing words again to cause confusion?

Quote:
"The eyes often exhibit some of the earliest postmortem changes, as a result of stoppage of capillary circulation and settling of red blood cells."

Hal Brown is the Deputy Director of the Delaware Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and states Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Wilmington, DE. Brown is also the Delaware Case Manager for NamUs Unidentified/Missing Persons.


http://www.defrostingcoldcases.com/...not-conclusive-post-mortem-interval-evidence/

 

[crasshopper]

Convicted offenders allowed bail pending appeal? Really? I am astonished.

No not convicted, I thought you meant the accused. my bad

Thanks, I actually meant to respond to Jay-Jay's post:

I did say an 'accused murderer' .. which is actually the case, and that is why he is on trial. I'm not aware that in the UK, someone like (for instance) Mark Bridger, would've just been allowed to walk out of the door with the rest of everyone in court .. I believe that 'the accused' is led away separately, by police, in this country. They are also kept in prison until their trial.

 

[lithgow1]

Agree that Kelly Phelps is an utter joke of a journalist.

Trouble is James that she's a legal analyst (senior lecturer at Cape Town Uni IIRC), not a journo. Which makes it worse IMO especially since most others I have seen attempt to be balanced and don't wear their leanings so obviously on their sleeves. But yep, she is a joke. Absolutely! BTW, for any South Africans here, is that a common expression to use when asked a question - just asking as have noticed quite a few of them using it.

 

[DebinGA]

I hope OP is banned from carrying a gun in public for many years at least. If so, he'll be paying heftily for bodyguards. He's incapable of venturing outside without protection imo, as he's angry and confrontational by nature. Wherever Oscar goes, trouble is sure to follow.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I think it proves that the witnesses who thought they heard a woman screaming - actually heard Oscar wailing, loud crying, or whatever you want to call it.

How can 3 people identifying a man cry equal proof the other ear witnesses did not hear Reeva scream? That logic defies me :floorlaugh:

 

[Lochlynsmom]

No I don't know what you mean. I find your remarks deeply mysterious. In this post you explicitly rejected the possibility of two sets of calls of "Help!", one before and one after the second set of bangs. You allege that Nel undermines his own witnesses by placing calls for "Help!" after the final bangs.
You now claim that your bizarre interpretation of the events is not an interpretation at all but simply "the evidence". It is no such thing. If by "the evidence" you mean witness testimony, it is plain that the bulk of this testimony can be retained and reconciled if there were two sets of shots and two sets of cries for "Help!", in addition to blood-curdling screaming between the two sets of shots and an argument between a man and a woman before the first set.

That is the evidence. But you have invented an imaginary contradiction which requires you to correct and adjust the evidence of some witnesses, including the highly credible and calm Dr Stipp. You are excluding a priori and without any proof the scenario that is compatible with practically every detail of testimony provided.

In other words you bend the facts to fit a hypothesis and then you accuse those who have proposed a hypothesis to fit the facts of doing what you yourself are guilty of.

The thanks button wasn't enough!

 

[crasshopper]

I think we'll leave these two to it....what do ya'll think

Actually, I want out and have wanted so for several threads but I don't like to be misquoted.

 

[Interested Bystander]

While I agree in principle, especially in the more clear cut cases. In the US they quite often grant them bail.

The bail is usually pretty high so only the wealthy or those with supportive families willing to put up the bond amount are freed on bail.

I think this is exactly what happened in OP's case. Wealthy family who also had important contacts.