Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Hatfield]

Me neither .. I would love to see that core in RL to check it out! .. would also like to be able to measure the ribbing of the knit in Reeva's top to see if it is the exact same size as the striation marks on the wound .. has this actually been done by any of the experts? W obv doesn't seem to know as he can only guess re. Reeva's vest matching up with it from what he said.

The problem with trying to match a specific flesh wound to a bullet fragment is that skin + tissue tears and so there may easily be irregularities in the skin tissue.

For example lets say a bullet fragment is only 2 cm wide. The actual hole in the skin could tear and rip as the bullet passes through and so the wound could be larger or irregular and not match exactly to the bullet core.

I dont think its really possible to try to match it exactly unless by chance the hole in the skin just happens to match.

The same thing happens when a bullet goes through a tin can. The holes look nothing like the bullet some times.

Its just not reliable to try to match.

JMO of course.

 

[ColonelMustard]

A girl can dream ....

That coat stuff was quite funny between Wolmarans and Milady

There was a lot of funny stuff going on today,

 

[lithgow1]

Looks like I left my computer on all night :/

Anyhow I will answer a few questions posed to me from the other thread and then I am off for the day.
I don’t think we can say that we need video proof that Kim is a liar to reasonably be able to question the validity of her claim. I don’t know if Oscar said anything, I don’t know if he did say something he was not talking to himself. I think regardless of what happened if Oscar leaned in toward her Kim would have had a visceral reaction, she by all accounts believes Oscar hunted down Reeva.

Hi Lithow1, as to my defense of Oscar’s mistaken intruder story possibly being true it is not based in emotion but in the evidence presented and in Oscar’s consistently sticking to his story in spite of the extreme tactics used by Nel and Oscar’s obvious emotional immaturity. It is also much more natural to have an emotional response of support for the victim so it would be unusual to be basing my conclusions on emotion in this case in favor of the living breathing, handsome millionaire, who shot his girlfriend to death as opposed to Reeva whose life was cut short at Oscar’s hand.

And I was asked this

Just a quick question if I may - do you believe, based on what you've read or heard, that OP said something to her? Doesn't matter what, just that he leaned in and appeared to say something that caused her to react? Thanks.

I don’t know. I think Oscar has been vilified to the point that his every movement and word is scrutinized to the tenth degree and that people find guilt and fault in almost everything he does and says.


And I am running late, have a good day folks.

Thanks Carmelita. To me the phrase 'extreme tactics used by Nel' confirms my opinion that emotion is overruling evidence. JMO.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Round Table discussing anesthetist's, the social worker, and the start of Wollie's testimonies.

http://www.702.co.za/shows/oscar_stream.asp

Hey, thanks! I wanted to hear an analysis of that social worker.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Look at the bullet fragment and then divide your focus of its surface in to two areas of the fragment. Divide it down the middle from left to right. The fragment has a pronounced higher surface area and it has a lower or recessed surface area, like a step. The higher area is what hit Reeva's back against her shirt and left the striated mark on her skin.

The fragment seems to have hit at an angle, forcing blood to move outward from the mark, making the mark somewhat larger in the shape of a teardrop.

Hope that helps.

agreed, and the movement of the fragment as it hits the vest/skin creates more size and blur on the wound.

 

[AlexUK]

Awwwww....can't get any of the radio links to stream here in the UK

 

[ColonelMustard]

Round Table discussing anesthetist's, the social worker, and the start of Wollie's testimonies.

http://www.702.co.za/shows/oscar_stream.asp

Hey, thanks! I wanted to hear an analysis of that social worker's testimony, etc. !

 

[whiterum]

HLN just reported that the Prosecutor is harassing the expert witness.......wth???

What a load of tripe!!! I think Roux would be a better focus of their attention on the issue of harassment of witnesses. Also the fact that he read a witness's cell phone number out on National TV is inexcusable for a defence lawyer.

 

[Hatfield]

agreed, and the movement of the fragment as it hits the vest/skin creates more size and blur on the wound.

Right. Skin will stretch and tear. Its not reliable to try to match it.

Just like a tin can when holes are shot through the holes are much larger and tearing occurs on side of holes.

Now if the surface is much harder then you get a better reflection of the bullet. Take the door for example. Notice the nice holes in the door where bullet enters. Closely match the bullet on the entrance side of the hole.

The backside of the door will blow apart because wood fragments and bullet malformation causes the back of the hole to blow out the backside. So the holes as the bullet exits the door is much larger and really gets much larger and rough edges.

With skin it is much much different because the skin surface rips and tears and stretches. Its not reliable to try to match.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Awwwww....can't get any of the radio links to stream here in the UK

I am in the UK. Are you using a computer, iPad or phone?

Sometimes an App is needed, sometimes not.

 

[Hatfield]

Awwwww....can't get any of the radio links to stream here in the UK

You could always use a video link and just listen to the sound when they come back if you just want sound. I sometimes do that and just ignore the video. But they are at break for about an hour. I found a link that works for me for video and i usually have to try 2 or 3 of them myself to find one that works.

 

[K.T]

I just wish the State and the defense would use any kind of animation, or at the very least some graphic examples, when talking about the position of Steenkamp’s body in the toilet/magazine rack before and after shooting. (And thanks homegirl for your images and work )

There was an article that The Evidence Room, a ‘legal animation firm’, was hired by Pistorius to work for the defense team. I was looking forward to that. They have a snazzy demo on you tube, I just tried to link to the youtube but it seems so large. Sorry mods, am still gettting used to links and what should be linked to here. Thanks!
http://time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/
I hope we see that soon - it could really help the defense and/or it would be fascinating cross for Nel.

Its not that hard to use graphics in reconstruction and it’s within many people’s graphic capabilities to do a slide show demonstration. But perhaps it’s because neither side wanted to be nailed down on the ‘reconstructive’ inaccuracies, or a version, or costs…?

Interesting - Whoop Whoop host was wondering if a sports psychologist, who had previously treated Pistorius, might be (expert?) witness for Pistorius next week...

 

[Carmelita]

Thanks Carmelita. To me the phrase 'extreme tactics used by Nel' confirms my opinion that emotion is overruling evidence. JMO.

Fair enough Lithgow


I think it is easiest to explain my view of Nel’s “questioning” style with a hypothetical since hypotheticals are so often used here, ie. “Oscar was a know -it -all about contracts and was schooling Reeva in contract negotiations Reeva teed him off by not acquiescing to his know-it-allness, which set her murder in motion”

Hypothetically, Nel being interrogated by Nel using Nel’s own words for the answers

Prosecutor; “What happened here?”

Nel; “Reeva was shot 3 times.”

Prosecutor; “What do we know of these shots Mr. Nel”

Nel; “One hit someone.”

Prosecutor; “Which is it Mr. Nel one hit someone or 3 hit Reeva.”

Nel; “A bullet hit Reeva in the hip.”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I must stop you. Your story cannot be true, (Heavy deep paternal sigh) what is it then did one bullet hit someone (then who?) or did three bullets hit Reeva, both cannot be true Mr. Nel”

Nel; “I understand that you like to be exact in your words I am not as precise.” (I have taken a smidgen of poetic license here with the word precise as I am not sure what word Nel used.)

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I will not allow you make up a story, you just said one hit someone, who did it hit? Are you denying the words that you just said?”

Nel: “I…”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I cannot allow this, was it one bullet or three bullets, why are you changing your story. What is the truth Mr. Nel, the truth! “

Nel; “Four bullets were shot through a toilet door.”

Prosecutor; “Really now, Mr. Nel, I must stop you if you refuse to tell the truth, is it 4 bullets, 3 bullets or one bullet, is it a toilet door, someone or Reeva, you are making it up as you go along, let us move on since you cannot get your story straight. Let us move on to the curtains. Let us talk about the balcony curtains that you opened”

Nel; “I am not exact in my words.”

Prosecutor; “We know that Mr. Nel, you are not exact because it suits your impossible story to be inexact, but I won’t allow it. Were the curtains pulled before they were parted or when someone was shot with one or three or four black talon bullets or are you blaming everything on the Zombie?”

Nel;

Prosecutor; “Mr. Nel you seem to pay a peculiar attention to your nose, are you perchance related to Pinocchio?”

Nel; “What?”

Prosecutor ; “You have no answers do you Mr. Nel”

Nel; “That’s correct Milady.”


***

So if you view my opinion of Nel as based in emotion I can't argue with that as it is your opinion. My view is that Nel uses tactics that have been demonstrated to get a false confession in police interrogations.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

 

[Interested Bystander]

try this.

Knock out the clicking by closing the chat screen on the right.

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

 

[zwiebel]

Someone on whoop is saying the social worker yesterday, gave evidence that would normally be used in mitigation before sentencing. Someone else saying she was speaking as a layman, and how independent she could be as she volunteered to come forward/felt compelled.

I don't think they think her evidence had anything to contribute to the defence..

 

[lithgow1]

Fair enough Lithgow


I think it is easiest to explain my view of Nel’s “questioning” style with a hypothetical since hypotheticals are so often used here, ie. “Oscar was a know -it -all about contracts and was schooling Reeva in contract negotiations Reeva teed him off by not acquiescing to his know-it-allness, which set her murder in motion”

Hypothetically, Nel being interrogated by Nel using Nel’s own words for the answers

Prosecutor; “What happened here?”

Nel; “Reeva was shot 3 times.”

Prosecutor; “What do we know of these shots Mr. Nel”

Nel; “One hit someone.”

Prosecutor; “Which is it Mr. Nel one hit someone or 3 hit Reeva.”

Nel; “A bullet hit Reeva in the hip.”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I must stop you. Your story cannot be true, (Heavy deep paternal sigh) what is it then did one bullet hit someone (then who?) or did three bullets hit Reeva, both cannot be true Mr. Nel”

Nel; “I understand that you like to be exact in your words I am not as precise.” (I have taken a smidgen of poetic license here with the word precise as I am not sure what word Nel used.)

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I will not allow you make up a story, you just said one hit someone, who did it hit? Are you denying the words that you just said?”

Nel: “I…”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I cannot allow this, was it one bullet or three bullets, why are you changing your story. What is the truth Mr. Nel, the truth! “

Nel; “Four bullets were shot through a toilet door.”

Prosecutor; “Really now, Mr. Nel, I must stop you if you refuse to tell the truth, is it 4 bullets, 3 bullets or one bullet, is it a toilet door, someone or Reeva, you are making it up as you go along, let us move on since you cannot get your story straight. Let us move on to the curtains. Let us talk about the balcony curtains that you opened”

Nel; “I am not exact in my words.”

Prosecutor; “We know that Mr. Nel, you are not exact because it suits your impossible story to be inexact, but I won’t allow it. Were the curtains pulled before they were parted or when someone was shot with one or three or four black talon bullets or are you blaming everything on the Zombie?”

Nel;

Prosecutor; “Mr. Nel you seem to pay a peculiar attention to your nose, are you perchance related to Pinocchio?”

Nel; “What?”

Prosecutor ; “You have no answers do you Mr. Nel”

Nel; “That’s correct Milady.”


***

So if you view my opinion of Nel as based in emotion I can't argue with that as it is your opinion. My view is that Nel uses tactics that have been demonstrated to get a false confession in police interrogations.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

I've not indulged in the hypotheticals you mention - I think there was an argument that turned extremely violent but where, when, why etc I've not commented on.

I can't really discuss the issue of Nel's cross-examination style via a made-up scenario that I guess is meant to amuse.

At times he was hard, at times he probed and re-probed things - it's his job. The one time when Roux tried objecting to a repeated line of questioning on the basis that it always led to the accused becoming emotional M'lady overruled him and allowed Nel to continue. That tells me she has no issue with his style, along with other decisions she's made. She's let both him and Roux do their jobs far as I can see.

 

[Hatfield]

Fair enough Lithgow


I think it is easiest to explain my view of Nel’s “questioning” style with a hypothetical since hypotheticals are so often used here, ie. “Oscar was a know -it -all about contracts and was schooling Reeva in contract negotiations Reeva teed him off by not acquiescing to his know-it-allness, which set her murder in motion”

Hypothetically, Nel being interrogated by Nel using Nel’s own words for the answers

Prosecutor; “What happened here?”

Nel; “Reeva was shot 3 times.”

Prosecutor; “What do we know of these shots Mr. Nel”

Nel; “One hit someone.”

Prosecutor; “Which is it Mr. Nel one hit someone or 3 hit Reeva.”

Nel; “A bullet hit Reeva in the hip.”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I must stop you. Your story cannot be true, (Heavy deep paternal sigh) what is it then did one bullet hit someone (then who?) or did three bullets hit Reeva, both cannot be true Mr. Nel”

Nel; “I understand that you like to be exact in your words I am not as precise.” (I have taken a smidgen of poetic license here with the word precise as I am not sure what word Nel used.)

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I will not allow you make up a story, you just said one hit someone, who did it hit? Are you denying the words that you just said?”

Nel: “I…”

Prosecutor; “No Mr. Nel I cannot allow this, was it one bullet or three bullets, why are you changing your story. What is the truth Mr. Nel, the truth! “

Nel; “Four bullets were shot through a toilet door.”

Prosecutor; “Really now, Mr. Nel, I must stop you if you refuse to tell the truth, is it 4 bullets, 3 bullets or one bullet, is it a toilet door, someone or Reeva, you are making it up as you go along, let us move on since you cannot get your story straight. Let us move on to the curtains. Let us talk about the balcony curtains that you opened”

Nel; “I am not exact in my words.”

Prosecutor; “We know that Mr. Nel, you are not exact because it suits your impossible story to be inexact, but I won’t allow it. Were the curtains pulled before they were parted or when someone was shot with one or three or four black talon bullets or are you blaming everything on the Zombie?”

Nel;

Prosecutor; “Mr. Nel you seem to pay a peculiar attention to your nose, are you perchance related to Pinocchio?”

Nel; “What?”

Prosecutor ; “You have no answers do you Mr. Nel”

Nel; “That’s correct Milady.”


***

So if you view my opinion of Nel as based in emotion I can't argue with that as it is your opinion. My view is that Nel uses tactics that have been demonstrated to get a false confession in police interrogations.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

I respect your opinion in this regard as his style bothers me too at times.

However, that is why it is so important to have good defense team witnesses that can stand up to him and state their case in a demanding honest way to counter his style with solid evidence.

No matter his style the evidence should speak for itself and if the evidence is strong then no matter what style is used the evidence should speak the truth. He would be shown as trying to skirt the facts if the evidence could show that. The problem in this case is there is not strong defense evidence that shows anything more than what is pretty obvious in this case.

OP came towards that door with Reeva inside and he purposely blasted 4 shots in her direction. Thats about it in a nutshell.

 

[zwiebel]

Guardian has a neat summary of the morning's evidence - can't believe all that talk just boils down to this!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-murder-trial-9-may

 

[Val1]

Just in case anyone cares and it hasn't been posted yet:

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-sells-his-house-report

 

[Carmelita]

I've not indulged in the hypotheticals you mention - I think there was an argument that turned extremely violent but where, when, why etc I've not commented on.

I can't discuss the issue of Nel's cross-examination style via a made-up scenario that I guess is meant to amuse.

At times he was hard, at times he probed and re-probed things - it's his job. The one time when Roux tried objecting to a repeated line of questioning on the basis that it always led to the accused becoming emotional M'lady overruled him and allowed Nel to continue. That tells me she has no issue with his style, along with other decisions she's made. She's let both him and Roux do their jobs far as I can see.

I would have to disagree as the judge has scolded Nel more than once about his tactics.

And I was attempting to show you to illustrate how Nels questioning style appears to me by illustrating the absurd.

My apologies I did not mean to imply that you have engaged in some of the clairvoyant abilities posited here. I think your posts are very level headed and they make me think so thank you.

I am running super late, have a good day.