Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Viper]

Thanks Viper. Yes, it was the animation I was interested in. I agree that it wouldn't likely be admitted as evidence. I did however think the Defense might use it during their closing argument as a visual aid.

It was a company called 'The Evidence Room' that they hired to make a reconstruction. It looks quite expensive, so if they don't use it, that in itself is pretty damning.

It has been quite a circus, hasn't it? I must admit, I have quite enjoyed all the court theatrics - I wouldn't say no to an animated send off...

BIB. LOL!!! Me too!

I do think that OP paid for the video animation, and then paid them more, several times, to have them keep editing it as new testimony evidence was presented. But I just can't see them playing it. It's the time that has me thinking this way. But I can see Roux having the company create a slide show representation that encompasses all of the neighbors and what OP says happened in house that night, because that would remove time from the presentation.

Oh well, lets hope for the full video! :smile:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

BIB. And that area, to the far right of the door, looking at it from the outside, is exactly where OP says he would have fired if he had wanted to shoot Mr. Armed Intruder.

Looking at the image, you see a very tight grouping of OPs shots, all three of his shots that were fired after Reeva was first shot in her hip. Although we did not get all of Dr. Saymaan's testimony, Nest did note the location of the shot to Reeva's hip. It was the iliac crest; just run you fingers across the top (front) of your hip, that is the area where the bullet entered. When I look at bullet hole B from its entry in the door and its point of impact on the wall, it is still in the bullseye of shots C and D. All three shots (B, C, and D) form a very good grouping on the bullseye, it is just that B was fired too high to hit Reeva. OP was able to lower his shots for bullets C and D and hit her with great accuracy.

I agree .
I have always believed the shots were not random and more so since the trial revealed he was supposed to be shooting with one hand ,on stumps ,in the dark in a state of panic.
C and D are particularly interesting to me because they are both just about the same height and very very close together. Isn't it the case that without a great deal of effort D would likely have been a little higher than C because of recoil especially with a one handed shooter? I don't have a gun so am just judging things by what I read here and in the press
I wonder if the prosecution will make this point if they bring Mangena back on the stand . Until OP testified they didn't know he was only shooting with one hand and crouching ?

 

[lithgow1]

Well, I'm not so sure .. I've got a feeling that he will dismiss most of it because it's all just speculative stuff .. none of it is fact, and anything to do with psychology can be twisted to fit, I would imagine, so I can't really see him bothering with too much cross-examining of it to be honest.

I tend to think it will depend on how much justification for OP's actions the pyschologist tries to get in. Bearing in mind that a lot of the defence rests on OP's state of mind when he went down the hallway and pulled the trigger added to his supposed fear of break-ins etc I think it will be a fairly substantial part of the defence. But as CTC said, that then opens the door for the state to apply to call their psychologist who I think is the guy who was there all through OP's direct and cross.

 

[BabaJ]

I'd love to get started on the problems experienced here in terms of crime scene management, but I would probably end up writing a book. Even in this very special case, where everybody involved knew it was going to turn into a media circus, they still would have been faced with the practical problems.

Because of the large number of crime scenes handled, policemen take short-cuts and don't do things "by the book" in many cases. In terms of the police, there is firstly a lack of numbers, some are properly trained, some of the others are not. Some aren't properly motivated and some are just bad policemen. Those who are properly trained take short-cuts. After taking short-cuts for long periods of time because of the work-load, it becomes the norm and when a case like this presents itself they automatically do things wrong.

I would guess if I compared it to the ideal, the SAPS would have less than 50% of the numbers they actually need. If you take into account that 30% of those my not have received proper training in the basics of crime scene management, you have only 35% of its ideal capacity. Then take into account that 30% of those may be demotivated or overworked and you end up with a police "service" that is only 25% effective.

Now, if I take the management of this specific scene into account (which was not too bad), I would give them an 80% pass-rate here, it means they outperformed the average expected by (80/25 = 3.2) by 220%

Additional info:
Just to place some of the forensic stuff in perspective too... The SAPS used to have Electronic Engineers that would do sound tests, etc... They now have zero electronic engineers. They still have the equipment available, but no-one suitably qualified to testify at the level required.... If you wondered why the SAPS did not do sound tests themselves...

This was one thing that really puzzled me, it would be common sense to do a properly controlled and defendable sound test and instead there is a random youtube video, questionable sound testing done outside under uncontrolled conditions with shots and bat banging done at different times and undertaken by laymen or people without proper background and training. Now I understand that the police does not have the expertise, what is the excuse for the defence?

 

[Giles]

Can I ask .. how long after the last witness/cross examination is it before the DT and the PT present their closing arguments to the court?

As Lithgow says, it will be days rather than weeks. Another interesting thing was mentioned in the discussion, that closing arguments (in SA) are usually written up and handed in. Judge Greenland said he hoped in this case, of a televised trial, the arguments would at least be read into the record. I do hope so!

 

[Viper]

Does anyone think Roux will call someone to testify about the 'tampering and contamination' of the crime scene? If so, who?

OP has someone that has looked through the hundreds or thousands of photos and found something that OP has confidence in. Roux might as well put him/her on the stand. What is the worst that could happen? :floorlaugh:

 

[DebinGA]

This is really interesting. I hadn't heard about this. I have tried searching for more information and can't find anything. Could you possibly provide a link or let us know where you heard this.

Many thanks.

Catching up, so your request may have already been answered:

http://time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

 

[Feynman]

Burger said Bang ....... Bang Bang Bang. Question: Were there any reports of a pause between the first and last three shots in the media before the trial?

 

[crowmarsh]

Thanks Viper. Yes, it was the animation I was interested in. I agree that it wouldn't likely be admitted as evidence. I did however think the Defense might use it during their closing argument as a visual aid.

It was a company called 'The Evidence Room' that they hired to make a reconstruction. It looks quite expensive, so if they don't use it, that in itself is pretty damning.

It has been quite a circus, hasn't it? I must admit, I have quite enjoyed all the court theatrics - I wouldn't say no to an animated send off...

But if it wouldn t be admitted as evidence how could it used as part of a closing argument

 

[Giles]

This was one thing that really puzzled me, it would be common sense to do a properly controlled and defendable sound test and instead there is a random youtube video, questionable sound testing done outside under uncontrolled conditions with shots and bat banging done at different times and undertaken by laymen or people without proper background and training. Now I understand that the police does not have the expertise, what is the excuse for the defence?

Yes, totally puzzling. At this point in time, the Defence would be better off if they had simply played the YouTube video comparing gunshots to cricket bat strikes!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Then I don't see how Roux (Defense) can be wrapped up by Tuesday. I can't imagine that Nel is going to ask the psychologist only a handful of questions as he did with the first 4 or so witnesses.

MOO

You are right. No way do I see it wrapped up by Tuesday but it does indicate, I think, that Roux does not have much more to bring forward for the Defence.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Burger said Bang ....... Bang Bang Bang. Question: Were there any reports of a pause between the first and last three shots in the media before the trial?

None that I recall and I have been an avid watcher/reader.

 

[Lyra500]

Can't remember who it was but a few night's ago the topic of Frank and how suspicious the whole situation with him was came up, one poster said something along the lines of, well Frank must have quite a lonely life so perhaps he'd been having a drink or a smoke and wouldn't have been a reliable witness, Lol you can't make some of this stuff up, instead of saying yeah actually it does raise eyebrows that Frank could be in the same house hear nothing and magically appear outside a few minutes later, someone would rather come up with a ridiculous statement like that.

I think one of my favourites was several months ago when OP version 1.0 was the 'real' one.

Some people on another board made the very sensible point that OP dashing off to shoot the intruder without even checking whether Reeva was still in bed was either outrageous or utterly incredible. (On a side note, I am sure the widespread scoffing which this provoked was the reason for OP version 2.0 where all of a sudden he remembers that he spoke to Reeva)

Anyway, Back to OP version 1.0 - someone on the board actually posted something along the lines of:

"Well Oscar obviously cared for Reeva so much that he didn't want to wake her up and worry her".

Hmmm. Absolutely.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Re the Psychologist or is it Psychiatrist that will be called next week.

I just hope Nel is well read in psychology as I see a degree of trouble ahead. Though OP may not like to admit it (as he needs to be fault free in his eyes) I, like others, think he has a personality disorder only I lean towards Borderline Personality Disorder of the Impulsive Type. I recall mentioning this possibility months back. I wonder whether the Psych. witness will bring it up.

I don't think PTSD should figure as it would be normal for anyone, other than a psychopath, to suffer from this after killing somebody. I have read that it is felt by some that PTSD is due to his remorse and it may be viewed as a way of indicating it was an accident. I think not (mainly because of his behaviour in the intervening year between the murder and the trial and where he has seemed to be behaving normally and he looked chipper and confident when he arrived at court on the first day), but we don't know how the judge and her assessors will view it. I believe she was a social worker at some stage so she may well have some sympathy in this respect.

Today I found this old article which is of interest. BPD is now split into two subsections, Impulsive and Borderline.

http://www.examiner.com/article/oscar-pistorius-case-a-borderline-personality-disorder

“Individuals like Oscar Pistorius with a Borderline Personality Disorder (also known as an "emotionally unstable personality disorder" in the ICD classification, then divided into borderline & impulsive) shows unstable mood, which is frequent swings between intense emotions."

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Thank you it has been annoying me like everything else in this case that is unclear and unsubstantiated

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/may/26/oscar-pistorius-fined-unpaid-taxes
I read quite a few articles like the one above .
I don't know how much truth there is to them but if they are largely true then I wondered if this is what could have been a problem at the time of the shooting because if it only came to light at the bail hearing it seemed to have been dealt with very quickly .
Another thing I thought was interesting in this article is it mentions him purchasing a house in Johanasburg .
I was kind of surprised Nel didn't push OP harder on what was the problem was that day but then just kind of assumed that Nel just deemed it to be not of use to the case.
Sorry if my posts are in the middle of conversation ,I am just a few pages behind ,trying to
catch up

 

[DebinGA]

OP didn't say that. He said he heard the window slide open and then slam against the frame. In other words, he has the window sliding open until it slams into something, which he called "the frame". That's my take.

That's exactly what OP said iirc, claiming the noise of the opening window hitting "the frame" was "loud" and "clear" from his position in the bedroom. I know the opening window couldn't hit "the frame" but it's possible the middle fixed panel had a "stopper" of sorts preventing the outer panels from moving further once open, but OP is likely lying about that just as he is the bathroom light being off when he shot imo.

 

[Giles]

Catching up, so your request may have already been answered:

http://time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

Thanks Debin, that's an interesting article. You mentioned in your original post, that OP had hired this company to create an animated reconstruction, but (snipped)

'apparently it couldn't be done with the data provided, i.e. OP's account couldn't be visually reconciled with available evidence contradicting it.'

I was wondering where you heard this?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[homegirl]

Thanks Viper. Yes, it was the animation I was interested in. I agree that it wouldn't likely be admitted as evidence. I did however think the Defense might use it during their closing argument as a visual aid.

It was a company called 'The Evidence Room' that they hired to make a reconstruction. It looks quite expensive, so if they don't use it, that in itself is pretty damning.

It has been quite a circus, hasn't it? I must admit, I have quite enjoyed all the court theatrics - I wouldn't say no to an animated send off...

BBM Especially if they dub the sound tests of OP screaming like a woman into the animation.

 

[Lyra500]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/may/26/oscar-pistorius-fined-unpaid-taxes
I read quite a few articles like the one above .
I don't know how much truth there is to them but if they are largely true then I wondered if this is what could have been a problem at the time of the shooting because if it only came to light at the bail hearing it seemed to have been dealt with very quickly .
Another thing I thought was interesting in this article is it mentions him purchasing a house in Johanasburg .
I was kind of surprised Nel didn't push OP harder on what was the problem was that day but then just kind of assumed that Nel just deemed it to be not of use to the case.
Sorry if my posts are in the middle of conversation ,I am just a few pages behind ,trying to
catch up

Thanks for posting the link. Interesting article.

Wasn't one of the first actions of OP's entourage following the shooting to get the keys to his safe so that they could remove articles including a memory stick with details of his financial affairs?

I have always found his priorities following the shooting disturbing.

* Get a lawyer - check!
* Remove details of financial affairs - check!
*Hire a PR company - check!
*Inform the family of the 'love of your life' that you have shot her dead in a 'terrible accident' - nah!

 

[Giles]

But if it wouldn t be admitted as evidence how could it used as part of a closing argument

That's a good question. I'm afraid I don't know if this is possible. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge might know. Although, if DebinGA is right that they couldn't do an animation, it is a moot point.