Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Cape Town Crim.]

I'm actually looking forward to hearing from Wolmarans. I think Womarans is the scream witness, no?

I do hope we get to see the animation too!

Wollie Wolmarans is an ex-policeman, now an 'independent' ballistics expert. He is the 'go to guy' for any DT in any proceedings with firearm related offenses.
Before this case, he was better known as the 'ballistician' who tried to convince the Cape Town High court that defendant Michael Jackson (I kid you not re: the name) was not the shooter in the murder of a street kid a few years back.

I've just found this for you to read through.

Jannie vd Westhuizen dabbles in blood spatter.

http://citizen.co.za/163713/oscar-ballistics-expert-next/

It does seem however that Wollie has played the part of 'team leader', managing and taking charge of all the DT's experts.

Dixon did not set a man (who already struggles with English) up very well for taking the stand next IMHO.

He is the DT's Vermeulen.

 

[jay-jay]

do you have a reference for the camera? grip?
camera grip is normally with the right hand.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...q_ngCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=766&dpr=2

Snap!

(.. scuse pun ..! :floorlaugh: )

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

BBM





Germany has the barkiest dogs I've ever come across. I think it must be because in rural areas, nobody seems to mind - in fact it's their job to bark and warn of any strangers.

My (thoroughly English) dog will bark, but if people start getting angry and shouting or making loud noises, he hides and goes completely silent.

German dogs are exceptional. In terms of working and guarding(protection/manwork etc, nothing on the planet comes close, ok the Dutch and Belgian lines in Malinois.

Protection and working dogs however, Germany will reign supreme (I'm incredibly biased though) :blushing:

 

[zwiebel]

"The only mistake he made was to be in a boat on the water after dark"

It's absolutely amazing. That was a statement from OP's own manager, yet OP swore on the stand the sun was in his eyes.

He also swore he wasn't drinking. 'Someone else' was to blame for the alcohol bottles on the boat.

The witnesses who spoke to the newspaper gave their names and seemed so angry at what they say are OP's lies on the stand. I can't help but feel they are genuine, and not just seeking five minutes of fame.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-22-did-oscar-pistorius-lie-on-the-stand/#.U1faSssaySP

 

[beach]

Thank you!

If you Google Juror13 Blog you should be find Lisa's blog. She has practically everything there including tons of images. There are a couple of images of Reeva, her head and face. She looks very beautiful despite the injuries; but she also does not look as though she lost very much blood at all. Check it out when you have time.

I am most impressed with that blog. She has done a fabulous job.

It's the GO TO fact file IMHO.

Y'all feel free to link Lisa's blog. I approved it long ago but my post is probably deeply buried in all these discussion threads by now.

Lisa, if you see this, feel free to link it in your sig line. Excellent work! :bowdown:

Until then, here is the direct link for those who would like to bookmark it.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Am so pleased somebody else mentioned the dogs ... this is an aspect that has been bothering me from the get go, and yet it's never been mentioned. I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Can anyone relate to how their dogs react when there's anything out of the ordinary within their territory?

I can't comment on the screaming part but on bonfire night when fireworks are going off our dog an Alsatian and cats cower in the house. Even though some of them are a long way away and even late on in the evening they still appear tentative . Thought I should mention that he is normally a very alert guard dog on normal nights. But he turns into a big teddy bear on bonfire night .
ETA
I am still a few pages behind so sorry if my posts are interrupting

 

[minor4th]

just a few thoughts, looking at the door.
there is a lot of resistance to the version regarding bat strikes first and then gun shots. mainly due to the crack that runs though one bullet hole [bullet hole d].

my 'version' is that there were three sets of events...

1. physical actions by op on the door.
shoulder barging. kicking. powerful bat strikes [enough for the sound to be confused with gunshots]. all done with extreme anger at a closed/locked door... with poor reeva quietly hiding in her perceived safe place behind that door. these bat strikes knocked out a small amount of wood on the right hand side of the door centre panel. but didn't crack the door. imagine the tiny gap opening, and how that bat would have appeared/sounded to reeva on the inside… breaching the safe place. hence the screams that wouldn't stop.

2. four gunshots into the door. the screaming stops.

3. the process involving removal of the panels to gain access.
this would not create a great deal of noise. obviously, the first panel is the most difficult to remove, involving inserting the cricket bat into the small space already created at [1] and then twisting/levering.
note, the 'stuttering/ratcheted/edging' marks in the wood at door handle level… where, as this first panel was twisted the handle gouged into the wood.
note also, how the vertical crack aligns with the end of the handle. as the twisting reached extreme point, the panel cracked at the point where the wood could not pass the door handle.
once the first panel is removed the subsequent panels are much easier to knock or pull out.

I have a couple of problems with that sequence that leads me to believe it is implausible:

1. One of the cricket bat hits caused the crack in the door, and the particular pattern of the crack is affected by a bullet hole; to Vermuelen (and Mangena and defense witness whose name I cannot recall) that means that the gunshots were before at least that one cricket bat hit. So if all 4 gunshots were in quick succession and all the bat hits occurred together, then the shots must have been before the bat hits.

2. If OP first hit the door with the bat 3 times (and kicked the door) to scare Reeva or to try to get her to come out of the toilet, he would obviously be very close to the door and right in front of it while using the bat. Then he would have had to back up a few meters and move to a fairly sharp angle to the right of the toilet to shoot the 4 shots through the door (and then hit the door again with the cricket bat since one bat hit was definitely after the gunshots) and then pry the door.

^ #2 just does not make sense at all. If he was in a rage or whatever and beating the door, why then back up several paces and move to the right of the door? Why not just shoot close to the target and directly in front of it?

Does that make sense?

 

[Viper]

Hmm... This is interesting!!!

Quote:
Defence advocate Barry Roux asked the colonel if it was possible if blood on Pistorius's hands could have spattered onto walls and other surfaces while in motion.

Van der Nest said it was.

Thank you Colonel Nest!

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/analyst-explains-reeva-s-blood-trail-1.1663753#.U1fg5b-9LTr

 

[jay-jay]

Thank you!

If you Google Juror13 Blog you should be find Lisa's blog. She has practically everything there including tons of images. There are a couple of images of Reeva, her head and face. She looks very beautiful despite the injuries; but she also does not look as though she lost very much blood at all. Check it out when you have time.

Just wondering if there is anyone else like me who hasn't actually seen these photos yet? I can't bring myself to look at them I know that they were flashed up on the screen during the trial the other week, without warning, and fortunately my intermittent streaming had gone down at that particular moment so I was saved from seeing it, thankfully (by the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't be showing such graphic photos during the court case .. of course it has to be done .. just that I'm thankful that my streaming went down just at the right moment!) .. yet on the other hand, I somehow feel I ought to see them, because of having such an interest in the case .. just can't do it though :-/ (and I'm not a particularly squeemish person, either .. normally!)

 

[minor4th]

What type of camera was that, do you know (make/model)? All of my cameras (DSLR, etc) have a grip on the right hand side (seeing as the majority of people are right handed).

I believe the testimony was that it was a Canon DSLR - and yes the grip is on the right. sleuth-d pointed out my mistake, and I agree that I was confusing my left and right

 

[jay-jay]

wasn't it op-mentioned that they were his clothes? white basketball shorts.
yet at the beginning of the evening he stated [and couldn't explain why] that she was changed into her pyjamas when he first entered the house.

forgive me if i have mis-remembered.

Yes, you're right, he did say that ... but ... I believe there may be something else about Reeva's clothes .. something which has not been brought up in the trial yet (and don't forget, some of the evidence has been submitted directly to the judge .. there may be stuff that she has which we don't know about yet).

 

[minor4th]

Wollie Wolmarans is an ex-policeman, now an 'independent' ballistics expert. He is the 'go to guy' for any DT in any proceedings with firearm related offenses.
Before this case, he was better known as the 'ballistician' who tried to convince the Cape Town High court that defendant Michael Jackson (I kid you not re: the name) was not the shooter in the murder of a street kid a few years back.

I've just found this for you to read through.

Jannie vd Westhuizen dabbles in blood spatter.

http://citizen.co.za/163713/oscar-ballistics-expert-next/

It does seem however that Wollie has played the part of 'team leader', managing and taking charge of all the DT's experts.

Dixon did not set a man (who already struggles with English) up very well for taking the stand next IMHO.

He is the DT's Vermeulen.

Thanks for the link - I look forward to reading it.

Yes, for sure Dixon is the defense version of Vermeulen.

From Dixon's testimony, I gathered that it was Wolmarans who did the sound testing or supervised it and set it up, and it was Wolmarans who wrote the actual reports on the sound tests. I did not know he was also a ballistician - so that really might be some interesting testimony, and probably key expert opinions for the defense. I sincerely hope that his presentation is more coherent than Dixon's.

 

[wb180]

I have a couple of problems with that sequence that leads me to believe it is implausible:

1. One of the cricket bat hits caused the crack in the door, and the particular pattern of the crack is affected by a bullet hole; to Vermuelen (and Mangena and defense witness whose name I cannot recall) that means that the gunshots were before at least that one cricket bat hit. So if all 4 gunshots were in quick succession and all the bat hits occurred together, then the shots must have been before the bat hits.

2. If OP first hit the door with the bat 3 times (and kicked the door) to scare Reeva or to try to get her to come out of the toilet, he would obviously be very close to the door and right in front of it while using the bat. Then he would have had to back up a few meters and move to a fairly sharp angle to the right of the toilet to shoot the 4 shots through the door (and then hit the door again with the cricket bat since one bat hit was definitely after the gunshots) and then pry the door.

^ #2 just does not make sense at all. If he was in a rage or whatever and beating the door, why then back up several paces and move to the right of the door? Why not just shoot close to the target and directly in front of it?

Does that make sense?

I thought OP said (ignoring his changed accidental shooting plea) he was scared the bullet might bounce back and hit him? Maybe that's why?

 

[james83]

I have a couple of problems with that sequence that leads me to believe it is implausible:

1. One of the cricket bat hits caused the crack in the door, and the particular pattern of the crack is affected by a bullet hole; to Vermuelen (and Mangena and defense witness whose name I cannot recall) that means that the gunshots were before at least that one cricket bat hit. So if all 4 gunshots were in quick succession and all the bat hits occurred together, then the shots must have been before the bat hits.

2. If OP first hit the door with the bat 3 times (and kicked the door) to scare Reeva or to try to get her to come out of the toilet, he would obviously be very close to the door and right in front of it while using the bat. Then he would have had to back up a few meters and move to a fairly sharp angle to the right of the toilet to shoot the 4 shots through the door (and then hit the door again with the cricket bat since one bat hit was definitely after the gunshots) and then pry the door.

^ #2 just does not make sense at all. If he was in a rage or whatever and beating the door, why then back up several paces and move to the right of the door? Why not just shoot close to the target and directly in front of it?

Does that make sense?

That's not implausible if the gun wasn't in the bathroom at the time, i.e he went back to the bedroom to get the gun.

 

[minor4th]

Just wondering if there is anyone else like me who hasn't actually seen these photos yet? I can't bring myself to look at them I know that they were flashed up on the screen during the trial the other week, without warning, and fortunately my intermittent streaming had gone down at that particular moment so I was saved from seeing it, thankfully (by the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't be showing such graphic photos during the court case .. of course it has to be done .. just that I'm thankful that my streaming went down just at the right moment!) .. yet on the other hand, I somehow feel I ought to see them, because of having such an interest in the case .. just can't do it though :-/ (and I'm not a particularly squeemish person, either .. normally!)

If you're having qualms about looking at those photos, I urge you not to look at them. They are disturbing and unsettling - not just for squeamish reasons, but for a lot of reasons.

 

[minor4th]

That's not implausible if the gun wasn't in the bathroom at the time, i.e he went back to the bedroom to get the gun.

Even so - why stand off at an angle several meters away if his intent was to shoot her dead?

It doesn't seem likely to me at all. If you disagree, I understand.

But what about the other points in my post about the problems I have with that scenario? How do you reconcile those issues?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I have a couple of problems with that sequence that leads me to believe it is implausible:

1. One of the cricket bat hits caused the crack in the door, and the particular pattern of the crack is affected by a bullet hole; to Vermuelen (and Mangena and defense witness whose name I cannot recall) that means that the gunshots were before at least that one cricket bat hit. So if all 4 gunshots were in quick succession and all the bat hits occurred together, then the shots must have been before the bat hits.

2. If OP first hit the door with the bat 3 times (and kicked the door) to scare Reeva or to try to get her to come out of the toilet, he would obviously be very close to the door and right in front of it while using the bat. Then he would have had to back up a few meters and move to a fairly sharp angle to the right of the toilet to shoot the 4 shots through the door (and then hit the door again with the cricket bat since one bat hit was definitely after the gunshots) and then pry the door.

^ #2 just does not make sense at all. If he was in a rage or whatever and beating the door, why then back up several paces and move to the right of the door? Why not just shoot close to the target and directly in front of it?

Does that make sense?

re: your point 1. who can say if the crack was definitely caused by the hard cricket bat hits. as i explained, i am saying the crack in the door running down from top to bottom was caused by the handle meeting the wooden panel as the panel was twisted to be removed in phase three - so the crack was caused after gunshot d

re your point 2. there was a gap in time between the first bangs and the second bangs. possibly he didn't have the gun at first, and went to fetch it.

 

[jay-jay]

Interesting. I've never considered what she was wearing to be unusual at all; my 20-something year old daughters have worn similar clothing to go to bed at times.

No, that's not the point .. about whether it was unusual or not for her to have been wearing shorts and a vest (or whether it was OP's) .. there seems to be (from what I took from that portion of the video I posted) something else they know about Reeva's clothing, something which will provide hard evidence. I've no idea what it is yet, and that guy in the vid wouldn't say what it was, and my guess is that it still hasn't yet come up in the trial (and that it has already been presented to the judge, because it is something which doesn't need to be put to the defence).

 

[Cherwell]

He certainly does have anger management issues, doesn't he.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-slammed-broke-door-party.html#ixzz2xZq2HWeq

Good post : The state had me at the screams as well and the sheer implausibility of Reeva being mute that whole time.
Oscar saying he saw Reeva's "breathing" during cross as well - I personally think the stress of cross brought that out and it is the truth, it's unlikely to be something you'd forget. If he saw her breathing then he saw her seconds after the gun shots, not after running up and down corridors, screaming etc and shouting off balconies. IMO he either prised the damaged door apart or could already see her.

Wouldn't surprise me if he'd punched a hole in the door, considering he has form for it. He didn't need the bat for that.

 

[minor4th]

I thought OP said (ignoring his changed accidental shooting plea) he was scared the bullet might bounce back and hit him? Maybe that's why?

That's why he said he didn't shoot at the shower. But there would be virtually no possibility that a bullet would ricochet back and hit him when he's firing through a closed wooden door.

And what about the other issues?

I'm very sincerely asking how to reconcile these things because this is the one hurdle I do not see the state as being able to overcome, and to me that throws their whole theory into question. Given some of the issues I have with Oscar's version, I would feel more comfortable dismissing it as fabrication if I could somehow get the sequence of shots/bat to work out in some kind of plausible manner.