Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
So frustrated that I can't keep up with this thread (or any thread, for that matter, which is why I waited so long to join Websleuths - yet, now that I have, I'm glad I did.)

I'm in Los Angeles, so I'm always behind the times (which is one of many reasons why I appreciate this forum and its many members for keeping me informed).

There are so many posts I simply don't have time to comment to now (work in the A.M.), but that I want to.

So, I'll simply say, with sincerity - all of you, no matter what your view on this case may be, are so interesting and riveting in your replies. I mean that.

Please, carry on....
 
minor4th said:
That is not known. Between the two experts they don't know if the headshot was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Neither of them could conclude that it was the final shot.
Click to expand...

BIB. OK, I guess it is just silly time here for some. I've had enough.
 
minor4th said:
Not if he believed he was shooting at an armed intruder
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support he believed he was shooting an armed intruder. No evidence there even was an intruder, and certainly no evidence this mystical intruder had a weapon. Imminent fear of death or great bodily harm has to be proven. Oscar can't prove that because it simply didn't exist.
 
Did anyone feel let down with Nel's cross examination today?

Nel hammered OP over the last few days, but once OP's testimony got to the point of calling everyone after the shooting, Nel eased off big time.

Thoughts?
 
Unclear on how the shots that killed Reeva being fired/perceived to have been fired at 3:00 vs. 3:17 supports or disproves Oscar committed premeditated murder.

How exactly is the State not having this nailed down fatal to the State's entire case?

I can think of any number of cases where the prosecution couldn't nail down exactly what happened in what order in the 20 minutes preceding a murder(and in JA's case, which particular injury caused death). We can all name cases with no body, where a premeditated murder conviction was made on circumstantial evidence.

So how does 3:00 vs. 3:17 prove Oscar truly perceived an intruder, and at the same time, Oscar didn't mean to actually kill anyone? How does the timing of the shots/bangs, as perceived by the (unreliable and their testimony nullifies each others according to some) witnesses prove or disprove Oscar's intent when he shot 1 bullet, adjusted aim, and then three more bullets into a locked toilet?
 
molly333 said:
There was never any arterial blood in the hallway. Who said there was arterial blood? The pathologist said she died instantly [maybe one or two breaths] after head wound.



"First, both experts said that the only thing that could be determined was the wood was ripped from the door after the shots. Both experts said it would be impossible to know whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots. "

So, they cannot tell whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots.

Is it possible he ripped out some part of the door before the shots so he could look inside?
Click to expand...

According to the blood spatter expert van Nest there appeared to be:

"Spatter in the downstairs lounge was caused by an arterial spurt. The stairs are above the lounge."
He said there was a distinctive pattern in the the shape of the letter "S" which indicated an arterial spurt.
"The blood soaked shorts and hair of the deceased contributed to the dripping pattern."

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Blood-spatter-expert-testifies


I don't think the pathologist's "only one or two more breaths" means that her heart necessarily stopped beating or that it absolutely could not have been beating for several more minutes

Or she may have drawn several more breaths.
 
Mango33 said:
According to the blood spatter expert van Nest there appeared to be:

"Spatter in the downstairs lounge was caused by an arterial spurt. The stairs are above the lounge."
He said there was a distinctive pattern in the the shape of the letter "S" which indicated an arterial spurt.
"The blood soaked shorts and hair of the deceased contributer to the dripping pattern."

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Blood-spatter-expert-testifies


I don't think the pathologist's "only one or two more breaths" means that her heart necessarily stopped beating or that it absolutely could not have been beating for several more minutes

Or she may have drawn several more breaths.
Click to expand...

Ok that confuses things. Thanks!

The S shape--I didn't see that in the pics.

So blood spatter expert and pathologist disagree. Don't forget, after she is shot through the head, he still has to get her out of the closet.

I'm more inclined to go with the pathologist on this.
 
Fuskier said:
Some might say it was nefarious. Belief? Assumption? Imagination? Is it sufficient cause to shoot not one, but 4 Black Talons through a closed door? Is it reasonable 'belief' in this situation? We'll see what the Court decides IMO.
Click to expand...

I hope the Court decides it is not reasonable. What those Black Talon bullets did to Reeva's body is beyond the acceptable line of self defense, IMO...especially considering she was unarmed and locked behind a door.

I mean, really? Shoot then ask questions later? All over the sound of a window opening?...or so the defendant (killer) claims.
 
TipDog said:
I hope the Court decides it is not reasonable. What those Black Talon bullets did to Reeva's body is beyond the acceptable line of self defense, IMO...especially considering she was unarmed and locked behind a door.



I mean, really? Shoot then ask questions later? All over the sound of a window opening?...or so the defendant (killer) claims.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you joined! Welcome to Websleuths!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TipDog said:
I hope the Court decides it is not reasonable. What those Black Talon bullets did to Reeva's body is beyond the acceptable line of self defense, IMO...especially considering she was unarmed and locked behind a door.

I mean, really? Shoot then ask questions later? All over the sound of a window opening?...or so the defendant (killer) claims.
Click to expand...

Poor Reeva.

Black Talon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snipped:

"Use in Reeva Steenkamp shooting

In March 2014, The Guardian newspaper reported that South African paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius had shot to death his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day the previous year with four Black Talons fired from a 9mm pistol. Describing the round, South African police ballistics expert Captain Christian Mangena explained:"

"It hits the target, it opens up, it creates six talons, and these talons are sharp. It cuts through the organs of a human being." [16]
 
If the shots were fired at 3:00 or thereabouts, then all the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva.

If that's the case the state has zero evidence to support premeditation.
 
Linda7NJ said:
I'm glad you joined! Welcome to Websleuths!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thank you, Linda, so much. I'm glad I joined too - so that I can discuss this with so many sharp minds. :tyou:
 
Magdalyn said:
Unclear on how the shots that killed Reeva being fired/perceived to have been fired at 3:00 vs. 3:17 supports or disproves Oscar committed premeditated murder.

How exactly is the State not having this nailed down fatal to the State's entire case?

I can think of any number of cases where the prosecution couldn't nail down exactly what happened in what order in the 20 minutes preceding a murder(and in JA's case, which particular injury caused death). We can all name cases with no body, where a premeditated murder conviction was made on circumstantial evidence.

So how does 3:00 vs. 3:17 prove Oscar truly perceived an intruder, and at the same time, Oscar didn't mean to actually kill anyone? How does the timing of the shots/bangs, as perceived by the (unreliable and their testimony nullifies each others according to some) witnesses prove or disprove Oscar's intent when he shot 1 bullet, adjusted aim, and then three more bullets into a locked toilet?
Click to expand...
The point about the two times of bangs and Nel doing logic somersaults to make Gunshots at 3:17 rather than 3:10 is......

ALL the screams heard were AFTER 3:10. (or in the range from 3:00 - 3:10)

It is critical to the States case to prove there were screams from Reeva and that OP shot her intentionally. If the shots were at 3:10 then the screams could not have been Reeva (she was dead) State have no evidence of Reeva screams.
 
By Oscar's own admission under cross examination, he did not fire at an intruder.

This means that the putative self-defense theory (with all its associated evidence of crime, home invasions etc) is now scrapped. Negligent discharge of the firearm (culpable homicide) is what he has now admitted to.

When Roux re-examined in an attempt to do damage control in this area, Nel was on the ball and very quick to request that he did not ask the witness leading questions. OP should have known better but at that time and on that stand he simply could not bring himself to say he fired his gun at anyone or anything, and the repercussions of this are really not good for his case.
 
Fuskier said:
Would the reasonable person believe in an 'armed' intruder in this situation?



What indicators could lead him to believe that the intruder was armed?
Click to expand...


Well now you're talking about culpable homicide and not murder.

He very well may be convicted of culpable homicide, but the state has nothing to support premeditated/intentional murder.
 
minor4th said:
If the shots were fired at 3:00 or thereabouts, then all the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva.

If that's the case the state has zero evidence to support premeditation.
Click to expand...

Minor, I'm going to go with this, then.

What if OP is telling the truth?

What if he woke up and shot RS by accident - do you think he should walk free?

Serious question/no sarcasm or "trap."
 
TipDog said:
Minor, I'm going to go with this, then.



What if OP is telling the truth?



What if he woke up and shot RS by accident - do you think he should walk free?



Serious question/no sarcasm or "trap."
Click to expand...


I really don't think he will walk free and no I don't think he should walk free.

Edit: I'm also not convinced Oscar's version is 100% truthful. But the evidence essentially supports it and the state hasn't proved otherwise. Remember a trial is not about the truth, it's about the provable truth.
 
Mango33 said:
According to the blood spatter expert van Nest there appeared to be:

"Spatter in the downstairs lounge was caused by an arterial spurt. The stairs are above the lounge."
He said there was a distinctive pattern in the the shape of the letter "S" which indicated an arterial spurt.
"The blood soaked shorts and hair of the deceased contributed to the dripping pattern."

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/19/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Blood-spatter-expert-testifies


I don't think the pathologist's "only one or two more breaths" means that her heart necessarily stopped beating or that it absolutely could not have been beating for several more minutes

Or she may have drawn several more breaths.
Click to expand...

That suggests to me, quite strongly, that it was the last set of "bangs" that killed her.
 
Greater Than said:
There is no evidence to support he believed he was shooting an armed intruder. No evidence there even was an intruder, and certainly no evidence this mystical intruder had a weapon. Imminent fear of death or great bodily harm has to be proven. Oscar can't prove that because it simply didn't exist.
Click to expand...

This is also my opinion on this matter.
 
Chelly said:
Considering he couldn't even see his target and was shooting through a door, I'd say Oscar is an excellent shooter, and shooting to kill. No wild firing there.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
How many reasons could there be for an armed intuder to be in the home? Either he was there to rob the home or there to do harm to Oscar. Why would a robber lock themselves into a small toilet room? The only thing to steal would be the magazine stand so I think we can rule that out. If this so called armed intruder was intent on doing harm to Oscar, how could he do that if he locked himself in the toilet room? Why didn't he come out, gun blazing, and try to shoot Oscar? There would be no reason for an armed intruder to lock himself in that toilet room that I can think of. If someone knows of a reason, please share.

BBM. "If this so called armed intruder was intent on doing harm to Oscar, how could he do that if he locked himself in the toilet room?" Agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 2,773 (members: 192, guests: 2,581)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
2,581
Total visitors
2,773
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,171
Messages
17,964,567
Members
228,712
Latest member
Lover305
Back
Top