'The doors'

[Murphys_Law]

The height of the pellet hole as shown in photo #43 has been in dispute on the forum. Some posters are claiming it is at eye level, while others, myself included believe it to be much lower.

I say more specifically, it was low to mid torso for a 5’ 7” person, or approximately 1.0 to 1.1 metres above the floor. See attached photo compilation, and measurements in support of my approximation.


Why the height of the pellet shot through the bedroom door is important...
The origin of the 2 very small bruises/lesions (less than 1 x 2 cm in size) on Reeva’s lower back have been contested heavily by both the defence and the prosecution. Many minutes of court time, and conceivably many hours of non-court time has been spent researching, arguing, and demonstrating possible sources for these bruises.


Why would so many resources be expended on something that was trivial and non-consequential?
… It would not happen!

IMO, (and other posters) one of the two lesions has the distinct characteristics in terms of size, shape, and perceived force of impact (no penetration of the skin ) of a air gun pellet shot through an intermediate target, such as wood, thereby losing some of its energy.

If one of these bruises can be matched to a pellet shot through the bedroom door, then this is hard evidence in support of the premeditation aspect of the case… a violent evening spirally out of control before the fatal 3:17 shots.

 

[Cymbaline]

The height of the pellet hole as shown in photo #43 has been in dispute on the forum. Some posters are claiming it is at eye level, while others, myself included believe it to be much lower.

I say more specifically, it was low to mid torso for a 5’ 7” person, or approximately 1.0 to 1.1 metres above the floor. See attached photo compilation, and measurements in support of my approximation.


Why the height of the pellet shot through the bedroom door is important...
The origin of the 2 very small bruises/lesions (less than 1 x 2 cm in size) on Reeva’s lower back have been contested heavily by both the defence and the prosecution. Many minutes of court time, and conceivably many hours of non-court time has been spent researching, arguing, and demonstrating possible sources for these bruises.


Why would so many resources be expended on something that was trivial and non-consequential?
… It would not happen!

IMO, (and other posters) one of the two lesions has the distinct characteristics in terms of size, shape, and perceived force of impact (no penetration of the skin ) of a air gun pellet shot through an intermediate target, such as wood, thereby losing some of its energy.

If one of these bruises can be matched to a pellet shot through the bedroom door, then this is hard evidence in support of the premeditation aspect of the case… a violent evening spirally out of control before the fatal 3:17 shots.

What do you think about the bedroom side of the door? It looks slightly higher and more centered.

 

[Murphys_Law]

The photo of the door with the pellet entry mark on the bedroom side (#40) is a bit deceiving for several reasons, the most significant of which is the fact that the door in that photo is proportionally larger that of the door in photo 43. In addition, the differing angle of divergence with respect to the plane of the lens relative to the door in each photo plays a role in the deception.

Screw the projective geometry its too complex and will make your head hurt and mine hurt more:-( -- just use the good old Euclidian variety and a touch of intuition...

As an experiment,

1. Make the relative size of the door equal in both photos (eyeball it, or use the width of the door /panel frame as a guide)​
2. Imagine or draw a quadrilateral with one top corner anchored in the pellet hole, and with the bottom/horizontal side X following the bottom edge of the inset panel, and the vertical side – Y following the edge of the door.​

If you repeat the above for each door, you should end up two figures of near equal size and very close to a parallelogram. ​

That should at least convince you that the holes are in the same relative location.​

.​

To establish the approximate height and offset from the edge of the door, you will need to know a little about standard door sizes, panel framing width etc.​

.​

In the second attachment, I have estimated the approximate height based on an 84" door, a size up from than the most common size being 80".​

.​

The pellet mark's offset from the edge could also be estimated using 4" as a common panel frame width. I didn't approximate it because it is far less important than the height. ​

.​

Also, keep in mind also that these are double doors that swing open into the bedroom, and according to OP they are wheel-chair friendly so this is not a narrow set of doors. ​

.​

Just for completeness, I have included the image that is a compilation of all the pellet marks for that door.​

 

[BatGunKick]

:seeya: Hello All - just discovered this thread about the door... if you haven't seen my theory about the crack through bullet hole D happening after the shots, please have a look and let me know what you think - I'd also love to discuss the possibility of D being the first shot, then tracking her C, B, A as CriLondon suggested in the main OP thread.

Looking forward to getting to know you all. x

 

[elfie]

:seeya: Hello All - just discovered this thread about the door... if you haven't seen my theory about the crack through bullet hole D happening after the shots, please have a look and let me know what you think - I'd also love to discuss the possibility of D being the first shot, then tracking her C, B, A as CriLondon suggested in the main OP thread.

Looking forward to getting to know you all. x

Good theory. I like your blog, too.