Trial Discussion Thread #29

[zoran]

The judge is only 66. That surprises me she looks quite frail

 

[strydohj]

Maybe you should take the time and watch the testimony on YouTube yourself then report back to us what OP said. Then you will be able to quote OP's exact words yourself, and possibly draw your own conclusions based on what he actually said, not what you think he said.

Stumps vs Prosthetics

Someone here asked me a few days ago which one I thought he was on during the final shooting.

And I replied that I cannot be sure.
But does it matter? Could he not have done everything either way, making this perhaps another straw man argument?

OP’s autobio which came out in 2009 details his life up till then.
When younger (till age 12) he outran his buds on his stumps. No balance problems, but I cited a few days ago, trying to be…well, balanced…that his present, larger upper body development might make balance an issue, or it might not. Nowhere in his own book does he indicate (to the best of my recollection) that he has a balance problem when on his stumps now.

So like his alleged “great fear of intruders” (yet note the status of windows, balcony doors, ladders, alarm off, going toward the intruders, etc.), seems to be another invented or overplayed issue.

Is there anything that he couldn’t do while on his stumps, those fateful minutes? The shooting, the bat strikes. People have to remember that he is a supreme athlete, with great strength, stretch, agility, and yes probably balance too.

Several times here I have noted that his prosthetics shatter rather easily, based on his own words. So I doubt he kicked the door, certainly not with any significant force, because they would have shattered and he could have had a serious fall. The Pros. was the one beholden to test his P-legs for impact survivability,. What if results came back that they shatter esily? That would have been definitive if a controlled experiment was done. How many times did Col. Vermuellen say “I was not asked to do that.”

So I find it fascinating that nether side tested his P–legs for forceful impacts. (A relatively easy experiment IMO, esp. given Newton’s 3rd law.) Much of what DT alleges, and these straw man arguments IMO are meant to hide exactly what he did and exactly when he did it.

I do think he kicked the door, but not necessarily after the shooting. Maybe as part of intimidation before hand, together with some door slamming that could account for the first set of noises and broken tiles on the side of the hinges. IMO it is also likely that the prosthetics could have come off during the kicking and before shooting. That would explain why the shots through the door is relatively low.

 

[Really?]

don't know if this has been posted yet.....

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/world/africa/south-africa-prison-conditions/index.html

:jail:

 

[asanque]

I know the prosecution case has rested, but here is what I would have done differently:

1. Tested the ambient light produced by Reeva's mobile phone in a pitch black room

OP testified that she got her mobile from the right side of the bed (close to where he was moving the fans), and then used it to light her way to the bathroom.

If OP was annoyed by a small blue light, even if he didn't hear Reeva move, he must have seen the ambient light from the mobile phone in his peripheral vision.

This could have been replicated easily in tests.

Nels raised this in his cross-examination but a test by an expert would have been useful.

2. Been clearer on what may have caused the initial loud banging sounds heard by the Stipps

If the PT's contention was that the earlier bangs were 'doors slamming' or 'cricket bat' sounds, this should have been made clearer by their own expert witnesses.

This is a key issue that IMO needed more clarification by the PT.

3. Tested the timing of OP's testimony with regards to Reeva's injury

The pathologist reports weren't live for us to hear, but it does appear that Reeva suffered such significant and fatal injuries that would have rendered her dead in approximately 10 minutes.

If the Defence contends that the initial gun shots were at 3:00 a.m., how do they explain the arterial blood splatter downstairs and Reeva dying in Oscar's arms at 3:26 a.m. when Dr. Stipp arrived.

4. Examined the issue of the empty bladder in more detail

On OP's testimony, after Reeva opened the bathroom window, she went to the toilet and used it in the brief time it took for him to freeze for a brief moment, fetch his handgun and yell for help (lets say 2 minutes tops).

I would note that he didn't hear her peeing or flush the toilet despite tuning his ears after the initial window opening. However, on his version, she must have just finished to have an empty bladder. Did the PT test the contents of the toilet? If there was no urine, then that proves that there was no reason for Reeva to go to the toilet as she must have gone an hour earlier and disproves the primary reason OP said she went to the toilet.

5. Fear of intruder

Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 27 - Page 38 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

OP's contention was that he was so afraid of the intruder that he didn't act rationally.

However, after the shots, he testified he didn't hear any screams.

How can he be sure the intruder was no longer a threat (he could have missed or only caused a minor injury)? There could also have been another intruder. Why did his fear go away?

He was so scared that he didn't even check or turn on the lights in the bathroom, but instead fumbled his way in the dark and turned backward away from a threat that could still be there?

It makes no sense.

This could have proved very damaging to the defence team case, as the only reasonable analysis from the above is that he knew the person in the bathroom was Reeva who had stopped screaming after the gunshots, so he had no need to check further or worry about additional harm. Alternatively, there must have been intent to fatally shoot the intruder, as there would otherwise be no reason why he wouldn’t have immediately checked whether someone was still alive (i.e. Lends credence to aiming for fatal shots rather than accidental discharge).

Notwithstanding the above, I thought Nels did a pretty good job overall.

What would you have done differently as the PT? or even the DT?

 

[TipDog]

In all fairness PT has used the "version" word aplenty too.

Sometimes taken me aback.
At the outset Nel said, it's the State's version that the final shooting occurred at 3:17 AM.

I thought he should have said 'what happened" instead of "version". But also IIRC Dr Stipp called police at 3:15 about hearing the final set of shots.
So WTH?

No, the state saying the "State's version" is entirely different than if the accused says it. The accused should be stating the truth. The State is asserting its version based on circumstantial evidence (for sure in this case). Completely different perspectives.


However, IMO, the accused, if innocent, will always be able to tell "what happened" without adding the whole "my version" to his/her testimony.

 

[beach]

Temporarily closing for review. :aktion1:

 

[beach]

Okay, thank you. Can you quote his exact statements in context because I've forgotten them. I'm not being facetious. I really can't remember now, but it seemed to me that this was more or less a semantical issue rather than anything else. I am open to be proved wrong, and again I'm not being facetious.

Thank you. Can you quote his exactly lines? <modsnip>

Maybe you should take the time and watch the testimony on YouTube yourself then report back to us what OP said. Then you will be able to quote OP's exact words yourself, and possibly draw your own conclusions based on what he actually said, not what you think he said.

What nastasya said. If you'd like to review testimony, you can ask for a video/audio link so that you may listen and review it for yourself, but don't ask anyone to give you a verbatim transcription. We do not have access to the court reporter's record. The only accurate way to know what was said is to listen and transcribe it for yourself.

(There is a website that gives a rough transcript but it has been proven to be VERY wrong on many, many points so we are not using it for accuracy.)


Likewise, if you want to state statistics or claim something as a fact, be willing to provide a link to support the same.

 

[beach]

I just removed over 20 posts and lost count of how many I <snipped>.

I'm an admin/mod, not an editor.

The pot-stirring, "right fighting" and bickering stops here. Now.

TO's are next.


eta: Before I get bombarded with PMs, many of you had posts removed because they quoted/responded to the original post which was removed.

 

[Apollo]

Last week I read statements from two South Africans who once were sure he was guilty and have now completely changed their minds, having heard him give his testimony in court. They explained the reasons they changed their minds. . There was a media article last week with the headline: "Why many South Africans think OP is innocent." <modsnip>

I was unable to find a poll specific to South Africans. Do you happen to know of one?

 

[Really?]

oh oh........this guy sounds a bit scary

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...-s-killers-warns-oscar-1.1656398#.U1Da6ihy7yo

 

[shane13]

I found a poll from 5 days ago that states 98.5% of people worldwide thinks OP is guilty. I was unable to find a poll specific to South Africans. Do you happen to know of one?

Here's the link > gulp, wiping the sweat from my brow and hoping it's an acceptable link<

http://nationalreport.net/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-charges/

I'd check to make sure this is not one of those satirical websites fooling people that it is a news site.

98.5% sounds improbable.

 

[Apollo]

I'd check to make sure this is not one of those satirical websites fooling people that it is a news site.

98.5% sounds improbable.

The headline of the article gave me pause because it's misleading. That's why I wasn't sure if it was acceptable to post it. I'm not sure how to verify it. Any suggestions?

 

[shane13]

No, the state saying the "State's version" is entirely different than if the accused says it. The accused should be stating the truth. The State is asserting its version based on circumstantial evidence (for sure in this case). Completely different perspectives.


However, IMO, the accused, if innocent, will always be able to tell "what happened" without adding the whole "my version" to his/her testimony.

Ok, thank you for that.

But, I do not think you have mastered Oscar-Speak.
You see in his Oscar-Speak, Oscar is entitled also to say “version.”

Because he alleges having no memory of the most crucial events. And that he has to rely—or is it re-lie—on the testimony of the witnesses and photographs.

Furthermore since many of the witnesses, according to OP, are lying or mistaken, and furthermore the police altered/moved items in the photos, his version is indeterminate.

In Oscar-Speak, he must be innocent since he can’t recall, and his ‘version’ (aka “reconstruction’) is based on corrupt witnesses or altered photos etc.

Are you getting with the [Oscar-Speak) Program yet?

 

[shane13]

The headline of the article gave me pause because it's misleading. That's why I wasn't sure if it was acceptable to post it. I'm not sure how to verify it. Any suggestions?

I tried and did not see it anywhere else.
So I thought it might be like "The Onion' who regularly fool people that their satire is genuine news.

Maybe we should ask Zwiebel, since onion in German is Zwiebel.

 

[Sarahlou]

That nationalreport.net site is satirical.

 

[shane13]

That nationalreport.net site is satirical.

Thanks.
I knew 98.5% of humanity agreeing on anything was absurd.

It's OK Apollo, w've all been snookered 1 time or another.

 

[jassy writer]

As somebody who lives in South Africa, I'd like to explain that there is a huge difference in lifestyle for those people who live in high security estates like OP's.

The people in these estates pay a lot of money (in property and in rates) to ensure that their security is of the highest standard. Extreme precautions are taken when visitors arrive and nobody who is not "vetted", fingerprinted and in possession of a South African ID would even be allowed to work in these estates as a gardener etc.

People in these estates absolutely do not live in a "state of fear". Honestly, not many South Africans really do live in a "state of fear"! There are a few who like to dwell on the crime stats (and not being nasty here but there is OFTEN a racist slant to their attitudes), and there are certain areas that are regarded as less "safe" than other areas in terms of crime stats, particularly house robberies. However no high security estate would fall into an unsafe category.

This is why residents pay so much money to live there. They are safely shielded from any threat of house robbery, any random crime, any "riff raff" that might make their lives unsafe or uncomfortable.

In a more densely populated, larger and extremely wealthy high security estate close to where I live, the biggest perpetrators of "crime" by far are the spoilt, rich teenagers who live in the estates and who go out at night and cause trouble!

 

[Apollo]

Thanks.
I knew 98.5% of humanity agreeing on anything was absurd.

It's OK Apollo, w've all been snookered 1 time or another.

:banghead: My original post looks good now (after a little editing).

 

[Apollo]

That nationalreport.net site is satirical.

Thanks for letting us know that. I don't know why Shane added that link to my original post when he quoted me. :floorlaugh:

Shane---As you can see, I have the Oscar-Speak down pat. I'll be expecting my diploma.

 

[supernovaNic]

As somebody who lives in South Africa, I'd like to explain that there is a huge difference in lifestyle for those people who live in high security estates like OP's.

The people in these estates pay a lot of money (in property and in rates) to ensure that their security is of the highest standard. Extreme precautions are taken when visitors arrive and nobody who is not "vetted", fingerprinted and in possession of a South African ID would even be allowed to work in these estates as a gardener etc.

People in these estates absolutely do not live in a "state of fear". Honestly, not many South Africans really do live in a "state of fear"! There are a few who like to dwell on the crime stats (and not being nasty here but there is OFTEN a racist slant to their attitudes), and there are certain areas that are regarded as less "safe" than other areas in terms of crime stats, particularly house robberies. However no high security estate would fall into an unsafe category.

This is why residents pay so much money to live there. They are safely shielded from any threat of house robbery, any random crime, any "riff raff" that might make their lives unsafe or uncomfortable.

In a more densely populated, larger and extremely wealthy high security estate close to where I live, the biggest perpetrators of "crime" by far are the spoilt, rich teenagers who live in the estates and who go out at night and cause trouble!

Eleven crimes were reported in Oscar Pistorius’s townhouse complex in three years, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Tuesday. And two of them where related to Oscar: Oscar killing Reeva and his watches being stolen. So that would make really 9 crimes in his complex. That's 3 a year. Oh boy, danger Danger, Will Robinson. :scared:

Didn't Oscar mention that a week before things were stolen from his home but he never reported it?

http://citizen.co.za/149485/three-crimes-silver-woods-estate-three-years-oscar-trial/