Trial Discussion Thread #30

[minor4th]

If the state's case was really that weak, then they wouldn't even be bringing it to court (if it's anything like the UK, anyway).

I don't know if you ever listened to Nair's ruling on the bail application, but he essentially stated that the state (Botha) had screwed up the investigation and were making allegations that weren't true - he found that OP had established "extraordinary circumstances" that entitled him to release on bail.

 

[jay-jay]

Notice the long pause as as he prepared himself for his debut loud high pitch voice. No, not high enough first go, try again a bit louder and higher in pitch but still didn't hack it, still a definite male voice. In fact , the same tone but louder than his whining 'poor me ' voice that he had used throughout Nel's cross. You are right My Lady scarpered from her seat. What woman with a verbally abusive partner hasn't heard that line before, big mistake IMO !!

It was awful, wasn't it! .. and soooo obvious that he was gearing up to it! :facepalm: .. failed miserably. Seriously, that has got to be what Roux was referring to when he said that we would later see that OP was capable of screaming like a woman, wasn't it? I remember a whole load of posts on here at the time we were all watching it live, and everyone remarking that this was 'The Scream'! :floorlaugh:

 

[aa9511]

I was thinking about Mrs Stipp's statement (and her correction of it the next day) for ages! I wonder if it was due, not to any police pressure, but to her implicit trust and faith in her husband? So if he saw it, it must have happened, and she was safe to say she saw it too?

Something like those couples you sometimes come across who finish each other's sentences, because they are certain they know what the other one's going to say.

The most interesting thing to me was she corrected what she had said the next day, I think? Nobody could have argued she didn't see Oscar in the window that night, except her husband. So I think they may have had a conversation about their statements, and without any outside pressure, decided her false bit could not be allowed to stand and she had to be completely accurate. About what SHE saw, not what she believed her husband saw.

I don't think there was any sinister motive in her original statement but it didn't look good. It's to her credit she admitted it was false and corrected it without outside prompting though, I think.

Yes, also it could be a memory issue, but that wouldn't look good for her, either. For example, her own memory of the night was fading so she was subconciously adopting her husband's memories as her own? Either way, yes I agree, it doesn't look good for her.

Still, they have their statements from that night which were already recorded. It's not like they just made the whole thing up. So I am still convinced that their testimony is generally accurate. It's not like in some cases, where witnesses come forward one year, two years, three years later and say Oh yeah, btw I saw and heard such-and-such thing that night.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don't know if you ever listened to Nair's ruling on the bail application, but he essentially stated that the state (Botha) had screwed up the investigation and were making allegations that weren't true - he found that OP had established "extraordinary circumstances" that entitled him to release on bail.

He also said OP had LOTS of questions to answer. Questions that in my opinion have not sufficiently been answered.

"I have difficulty in appreciating the accused did not ascertain the whereabouts of his girlfriend when he got off the the bed," Mr Nair said.

"I have difficulty with the accused not seeking to verify who was in the toilet when he could have asked.

"I have difficulty understanding why the deceased didn't scream back from the toilet."

http://news.sky.com/story/1055642/oscar-pistorius-gets-bail-over-reeva-killing

 

[zwiebel]

I have no doubt that there is a PR aspect to all of this for Oscar. Just like there would be/are with other celebrities in trouble with the law for something so serious, or even not serious.

Personally, I do think ALL of Oscar's courtroom behavior is an act.

Like I said one time, how is it that Oscar is an emotional basketcase inside the courtroom, yet walks out with his back straight, shoulders out, and kind of with a swagger in front of the cameras??

One would expect Oscar to leave the courtroom with slumped shoulders, head down, maybe shielding his head and face with his folder, etc.? Giving a signal to the media of, hey, leave me alone, can't you see I'm a broken man right now?

He does not do that when he's walking into and out of court.

It's all an act.

JMO.

I'm too English to trust my judgement about emotional outbursts. I did find a reference (which I did not keep and can't find now) about Oscar's vomiting response in his youth, long before Reeva's death.

It's an unusual response, but I think that may be genuine. Having said that, I had a temperamental aunt who, in her childhood, would hold her breath until she fainted if she didn't like something. It was undoubtedly genuine (she would turn deep purple) but it was also entirely deliberate too. It didn't stop until the other family members got so bored with it, they ignored her instead of panicking and making a fuss.

ETA: I realize I've just done there, what Mrs Stipp did. I never saw my aunt do that, I am just taking my father's word of what he saw as gospel!

 

[jay-jay]

I don't know if you ever listened to Nair's ruling on the bail application, but he essentially stated that the state (Botha) had screwed up the investigation and were making allegations that weren't true - he found that OP had established "extraordinary circumstances" that entitled him to release on bail.

Well, thank the lord we have a different judge now ..

:jail:

 

[Harmony 2]

A new thread has been set up for posting. This thread will close in 10 minutes so please start moving over. thanks!

Trial Discussion Thread #31 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[molly333]

I don't know if you ever listened to Nair's ruling on the bail application, but he essentially stated that the state (Botha) had screwed up the investigation and were making allegations that weren't true - he found that OP had established "extraordinary circumstances" that entitled him to release on bail.

I saw some of the testimony of the lead detective last night--the colonel. He seemed like a sweet and sincere guy, but every time he turned around, his own people were messing up. Oscar's watch went missing the first day while he was in the house. They rounded up all the forensic people still in the house and searched their bodies, their bags, their cars--but never found it. He caught his ballistics guy picking up the gun and taking out the magazine with his bare hands. He says to him, What are you doing? So the guy puts the magazine back in the gun, lays the gun down, and puts on his gloves. :banghead:

He was having to protect the crime scene from his own men.

 

[shane13]

Notice the long pause as as he prepared himself for his debut loud high pitch voice. No, not high enough first go, try again a bit louder and higher in pitch but still didn't hack it, still a definite male voice. In fact , the same tone but louder than his whining 'poor me ' voice that he had used throughout Nel's cross. You are right My Lady scarpered from her seat. What woman with a verbally abusive partner hasn't heard that line before, big mistake IMO !!

Good catch.
I agree. I thought the first one was poor.
But I thught the 2nd one was pretty good, appoachiung that of a woman's voice.

I think I am in the minority here with that.
I'd like to give him--or her!--the chance to succeed with this.

 

[james83]

Unless a screaming man does sound like a woman and a bat hitting a door does sound like a gun, which we know from Stipps it does.

The prosecutor thought he had an easy slam dunk case--woman screams, shots ring out, woman dead.

He doesn't.

A screaming man does not sound like a screaming woman, how can anyone think that could possibly be true, a terrified blood curdling scream was made by a man, around the same time a woman was shot dead, amazing.
Yeah o.k, all those people slept through gunfire but heard a bat hitting a door, do you really believe that?.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

Yes, also it could be a memory issue, but that wouldn't look good for her, either. For example, her own memory of the night was fading so she was subconciously adopting her husband's memories as her own? Either way, yes I agree, it doesn't look good for her.

Still, they have their statements from that night which were already recorded. It's not like they just made the whole thing up. So I am still convinced that their testimony is generally accurate. It's not like in some cases, where witnesses come forward one year, two years, three years later and say Oh yeah, btw I saw and heard such-and-such thing that night.

I thought she made her statement on the night, or day after, then corrected what she had said the very next day? Or am I getting confused?

 

[Irisha]

Here's a newspaper that agrees with me:


But, while the prosecution throughout the trial have had Pistorius on the ropes, ducking and weaving, at no stage have they managed to land the knockout blow they need.

They have highlighted his love of assault rifles, his short temper, his fights with Reeva, but the one thing they simply haven’t been able to establish is motive.

Why would a man with seemingly everything in life, including a beautiful, intelligent girlfriend, all of a sudden want to kill that very same woman?

The prosecution have built a narrative for murder, but they haven’t produced — for want of a better term — a smoking gun.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ap-in-this-opera/story-fni0cwl5-1226891434954



No knock out blow--just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Oh! And the prosecution case in chief is over.

The prosecution still has defense witness's to question ( remember Dixon?). They have the right to reopen their case,under certain circumstances, and have closing arguments, it's far from over.:twocents:

 

[aa9511]

I don't know if you ever listened to Nair's ruling on the bail application, but he essentially stated that the state (Botha) had screwed up the investigation and were making allegations that weren't true - he found that OP had established "extraordinary circumstances" that entitled him to release on bail.

Eeeks I'm glad that is not the judge for this trial!!!

btw if police can supposedly drum up this large conspiracy, is it hard to believe there might be one or two corrupt judges in South Africa?

 

[screecher]

To some on here it is, simply because they don't believe the state has proven that he knew it was RS on the other side of the door.

And from there, the discussion goes in circles.

Not only goes 'round and 'round, also, the idolation of OP with the inference OP was acting with courage and bravery. :facepalm:

 

[Viper]

Your lack of knowledge of the evidence is causing you to reach conclusions that are false.

There was arterial blood spatter exactly in all the places you described. It wasn't just one spot.

Your conclusion was correct that the injuries were serious, and she stopped breathing right after the head shot.

The heart continues to beat until lack of blood pressure and oxygen causes cardiac arrest. The arterial blood spatter between the bathroom and the bottom the the stairs shows that her heart was still pumping blood out of her body.

And you're right, there was very little pooling of blood in the bathroom.

Combined this evidence leads to only one possible conclusion: OP's story about shooting her at 3:05 and not carrying her downstairs until 3:23 is false. She was shot closer to the 3:17 time.

This means that the witnesses who all testified to hearing a woman screaming followed by gunshots confirmed the forensic evidence. She was shot at or about 3:17 and OP carried her downstairs in the aftermath of the killing.

Please take note of the parts of your post that I bolded, and then:

Here is information from a previous post:

"Wounds, after death do not bleed profusely because the heart
is no longer beating and blood pressure is not maintained. Blood from even a severed artery therefore trickles out as a consequence of gravity rather than spurting."

And this:

"Professor Saayman said: "I concluded that the deceased had died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-athlete-shot-3226441

Couple all of that with 1) No significant blood loss from Reeva's severed arm or the entry and exit wounds to her head or the wound to her hip, and 2) Dr. Saymaan noting that there was no blood in Reeva's lungs because she stopped breathing within seconds, and his determination that Reeva died seconds after the black talon hollow point bullet literally blew her brains out and fractured her base of skull.

Dr. Saayman determined that Reeva died seconds after being shot in her head. To say that he "may be a tiny bit mistaken" but "I accept most of what he says" because you want to believe that Nest is absolutely right just does not make sense. Not at all. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

The only person saying anything about "arterial spurt" is Nest. It goes against all of the other evidence to say that Reeva was alive, or she was not breathing and yet her heart was still beating, from 3:17 to 3:25 when OP carried her down the stairs.

Nest was wrong about arterial spurt. Dr. Saymaan was right about Reeva dying within seconds of receiving the bullet that ripped through her head and brain.

 

[molly333]

The prosecution still has defense witness's to question ( remember Dixon?). They have the right to reopen their case,under certain circumstances, and have closing arguments, it's far from over.:twocents:

I know that.

But don't you usually put the smoking gun into your case in chief?

If you have one, that is.

 

[Harmony 2]

A new thread has been set up for posting. This thread is closed. thanks!

Trial Discussion Thread #31 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:drumroll: