Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[Fuskier]

Hi all :seeya: Super busy week, so I'm just now getting caught up on Tues & Thurs testimony. The whole Frank thing is really bothering me.

I pulled this quote from Sleuth-d over from the last thread:

baba didn't ever mention frank out at the front of the building either. although he did mention being outside with a second security guard [in the buggy].

having said that, baba also said there were five people at the front of the house after the standers got out of the car...

baba
second security guard

j stander
carise stander

??? frank ???

all very unclear/inconclusive.

I could never figure out how Baba came up with 5 people outside of the house either!! Now it makes sense. It must have been Frank.

Every single person that testified (and Roux and Nel), up until the Standers, completely left Frank out of the story. WHY?

A few times during Oscar's testimony, Nel confirmed that Oscar and Reeva were the only two people in the house that night. There was never any question about that.

For Frank to be on the property prior to the Standers arriving, he MUST have been there that night. So where exactly was he during the time of the incident??

This is going to make me nuts now.

Agree. Why has Frank's presence at the house that night been omitted from the Trial?

Hypothetically, Frank could be used in an Appeal and Frank could say anything! I agree with your concern.

 

[Val1]

I'm afraid unless you can provide a source for your findings that these are commonly called Black Talon, I disagree entirely. Have a look on the gun forums - the South African's talk about 'Ranger' bullets the same as we do, and use the name 'Ranger'. You go in a shop to buy some hollow-points, you ask for the brand you require. If you want Ranger that's what you ask for. There is absolutely no confusion.

The technology hasn't changed, Winchester removed the Black Talon from sale and undertook a re-branding exercise due to bad press. I really don't know where your information has come from.

I've explained this before, but just to reiterate - Winchester's Ranger SXT line of ammunition is of the same basic design as Black Talon. If you are unlucky enough to get shot by a police officer in New York and many other states, the chances are that the bullet used will be a Ranger SXT or similar (hollow-point).

I hope we can put this to bed now and it doesn't drag on like our text message evidence saga did.

Hmm, seems if you want black talons(other than for collectible purposes), everything points to getting the "new" version called Ranger and from reading further, it seems the biggest difference now between the current crop of hollow-point(which is what black talons were and still are) is that they've dropped the black colouring.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs2.htm#Black-Talon

This is where the police only Winchester Ranger Talon (formerly Black Talon and Ranger SXT) bullet departs from conventional expanding hollowpoint bullets. Ranger Talon adds an additional wounding mechanism: cutting.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscars-bullets-designed-maximum-damage-saayman

Saayman told the court that the type of ammunition retrieved from Reeva Steenkamp’s body during the autopsy was called “ranger type” ammunition.

He added that it had previously been known as “black talon” ammunition.

 

[Carmelita]

And why should they view it dispassionately

Because a dispassionate mind is more likely to make rational, reasonable, and logical decisions based on facts and evidence rather than emotion.

 

[Carmelita]

If you read back you will see that I never referred to anyone here as an "Oscar supporter".

I agree with you about people showing less concern for unattractive victims. That's perfectly true too. I'm afraid it's human nature.

Ah Ok thanks you just meant that there are Oscar supporters but they are not posting here.

I do agree with you that people are more likely to give attractive people a pass, and people who go missing or are murdered and are attractive are more likely to find people rallying for justice on their behalf.

 

[kittychi]

Websleuths Lingo

:gthanks:

 

[Val1]

I would just like to offer an explanation for the pause which happens to me every single time I shoot my semi-automatic handgun.

This just may be me and the way I shoot however I tend to think others may do this as well.

When I have my semi-auto with a full clip and I get ready to shoot I will *advertiser censored* the hammer back manually and then manually move the slide (work the action) to put a round in the chamber.

Now at this point like Viper said there is no real reason that I would need to pause after I fire the first shot because the gun will auto-load the next round and the hammer will automatically be cocked back with the slide BUT.....what happens to me is I just naturally pause a little bit after that first shot to realize that everything worked as it should and the gun is ready for more firing. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc rounds I let rip at a much faster pace.

I seem to always have a natural slight pause after that first round though.

Thanks for the explanation, it certainly makes sense to me as one who prefers the silence of bows, what with the loudness, recoil and such typical of firearms to adjust to before continuing.

 

[Carmelita]

Just popping in as I haven’t had much time at all to devote to the Pistorius case but the little I have read, the witnesses for the defense certainly seems to have put the rest of the already precarious “scream “witness testimony in doubt.

I have to say I find it extremely “convenient” that Gina’s sister is claiming that Oscar whispered (or did he say it in a low tone) incendiary words to her just when it is looking good for his defense. I know at first she was the only one to have claimed to have heard and now I believe suddenly a reporter “may have heard it also”. I think that that some people close to this case are blinded by their love for Reeva and not capable viewing it dispassionately.

Busy week for me.

Outstanding irony in that last sentence Carmelita.

Color me simple but could you point out the irony for me? Thanks you

 

[Val1]

Because a dispassionate mind is more likely to make rational, reasonable, and logical decisions based on facts and evidence rather than emotion.

Sooo, did you catch the very emotional response of the surprise DT witness early this morning? In your opinion, did she come across as a professionally and objectively detached expert?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/surprise-witness-at-oscar-trial-1.1685303

 

[G.bng]

I believe it was steveml who gave a pretty good explanation of why there had to have been a bit of a gap after the first shot.... will see if I can find the post.(nvm, I'd rather keep up with current content than spend days reviewing old forums... I do recall it and if I should accidentally come across it again, I'll be sure to bump it.)

No prob because it was Mangena who in his testimony put forward the theory of why there had to be a gap between shots, Stevemi must have resumed it or something.

In Magena's theory, due to the shots being so low, there has to be a gap giving time for Reeva to fall down with the hip shot (the first, marker A) against the mag rack for Reeva's head and arms to be at a height that corresponds with the bullet holes marked C & D, (B was the missed shot that ricocheted on the wall). For Mangena's version to work if there hadn't been a slight gap between the first and second the second shot would have hit Reeva as well as her body would not have had time to fall down out of the line of bullet B.

The Defence is now proposing that the hip shot was still first but that the arm shot was second and was caught in the line of fire as Reeva was falling down, so they are arguing there wasn't a gap between first and second shot as a gap means Reeva would fall out of the line of fire for the second highest shot.

 

[Carmelita]

I think there is a flaw in that analogy because the victim cannot be compared to the attacker. Maybe a better analogy would be if the attacker was an ugly person then would we have a tendency to think he is more guilty than if the attacker is handsome.

I dont know if there have been any studies along these lines but it is an interesting question.

If you take 100 random people and let them hear the exact same evidence against 2 alleged murderers and 1 is handsome and famous and the other is ugly nobody. Wonder what the poll results would show?

Hmmmmmm.

Hi Hatfield,

I think that it is pretty well accepted that attractive people receive better treatment than people who are "uglier than sin" which would mean with Oscar and Reeva it is pretty much a wash as they were both apparently viewed to be beautiful people by general standards.

 

[Val1]

No prob because it was Mangena who in his testimony put forward the theory of why there had to be a gap between shots, Stevemi must have resumed it or something.

In Magena's theory, due to the shots being so low, there has to be a gap giving time for Reeva to fall down with the hip shot (the first, marker A) against the mag rack for Reeva's head and arms to be at a height that corresponds with the bullet holes marked C & D, (B was the missed shot that ricocheted on the wall). For Mangena's version to work if there hadn't been a slight gap between the first and second the second shot would have hit Reeva as well as her body would not have had time to fall down out of the line of bullet B.

The Defence is now proposing that the hip shot was still first but that the arm shot was second and was caught in the line of fire as Reeva was falling down, so they are arguing there wasn't a gap between first and second shot as a gap means Reeva would fall out of the line of fire for the second highest shot.

Thanks yes I followed that, though how RS managed to end up with her head in a position to leave the trace on the inside of the toilet lid if the first three shots came so quickly is something I'm definitely waiting to have explained...

 

[Carmelita]

Sooo, did you catch the very emotional response of the surprise DT witness early this morning? In your opinion, did she come across as a professionally and objectively detached expert?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/surprise-witness-at-oscar-trial-1.1685303

Nope I am busy as the devil in Vegas so I have only watched very little and read some of the trial coverage. I have saved your link and will watch it as soon as possible, my brain is fuzzy and I'm tired so I'd rather not make a judgement call right now.

 

[Gryffindor]

Ah Ok thanks you just meant that there are Oscar supporters but they are not posting here.

I do agree with you that people are more likely to give attractive people a pass, and people who go missing or are murdered and are attractive are more likely to find people rallying for justice on their behalf.

I concur. I also don't think this trial would ever have been televised. I believe it's only due to Oscar's involvement.

 

[Gryffindor]

Nope I am busy as the devil in Vegas so I have only watched very little and read some of the trial coverage. I have saved your link and will watch it as soon as possible, my brain is fuzzy and I'm tired so I'd rather not make a judgement call right now.

Although, the social worker DT witness isn't deciding the outcome of the trial ;-)

 

[Val1]

Hi Hatfield,

I think that it is pretty well accepted that attractive people receive better treatment than people who are "uglier than sin" which would mean with Oscar and Reeva it is pretty much a wash as they were both apparently viewed to be beautiful people by general standards.

That might work if they were both in the courtroom, however, one of them is dead and iirc the only image of her face(weeks ago now) that was shown is not exactly the most attractive, no matter how beautiful and engaging she may have been while alive. Perhaps for justice sake the PT should be allowed to have a lifelike image of her sitting with them...

 

[kittychi]

I think it's more unfortunate that people can be prepared to take anything as gospel without any known facts.

Please remember that it isn't remotely probable that everything he says is a lie. It's impossible to live day to day like that.

If we take that logic one step further, then all OP needs to say is that he intentionally killed Reeva. That would be a lie of course

The thing is, he damages his own credibility when he gets caught lying. Then what DOES one believe of what he says?

At every turn OP lies to avoid responsibility for his actions.

To take that one step further...you can find all of the "mistakes" that OP made, i.e. shooting the gun out the sunroof, shooting the gun in the restaurant, murdering his girlfriend, and automatically assume that he is lying about those things. Everything else he says is probably true...i.e., "my name is Oscar."

 

[Gryffindor]

No prob because it was Mangena who in his testimony put forward the theory of why there had to be a gap between shots, Stevemi must have resumed it or something.

In Magena's theory, due to the shots being so low, there has to be a gap giving time for Reeva to fall down with the hip shot (the first, marker A) against the mag rack for Reeva's head and arms to be at a height that corresponds with the bullet holes marked C & D, (B was the missed shot that ricocheted on the wall). For Mangena's version to work if there hadn't been a slight gap between the first and second the second shot would have hit Reeva as well as her body would not have had time to fall down out of the line of bullet B.

The Defence is now proposing that the hip shot was still first but that the arm shot was second and was caught in the line of fire as Reeva was falling down, so they are arguing there wasn't a gap between first and second shot as a gap means Reeva would fall out of the line of fire for the second highest shot.

Did defense state at all which of C or D missed? Or will Woolie be addressing that this morning?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Saw a summary of yesterday's evidence on an OZ channel by a SA legal expert. He couldn't see the relevance of Lundgren's testimony. It doesn't prove OP's state of mind at the relevant time nor his guilt or innocence.

So far he hasn't been impressed by Wolmarans and feels that Mangena was far more professional.

He said the defence doesn't have a coherent case. "OP, "You could have walked away. Why did you walk down the hall?" "That's intent".

He said the lineup of witnesses so far is very telling (Judge Greenland has expressed exactly the same view) and gave the distinct impression that the DT is grasping at Straws.

 

[katydid23]

Because a dispassionate mind is more likely to make rational, reasonable, and logical decisions based on facts and evidence rather than emotion.

But if someone's best friend is shot and dies on a toilet floor, do they need to view it dispassionately? If they are not on the jury, and not on the witness stand, then why not allow them their emotional reactions?

 

[Greater Than]

absolutely!!!
she is talking about stomach contents - her expertise, but didn't read the bit that quantified the amount of food in the stomach*.

and yet has been happy to entertain time of meal, content - chicken stir fry, sleep, and yoga... all of which are op evidence only.

*200ml iirc

"I'm a clinician - I deal with live patients."

"I'm not aware of post-mortem - it's outside of my field."

This is who the DT hired to rebut a forensic pathologist's testimony?!