Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[lithgow1]

The video PROVES that he did, in fact, lean towards her, and mumble something.

So the mystery is just about what exactly he said. They did not make up the entire incident.

So what do you think he said? Did he compliment her, or say something positive?

If she was going to lie, she could have said something much worse than what she did say. That leads me to believe her, right there.

Is there video now of this?

 

[ColonelMustard]

I just listened to last night's round table discussion

on time wasting and Oscar's emotional state. - YouTube

At 5:00 Judge Greenland comments on the wailing witnesses. Says he "can't see where the defence is going" and "is amused from the defence point of view on this aspect of the matter".

0:00 - 5:00 comments on the delays in the matter. Says it's the judge's court and the delays are unacceptable, something should be done. He's very unhappy with the delays

Thanks SO much for this video. I'd love for someone to post a short segment of this show where they're talking about the social work.

Also, I was waiting to try to understand what the judge could possibly have been amused by. Listening intently, it was very hard to distinguish between the two, but I'm 99.999% sure that he said "bemused" ( not "amused"). )

be·muse
biˈmyo͞oz/
verb
past tense: bemused; past participle: bemused
puzzle, confuse, or bewilder (someone).
"her bemused expression"
synonyms: bewildered, confused, puzzled, perplexed, baffled, mystified, nonplussed, muddled, befuddled, dumbfounded, at sea, at a loss, taken aback, disoriented, disconcerted; More

 

[ColonelMustard]

W: The dispersion of the splinters on the witness boards shows a pattern...consistent with the wounds on the upper arm...

He explains it is a small, 6cm pattern consistent with that on the door.

Roux is having to lead his witness step by step thru the points he needs him to make......

He was grabbing at/pointing at his wrong arm. (Finally switched to the correct side).

 

[ColonelMustard]

Roux is rushing him... I don't think W is giving what Roux wants.

Andrew Harding:

Roux nudges Wolmarans through his evidence like a respectful son with a slightly doddery father. #OscarPistorius

 

[ColonelMustard]

W: If you look at the trajectory (of the probe) in this photo, it (bullet) appears to be going upwards.

Barry Bateman:

#OscarTrial Wolmarans refers to a probe showing an upward trajectory. Nel and his team looking at each with skewed faces. BB

 

[Greater Than]

I don't believe anyone outside of SA would have known anything about Reeva if she had been killed by another boyfriend. And I think very few people would have paid a lot of attention to her death even in SA, "reality TV stars" are not famous people.

It doesn't make her life worth less than a famous person but it is IMO the reality of life.

BIB - Ever heard of Kim Kardashian?

There is no way to predict how famous Reeva would have become had OP not killed her.

I'm not sure why it matters anyway. This isn't a popularity contest.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Roux has just asked if they can look at the witness boards instead of photos and that seems to have caused a little start for witness, who 'wants a second'.

After The Wol went over the first witness board, Roux asked him to please hand it to the court ( i.e., M'lady). Wol said something like, "I'm not sure she wants to look at them."

 

[JudgeJudi]

RBBM

No, no, no, IB! Not during a trial! Here's what you do:

1. Come up with a good hiding spot no one knows about.
2. Watch trial, listen to commentary, read posts at your leisure. To do this: send hubby and kids on errands that absolutely cannot wait if need be. Yes, you really do need to know how much postage to Tanzania will run you for a package in several sizes, both grams and ounces...now. Right now.
3. During teabreaks and lunch do anything you absolutely cannot avoid. Usually only the most urgent (think life or death) matters need apply.
4. An hour or so before hubby and kids are due to return order in Chinese.
5. Lightly mist an all-purpose cleaner into the air in each room.
6. Toss all clutter into a basket. Hell. even a few dirty dishes if need be. Stash basket in spot referenced in No. 1.
7. Get dressed if you're still in trial-watching PJs.
8. Scoop all the Chinese which should have arrived by now into a big casserole dish. Voila! You spent hours creating a chinese casserole recipe from scratch.
9. Now's a good time to make it appear you've been slaving away at laundry. Take clean clothes and pile them up high. Make sure they're ones from the backs of closets and drawers so no one's the wiser. Load the washer and run the dryer for a few minutes - make sure you add a dryer sheet or two to suggest the smell of fresh laundry.
10. Lightly wet the front of your hair. If you really want to go OTT grab a spray bottle of water and lightly mist your underarm area. How sweaty you want to appear is totally subjective, ya know.
11. Run vacuum for 5 minutes before hubby is due in - lines are extremely important! When hubby enters, switch off the vacuum, and collapse in the seat nearest the door with a big (and innocent) grin on your face.

Or...you could just play sick. Trialitis gets even the best of us.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Just love it.

 

[sicknote]

Without such evidence it's difficult to ignore the number of times OP has lied, both in and out of the courtroom and simply accept that Ms. Myers made something up because she is grieving her friend. As for witnesses, I'm not sure what you meant by them being made up of thin air. Did you mean the media made them up? The reports were vague but I thought a Bloomberg reporter heard it.

I also thought it was heard by the Bloomberg reporter. He is reported to have have told OP that "he heard that".

 

[ColonelMustard]

Some notes on Christina Lundgren's cross examination.

Lundgren agrees that 6 hours are enough time for a normal person to digest a meal.

Lundgren confirms she has no reason to believe Reeva was not a normal patient.

Lundgren says she's not a forensic pathologist, but she was asked to comment on the stomach content.

Lundgren's report says: In an ideal world, after this meal (chicken stir fry), in 6 hours her stomach should have been empty.

Points of interest...

Not a verbatim a transcript.

*
Nel says that digestion alters the physical nature of food. He says on OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before her death. Given normal digestive processes, how is it possible that Saayman could identify vegetable matter in her stomach the next day?

Lundgren says where does it say that?

Nel reads from Saayman's report where he says he identified vegetables in Reeva's stomach. He says Saayman did this a year ago without knowing what she had to eat. And OP has confirmed Saayman's finding in court.

Lundgren talks about how high fat meals can take a long time. So can insoluble fiber.

Nel asks would you not have expected digestion to make the contents unrecognisable after 8 hours?

She can't comment on that.

*

Lundgren says that after 4 hours 10% of a low fat meal could still be in the stomach.

Nel says that 200 ml was found in Reeva's stomach. Lundgren says she wasn't aware of that. Nel reads from Saayman's report. So Reeva must have eaten 2 litres of food 4 hours before her death?

Lundgren: "That's a lot of food."

Later Lundgren says that as far as she knew Reeva didn't eat 4 hours before her death.

Nel says yes. On OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before death, so she would have eaten 4 liters of food. So given the 200 ml in her stomach Reeva must have eaten much later than 8 hours before death?

Lundgren can't comment on that either.

*
At some stage Lundgren says gastric emptying is not an exact science. You can not tell the time of death from hour to hour. But she concedes that there is a big difference between 8 and 4 hours as far as gastric emptying is concerned.

Somewhere along in there, I think N mentioned 200 ml and Lundgren said something about not having known it had been measured - or she hadn't been aware of the measurement.

 

[Karmady]

Not sure if it's complete with all the witnesses so far but as far as the one crack with the bullet hole, imo that crack could have been caused by OP by pulling the panel out after the bullet hole(as well as after the bat whacks that I believe preceded the bullets which also accounts for the earlier bangs the Stipp's heard), no bat hit needed for it since the chunk of door just above it could quite easily have already been knocked out, as per OP's testimony when he said he could see through the hole he'd made.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/door-2.jpg

Thanks for the pic. I was asking yesterday whether the bat marks were higher than the bullet holes and it looks like they. That suggests that the shots were fired without prosthesis and the bat marks were made with prosthesis. Which, if what I'm reading is correct, is also consistent with the ballistics evidence today that one or more of the shots have an upward trajectory.

jmo

 

[ColonelMustard]

I might be able to feel it for him if had taken ANY true responsibility for what he's done. He's still minimizing it to save his own skin. When he is finally truthful and humble in accepting his actions, then I will have some empathy or compassion. He's not there yet, so neither am I. He is all about himself and HIS loss, as the social worker said. He has no empathy for Reeva and has never said anything about what SHE lost.

When he is finally truthful and humble in accepting his actions, then I will have some respect for him.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I'm wondering about Lundrgen's description of Reeva as "pre-menopausal" as a factor that may have slowed down the stomach-digestion phase.
She was under 30 and therefore not pre-menopausal in layman's terms, but I see from Googling it that the term is sometimes used in medical contexts to deisgnate the whole period from onset of menstruation to the menopause. But on that definition, is it really true that female stomach digestion is significantly delayed for the whole of the period of thirty to forty years in which they are "pre-menstrual"? Is it not rather that stomach digestion is only significantly slowed down in the much shorter period when fertility really tails off - a stage which Reeva had not yet reached?

All I can add here is that the years just preceding menopause are referred to peri-menopausal.

 

[steveml]

I believe they charge fixed fees per day (or by hour) according to specialisation, experience, etc. and these are set down by the chamber and fees are same for similar barristers and and similar chambers. And they don't charge the client they bill the attorney who passes the cost on to the client in their bill as an expense, and in SA it appears from the SA Bar rules they are still very strict on this not like in the UK where from a few years back some barristers are now allowed to accept briefs direct from the client and bill them.

Yep, I also think it's important to clarify that a client is usually aware of an estimated total cost prior to commencement of a case, including estimated number of hours the case may take to conclude. A spending limit can also be agreed. There are even payment options available within the UK, although I wouldn't think they'd offer extended credit, particularly to those cases in which the client could receive a possible jail sentence :wink:

It somewhat dilutes the myth that the legal profession charge whatever they like and drag cases out longer than necessary for their own benefit.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Rate of digestion is determined by mechanics and chemical enzymes. There may be a small difference in digestion rate because of size, however vegetables in a stir fry are not particular small when compared to something like grains of rice. All food ends up as a type of 'slurry' mass regardless of it's original size and shape.

The theory regarding feeling hungry after Chinese food is commonly attributed because of the high level of carbohydrates and sugar incorporated with low levels of fat. It's believed you get a sort of glycemic spike and then a crash. MSG used to be mentioned as the one of the main culprits, however I don't think it's used very much nowadays.

I live in Chinatown. MSG is in shakers on every table right next to the white pepper.

 

[ColonelMustard]

.. yes, that was all a bit odd, wasn't it .. and the bangs were probably more likely to be champagne corks popping, seeing as they seemed to have had a bit of a social 'do' :facepalm:

Strikes. (Dixon clarifying)

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Just to clarify exactly when Lundgren said "that's a lot of food". Nels quoted a figure from Simon's report which stated that after 4 hours, 10% of a meal may remain in the stomach.
He then said to Lundgren "So using the fact that 200 ml of food was found in her stomach, that would mean that Reeva ate a 2000 ml meal". And that is when Lundgren said "that's a lot of food".

Also, chicken stir fry is not considered to be a high fat meal. So I don't know where Lundgren is coming from saying that digestion could be delayed due to intake of a high fat meal.

 

[Apollo]

When he is finally truthful and humble in accepting his actions, then I will have some respect for him.

Me too. Oh heck...what am I saying. I'll never have any respect for him. Here was a guy who had it all (well, except for his lower legs). He had a loving girlfriend, wealth, fame, admiration, he's an attractive guy who's well spoken, a beautiful home, a loving family---he had so much more at a young age than most people can even dream of ever having in their lifetime. But one night he got angry, for whatever reason, and took out a gun and shot a helpless woman. I can never have any respect for someone who could do such a thing. I'm sure he wishes he could take back what he did that night---but not for the sake of Reeva----for the sake of himself because now life as he knew it is over and he'll never get it back. No Olympics in 2016 for OP.

 

[ColonelMustard]

OP should have never said anything at all to Kim M. However he did, so any of the backlash because of it falls squarely on his shoulders. It appears that he lacks self control.

Why on earth should OP ask Kim "how can you sleep at night"? Kim is not the one that told police that OP was the killer. Kim is not the reason that OP was arrested, charged with murder and is currently on trial for murder along with the three gun/bullet charges. There is absolutely no reason, IMO, for OP to say anything to Kim concerning her conscience. OP should look inside himself and focus on his own conscience, however since he easily lies on the stand, one can say that he apparently has no conscience.

Like it or not this is a big deal because of OP himself. He had the option to keep his mouth shut. He decided not to. But of course, like OP himself, let's blame someone else for his wrong doing.

MOO

He's immature, petty, and vindictive.

 

[sicknote]

If this is the best defence money can buy, can you imagine the nightmare of being poor and wrongly accused in SA?

Or perhaps it's just the level of guilt thats making the defence look so bad in this case.