Oscar Pistorius Trial: The Medical Testimony

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:00:00 AM EST
Tags: Oscar Pistorius (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Last week, Oscar Pistorius' defense team spent a lot of time trying to get witnesses to acknowledge that they might have confused the sound of gunshots with the sound of Oscar bashing in the door to to the toilet with a cricket bat. Here's an interesting You Tube video of an experiment comparing the two sounds. Conclusion: If you weren't able to listen to both sounds for comparison purposes, you could easily mistake the sound of the cricket bat for the sound of a gunshot.

Here's a recap of yesterday's testimony. In a nutshell, Reeva was shot three times, in the hip, the arm and the head. She would have died within a few breaths of the gunshot to the head.

The state's expert testified today he thought Reeva had eaten within two hours of her death, which occurred around 3:00 a.m. The defense is challenging the pathologist on the food comment. Why? Oscar said in his bail affidavit they went to sleep around 10:00 p.m. The defense will be calling its own pathology experts to refute the state's expert. Today, on cross-examination, the state's pathologist acknowledged that gastric emptying time can vary from person to person and could vary by an hour or two. While he's certainly a qualified pathologist, apparently he may not be an expert on gastric emptying, which he acknowledged, is not an exact science.

Yesterday and so far today, the live video has been shut down by the Judge due to the sensitive nature of the testimony of the state's pathologist. Yesterday, the judge banned live tweeting and blogging, but today, she reversed herself, saying she hadn't known enough about tweeting and blogging.

The "star" of the trial so far is defense lawyer Barry Roux, who is now being called "the Silver Fox." I've watched enough of the trial to agree with the assessment. Some snippets:

While his performances over the last week have earned him the nickname the Silver Fox, Mr Roux is in fact more like a fellow African native, the Blue Heron, which spreads its wings like a canopy over shallow water. When the fish below swim naively to the surface, thinking they are safe, the Heron swoops.

...he is as persistent and penetrating as a dentist’s drill.

...Mr Roux’s trademark move is to appear slightly befuddled and lost, before going for the jugular with the speed of a cobra. He can use sarcasm and humour, but prefers repetition, asking the witness over and over to explain an earlier answer, before pulling out a transcript to show they had just contradicted themselves.

Roux was just as compelling at the bail hearing.

During Mr Pistorius’s bail application last year Mr Roux took to investigating officer Hilton Botha with such unrelenting venom that a South African journalist likened it to watching a baby seal being clubbed. By the time Mr Botha left the stand he was a gibbering mess....

< Colo. Earns $3.5 Million in Marijuana Taxes | Sen. Feinstein's CIA Allegations >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: The Medical Testimony | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sorry, I find the youtube video to be complete (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:47:19 AM EST

poppycock.

In real life the sound of your neighbor hitting his bathroom door with a piece of wood does at all not sound like him shooting a 9mm handgun.

: While I agree that the sounds (none / 0) (#2)
by leftwig on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:04:49 AM EST

are dissimilar enough to be easily distinguishable when heard side by side, if you only hear one of them in the middle of the night from a fair distance, I think the sound produced by hitting a wooden bat against a wooden door could be mistaken for the sound of a gunshot. I am not saying these witnesses were wrong in their judgment, but its conceivable that they could be. When you hear a sound and screaming in the middle of the night, your brain is going to focus on the likely sources of that sound which most people would think of a gun shot. No one is ever going to think that sounded like someone hitting a door with a cricket bat. The order of which came first matters a great deal to the defense. IT doesn't matter nearly as much to the prosecution, though their case would be pretty much a slam dunk if they could show that the the shots were last.
I imagine the pathologist has given testimony on stomach contents before and while I am sure there are more specialized experts in the field, I'll bet his generalizations are pretty close. The defense will focus on the extreme end, saying its possible the food could have been there up to X number of hours. The question the experts will need to answer is what is the probability it was there 2 hours, versus 3 hours, versus 5+ hours. The states witnesses says most like 2 hours, but it could be more or less.

Having had someone shot to death... (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:03:46 AM EST

...thirty feet from our bedroom window when we lived in the inner-city, it strains credulity to the highest degree to even suggest the sound could be mistaken for a bat hitting a door. And video in that case just not credible to me. Either you win that argument by simulating real circumstances in real time or you've lost it pitifully. If they want to do their job as defenders, they'll find people who can testify to Oscar's utter paranoia about crime, about this fear of getting caught unable to put on his prostheses. And even then you have a hard time proving he was in any danger ever, since he had a gun within six inches of him his entire adult life, it seems.

I really am interested to see if the defense can mount something more than boilerplate horsesh*t. They seem like bad American prosecutors right now, flinging crap and hoping it sticks. Maybe with a dipsh*t jury you could wing this junk past them, but a single judge, not a chance, and that should be OBVIOUS to the defense.

Agreed. (none / 0) (#4)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:11:41 AM EST

Was it necessary to include: (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:27:53 AM EST

They seem like bad American prosecutors right now

: I've seen a lot (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:23:49 PM EST

Criminal defense attorneys do the same.
Sometimes they have to in zealous advocacy for their client when they know their client is guilty, but the attorneys still have to defend them.

Oscar's former friend testified today ... (none / 0) (#6)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:13:50 PM EST

... about the athlete's infatuation with firearms, which included firing recklessly in the presence of others and one shot which grazed another's foot. If nothing else, the prosecution is certainly painting an image of him as a spoiled brat.

I think it will be a disaster (none / 0) (#8)
by Natal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:29:06 PM EST

if Pistorius testifies. He's very emotionally fragile and there's plenty of stuff that Nel can focus in on for a blistering cross-examination. Roux has done a good job so far for Pistorius IMO.

On the point of sound comparison (none / 0) (#9)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:39:01 PM EST

If one were to hear (be woken by) a "volley" of loud bangs in the night, a first "guess" as to what it was would not be "Darn the neighbours are banging their toilet door with a cricket bat again"
It is normal to use prior experience to modify and filter perception... and so you would tend towards an explanation based on what you think it might be based on experience. Michelle Burger in trying to bolster her testimony by stating that she had heard gunshots before and so knew what they sounded like, said that people in South Africa KNOW what a gun shot sounds like, and implied it is common enough. And so (IMO) she may have actually made the case for the fact that she was mistaken. She was predisposed to perceive loud bangs as gunshots.
Watching the YT demo, clearly a cricket bat banging on a door, from some distance away, IS a sound not too dissimilar to a gun shot. Given that what ever made the sound at 3:17 AM in this case was from within a house and reverberating over some distance, I think the YT demo of sound comparison is compelling evidence that cricket bat on door could be mistaken for gunshots.
The phone time of course seem to confirm that what Burger heard was a SECOND set of bangs and so it is very likely she was mistaken in her claim of "gun shots" when in fact she heard cricket bat.

No, actually. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:19:43 PM EST

In real life a 9mm gunshot does not sound like a cricket bat hitting a bathroom door.

When recorded by cheesy microphones and electronically compressed and then played back through your cheesy computer speakers, they can sound sorta maybe kinda in the same galaxy as similar.


So, according to you, ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:38:55 PM EST

... Ms. Burger's testimony that she heard the sound of gunshots, and further insistence that she knows what gunfire sounds like, is simply confirmation that she heard a cricket bat banging on the door because she's already predisposed to believe that it was gunshots.

You're making my head hurt.


The HIGH Burden of proof (none / 0) (#12)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:05:11 PM EST

is on the state.

The plausible possibility of an alternative is all the Defence need provide. Roux is doing that repeatedly.

This is still the Prosecution presentation. Roux can only "cross examine". There seems to be a lot of leeway in South Africa, but Roux is somewhat restricted to questioning around what the witnesses testify to during their (rehearsed and coached) testimony on behalf of the prosecution.
It seems obvious to me that Roux is often "setting the trap" by getting witnesses to lock into testimony unequivocally... work in progress in preparation for the Defence presentation and the "springing of a few traps"


The defense has to offer a bit more than just a (none / 0) (#14)
by leftwig on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:17:07 PM EST

"plausible" explanation does it not? Getting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that you have to overcome all possible explanations. Now if the explanation is credible (not just in action, but that the actions are what one might expect a reasonable person to undertake), I agree. The problem the defense is going to have is that even though its possible witnesses mistook banging on a door with gun fire, they have other hurdles to overcome because even if the events were in the order OP describes, there is still a very reasonable possibility that he knew who he was shooting at behind the door. The defense is only overcoming one potential obstacle if they can show that its plausible the banging of the door with the bat happened second.

I totally agree with your point about waiting to hear out the defenses case and the prosecution has yet to rest as well.


Reasonable alternative (none / 0) (#16)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:42:49 PM EST

explanation is sufficient to meet the standard of "reasonable doubt"
The cricket bat explanation of some of the bang is not just some outlandish improbable explanation.
There certainly WAS a cricket bat hitting a toilet door that night. I don't think that is in dispute.
The cricket baton door would have made noises. One witness reports two sets of noises. It seems to me clear that one set of noises was the bat?
The fact that some witnesses are adamant that they heard a gun when it can be demonstrated they are wrong (but still stubbornly adamant about a demonstrably wrong interpretation) brings all their testimony into question.

IMO the critical point that the prosecution need to prove is whether or not OP KNEW Reeva was behind the door when he fired. I have been 50/50 on that from the outset. Either one believes OP's story or not. I have read what he claims, but not seen him speak to it. That is something that I will put some weight on.
IMO the prosecution has been mostly "off topic" There is no question that OP fired the shots, that the injuries were horrendous (and fatal) etc.
They are trying to discredit OP's version of events around the firearms charges, but that looks like "he said/she said" and might end in OP's favour. I guess they are also trying all out to discredit his time-line of events the night of the shooting, and so by inference discredit his claim that he thought there was an intruder. I do not see the prosecution strategy working since ultimately the STATE witnesses are confirming OP's version, broadly, to some extent... or at the very least they are not discrediting it out of hand. There is a lot of reasonable doubt still.


They have to lay out the facts (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:52:32 PM EST

Reasonable alternative (none / 0) (#16)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:42:49 PM EST
explanation is sufficient to meet the standard of "reasonable doubt"

Maybe. Possibly. Or not. Depends on what the judge thinks. Might be a "reasonable alternative" to you, but maybe not to a "reasonable person".

The fact that some witnesses are adamant that they heard a gun when it can be demonstrated they are wrong (but still stubbornly adamant about a demonstrably wrong interpretation) brings all their testimony into question.

Do you want them to lie? They truthfully thought they heard a gun, and maybe they did or maybe they didn't. Do you want them to lie on the stand?

IMO the critical point that the prosecution need to prove is whether or not OP KNEW Reeva was behind the door when he fired.

I am not familiar with South African law, and Jeralyn can correct me, but no, I believe all they need to prove is that OP fired a gun at a door with someone behind it and he had the intent to kill and he premeditated this act.

Either one believes OP's story or not. I have read what he claims, but not seen him speak to it. That is something that I will put some weight on.

Only if he testifies.

IMO the prosecution has been mostly "off topic" There is no question that OP fired the shots, that the injuries were horrendous (and fatal) etc.

Again - they have to lay out the facts. You don't start a story in the middle - you have to start at the beginning, and the prosecution has to prove everything along the way.

They are trying to discredit OP's version of events around the firearms charges...

Duh - that's their job.

...but that looks like "he said/she said" and might end in OP's favour.

Maybe.

I guess they are also trying all out to discredit his time-line of events the night of the shooting, and so by inference discredit his claim that he thought there was an intruder

Again - duh.

I do not see the prosecution strategy working since ultimately the STATE witnesses are confirming OP's version, broadly, to some extent... or at the very least they are not discrediting it out of hand. There is a lot of reasonable doubt still.

Maybe. The defense hasn't put on a case yet and had its evidence and witnesses challenged. But from the reports I've been hearing, I'm not sure where your opinion comes from. Seems the stuff that has come out so far has been pretty damaging.


Duh and doh (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:02:21 PM EST

Do you want them to lie?

Of course not. But an era witness needs to testify to what the HEAR and not what they IMAGINE. Especially not what they now imagine after discussing it between themselves, with the prosecutors, and after hearing all the (inaccurate) reporting over the past year.


And you have proof (none / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:08:10 PM EST

that they are lying? If so - you may want to call the defense team because you might be the key to OP's acquittal.


: No need (none / 0) (#27)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:22:48 PM EST

Roux is already on to it.

South African law (none / 0) (#29)
by MO Blue on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:33:07 PM EST

If Pistorius is found not guilty, he would face a "competent verdict" or lesser charge of culpable homicide, which is based on negligence.
Pistorius is not claiming self-defense; he is claiming to have been mistaken about his need for self-defense. He is denying that he intentionally unlawfully killed Steenkamp.
Grant said the defense boiled down to Pistorius saying "I made a mistake."
If the court were to rule that the mistake was unreasonable - based on what an objective, ordinary South African would do in the circumstances of the accused - he would be found guilty of culpable homicide. link

Uh, it's the same here in the US (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:19:20 PM EST

This is still the Prosecution presentation. Roux can only "cross examine". There seems to be a lot of leeway in South Africa, but Roux is somewhat restricted to questioning around what the witnesses testify to during their (rehearsed and coached) testimony on behalf of the prosecution. It seems obvious to me that Roux is often "setting the trap" by getting witnesses to lock into testimony unequivocally... work in progress in preparation for the Defence presentation and the "springing of a few traps"

During cross-examination, questions can only be asked as to what has already been testified to (or admitted into evidence). And why do you think prosecution witnesses are "rehearsed and coached" but the defense witnesses will not be? Does that mean that none of them will be telling truth - is that what you are implying?


Nel was talking (none / 0) (#18)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:52:53 PM EST

to Darrin Freso during a break in his testimony... openly in court. That looks like coaching to me. Roux referenced it. And there have been many references to witnesses rehearsing testimony with prosecutors prior to trial. It look like the done thing in SA.
Depend what you call "the truth".
There are many examples of testimony that has changed since earlier police interviews. Emotive adjectives added eg "blood curdling" "scream of woman in fear for her life" etc
Also things now omitted.
Does not sound like "whole truth and nothing but the truth" to me.
People often unwilling to answer direct question..reverting to a repeat of a large section of narrative looks like mentally referencing a rehearsed script to me.


Again (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:56:23 PM EST

Wait until the defense puts on their case.

There's nothing wrong with the prosecutor talking to his witness.

And there have been many references to witnesses rehearsing testimony with prosecutors prior to trial.

Maybe - but you have no proof and that's close to being libelous - accusing the prosecutor of committing a crime and unethical behavior.

People often unwilling to answer direct question..reverting to a repeat of a large section of narrative looks like mentally referencing a rehearsed script to me.

You ever testify in court in a televised proceeding? Witnesses get nervous - they want to make sure they tell the truth and don't leave out details. They also realize that someone's life and liberty are on the line. Maybe they are just trying to remember.


: It does not appear (none / 0) (#23)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:04:41 PM EST

to be unethical in SA?
That is my point. It is what they do.

I have seen many times (none / 0) (#28)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:31:25 PM EST

in US trials that when there is a break in a witness testimony the Judge warns a witness not speak to anybody about their testimony SPECIFICALLY not to speak to lawyers from EITHER side.


That is true (none / 0) (#30)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:54:02 PM EST

But not always.

I don't know which instance you are talking about, but the prosecutor could have been saying, "I need to call you back tomorrow, are you available or do we need to wrap it up today?"

And since you claim to have seen this, did this conversation take place in the courtroom in front of the cameras?


: I saw it reported (none / 0) (#31)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:02:00 PM EST

in multiple places.
I can not be specific because I read multiple live blogs and twitter posts. Maybe daily Mail and Telegraph.

: Also Roux (none / 0) (#32)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:04:18 PM EST

made reference to Fresco NOW not remembering after his discussions with prosecution during the break.

What "phone time" data is that which... (none / 0) (#33)
by gbrbsb on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:22:23 PM EST

... "seem to confirm that what Burger heard was a SECOND set of bangs and so it is very likely she was mistaken in her claim of "gun shots" when in fact she heard cricket bat."

Can you provide a link or explanation for the "phone time" data you are using to support this as albeit I can agree that Burger, as well as her partner and Merwee, appear to have heard only the second volley, I can't recall any evidence that confirms the second volley was of bats and not gunshots. I of course may have missed something, but from what I have listened to of the hearings so far I had concluded exactly the opposite. In part because of Stipp's testimony and what Nel disclosed during Roux's cross of Stipp in respect of the time of the shots that the state argues killed Reeva, and in part because clearly neither Burger & partner nor Merwee heard a second volley even though by that time they would have been wide awake and intently listening out. Therefore, imo at least, if the bat volley came after the gunshots the witnesses should have heard it even if notably not as loud as gunshots as the YT video demonstrates.

Further, if the first volley was of bats and the second of gunshots, then the fact that these three witnesses only heard the second volley fits with their testimonies of hearing female and male screams, shouts, etc. followed by gunshots. And if the second volley were the gunshots the witnesses not hearing a second volley could be easily explained either by their having slept through the softer volley of bats or because it was precisely the softer volley that brought them from sleep through semi consciousness to being fully conscious, i.e. awake in time to hear the screams and gunshots, while leaving them confused as to exactly what had woken them, the bats having been "heard" while still in a state of unconsciousness or semi consciousness. I'm sure I am not the only one who has woken "sobresaltado", (startled is the nearest I found in English) without knowing what woke me.


Johnson made a call (none / 0) (#34)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:00:17 PM EST

around 3:16 lasting about a minute..( to wrong security company) then Burger-Johnson heard shots... 3:17 or near enough...
Stipps reported fist shots 3:15:51 call lasting 16 seconds, then seconds after that heard second shots (3:17)
I do not see how there can be any dispute that the shots came after the cricket bat? The panel with the bullet holes was obviously in place when the shots were fired... subsequently knocked out somehow. ... cricket bat seems likely.

To clarify (none / 0) (#37)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:02:21 PM EST

Stipps phoned to report the shots at 3:15:51.

He actually HEARD the shots some time before then.

He awoke hearing 3 shots and screaming and yelling after... then made the call. So I guess (estimate) the "first shots" he heard 3:15 or before


Trouble with your, "I do not see how... (none / 0) (#38)
by gbrbsb on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:42:50 PM EST

... there can be any dispute that the shots came after the cricket bat?"

is that, wrongly or rightly, it is exactly what the prosecution does see, i.e. their case is that the cricket bats preceded the gunshots, as per Nel's exchange:

Nel: My lady, I say the shot at 3:17 caused the decease. Clearer than that I cannot make. If Mr. Roux tells the court that I'm wrong, that's his case. I say, if we have 2 sets of shots, then the last set killed the deceased.

There is more to this exchange during Stipp's cross and Nel gave further clarifications because it certainly appeared to surprise, confuse, and wrong-foot Roux who appeared to have never considered the possibility (same as most of us) that bats could be first and thought Nel was trying to introduce in evidence another "set" of gunshots even though Nel had imo clearly planted it as an analogy.

As for the panel, agreed it was likely in situ when OP fired through it but a joiner friend confirmed what I already thought, that after 3/4 heavy bashes with a cricket bat and 4 shots the panel would have been weakened and split down a join as in the crime scent pics, at which point, depending on construction quality it could be be possible to remove the split part by levering it out, or if necessary loosening it with a few sharp thuds with the ball of a hand and then twisting and pulling it out. Not to say that's what happened only that it is a possibility but the prosecution may have concluded another depending on the evidence they found.


Ooops... typo (none / 0) (#40)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:59:37 PM EST

Sorry "typo" is my middle name. I saw the mistake but could not edit. :(

Maybe I have got a little bit over-excited.

If the State contend that the cricket bat came first I await the evidence that shows that (beyond reasonable doubt)

I wish we had seen all the ME testimony. I do not recall injuries consistent with a flying door panel. But that may be the case.
I do see an immediate problem if reverting to 4 shots at 3:17. Stipp (closest witnes) only heard "2 to s" bangs... not a clear volley of 4 as you would expect and as Burger-Johnson(when he was pushed) claim adamantly.


: typo (none / 0) (#41)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:12:39 PM EST

2 to 3 bangs

: Yep, as many keep saying... (none / 0) (#43)
by gbrbsb on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:40:14 PM EST

... we will need to see all the evidence to understand the case but from my readings of the wikipedia entry for South African Criminal Law OP may well have a case to answer in respect of "reasonable response" even if he did think it was a burglar behind the door.
I can clarify though that you wouldn't see "injuries consistent with a flying door panel" if as I was explained the panel could have been levered, thumped, twisted and/or pulled out once weakened, and in respect of your "immediate problem" with the number of shots, no doubt the prosecution has the same albeit there are still a few more neighbouring witnesses, I think. Or maybe an expert will explain that not everyone hear the same (true) and that two shots close together may have sounded to Stipp as one... just a thought. Oh, and thanks for link, lot of information there.

Thanks... (none / 0) (#42)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:34:31 PM EST

I have gone away any and looked at the time-line with cricket bat first as a hypothetical.
I see how it works hypothetically.. but to prove it requires a lot of detail to be resolved. Certainly worth keeping in mind as the case continues. Just thinking that way I am more open to being convinced that OP knew Reeva was behind the door when he fired. But even if I re-set to 50/50 on that, the State still needs to present a lot more to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.


: I have tended towards OP shooting... (none / 0) (#44)
by gbrbsb on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:53:48 PM EST

... at the door, not Reeva, in a rage because she wouldn't open it. And that she went there to get out of his way during an argument, i.e. the prosecutions case but without the premeditation, but which nonetheless would still mean a very dangerous guy.

: If I become (none / 0) (#45)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:53:51 PM EST

convinced that OP paused after bashing the door with a cricket bat and failing to gain entry to the toilet. Went and got his gun and fired at the door, then OP is "toast". Under that scenario it certainly is premeditate murder.
PS I think the "problem" with Baba claiming that OP said "Everything is fine" has gone away (been eased) OP rang Baba FIRST and was crying (too upset to speak) Baba rang back within seconds and OP responded.. in that context Baba claims OP said "everything is fine" Even that is a lot less sinister in the context of OP being too upset to speak initially. And there is some doubt about Baba's reliability on detail.. the words could have been "I'm ok" or some variation on the exact quote of OP that Baba is sticking to.

Timeline (none / 0) (#35)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:18:28 PM EST

As best I can figure it out.

I am open to additions and corrections

http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1211&p=71304#p71304

It is frustrating that mostly times are just what one can pick up mentioned in passing during testimony. Even the Security phone record that Roux put into evidence are NOT available, excluded from release to public (They do not seem to grasp the concept of redacting phone numbers)


Unless either side can offer evidence (none / 0) (#13)
by leftwig on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:10:08 PM EST

of which occurred first (gunshot or banging on the door), what we are left with is witness statements about what they believe they heard versus OP stating his actions. I think the witnesses are telling the truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean they know which sound was which.

I am much more interested in the phone timeline in relation to time of death as well as ballistics and forensics from the scene. Presuming that the defense is correct and the witnesses heard a bat hitting a door before calling security, we still have OP telling security that everything was fine.

TYhere is evidence (none / 0) (#19)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:55:53 PM EST

that the shots were first?
That surely can not be disputed since two of the bullets went through a door panel that was then knocked out by the cricket bat?


Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:02:00 PM EST

I would think it would be hard to defend a story that says you first knocked out the door panel, thereby giving yourself a clear view of the occupant inside the WC, and, additionally, presumably, you would have heard the occupant speak/yell/scream in response to these antics, and then you shot that person to death, but did not know that person was your live-in lover.


Knocked out a panel (none / 0) (#25)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:08:34 PM EST

and then put it back before firing?


A whole bunch of (none / 0) (#26)
by Rumpole on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:11:54 PM EST

might have been this or might have been that works in the de fence's favour.
Pistorious is innocent until PROVEN guilty and so if there are doubts he remains innocent.

I get back to... Did he know Reeva was behind the door?


Hmmm. Destruction of evidence? (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:20:07 PM EST

Not necessarily "knocked out"... (none / 0) (#39)
by gbrbsb on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:50:16 PM EST

... but yes weakened and damaged, and maybe enraged at not being able to immediately get in thought a gun might do it quicker !


So now there's beat on the door with the bat, (none / 0) (#46)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:11:34 AM EST

then shoot at the door, and then beat on the door again?

Pretty weak sauce, afaiac. But, hey, what do I know?


No, not bat again (none / 0) (#47)
by Rumpole on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:24:57 AM EST

Just an initial assault on the door with a cricket bat and FAIL to gain entry. Then shots. Maybe two shots through one panel on top of cricket bat strikes finally dislodged it, or weakened it enough for OP to push it through.
I am glad that "gbrbsb" at least opened my mind to this as a possibility. I am certainly NOT saying I accept it. I do like to try and keep an open mind, but was already leaning towards thinking prosecution failing to make a case... now I am open to being convinced again :D

I should caution myself that one expects the prosecution to be "winning" at this stage. They get to go first and present their case. The Defence case is yet to be presented.


Nope, no second beating of the door needed... (none / 0) (#48)
by gbrbsb on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:25:05 AM EST

... Once the panel had been weakened with cricket bats and shots and had split down a join as shown in the photos, it could likely be removed by levering, twisting and pulling it out with minimum tools or even strong bare hands. Just saying that's a possibility and as as the prosecution's case is bats before shots I reckon they must surely be thinking something along that line.


Today's testimony (none / 0) (#51)
by Rumpole on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:34:32 AM EST

included evidence by forensic expert Police Colonel Johan Vermeulen

https:/twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky/statuses/443694537463324672

https:/twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky/statuses/443694459080179713

Shots first, then bat seems to be confirmed and accepted by State. I do not see how then they can stick with claim that shots were at 3:17 and not around 3:15??

My brief epiphany did not result in lasting change :D


The states investigator has stated that it (none / 0) (#52)
by leftwig on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 11:55:25 AM EST

appears that marks on the door were made with and without prosthetics on. Not sure what certainty he placed on that, but he mentioned that the angles of the blows were similar, but at different heights. He mentioned that the blow that knocked out the panel was post shooting, but no mention of whether all the marks from the bat were post shooting.

I don't see that the prosecutions case hinges on shots being fired before the bat hitting the door (or that the prosecution has said this is their theory). Certainly it would affect some of the credibility of what the ear witnesses have stated and would make their case a heck of a lot easier if the shots came second, but I don't see that this point is necessary to show murder.


I had to go down to London yesterday... (none / 0) (#55)
by gbrbsb on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:16:58 AM EST

and still haven't had time to watch the trial in catch up nor to follow today's proceedings, but from reading comments here and snippets of media it appears it was a bad day for the prosecution with even their own expert agreeing shots before bats. I see from photos that the shots were much much lower than I had thought and more around your calcs.

In respect of your doubts, and anyone else's, about the prosecution's theory being bats before shots,

"... (or that the prosecution has said this is their theory)..."

I don't think I got it wrong but judge for yourself with the following exchange from Sky's transcript. I haven't checked it word for word with the video (I cleaned it a tad and made a few minor grammatical corrections) but it coincides with exactly what I heard when I was lazily listening to the trial while writing a letter because the moment Sipp stated it could be bats first I stopped writing and watched having never before heard anything about this possibility. (I preserved Sky's first and last time marks as well as the cross leading up and tailing off to show it in context).

Whether yesterday's expert changed what I understand to be the prosecution's case from the Roux-Stipp-Nel exchange, I await further developments, but it all seems very strange and what Stipp and the other witnesses heard fits with the theory better than the reverse, especially as Stipp heard two volleys and screams with both male and female voices in between. The fact he is discrepant in the number of shots might be explained by the speed (batting is surely slower than a quick volley of gunshots?) which I heard can, along with hearing acuity and other circumstances, make it hard to distinguish each shot separately.

by Sky News court reporter March 6 at 12:23 PM

Stipp: I understand what you are saying. You are saying the first shots I heard was the gunshots and the seconds shots I heard was the cricket bat. Unless the first shots was the cricket bat and the second shots was the gunshots.
Roux: We have the report. We know there was a door and we know later on the door was broken down. We have splinters in the bullets.
Roux: You heard 3 but there was 4. You were sleeping. That's fine. There was a fatal shooting. What I'm saying to you is that when you heard screams, it could not have been the deceased.
Stipp: The screams I heard sounded like a female.
Roux: Of course it would be very strange that after shots and a fatal injury, that you would hear a woman screaming. Could have been, when OP is anxious, that his voice goes up and resembles a woman screaming.
Stipp: I don't know. Does it?
Roux: You have a woman screaming and you heard a male voice?
Stipp: Yes: intermingled.
Roux: As a medical person and a specialist. You described what you saw. There was a fatal wounding. So what we know is that it could not have been a woman screaming.
Nel: My lady, I object. Mr. Roux cannot put to this witness that this is a fact. He can say on his version but cannot say it is a fact. It is not our fact.
Roux: My lady. may I deal with the state? We have statements from the police and ballistics. There were only 4 shots. There was no other shots fired other than the 4 shots. If the state says there was other shots, other than the 4 shots.
Nel: My lady, it is not the state's case to argue. It is the state's case to clearly show. But for now my lady, my objection is that the counsel put to this witness that it cannot be the woman screaming.
Roux: I give it to the witness as a fact. He agreed that it is correct. There is no dispute between the witness and I. The witness agrees with the defence case.
Nel: My lady, I say the shots at 3:17 caused the decease. Clearer than that I cannot make. If Mr. Roux tells the court that I'm wrong, that's his case. I say, if we have 2 sets of shots, then the last set killed the deceased.
Judge: You say there was 4 shots?
Nel: My lady this witness says there was 3 shots. Mr Roux is putting to the witness (it) is the shots before 3:17 caused the deceased. My lady, this witness testified about 2 sets of shots.
Roux: My lady, what is common cause. The accused fired four shots. There were shots fired when our Dr. woke up and then there were shots fired when he was on the telephone. The state cannot rely on two sets of shots. You cannot talk about two sets of shots. Do they say there was two volleys of shots? To say now to us there was two sets of shots. Maybe the state must assist us there.
Nel: My lady, there was two sets (of) noises. We say the deceased was shot at 3:17. Our case is not that there were two sets of shots. This witness heard two sets of noises, which he believed to be shots. We are not saying there was more than two sets of shots. For now, there was shots fired at 3:17 that caused the deceased. My lady, wrong or right. Our case is four shots at 3:17am killed the deceased.
Roux: If I may, I am in the hands of the court. All I'm saying is that we are talking about shots and "shots". Dr, sorry to put you through this. First going to ask you to accept on the version of OP. You dont have to accept it as the gospel truth. On OP's version, you woke up to the shots that he fired.
Stipp: I do
Roux: The shots fired at the deceased, caused her not to be able to scream or have cognitive function. Would you agree, the shots you heard before 3:17, then the deceased could not have screamed.
Stipp: That is is correct
Roux: It could not have been the deceased screaming.
Stipp: I am correct. We are exploring the accused's version?
Roux: That is correct.
by Sky News court reporter March 6 at 12:42 PM

: I remeber that exchange (none / 0) (#56)
by Rumpole on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:43:11 PM EST

in Court as it happened.
Frankly I am LOST as to what Nel is claiming.
He states categorically that shots were at 3:17.
He also presented a witness that was adamant that the cricket bat came after the shots. Seems it made little noise because NOBODY heard more bangs after the 3:17 volley. Nel is also left to explain the 3:15 (aprox) set of bangs that sounded just like gun shots to Stipps? A guess on my part.... perhaps he will claim that the dented stainless steel panel in bath wall was dented around 3:15 by 3 blows? OP kicking it perhaps? But then he took off his prosthetics in a flash before shooting? Smashed down the door with the cricket bat... but very very quietly and extremely quickly so that he had time to put his legs back on, do all the shouting, and carrying body downstairs, making phone calls etc.
BTW I see crime scene photo with the corner of the "plank" from the door adjacent to the dented stainless steel panel. A reasonable assumption would be that OP (or cops walking over evidence) hit the steel panel with the corner of the plank..... AFTER the shots and the bat of course... so long after the first 3 bangs.

Rumpole, links here have to be put (none / 0) (#53)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:46:14 PM EST

in html format because long ones skew the site which has narrow margins. (The forums which you are more used to don't require this.) Please use the link button at the top of the comment box. Otherwise I have to delete your comments as I can't edit comments, only delete them. Thanks.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#54)
by Rumpole on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:44:54 PM EST

Will do in future.
I'll try it out with the two twitter links I posted above
Tweet1
Tweet2

Is there any evidence the cricket bat (none / 0) (#49)
by leftwig on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 07:56:22 AM EST

knocked out the door panel? Could be the last shot knocked the door panel out after beating on it with the cricket bat loosened it.

In looking back at OP's statement, he had tried to kick in the door, then got the cricket bat and began hitting it when a panel or panels busted out. He said this is when a key fell to the floor and he used the key to open the door. I don't know the locking mechanism on the door, but once the panel was out, the door handle and lock were exposed so it seems the key would have been unnecessary at this point. I mean you just knocked the panel out, so you are standing right there by the door and can easily unlock it from the inside. Why pick the key off the floor and unlock it via the key? I guess its not a completely unreasonable explanation, but again just seems a little odd.


: The prosecution just had a witness (none / 0) (#50)
by leftwig on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:23:32 AM EST

testify that OP was most likely on his stumps when he was hitting the door with the cricket bat due to the angle of the marks made on the door. That would contradict OP's statement because he said he put on his prosthetics and tried to kick in the door before getting the bat. That doesn't sound like an order of events he would have mistaken.
One point on witnesses hearing a bat hitting a door versus a gun shot, did any of the witnesses mention how far apart the gun shots were? I know Ms. Burger said something to the affect that she heard one, then three later in succession, but how far apart were the last three? The reason this would be important is that you could fire 4 shots from a semi-automatic pistol easily within 2 seconds, but if I am winding up and taking swings at a door with a bat, its going to take longer between each swing.