Options
Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
benjamini
Posts: 32,066 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Kapellmeister wrote: »Something's not right either way. If you look at the crime scene photo of the toilet it's hard to imagine anyone being shot so close to the rack and it remaining where it was!
The fact that it's pulled away from the wall at one point is very suspect. With a body falling on it/against it and then a body being dragged around, how did the rack not get pushed flat against the wall?
Reeva was 5ft 8 tall, no idea what she weighed, possibly 9 or 10 stone. Not at all easy to lift her off the floor without moving the magazine rack. I'm surprised it was as close to the toilet as it in fact was.
If she had been on the floor then I would expect it to be pushed hard against the wall or removed completely to allow OP access to her. So for me at least the fact that's its still in situ and slightly away from the wall suggests she was on it.
Continuation of: Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/17/article-2606747-1D28588300000578-620_634x440.jpg
There don't seem to be any signs that this side of the rack, the one pulled away from the wall, moved after the pool of blood had formed.
Also, looking at that photo, why is the blood so undisturbed? Even the small drops don't show any sign that they've been smeared around, and yet didn't Pistorius say he sat down next to Steenkamp? If true, wouldn't this have smeared the small drops shown to the right of the big pool?
I don't think old Woolie tried to tailor his evidence at all, he did what was asked of him under circumstances that were different to the original crime scene, for instance the toilet door being removed and then reconstructed.
Not giving regular updated written reports isn't anything to be concerned about, his final report contained all the information from day one of his investigation and was dated as a timeline though Nel didn't seem interested in that even when offered it, his system seems to work for him and 10,000 other investigations including 500 court cases, do they not count for anything?
I don't think a lot of people actually listened to what the man was saying and simply wrote him off as a bumbling old man, yet he was testifying in English which isn't his first language to aid the court, he could have done it through an interpreter and this thread wwould have gone into melt down.
He has tinnitus and is hard of hearing which is a handicap, he has just had major surgery on his back which must give him some discomfort if not pain, he's getting on in age so isn't as quick thinking as he probably once was.
His opinions have been good enough for the FBI and the UN, he's been out in Cosavo and numerous other countries, the man can't be simply written off because he is a defence witness, I think he's earned respect and should be given it.
He wasn't any push over either and was willing to hold his ground when it was warranted and would also concede more than he needed to, he even told Milady that he took offence at the implication that he was bias and tailoring his evidence, telling Nel "You can infer what you like Mr Nel", even when Nel tried to rubbish his evidence in a previous case he informed the court that that case was still under appeal and that it was the accused evidence that was rejected not his own, so falsehood off Nel.
Nel slipped up several times and called him Captain which he didn't take offence to, Nel even admitted they'd either worked together or came up against each other several times previously so Nel would have been fully aware of how he operates and what sort of filing system he uses etc so to try to make a mockery out of it was unnecessary.
I know Nel has a job to do and must do it to achieve maximum results but I think he's pushing it a bit denigrating the credentials and testimony of these expert witnesses, I can't see it doing him much good if he has to rely on these people in any future cases when he needs them on his side.
Err who attached bib??
smacka is online now Report Post
You've used the same line before to another poster. It isn't making you sound any more sensible or rational this time than it did then. But you might have a condition which perhaps causes difficulties with courtesy and communication, so I will disregard it.
Burger was included for completeness because its in her testimony. It matters not that she is describing the same call.
You are twisting Mike's testimony to suit your bias. He was wakened after bangs which occurred some little time before his phone call. In the meantime he'd checked all of his house and had a brief discussion with his wife about what he should do.
The judge will need to decide whether Dr Stipp can be relied upon with precision as to whether the second bangs came before or after he spoke to security.
Do.
It is the question that the judge will be concerned with. That you seek to claim its a decided fact is short-sighted.
He says he was phoning about shouts/screams, and he is refusing to admit to the possibility that it was the bangs that roused him, although unaware, rather than mere shouts/screams. That again is an issue for the judge to decide.
I agree.
Why isn't there a photo of where the rack was before it was taken away, we'd know exactly where it was found.
This allegedly shows it as it was found by the police:
http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1740445.1396282077!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/pistorius1n-8-web.jpg
I agree, smacka.
I think the BIB is a product of having to copy and paste into this new thread
I can only think that he got to her quickly while she was still bleeding and before the blood pooled. This to me means that he didn't get to her 15 mins after the shooting, but within seconds.
I have wondered about that too...he sat down next to Reeva, crying, cradling her body. Another lie perhaps.
I agree with you- I thought Wolmarans came across well and seemed knowledgeable and professional.
Re bib: haha- promise I won't report your post!!
All this talk about him going into combat mode at the sound of his washing machine/house guests moving about etc. I'm not so sure that's due to paranoia ... I think he probably would like to kill an intruder .. especially if he has (what he sees) as a legitimate reason to do so. He gets excited by guns .. and the dog story is not particularly edifying.
I am 90% sure he knew it was Reeva but I also believe that he would get a thrill out of killing an intruder .. I think it's something he's watermelon fantasised about .. so I can envisage a scenario where he doesn't give a fig where Reeva is .. he just wants to kill the person in the toilet. This would make me think him more of a mad man not less though and when you think of all the additional info .. like jeans out of the window, handbags that are taken from the scene, phones ditto .. and food in Reeva's stomach then that, and a few million other things, point to the fact that he's hiding something and their evening was not as described (the whole 10pm to bed thing for a start is laughable .. he was a known insomniac and that's early for most people) .. also the damage to the bedroom door ... his reasoning for it is just not credible.
Dear Judge Masipa,
All things considered .. IMHO .. he's as guilty as hell. I enclose several hundred pages from fellow web sleuthers giving you a rough outline as to why this is the case. Apologies for the slight variations .. your superior intellect and wealth of experience will, I feel sure, enable you to pluck out the truth of it. Please make allowances for us occasionally swerving off of the path of reality and into the realms of fantasy .. those tea breaks and adjournments were hard to get through. I cannot provide you with credentials but can absolutely assure you that we are total experts and have used our eyes and brains to come to our conclusions.
Please lock him up and sentence him to a life without guns, cricket bats or green buckets. Not sure he's capable of good behaviour so please let him serve a minimum of ten years but in any case, don't let him out until he has said. I killed Reeva .. it was MY fault .. I'm most dreadfully sorry for it.
Thank you milady,
Your humble trial devotee,
daziechain
PS: Please make sure someone feeds his dogs.
PPS: Something ought to be done about his psychologist .. not sure locking her up is the answer .. definitely don't lock her up with him as neither of them will benefit from it.
PPPS: Is there any word on Frank?
PPPPS: Please don't pass on my details to any of the Pistorius's.
Yes that must be it, paranoia or what..
More likely than not
That can't be right. There would have been some blood splatter on the wood at least surely?
Or at least the blood pool indicates Reeva's head would likely be where it's standing in that image
Haha...very good. :kitty: I'll add my signature to that.
I would say the blood pool is from the hip wound.
The head and arm were over the toilet bowl.
So why did he say they went to bed at 10pm when it would've suited his story much better to say they went to bed at 12am? Again, it's a lie that makes no sense.
ahhh
But then her body could have moved the rack out of position.
Would a head wound result in spasms?
There was some blood spatter on the wood...we were shown a close up shot during the trial. It is difficult to see against the dark wood.
The pool is from the hip wound.
The points Judge Greenland made about Wolmarans evidence were very valid indeed.
He did not produce any documentation that could and should have been put to Mangena.
He could not produce any of his earlier reports and only produced a report after OP gave evidence.
He behaved completely unprofessionally by meeting up with Dixon and discussing the case after Dixon gave evidence.
Can all this be construed as tailoring evidence?
This is a well respected expert who would know exactly how these things work. His omissions are at worst suspect and at best unprofessional . The judge will have noted these points tho.
I thought they had agreed the large pool on the floor was from her upper arm wound.
There has been no evidence to say so.
The only evidence we have heard is that after the shot to the head she would have taken no more than three or four breaths, which is supported by evidence that there was no blood in her airways.
In other words OP's original evidence that she was dead when he got to her was probably true.
The subsequent evidence that she was still alive and he wanted to get her to hospital is suspect.
Kap has raised some interesting points and you have picked up from this that again Defences protestations that it was Bat last Gun first does not ring true. Add in that the key was not in the toilet door and OP could excess her very quickly, another fit seems underway.
I don't remember that.
As I understood it her right arm was under her head resting on the toilet seat........but we only have Oscar's word for that.
I think Wolmarans agreed yesterday that that the large pool of blood was from the arm.
What I find really odd is that there are no footprints. Lifting Reeva could not have been vey easy.
That is another little fact that makes me doubt the defence's case that she was shot through the arm whilst she was still standing. Her arm was effectively broken, flopping by her side as she fell, yet managed to end up on top of the toilet.
In my opinion, it looks as if she was ON the rack, and he lifted her straight off. There are no smears and no seeming disturbance of the pool of blood, which also shows the rack hadn't moved for a WHILE whilst Reeva was bleeding.
I agree, except the blood HAD pooled. How long it was I don't know, she must have been bleeding profusely. So not necessarily very long.
But it looks to me as if she was lifted straight up and out.