I have read your posts and you are very much entitled to your views. I came at this well disposed towards OP - who wouldn't be - we are all human and have sympathy for his condition in life and admired him for what he had achieved. I am a lover of sports.
I have a scientific background and naturally sceptical. Try as hard as I can to see OP's point of view - I failed. I am suspicious that I cannot find one crumb of evidence in his favour that is not contradicted by a mountain going the other way. Sometimes things are just that clear.
I believe I posted that no expert witnesses would be able to adequately back up OP's story. And as time goes by that becomes the acid test. If something is a lie no amount of experts are going to support that viewpoint. Sadly, OP's version doesn't even pass first base.
Experts can't prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. Only he knows that and you have to judge all the preliminary lead up relationship, the actions of Reeva that night and the incredible amount of "coincidences" that would have had to occur that just happen to all be present, to believe he's lying.
If he denied he shot her, that's a whole different ballgame. But this is not a who-dunnit, it's an if he dunnit.
Just because a cat happens to be sitting by the milk dish doesn't mean it drank the milk if there's no milk on its puss.
My friend that would be a very long answer and I have addressed many reasons why the standard of killing that night was not a "conscious" thought and with malice.
His body just left his brain to handle things for a few seconds and adrenaline took over.
Which as you are no doubt aware does not constitute a legal defence of any sort in this case. Yet you are right, it is precisely how OP has argued throughout. It's baffling and I cannot see what he hopes to achieve by doing it. It's likely to end very badly indeed for him unless roux changes it back to self defence in closing.
Experts can't prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. Only he knows that and you have to judge all the preliminary lead up relationship, the actions of Reeva that night and the incredible amount of "coincidences" that would have had to occur that just happen to all be present, to believe he's lying.
If he denied he shot her, that's a whole different ballgame. But this is not a who-dunnit, it's an if he dunnit.
Just because a cat happens to be sitting by the milk dish doesn't mean it drank the milk if there's no milk on its puss.
BIB - If you believe wholesale OP's version of events......
We have this long complex and at times baffling account from OP how the evening played out.
IT could be so simple as 'Angry man shoots woman he was arguing with in fit of rage'...it doesn't have be premeditated or anything of the sort. Just a spur of the moment thing. That scenario (proven time and time again throughout history) is far more likely on the balance of probabilities than OP's complicated story.
My friend that would be a very long answer and I have addressed many reasons why the standard of killing that night was not a "conscious" thought and with malice.
His body just left his brain to handle things for a few seconds and adrenaline took over.
It's called red mist....or purple mist as one of latest FM describes it....Can you imagine living in a society were Red Mist violence was allowed to go unpunished.
My friend that would be a very long answer and I have addressed many reasons why the standard of killing that night was not a "conscious" thought and with malice.
His body just left his brain to handle things for a few seconds and adrenaline took over.
Oh ... that's alright then ... why didn't he just say? No-one would have a problem with that
What happens when his body leaves his brain to handle things again? (must say ... contrary to the normal run of things ... his brain shouldn't be allowed to handle anything) .. how many accidents is too many?
He showed he was thinking clearly when he talked about not firing a warning shot in case it ricocheted and hit him. He can't now say he was just firing in a panic. Why didn't he shoot at the b**t*rds coming up the ladder? No shots fired through open window yet he was equally fearful about that threat. Hogwash!
Dear all!
after reading this (and the former) thread since weeks now I am still very pleased by the thoughtful and clever (well most of the time) comments which give me a lot to think about as well is making my mind up about this and that and so on and so on.
However there are two issues which I still wonder about:
1. Why does the absence of blood in Reevas lungs indicate she did not breath for long? I mean was it so messy that she would actually inhale blood?
2. I saw a still image from the shooting ranch (the watermelon video I suppose) where OP is pulling the trigger with his left hand. Does somebody know whether he is actually a left-hander? And if so, does this have any impact on current theories?
Would be great if someone can reply on this.
-Ralf
Hi
I can only attempt to answer your first question, but I see someone has already answered your second one:)
We were not allowed to hear details of the autopsy, but we do know that the bullet that went into her head broke up (exploded) inside. I assume this would have caused considerable internal bleeding that got into her mouth?/airway.
Experts can't prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. Only he knows that and you have to judge all the preliminary lead up relationship, the actions of Reeva that night and the incredible amount of "coincidences" that would have had to occur that just happen to all be present, to believe he's lying.
If he denied he shot her, that's a whole different ballgame. But this is not a who-dunnit, it's an if he dunnit.
Just because a cat happens to be sitting by the milk dish doesn't mean it drank the milk if there's no milk on its puss.
Your last sentence proves that you don't really understand circumstantial evidence.
A dish full of milk five minutes ago, now empty with a cat sitting beside it licking it's whiskers.
Circumstantial evidence that the cat drank the milk.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You and certain others seem to think that evidence can only mean photographic or video evidence of the cat drinking the milk. Until you understand that it doesn't, then you will simply fail to make the slightest sense to those of us who DO understand.
I know you're ignoring me now, V4.
That's fine and I don't blame you. I wouldn't have the guts to debate with me either if I were you ;-)
I would, or at least not defend him. Just one problem in this case. I don't believe he's guilty.
Well he's guilty of recklessly firing off 4 black talon bullets into a locked door for a start, knowing full well someone was behind that door.
That someone being unfortunately poor Reeva, if everyone went about recklessly blasting off bullets into closed toilet doors, because they heard noises and thought they could be intruders, there would be a hell of a lot of dead partners and kids found behind those doors.
My friend that would be a very long answer and I have addressed many reasons why the standard of killing that night was not a "conscious" thought and with malice.
His body just left his brain to handle things for a few seconds and adrenaline took over.
You know, at the beginning of this trial, I was willing to believe that Oscar was telling the truth about what happened that night. But after listening to the evidence put before the court, I believe he knew it was Reeva in the cubicle. The main evidence that led me to this belief was the statements of witnesses, who heard a woman screaming, and also the probability that Reeva would have made her presence known, either before he started shooting, or after the first shot. Oh, and the evidence of the gastric contents.
I think I'd agree with you on that point. NOBODY is worse than Dixon that is true! But old Woolie has been poor. He had such a big build-up too. I think OP fans were sitting back expecting a real star. I suspect they are all very disappointed by what they saw and heard today...
Would have to disagree
Bear in mind Dixon acknowledged he had no accredited expertise in a lot of the subjects he testified on. He admitted to being a layman most of the time so in that sense he had an excuse for his poor performance.
However, Wolmarans is an accredited expert with 45 years experience in forensic ballistics. Have a look at his website to see how good he is supposed to be. We had a right to expect him to be an excellent witness. However he was disastrous.
So on that basis comparing the two, Wolmarans has to be judged worse
If you don’t agree with the methodology that’s fine i don't intend to prolong it.
It was merely an attempt to show that based on the information to hand that it was ludicrous to suggest that somehow Reeva ate 2 litres of food, to which I think we agree.
Also to show that at 2 hours before her death again with the facts to hand she would have eaten what was a light meal. Which I think was proved, ie the equivalent volume of 2 medium size potatoes.
Now case closed
Re-opening the case, the 10% was in Professor Lundgren's report. She had read Saayman's report but told the court she did know Reeva had 200ml in her stomach, despite it being in Saayman's report.
She had the luxuary of being able to ask the accuse what exactly they ate that night and how it was prepared, also what they had to drink. But she never spoke to or asked the accused.
Experts can't prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. Only he knows that and you have to judge all the preliminary lead up relationship, the actions of Reeva that night and the incredible amount of "coincidences" that would have had to occur that just happen to all be present, to believe he's lying.
If he denied he shot her, that's a whole different ballgame. But this is not a who-dunnit, it's an if he dunnit.
Just because a cat happens to be sitting by the milk dish doesn't mean it drank the milk if there's no milk on its puss.
Take RS out of the equation....he was still prepared to blindly fire off 4 shots into an enclosed space...knowing full well the likely outcome....some will argue it could have been an armed intruder....but equally it could of been a 12yr old petty thief....you just cannot justify his actions....it's both frightening and unbelievably reckless behavior.....which just can't be allowed to go unpunished.
I think the issue of blood in her respiratory tract is that there wasn't all that much, despite the fact that she was bleeding internally. You'll only breathe in blood if you're actually breathing. This suggested that she took only 2/3 breaths after the headshot.
Re-opening the case, the 10% was in Professor Lundgren's report. Having said she had read Saayman's report but told the court she did know Reeva had 200ml in her stomach, despite it being in Saayman's report.
It is a feature of this trial just how many reports are 'read' without the contents being fully digested so as to speak
Bear in mind Dixon acknowledged he had no accredited expertise in a lot of the subjects he testified on. He admitted to being a layman most of the time so in that sense he had an excuse for his poor performance.
However, Wolmarans is an accredited expert with 45 years experience in forensic ballistics. Have a look at his website to see how good he is supposed to be. We had a right to expect him to be an excellent witness. However he was disastrous.
So on that basis comparing the two, Wolmarans has to be judged worse
:D:D. You really aren't letting the OP fans have any crumbs of comfort on yet another bad day in court!
Hi all,
First time posting on this thread although have been reading for a while as and when i can and trying to keep up with trial updates time permitting.
Apologies if this has already been asked but something i am confused about and can't seem to find a definite answer.
If Oscar's version of events is completely true and he did shoot into the toilet believing it to be an intruder and not thinking it was Reeva at all but some person unknown to him then what does that mean legally?
Does a guilty verdict rely only on him knowing it was Reeva? If the judge decides he is telling the truth were his actions acceptable self defence or is it still murder or culpable homicide because he did not see an intruder or hear a verbal threat?
I have read a few expert opinions but still feel confused,can anyone clarify?
My friend that would be a very long answer and I have addressed many reasons why the standard of killing that night was not a "conscious" thought and with malice.
His body just left his brain to handle things for a few seconds and adrenaline took over.
Body and brain had to work in conjunction quite a bit to achieve the end result, and at which point did the body leave the brain to take over? When not checking to see if Reeva was in the bedroom, loading the gun with illegal bullets, strafing down the bedroom corridor, standing in the bathroom and then once again not checking if Reeva was in the bathroom before firing, or are you suggesting it was only at the very end of this sequence of actions when the shots (all four of them including a change of aim) were actually fired that the adrenalin took over? That would be somewhat convenient.
Also if this is the end result of OP's brain taking over what does that say about him as an individual? We all experience fear, adrenalin, anger and a host of other emotions and instinctive physiological reactions, but we don't all end up shooting someone four times as a result. I don't think adrenalin is a satisfactory line of defence.
It was merely an attempt to show that based on the information to hand that it was ludicrous to suggest that somehow Reeva ate 2 litres of food, to which I think we agree.
Precisely…
Reeva could not have eaten a meal 4 hours before TOD because said meal would have had to be over 2 liters… which is in fact ludicrous… that's the whole point of the exercise.
… therefore the Court must accept Saayman opinion that Reeva ate a meal 2 hours prior to TOD.
Also to show that at 2 hours before her death again with the facts to hand she would have eaten what was a light meal. Which I think was proved, ie the equivalent volume of 2 medium size potatoes.
BiB… proved by whom ?
I do not remember any evidence given in Court as per the volume or size of Reeva's last meal.
:D:D. You really aren't letting the OP fans have any crumbs of comfort on yet another bad day in court!
According to the defence expert on gastric emptying, crumbs of comfort are difficult to digest and can remain in the stomach for up to 8 hours. Not many people know that
Comments
Experts can't prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. Only he knows that and you have to judge all the preliminary lead up relationship, the actions of Reeva that night and the incredible amount of "coincidences" that would have had to occur that just happen to all be present, to believe he's lying.
If he denied he shot her, that's a whole different ballgame. But this is not a who-dunnit, it's an if he dunnit.
Just because a cat happens to be sitting by the milk dish doesn't mean it drank the milk if there's no milk on its puss.
Which as you are no doubt aware does not constitute a legal defence of any sort in this case. Yet you are right, it is precisely how OP has argued throughout. It's baffling and I cannot see what he hopes to achieve by doing it. It's likely to end very badly indeed for him unless roux changes it back to self defence in closing.
BIB - If you believe wholesale OP's version of events......
We have this long complex and at times baffling account from OP how the evening played out.
IT could be so simple as 'Angry man shoots woman he was arguing with in fit of rage'...it doesn't have be premeditated or anything of the sort. Just a spur of the moment thing. That scenario (proven time and time again throughout history) is far more likely on the balance of probabilities than OP's complicated story.
I forgot where I saw the image but found it back again here: http://www.biznews.com/health-biznews-com/2014/04/oscar-pistorius-reason-not-guilty-murder/
But indeed I found also several other images where he shoots with the right hand.
So, no issue - sorry for the confusion!
It's called red mist....or purple mist as one of latest FM describes it....Can you imagine living in a society were Red Mist violence was allowed to go unpunished.
What happens when his body leaves his brain to handle things again? (must say ... contrary to the normal run of things ... his brain shouldn't be allowed to handle anything) .. how many accidents is too many?
He showed he was thinking clearly when he talked about not firing a warning shot in case it ricocheted and hit him. He can't now say he was just firing in a panic. Why didn't he shoot at the b**t*rds coming up the ladder? No shots fired through open window yet he was equally fearful about that threat. Hogwash!
Cat has milk round his chops and says it wasn't me on several occasions is a problem for me.
Hi
I can only attempt to answer your first question, but I see someone has already answered your second one:)
We were not allowed to hear details of the autopsy, but we do know that the bullet that went into her head broke up (exploded) inside. I assume this would have caused considerable internal bleeding that got into her mouth?/airway.
Your last sentence proves that you don't really understand circumstantial evidence.
A dish full of milk five minutes ago, now empty with a cat sitting beside it licking it's whiskers.
Circumstantial evidence that the cat drank the milk.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You and certain others seem to think that evidence can only mean photographic or video evidence of the cat drinking the milk. Until you understand that it doesn't, then you will simply fail to make the slightest sense to those of us who DO understand.
I know you're ignoring me now, V4.
That's fine and I don't blame you. I wouldn't have the guts to debate with me either if I were you ;-)
That someone being unfortunately poor Reeva, if everyone went about recklessly blasting off bullets into closed toilet doors, because they heard noises and thought they could be intruders, there would be a hell of a lot of dead partners and kids found behind those doors.
You know, at the beginning of this trial, I was willing to believe that Oscar was telling the truth about what happened that night. But after listening to the evidence put before the court, I believe he knew it was Reeva in the cubicle. The main evidence that led me to this belief was the statements of witnesses, who heard a woman screaming, and also the probability that Reeva would have made her presence known, either before he started shooting, or after the first shot. Oh, and the evidence of the gastric contents.
Would have to disagree
Bear in mind Dixon acknowledged he had no accredited expertise in a lot of the subjects he testified on. He admitted to being a layman most of the time so in that sense he had an excuse for his poor performance.
However, Wolmarans is an accredited expert with 45 years experience in forensic ballistics. Have a look at his website to see how good he is supposed to be. We had a right to expect him to be an excellent witness. However he was disastrous.
So on that basis comparing the two, Wolmarans has to be judged worse
Re-opening the case, the 10% was in Professor Lundgren's report. She had read Saayman's report but told the court she did know Reeva had 200ml in her stomach, despite it being in Saayman's report.
She had the luxuary of being able to ask the accuse what exactly they ate that night and how it was prepared, also what they had to drink. But she never spoke to or asked the accused.
Take RS out of the equation....he was still prepared to blindly fire off 4 shots into an enclosed space...knowing full well the likely outcome....some will argue it could have been an armed intruder....but equally it could of been a 12yr old petty thief....you just cannot justify his actions....it's both frightening and unbelievably reckless behavior.....which just can't be allowed to go unpunished.
Lol.
Trying to catch up because at work >:(
Has it been established which type of bullet OP used?
V's post has confused me!
It is a feature of this trial just how many reports are 'read' without the contents being fully digested so as to speak
First time posting on this thread although have been reading for a while as and when i can and trying to keep up with trial updates time permitting.
Apologies if this has already been asked but something i am confused about and can't seem to find a definite answer.
If Oscar's version of events is completely true and he did shoot into the toilet believing it to be an intruder and not thinking it was Reeva at all but some person unknown to him then what does that mean legally?
Does a guilty verdict rely only on him knowing it was Reeva? If the judge decides he is telling the truth were his actions acceptable self defence or is it still murder or culpable homicide because he did not see an intruder or hear a verbal threat?
I have read a few expert opinions but still feel confused,can anyone clarify?
Body and brain had to work in conjunction quite a bit to achieve the end result, and at which point did the body leave the brain to take over? When not checking to see if Reeva was in the bedroom, loading the gun with illegal bullets, strafing down the bedroom corridor, standing in the bathroom and then once again not checking if Reeva was in the bathroom before firing, or are you suggesting it was only at the very end of this sequence of actions when the shots (all four of them including a change of aim) were actually fired that the adrenalin took over? That would be somewhat convenient.
Also if this is the end result of OP's brain taking over what does that say about him as an individual? We all experience fear, adrenalin, anger and a host of other emotions and instinctive physiological reactions, but we don't all end up shooting someone four times as a result. I don't think adrenalin is a satisfactory line of defence.
I do not agree with the methodology because it is obviously flawed :
200 cc is equal to 37% of 538 cc … not 10%
This contradicts your own starting premise… therefore you cannot agree with your methodology either.
Precisely…
Reeva could not have eaten a meal 4 hours before TOD because said meal would have had to be over 2 liters… which is in fact ludicrous… that's the whole point of the exercise.
… therefore the Court must accept Saayman opinion that Reeva ate a meal 2 hours prior to TOD.
BiB… proved by whom ?
I do not remember any evidence given in Court as per the volume or size of Reeva's last meal.
Indeed… these were my closing arguments
Thanks!
According to the defence expert on gastric emptying, crumbs of comfort are difficult to digest and can remain in the stomach for up to 8 hours. Not many people know that