Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

Voice one of the police photographers, whose name escapes me, said he "spread" the duvet out to photograph it but I believe he said it was already on the floor. I'm not sure how much he spread it though, if you get my drift. Was it crumpled up, or was it already relatively flat? We are not told. OP of course says it was still on the bed.

I don't think there was blood spatter on the bed itself (ie top of the sheet) although there is on the wall above it. I can't remember where I read this, I was looking at several websites yesterday but it was probably Sky.

That would be helpful if they do Voice. At the moment it's all a bit over excited on here in places!

I'm sure all of us have questions regarding apparent omissions by Nel thus far regarding evidence but I don't presume to know better than him...

Voice I agree. All I "know" is that if he hasn't introduced something in evidence already, he can't bring it later. But presumably he can elaborate on something he has already touched upon briefly?

Does it seem odd that most of the forensics verify OP's story but the crime scene photos muddy the water.
Captain Chris Mangena confirmed OP was standing on his stumps when he opened fire and killed his girlfriend. Captain Christian Mangema accepted that some shots could have been fired from the back wall of the bathroom. Blood spatter analyst, Colonel Ian Van der Nest testified that the spatter on the stairs leading to the bedroom was consistent with Mr Pistorius's account of carrying Steenkamp's body down the stairs, and that much of the splatter had come from the model's blood-soaked hair. He believed she sustained the head wound close to the toilet.. One source of heavy blood flow was over the toilet seat into the bowl and another onto the floor next to the toilet. Van der Nest said he found no evidence that any bleeding had been the result of a blunt force. Col Van der Nest told the court his findings matched the reconstruction of events provided by Capt Mangena, but he also agreed with the version of events given by Mr Pistorius in his affidavit during his bail application last year. Colonel Gerhard Vermeulen did endorse Pistorius's account that the shooting through the door came before the bat was used. It seems with the exception of colonel J.G. Vermeulen who testified that Pistorius was on the stumps of his amputated legs when he knocked down a locked toilet door with a cricket bat to reach his shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Which seems a little hard to believe and the time of last meal which can be argued as a very difficult thing to determine the forensics back up OP's story. In addition to the fact that OP has made several statements in his testimony that make him look bad and hard to explain according to the crime scene lead me to think that perhaps his story is true for the most part and he felt he had nothing to hide by telling the truth. It seems the photos are the main thing that casts doubt on his story and we know some things have been moved around. It has always been said forensics don't lie, people do.

Nerf and Louise...do you fancy you are cross examining me?

It is widely accepted that for brain damage to be avoided you have 4 minutes to re establish the breathing, 6 minutes without oxygen will stop the heart. Why would Staayman have to comment on such basically accepted first aid knowledge?
Or indeed me?

Thank you voiceofgodot, I have already said that the best arguments I have considered have come from DS supported by evidence. I have also watched and rewatched the trial itself to test my memory (to the point of giving myself a migraine trying to fit OP's timeline in).
I am not about to go back and forward gathering links again to convince anyone here. Either join me on DS to argue it out there or simply wait and see! You can also choose to dismiss me out of hand, or indeed try and patronise me by saying I am speculating or getting over excited!
OP's timeline is so far out it simply cannot be given any credibility ie not breathing for 25min yet still enough heartbeat to cause arterial spurt? Do me a favour!

My mistake has been to blindly accept what I have been told on here without finding and checking out evidence for myself. I wont do that again and nor should you, however I am not going to spoonfeed you the way you think Nel should in court, before his closing statement

As for the anticipated animation from the defense. I don't think this will be provided, especially not from the crucial time of the first bangs until the death of that poor woman. The reason being it cannot happen the way OP suggests!

Op said the quilt was on the bed, the first police photograph is of the quilt on the floor where they found it, the second when they opened it up to make an initial examination of it. They are not seeking to deceive anyone. Indeed what would their motive be for doing so?
There was no blood on the bed, only above it.

I think Nel has already blown enough holes in OP's defense to be able to give a clear summing up. By revealing his closing argument at this stage would invite Roux to bring on more defence evidence to counter. Judge Masipa will hear both closing statements and give her judgement with a full disclosure of her reasons.

Sorry my gratitude should have been directed at Springy not Voice for the DS referrence.

The forensics cannot signify or verify intent and I think that's the issue people have with OP. The crime scene photos are hardly the only thing that muddies the waters.
There's OP's ability to reason against firing a warning shot yet saying he did not make a conscious decision to shoot 4 times into a small room. There's his shouting to 'get out his house' without adding the warning he was armed. And, also, personally I just can't make the timeline work, and from memory the forensics witnesses did not testify on whether the timeline OP provided fitted with their evidence. Not to forget the testimony from the neighbours.
If the only confusion was over some crime scene photos then I think OP would be feeling pretty confident just now.

Last 'bang' 3.17. Call to netcare made by Stander on OP's phone 3.28. btw>

Nerf and Louise...do you fancy you are cross examining me?

It is widely accepted that for brain damage to be avoided you have 4 minutes to re establish the breathing, 6 minutes without oxygen will stop the heart. Why would Staayman have to comment on such basically accepted first aid knowledge?
Or indeed me?

Since I know nothing about first aid, I wondered how where you got such a precise figure from especially since I haven't seen a detailed account of exactly what Dr Staayman said, merely a precis. There's no need to be defensive at what was a legitimate question.

upnorth I too think quite a lot of things support OPs version and if people could get over their ridicule at OP screaming like a girl, then I think the testimony of the Stipps would also fit OPs version (as Nel would say).

Even if he if is telling the truth then he was extremely reckless but I don't see the point of speculation that he may, amongst other things, have had a gun in one hand and a cricket bat in the other to use in alternate fashion on the lavatory door and may have even planned to dispose of the body.

I do, however, look forward to a discussion of the testimony given once the court resumes

C&P'd from a post on DS. I can add a lot more if you like but here you are for statrers!

he said he was on the balcony, and then he said he wasn't.

One fan was slightly on the balcony. It does seem to be splitting hairs to put much significance into "on the balcony" No doubt as he lifted the fan in his hands might have been "on the balcony"

He said they both went to sleep, and then HE did.

I never saw any significance in this. If he was asleep he would not have known whether Reeva was awake or not. Its not relevant anyway since he said they spoke before he got up.

He said the magazine rack was 'further over', even though the blood pool and his OWN witnesses say differently.

Another instance of when he could have just lied to fit in with the other evidence but did not

He said the fan was on the duvet when it couldn't have been.

How do we know it could not have been?

He said he didn't pull the trigger on the Glock, and it went off magically whilst he was holding it.

He insists that his two friends were collaborating about the sun roof shooting, when their stories were demonstrably different.

I have never really taken much interest in the lesser charges. They are only useful in determining his state of mind when he pulled the trigger. If the "accidental" firing tells me anything it is that he is even more likely to have started firing accidentally than on purpose.

He said that Reeva was AFRAID of her FEELINGS for him for goodness sake.

She was afraid of him, but not afraid for her life

And when he's not lying he's evasive, conflates and deliberately misunderstands.

When you look at his evidence through the eyes of someone who mistrusts the system, wants to take his destiny into his own hands and has to deal with unclear and faltering questions from Nel I think you will see his answers differently.

Nel even defended Roux when OP tried to implicate his own defense by saying Roux had advised him that keeping .38 bullets in his safe was legal!

Op couldn't lie straight in his own bed for goodness sake!

I also cannot see where anyone has suggested OP held the bat and the gun at the same time! OP says the first sequence of bangs were down to the gun. He says at that point he was on his stumps. No one has been able to conclusively prove this, not even the experts so why pretend that is the case?
Certainly if it is as OP says, Reeva could not have been spurting arterial blood on the stair 25 minutes from when he claims she was fatally wounded. Incidentally Nest told us that arterial spurt produces a distinctive S shaped spray so this could not have been cast off from RS's hair.

Still we can always choose to ignore or disbelieve the experts and wait for the summing up!

I'm not sure why you have to be so sure of yourself YNK. By all accounts this is a highly complex case with some difficult legal ground to cover. You however seem to think it's a piece of piss.

We've had 5 threads of almost completely reasonable discussion and respectful exchanges between people who hold differing opinions. Your posts are verging on the hysterical in that you are so convinced of your rightness that the rest of us might as well stop posting. Or perhaps we could carry on as we were before and keep this thread an enjoyable place to post thoughts on the trial.

Not long until it starts up again....

Vioice, this thread 5 is markedly different from the rest.

I have only just returned, mainly to catch up before next Monday, but am a bit dismayed at some of the post(er)s

I'll choose to believe or disbelieve experts once I have heard them all. We are only at the start of the defence case, after all.

Aaah so sorry if I am spoiling your enjoyment Voice. Hell a woman has only been murdered!

Why would I not want to be sure before I say what I think? That's a silly thing to say! In fact when I haven't been sure I HAVE clearly said so!

Perhaps I should keep it zipped so you can carry on having a jolly good time

I agree with you Springy I`m standing back on this thread as it is different at times downright strange from the others, but will come back next week, as the trial resumes.

Yes, OneStep, I'm out too.

As I said earlier, GD on Digital Spy is like this. If I wanted that experience I would be posting there.

See you on 5th

"We've had 5 threads of almost completely reasonable discussion and respectful exchanges between people who hold differing opinions. Your posts are verging on the hysterical in that you are so convinced of your right"

Hey Voice give over getting personal with posters!

Thread 5 has been perfectly fine.

And YNK you talk sense so don't stop posting.

YNK no I have no interest in cross examining you, despite your best attempts at being the prosecution lawyer. I just find your posting style exhausting tbh and I would prefer to go back to just talking about what was said and the possible outcomes. Don't do the whole a woman has been murdered guff - you are the one posting most frequently and most forcefully. Plus you seem to need to do this on two (at least) forums.

Aaah so sorry if I am spoiling your enjoyment Voice. Hell a woman has only been murdered!

What a fatuous attempt to take the moral high ground. I too find your posting style exhausting to plough through. You are so convinced you are right that to post other opinions feels like inviting aggressive argument, and I for one am not here to do that.

I don't think YNK is posting most frequently or most forcefully.

Maybe you Nerf, Springy, Voice and Louise need to reflect on your own posting style and tedious spin. It's getting boring!

Tedious spin? On what exactly? I don't even have a firm opinion one way or the other so no need for me to spin anything, thank you very much.

You can put the pitchforks away, love.

Oh give over Voice - defending OP is what you four do very well.

It's too much.

And don't call me love.