Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

No it wasn't conclusive, voice.
The confusion was created by Mangena (balistics) saying ONE of the holes, I think d, had a deviation due to being stuck, however this could have happened when the door panel was broken FURTHER after the fatal shot.
The door was probable broken in at the top of the panel before the gunshots, (the man with the beige blazer (I cant remember his name) demonstrated how the bat could be used to lever out the panel easily if it had already been broken.
If this is the most probable scenario (and I believe it was then it would)
1 - allow in the light seen by the Stipps,
2 - make it easy to access the toilet after the gunshot,
3 - allow OP to see/hear RS in order to adjust his aim on the final 3 shots to make sure they were fatal.

The prosecution have presented all their evidence, so I don't think it is possible for them to now make any definite claims about the first set of shots being anything other then gun shots.

As surely if they proof the first set of bangs were not gun shots, they would have said so during their case, especially as it would be a massive point in their favour and something to hugely grill OP about.

Remember, the defence goes last in order to respond to the case the State has put, so the State can't suddenly start introducing new facts during the defence case.

There has been no evidence put forward for the first set of bangs being anything other then gun shots.

As has been repeatedly said on these threads (to the point where it almost needs to be in the thread title) - both State and Defence agree the door was shot by bullets before being hit with a bat.

I think Andrew Harding of the BBC has it right when he says that people are waiting for some huge smoking gun to be revealed that will prove what happened, but this won't happen. That's what makes it such a difficult case.

I agree Gosh. That's the thing YNK - surely the State would have put all of this forward and posited to OP that his version couldn't possibly be correct given the pattern of arterial spurt?

Nel said it to OP enough times during his time in the stand, I am sure if the forensic evidence was strong enough on this point it would have been mentioned by him already?

Just read YNK's post.

If you think the State have any actual proof that OP shot Reeva, bashed in the door with a bat and then shot her again, you seriously think they wouldn't have mentioned it in their own case?

1. During their own case is when they get to put forward their version of events.

2)The defence then get to respond to what the state has said.

YNK your post is pointless speculation, not based on facts or any knowledge of the legeal process.

The state cannot call any witnesses now. To clearly outline your version as possible, Nel would need the ballistics expert and crime scene officer to testify again, which they cannot do.

Nel himself cannot just outline a whole new version just by countering defence experts, that's why he mocked Dixon's work but did not introduce anything new to counter him.

Nor can Nel bring in anything new in his closing.

Your posts smack of lurid speculation unhindered by facts.

The state has already presented all the facts I have mentioned and they have been corroborated by several witnesses.

Where people are becoming confused is that Nel will not draw a conclusion until his final statement.
The facts are there but it is the judge who has to come up with the judgement, NOT Nel and NOT Roux. They are NOT allowed to spoonfeed us. We need to listen to all the evidence carefully. Masipa had to remind Nel at one point that she will draw her own inference from the evidence.

Gosh, gosh! .

Get your facts right before having a go!

I have said the experts and witnesses have corroberated satisfactorily already that the most probable sequence is
Door bashed with bat at 3am
Reeva shot at 3.17
Door levered open after that!

If you think my posts are pointless, I have already welcomed those who don't like them (or me) to simple scroll on by.
You don't have to accept my help if you don't want it!

YNK - no one has gone on record saying the door was bashed before the shots. Links please if you have any proof of anything different.

No one has put forward that timeline either, don't you think it's odd if such a damning timeline had been put forward by the state tnbat there has been no discussion of that timeline whatsoever on any of these threads?

None of the prosecution witnesses testified that the door had been bashed before the shots. They would have to directly state this so that Roux could counter it.

Nel can only draw his conclusions from the facts clearly stated in court, he cannot bring in any new ones.

In the court case we have all been watching, your version of events has not been put forward at all,not the state witnesses, nor to the defendant, therefore he cannot refer to it.

If Nel thought your version was true, he would absolutely have to put it to OP, backed up with testimony from the State witnesses as to why it was the case. He didn't do that. He cannot do that in his closing.

Your posts are not helpful, they are nonsensical.

"I have said the experts and witnesses have corroberated satisfactorily already that the most probable sequence is
Door bashed with bat at 3am
Reeva shot at 3.17
Door levered open after that! "

ok - the last few threads there have been several posts claiming that the shots definitely happened first.

Is this not true then?

Can you link to the day's evidence that shows experts saying the above is the most probable sequence? and if this is the case then why are so many people on here saying it was shots THEN bats?

Go back over it all Gosh. It's all there. I am not about to spoonfeed you after you have been so unnecessarily rude to me!
The timeline is supported by 3 pathologists. blood spatter expert, eye witnesses, sound witnesses and phone records.
The man in the beige blazer, Mangena and Dixon could not disprove it either.

As I say, wait until the final summaries and the Judges decision. One of us will have to eat the others shorts then and I am quite confident it won't be me !!

at having to eat the other one's shorts.

" I am not about to spoonfeed you after you have been so unnecessarily rude to me! "

could you spoonfeed me as I haven't been rude. I actually think there is a possibility that he shot after hitting the door but I would really like to see what I and others seem to have missed.

Just a quick link to the day it was discussed or something?

I put together a pretty comprehensive list of links on the last thread but would need to trawl through them all to find the evidence I think you are saying is there.

The timeline is supported by 3 pathologists. blood spatter expert, eye witnesses, sound witnesses and phone records.

Just a hint on the names of the pathologists please so I know what to look for?

I found this - day ten. Goiong to go through it and see what was discussed in the days before and after.

Ah no - that's the police photographs. Hang on...

ok

Day six Prof. Saayman; Mr. Ferreria; Oldwage. post-mortem.

Day Seven Tweets more post mortem.

I can see Colonel Gerhard Vermeulen was recalled about the Cricket bat evidence so going to try to find that too.

video footage of Johannes Gerhard Vermeulen's evidence

Stack the only ones who have said the storyline is 1 -guns first group of bangs, 2 -bat second is OP himself along with his defense team!

Believe that if you want but the smoking gun is (Last time I will say this FFS!).......

3 pathologists agree RS could only have had 3 breaths in her after the fatal shot.
Heartbeat can only continue for about 6 minutes after last breath (basic first aid knowledge)
Arterial spurts on stairs (bloodspatter expert)
Reeva tended my Dr Stipp at bottom of stair, observed cadaver clenching and milky cornea ie evidence of death.
Record of call to netcare on op's phone by Stander witnessed by Stipp at 3.28.

OP's story that he killed RS at 3am is conclusively proved to be a LIE!!

Carry on with your delusions or check out my assertions with the aid of youtube!

Stack I wasnt going to comment again until the trial resumes, but since this is factual info not speculation, heres a little bit of spoonfeeding and no, you havent been rude at all by the way.

Prof. Gert Saayman (Prosec.) a prcis only of his evidence allowed and I can't find a detailed account of it 11th March
Prof. Jan Botha (Def) 7 April (Reggie Perumal (Def) will not take the stand. No reason give, it could be something as simple as scheduling since the case has wildly overrun)

Many of us listening also believe that the guns first/bat second has been agreed by both sides. Of course maybe we are listening to a different trial?

Sorry I have no idea why those weird questionmarks keep appearing. I did type normally!

"Stack the only ones who have said the storyline is 1 -guns first group of bangs, 2 -bat second is OP himself along with his defense team"

but lots of people on these threads have stated that this is a fact proven during the trial by the experts.

I wondered if you could point me and others to where it shows it was not actually proven to be the case, but in fact shown to be the opposite. Because so many people here believe now that the bat happened after the bullets.

Carry on with your delusions or check out my assertions with the aid of youtube!

I hope you are not calling me delusional when I am actually asking you to provide me with some information that will satisfy my belief that there is a real possibility that the shots came after the bat.

I, and several others, have been told repeatedly that the bat can't possibly have been used before the shots. Some of us agree with your assertion that the door may have been hit first. So help us out, because it 's really annoying to be told over an over again by people that the Shots definitely came first when you are now saying that this isn't the case and that it has been corroberated satisfactorily already that the most probable sequence is Door bashed with bat at 3am Reeva shot at 3.17
Door levered open after that!

where was this corroberated, what day of evidence and by whom?

Genuine question.

And i AM trying to find it on you tube but a little bit of help would be great if you know the answer.

"Many of us listening also believe that the guns first/bat second has been agreed by both sides. "

Louise, maybe you can explain why you believe that this has been agreed by both sides?

Ok Stack I have looked at all your links and I have seen nothing to dispute the inference I have taken from the evidence in court.

Incidentally did you look at any of the legal discussion programmes I linked to earlier? Legal minds have also accepted the same inference I have (repeatedly) posted.
I have NOT come to my conclusions all by myself. Neither am I in a minority of one in my conclusions. I am neither that bloody clever or arrogant!

Indeed this is the ONLY place I have encountered such dogged belief in OP's timeline of events!

Stack it is my understanding (and please bear with me if I can't produce a link as I am at work and shouldn't be doing this at all. I can try and find one tonight) that Col Vermeulen (13th March) agreed that the door was broken with the bat after the shots had been fired.

If I'm wrong I am happy to be corrected

ok...

Can't find more sessions for this day ...

The door, Nel with witness

I don't think the prosecution have ever agreed that the second set of sounds was the bat, but I am not sure. I suppose the amount of effort that Roux went to early on to try and convince witnesses that the second set of sounds was the bat would suggest that it hadn't been agreed at least at that point. It would also suggest that Roux and OP felt this was a potentially weak point in their case.

It is true that the prosecution put forward evidence that OP was on his stumps when hitting the door with the cricket bat. (However I think the defence argued that the door had been damaged by the police.) If we believe that he was on his stumps, then we have to ask why he would lie and say he put his prosthetics on before picking up the cricket bat.

Also Annette Stipp testified to having heard screaming in between the two sets of shots which would fit with him trying to break down the door first.

However I don't recollect the prosecution saying anything at all about the order of the shots, but I haven't seen the transcripts for every day and it is so hard to find the right bits now!