Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

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

but, you know what, some of us have been repeatedly told on several threads that the defence and prosecution have both agreed the shots came first. Every time someone suggests otherwise there are always posters who come on and say 'not true, it's been shown in court and agreed by everyone'

so having you come here and say the opposite has opened up that discussion again where it had been continually closed down as 'not a possibility'.

I am annoyed with myself for taking what they said as the truth so would be really grateful to anyone who can give supported reasons why their version of a whole court in agreement is not true.

I've just provided more links which I will go through when I have time.

Louise, maybe it's here...

This is Roux's cross examination of Colonel Johannes Vermeulen. I think it's best if I watch the prosecution THEN the Defence ones.

From The Telegraph summary of March 12

" When he was giving evidence earlier Lt Col Vermeulen pointed to bullet holes and cracks in the door made by bat, saying that they would be differently formed if shots were fired after the bat attack. As Aislinn Laing in court points out, that's critically important evidence and backs up Pistorius's account - that he shot at the door then tried to break it down with the bat. "

From memory (so it may be incorrect!) the original testimony regarding the order was that the bat came first. Then, under Roux' cross questioning it was conceeded that the evidence proved some of the shots came after the cricket bat.

Nel didn't return to clarify afterwards which is why it looked as though the prosecution were letting the evidence rest in agreement that it was shots/bat.

However, what isn't clear to me is if Nel would leave that open and simply return to it in his closing arguments/report or whether he would have definitely have taken the opportunity to clarify the order.

Perhaps the order was mixed - bat - shots - bat.

I must admit it doesn't make sense to me that if the door was broken that OP would shoot through the door and not through the gap iyswim but it really doesn't matter what seems sensible to me!

Although since the neighbours didn't seem to be able to distinguish between the sounds of the bat and the shots, I guess it's feasible that any noise could have been either the bat or the shots and that they don't have to have been grouped together?

OK I found this (and now must get back to work!)

livenews.sky.com/Event/Pistorius_Trial_Day_Eight_Live_Court_Transcripts?Page=6

"Roux: When shots were fired, the door was intact?
Vermeulen: That is true, my lady.
Roux: Whats you view, was the door hit after the shots?
Vermeulen: My lady, in my view the door was hit after the shots. There is a crack here. There had to be a hole in the door, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through

Thank you Saker and Louise for providing some facts from the actual trial itself.

In the interests of clarity:
Perhaps the order was mixed - bat - shots - bat.
^^ That was my conjecture - not the court's!
Saker I read all the reports from the Telegraph at the beginning and thought they were great. Then I started listening to the testimony and realised that The Telegraph quite often missed really important naunces when they were summarising. It was a real eye-opener!

sorry for all these links, I am just trying to help with the understanding of teh Bat/Shots/Door eviedence...

Day 8 transcripts from the day Vermeulen was called to the stand to talk about the door and bat Wednesday 12th March - day 8.

tweets from Day 9 Thursday 13th march

day ten Friday 14th March

As I have said before, Nel will not state his conclusions at this point because it would lead to the defense 'tailoring' and then he would have to counter. Thus the whole trial would become a crazy merry-go-round. When Nel came close to drawing a conclusion at one point, Judge Masipa sharply reminded him that she would draw her own inference from the evidence!

Stack, I know, I know......when I suggested here first that the order of the groupings was gun first and bat second I was given a spectacular flaming.

This is why I have gone over the trial again and again and consulted several other sources.

I should have stuck to my guns. I would have saved myself a massive migraine the other day trying to make things fit to OP's story!

^ Stack, I know, I know......when I suggested here first that the order of the groupings was gun first and bat second I was given a spectacular flaming.

Sorry I mean bat first gun second (and probable bat again!!!!
I am getting brain fog again, clearly, but I'm sure you know what I said previously!

when I suggested here first that the order of the groupings was gun first and bat second I was given a spectacular flaming.

Do you mean the other way round?

Crossed post

s

justone more question..

Is OP saying he was on his legs when he used the bat? Not his stumps?

He says he went and put on his p legs after the first sequence of bangs, so he is claiming the second sequence of bangs happened on his p legs.
Vermeulen got a good grilling by Roux to try and disprove his testimony that the bat incident was when OP was on stumps. Roux failed to sway Mr V from his evidence.

just reading the transcripts:

Roux: We will prove that, that mark was in fact created by the prosthesis kicking the door.

Roux: Is it significant to you that there is a mark on that door caused by the prosthesis?

Vermeulen: My lady, pieces of the panel were ripped out by breaking open the door. So that mark could have been caused by him walking over the door.
Roux: Do you serious contend, that the mark was caused by him walking?

Vermeulen: We are speculating, that it could have been caused by OP trying to get into the bathroom to get to the deceased.

Roux: I am trying to explain to you that the prosthesis was tested, the marks were tested and they all match

So was DIXON the 'expert' who was supposed to prove this?

"He says he went and put on his p legs after the first sequence of bangs, so he is claiming the second sequence of bangs happened on his p legs.
Vermeulen got a good grilling by Roux to try and disprove his testimony that the bat incident was when OP was on stumps. Roux failed to sway Mr V from his evidence."

thank you - So I am correct in thinking that Mr V's evidence was that OP was on his stumps when using the bat (whatever the sequence) , and this hasn't been disproved?

Sorry I did it again. First sequence on stumps (possibly???? - not established conclusively) BAT
Second sequence on p legs GUN.

Time I took my little bruised brain out for a walk with the dogs so I can lift the fog!!!

Yes that's right Stack. Vermulen said the bat incident would have been unnatural from p legs.

so the evidence he gave would suggest that OP is lying when he says he was on his stumps when he used the bat?

Correct again Stack.
Despite all of his efforts Roux was unable to sway Verneulen.

I cant take the dogs out now. It's persisting down here. Thanks for keeping me talking Stack.....I would have got soaked

Sorry

I meant

so the evidence he gave would suggest that OP is lying when he says he was on his prosthetics when he used the bat?

what I mean is the evidence suggests he WAS on his stumps but OP says he had gone to put his legs on?

Sorry if I have muddied the waters further!

Stack thanks for posting all the links.
For some reason, I thought it had been said earlier that the SKY transcipts were official transcripts from the state stenographer but the ones I'm reading it have been posted by a SKY news reporter. I think I'll try to listen to the original testimony again.

Definitely, according to all the reports I've read,Nel's comments at the start of the trial implied the prosecution were questioning which noises were the shots (and hence the order of the shots and bat noises):

^Nel interjected that the States case was that the shots fired at 3.17am were the shots that caused Steenkamps death and the screams heard before the shots were those of Steenkamp. It was agreed that the wounds she sustained would have stopped her screaming any further.
Roux stated it was common cause that the accused fired four shots, and it was therefore not possible for there to have been two volleys of shots.
Nel stepped in to explain that there appeared to have been two sets of noises which the witness believes were shots.
We say the deceased was alive and screaming. At 3.17 the four gunshots killed her. We will deal with things if we have discrepancies between our witnesses. But for now we say there was one set of shots and object to Mr Roux saying that she could not have screamed before 3.17am, Nel said.^

Pheeeew!
At last I am vindicated!
I won't hold my breath waiting for apologies from all who called me names and attempted to humiliate me into submission!

No hard feelings though, it is a complicated case.