Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

[StackALee]

Just listening to Mr Johnson's testimony and both his neighbours heard very little. One heard nothing and they think because of the air conditioning unit. The other only heard the one bang because they were asleep and have a big fan over their bed.

Thought it was interesting RE the conversations earlier about sound.

[crazybutterflylady]

I can't immediately see if this has already been posted but this profile of Judge Masipa is very interesting:

m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/05/the-woman-who-will-judge-oscar-pistorius.html

[member]

I'm a bit the same after the recess BeCool

A picture of Black Talon bullet on left & Ranger bullet on the right. Apparently OP used black - tipped Ranger ammunition.

[JillJ72]

Thank you Roussette and Stack. Right, back to the top of pt 7.

[OneStepCloser]

Ooops meant to say, thank you Rousette for starting another thread.....will this be the last?!

[Kelly1814]

Loving this thread.

Stupid question alert: wa the bathroom door definitely locked? I thought I had read that it wasn't.

In which case I wasn't sure of the need to beat it down with a cricket bat.

[JillJ72]

OneStep - I can imagine this may not be the last thread as there will be the break whilst the judge is reviewing and then I'm sure we'll all be back for the verdict, sentencing.... and maybe we'll convene again if anything comes after that....

And pages 33 to 40 on part 6 were, I think, filled this morning alone!

[Hillwalker]

As I understand it, This question of the door being locked goes to the heart of the bat first vs gun first issue. The defence say OP shot then had to break the door down with a cricket bat because it was locked. The prosecution say OP used the bat first then shot, in which case the door may not have been locked. We only have OP's word that it was locked.

[OneStepCloser]

True Jill

[crazybutterflylady]

Andrew Harding was asked the question on twitter re how much longer. He said around 3 weeks till the arguments!

[JillJ72]

Interesting.... Just reading Andrew Harding's tweets. Pt 6 caught onto gastric emptying and anxiety may delay that.... But looking at AH's feed, sleeping, smoking, alcohol, meds, slimming drugs, eating disorders can also delay.

So, the prosecution could still make this fit their argument theory. But it could also still fit the defence's assertions.

[JillJ72]

... and that what they ate may mean digestion took longer, ie: vegetables in story fry. Guess it depends if they were still crunchy or if they were soft.

[JillJ72]

Story fry? I've missed my vocation (publishing recipes). Stir fry, iPad, stir fry.

[OneStepCloser]

We dont know if she took drugs, slimming pills etc do we, wouldnt that of shown up in a toxiclogy report? (Am I again asking things that have been dealt with already? With 7 threads Im not sure whats been said or not, agghh)<br /> <br /> Eating just before sleeping is a golden dont` rule for people losing weight and I would presume models, as far as I know. So I would find it odd if she ate really late.

[JillJ72]

Unfortunately I don't know what's what in terms of toxicology as I have Stack's full list to one day listen to.... I managed to listen live for one day only when working from home, but otherwise I have no chance of doing so at my desk... but I do dip into MN at lunch.... hence being taken by surprise by just how fast pt 6 had filled up this morning!

[Mortalengines]

I've actually been following this thread from around Part 4 and finally thought I might wade in every now and then - this has honestly been the most well-educated, unbiased (with a few exceptions) and polite discussions on the trail out there and I'd love to join in. Also an extra thanks to the likes of Looking and Stack for all the transcripts and work in helping us understand the testimonies.

About today - I didn't get a chance to actually directly watch anything aside from the (IMO very very boring and pointless) testimony from the ballistics expert, though unlike Mr Dixon, he seems alot more qualified to actually talk about the subject. I did however keep up with the live commentary going on anyway.

I (personally) found the social worker testimony to be full of bias right from the start. I find it incredibly foolhardy of the defence to put forward a witness that admits to wanting to come forward for OP's sake, feeling that he is persecuted or something (I know it's not her exact words, but it's how she came off). Not saying the media hasn't been unfair to him, I just find it a very very strange reasoning that leads itself to questioning her motives, regardless if she really just wants honest justice to be served.

Not only that, she literally added nothing to the actual points of important contention. Yes Nel did lend himself to this sort of thing with his attempts of character assassination in OP's cross-examination and the defence has a right to challenge it (as per the Judge's decision on Nel's objection), but really her whole statement was pretty much inadmissivable, she kept stating what OP 'felt' (which she can never know) and everything else she said merely was a parrot of what OP said to her, which really isn't much more than we could get from his bail or the cross-examination of him. This I think is highlighted with her saying 'He loved her' (or something to that effect).

I have similar views on the worth of the anaesthetist, but I'll write my thoughts on that later. I'm not sure how the ballistics will go (ATM it seems to also add little), but right now it seems the defence is really grasping at straws with their witnesses. In fact, parts only strengthen state's case (e.g the discussion of OP admitting to a 'mistake' again, knocking his case once more). What even is the defence now? Involuntary action or self-defence?!

[Mortalengines]

*trial
*lends
*inadmissible

Sorry, I'm a little tired right now, had a full day haha. Sorry for the spelling errors (and also nice to meet you all!)

[OneStepCloser]

Hey, Welcome Mortalengines Totally agree with the SW witness today, thought she did more harm than good and cant see any point to her being there tbh.

Live Feed kept crashing during the ballistics evidence so I will have to gleam it from here i think.

[Mortalengines]

Thanks for the welcome Step, it's good to be here! The ballistics was to say the least, very confusing. It was hard to see the point the defence was going for until towards the end of it. Though I believe it's not finished. I was interrupted with a phone call, so I was half listening, but there's apparently some evidence that Roux sees as too much for public viewing/listening and wishes it to be submitted without the cameras and the judge upheld the request. What that was someone else will have to say.

From what I recall though, ballistics went on about his CV for a long while and then preceded to talk alot about how OP could have used black-tipped ranger rounds (look just like black talon but not, it's apparently collector's) though then conceded that either way the effect is pretty much exactly the same. He then went on to point some holes in the methods used by state to determine Reeva's position at the time of the shooting and some showing of evidence he did with OP's pantry door that is similar to the bathroom one. Again the whole thing adds very little other than maybe some doubt into the state's ballistic techniques. As with the anaesthetist, it's more a case of the defence saying "well you can't 100% say it's this way, state is speculating" which I honestly think is an almost childish way of going about it. Of course state cannot be 100% sure, but it can give the most probable situation. Either way, where the bullets ended up or hit doesn't seem very relevant (to the core of the case) unless defence intends to then extrapolate that OP must have double-tapped or something (or prove that she made a nose to alert OP to justify his shooting).

It was hard to focus, while the ballistics man seemed experienced, he was very hard to understand due to his Afrikaan accent (and he babbled a little).

[Nerf]

Mort - surely the defence has to present possible alternatives? That's not childish, that's how it works. Or do you think they should just roll over and go with what's most likely?

[voiceofgodot]

Trying to catch up and hoping to watch the ballistics guy this evening when the kids are in bed.

A few thoughts re. the gastric emptying testimony today. I thought Lundgren was a good witness overall - clear and consistent. As I was watching it earlier I felt as though Nel was scoring lots of 'points' against her however. But then I remembered that this is all such a small element of one tiny part of the State's case - that she must have eaten later than the 7pm time when OP claims they ate together. OP testified that he couldn't be sure she hadn't eaten later than that, because after all in his version he was asleep - she wasn't necessarily. Can somebody remind me - in his version was it possible for her to go downstairs and fix herself some food later, even if he was asleep? There are so many minute elements to every tiny detail... struggling to keep up!

[Mortalengines]

Nerf - I understand that it's the defence job, but they haven't produced reasons why the state's option is impossible or inconsistent (apart from the maybe the ballistics, but will have to wait till that's finished). All they've essentially said is (in a simplified term) that while the science of the state is correct there is a 2% or 5% or little chance that this other thing could have happened. They never prove their alternative, just state that it is one. You could conjure up all sorts of alternatives to anything just with basic probability, doesn't mean that's the likely scenario. I hope that illustrates my thought process.

[JillJ72]

Voice ref Reeva going downstairs to eat - you will come across the following queries - was the bedroom door locked or unlocked, was the cricket bat propped up against it or not, was the alarm set or not....

[Nerf]

Not really. If you don't present alternatives you are basically leaving those listening thinking there is only one possibility. They are just proving that contrary to the States assertion, she could have eaten later.

[Mortalengines]

Voice - I suppose if she ate the stir-fry twice, it might be impossible to tell which part was eaten when. Not sure, but OP might have said that she couldn't have eaten at the later time (also OP said she couldn't work the alarm, which means she couldn't have gone down without OP not knowing so if state is correct, OP was lying about the alarm OR he was lying about her not eating later). Both of which call OP's honesty into question.