Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

999 replies

Roussette · 08/05/2014 11:55

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

OP posts:
PD6966 · 08/05/2014 22:53

YNK, will watch that. Can you explain why there's not complete footage on YouTube of today's proceedings, just out of interest?

Nerf · 08/05/2014 22:58

Thanks PD, got it now

Nerf · 08/05/2014 22:59

Mortal - thanks,finally understood!

YNK · 08/05/2014 23:07

PD, I dont know as I have watched mostly live and used youtube to rewatch and review, but today I had RL to do this afternoon Shock so I came home really interested since I had heard wonderful things about Woolmaran.

I was gutted for all of about 5mins until I read other sites saying how disappointing it was.
I am led to believe that it looked like OP even nodded off for a bit during his testimony!

I sincerely hope the defense can cover their embarrassment with something earthshattering before they wrap up, partly because I will feel I have wasted my time testing out their (rather good) cross examination of all the experts we have already had!
I feel a bit cheated now!

LouiseBrooks · 08/05/2014 23:14

Precis from the Daily Maverick of Wolmarans testimony so far.

"15.00 So the long-awaited Wolmarans is on the stand at last. Wolmarans is a man of formidable experience who now styles himself as an “independent forensic ballistic expert” with a website proclaiming that: “The truth is nothing more than an obvious fact”. ...

After running through his impressive CV – which included work with the UN in the former Yugoslavia – Wolmarans explained that he first visited the Pistorius house on the 17th of February 2013, just a few days after the Valentine’s shooting. He was there in protective gear to take photos. Though the toilet door had already been removed by police, Wolmarans found a bullet fragment left behind in the bowl (by simple dint of sticking his gloved hand into the toilet and fishing around). He kindly handed it over to police.

Wolmarans explained that the gun used by Pistorius could have been fired as quickly as the shooter’s reflexes allowed. He also clarified that the ammunition used by Pistorius was not “Black Talon”, as was reported, but ranger ammunition – which it appears has exactly the same effect.

Wolmarans proceeded to set the stage for taking issue with the state’s ballistics findings. He said that the way in which the toilet door was reconstructed would have not been exactly accurate, and that the subsequent deviations would have had an impact on state tests conducted with lasers to determine bullet trajectory. Wolmarans also felt that the state had not sufficiently taken into account the deflection potential of the door itself: he stressed that it was impossible to determine the exact direction of the bullet without knowing precisely where it was fired from.

With the aid of his own tests - looking at wood splintering when a door was fired at and comparing those patterns to Steenkamp’s wounds – Wolmarans estimated that Steenkamp’s arm was positioned between 6 and 20 cm away from the door at the time of shooting.

Like former witness Roger Dixon, he disputed the state’s claim that bruising on Steenkamp’s lower back was caused by bullet ricochet fragments, preferring the interpretation that they were caused by falling on to the magazine rack placed in the toilet. Wolmarans also said that although it was hard to determine Steenkamp’s position when Pistorius started firing, he believed that she was upright and leaning forward.

It was dry, technical stuff, but the defence sorely needs some methodical, detailed testimony from a reputable expert witness delivering evidence on a subject that falls squarely within his field. (The defence has previously called a geologist to give evidence on everything from lights to sound, and an anaesthetist to challenge forensic pathology.) Wolmarans looks as if he’s just getting started on taking the court through his report; among the issues he’ll want to deal with tomorrow is the state’s claim that Pistorius fired his gun on his stumps, rather than while wearing his prosthetic legs."

The trouble with ballistics is that it is very complex and I look forward to what he has to say tomorrow.

PD6966 · 08/05/2014 23:28

YNK Thu 08-May-14 22:48:24

That link was definitely worth watching, very interesting summary of how the proceedings are looking.

I'm despondent watching the defence's case. I was really hoping their experts would at the least make me question the state's case. It has not, apart from being uncertain about firing on stumps v prostheses and bullet ricochet v magazine rack bruising on RS back...

AmIthatSpringy · 08/05/2014 23:30

Ive had a busy day and am about ready for bed, but thanks for that post Louise

I will catch up with Wolmarans testimony when I have time at the weekend, but it seems that he will be a good witness for the defence.

I understand he took ages giving his qualifications, but I can see why he did that.

If he hadn't, I'm sure Gerrie Nel would be implying he wasn't qualified.

PD6966 · 08/05/2014 23:30

Thanks Louise Smile

AmIthatSpringy · 08/05/2014 23:31

The food thing seems confusing to me.

If OP was, as he claims, asleep, then Reeva could have got up and eaten at any time.

YNK · 08/05/2014 23:32

oscartrial.dstv.com/video/525804/category/0

I just wish Reeva had read this as part of her DV campaign!

YNK · 08/05/2014 23:36

Sorry about that first link! At least it wasn't another of my music vids Grin

PD6966 · 08/05/2014 23:45

I'm sticking that link on Facebook YNK, it's extremely enlightening.

YNK · 08/05/2014 23:50

I read it first on MN relationship board!

Hillwalker · 08/05/2014 23:58

Incredible how many of those attributes OP displays, YNK. I must keep that article for my dd when she is older.

YNK · 09/05/2014 00:12

Please do Hillwalker!
My daughter and all her friends have had copies and I use it in my work all the time!
IMO it cannot be shared widely enough!

YNK · 09/05/2014 01:21

Nel wil lbe CEing Woolmarans in the morning.
I was so convinced by W's reputation that I am now cringing in advance of a repeat of the Dixon fiasco!

YNK · 09/05/2014 01:26

Actually no, I think Nel will just leave DR W's evidence alone.
It speaks volumes already!

YNK · 09/05/2014 01:38

The toilet..... by Op's own words the door was locked, therefore the 'intruder' was effectively trapped blind to the outside. OP had command of the situation and could move backwards, retreat or position himself quietly to the most favourable position, to take out whoever it was if necessary. He had clear advantage and never needed to have gone forward into danger in the first place. There was absolute certainty that a Black Tallon Bullet fired once into such a tiny and hard walled cubicle would cause injuries, either directly, or from splintering and ricocheting. 4 Bullets is not an accident or a chance happening it is a deliberate and repeated act. Evidence shows that he shifted position and aim from the first to next 3 shots, another sign of intent to kill.

OP himself admitted that he didn't fire a warning round into the nearby shower area as this may have hurt him from the ricocheting etc. Whoever OP thought was behind the door was given no opportunity and strangely never said a word before being ripped to pieces. Anyway, at this point (before shooting) OP knew (according to any of his versions) that Reeva was not behind the Door and wherever she was, she would have rung the police by now or was about too. All he had to do was keep the door covered and it was only a matter of time before help arrived. Perhaps even from the mysterious housekeeper Frank.

Again courtesy of DS - Plankwalker

GoshAnneGorilla · 09/05/2014 03:04

Back to the food issue, I am very surprised the state hasn't provided more evidence to show what was eaten. If Reeva ate later, what did she eat?

OP was charged with murder on the same day, so they should have been combing that house from top to bottom, cataloging everything as possible evidence and that includes searching the bins.

If she ate after they said she did, then there should be some evidence of what she ate left, packaging, peel , etc. Did the stomach contents match a chicken stir fry, as OP said they ate? It's interesting that Stander's testimony (IIRC) describes OP as retching but not vomiting, which would indicate that his stomach was empty.

This is what I find so tricky about this trial, is that outside who died, who did it and how, so much is contested and difficult to prove conclusively.

YNK · 09/05/2014 03:05

Sorry - OP has not helped my insomnia one little bit!

Where, anywhere has Oscar said how awful it must have been for Reeva? Alone and terrified in that toilet!
Not knowing if the next thing she would experience was having her brains blown apart by a hollow point bullet?
It really doesn't bear thinking about!
Her poor, poor mum, listening to all of this 'empathy' (FFS!) for Oscar, when her baby died alone and terrified in that toilet!

YNK · 09/05/2014 03:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Nerf · 09/05/2014 06:07

Erm sorry, I don't think there's any evidence of him watching porn for an hour.
The whole toilet cubicle thing misses out his reason/ prompt for firing which is that he heard a noise which he thought was the lock opening (later he suggested thus was the magazine rack moving)
Reeva's mum chose to come to the trial. She will know the defence will present evidence in his favour. As opposed to anyone in court showing empathy.
I don't mind hearing thoughts about his guilt, but in full context .

StackALee · 09/05/2014 07:04

'Reeva's mum chose to come to the trial' of all the excuses made for OP by various people on this thread this is probably the most offensive thing I have ever seen written.

If she had any choice at all (which she really doesn't) it would have been that her daughter not be shot and killed by the person whom she should have felt most safe with.

I understand that people want to see the trial out before making up their minds about his guilt/culpability but there does seem to be a lot of bending over backwards to excuse OP's behaviour and the effect it has had on both families while dismissing their very unavoidable distress.

Nerf · 09/05/2014 07:08

Don't be ridiculous. All through the threads I've posted how this must be dreadful for Reeva's family.