Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

this is quite a good site. It shows lots of live feeds. Some work, some don't.

"iven all the fuss OP had made about Reeva's lack of knowledge of an athletes diet, and her previous plans to go out with friends that night, she went shopping for ingredients and was (according to OP) cooking when he got home.
What does he do?
He goes for a leisurely bath and watches some porn upstairs!
For a F*ing hour!
FFS he would have been wearing chicken stir fry when he came downstairs if he had been my b/friend!"

YNK just how do you know that they hadn't agreed that they would have dinner at say 7.00pm? How many people eat the moment they get home? Most of us don't. You have absolutely NO knowledge that Reeva was remotely bothered by this and it's pure speculation - again.

Let us also not forget that Reeva was the one who suggested meeting up that night, not OP so her "previous plans" are utterly irrelevant since she wanted to change them.

I may be being stupid ... but...

Are teh balistics the really important bit? The order of teh bullets?

because surely the point is that he would have killed whoever was behind that door and so even though he thought Reeva was an intruder he still would have killed that intruder in a display of uncontrolled and over-the-top shooting when he could have taken other measures like getting himself and Reeva (Because he assumed it wasn't her in the toilet) out of the bedroom via the door they would have reached before reaching the toilet?

I'm [embarrassed] for Woolmarans.
This is not going well for him.
Or indeed for the defense.

I'm with you there Stack. I don't really know how important most of this is. Clearly the bat/shots issue is still in play. I also notice again he was saying that the marks on the back would have been caused by the magazine rack rather than ricocheting.

Are teh balistics the really important bit? The order of teh bullets?

On one level no - the consequence is more important.

On another level, yes if we're following the argument/talking through the door possibility.

Dixon implied that she was standing at an angle, with her hand outstretched across her body. This suggests (I infer) that the point of this is that she was probably just coming out of the cubicle as normal, or perhaps locking the door for safety, and she made the noise that Oscar heard and reacted to.

The prosecution case is that she was standing square on to the door, and this implies (I infer) that they were talking through the door. In this position, she is less likely to have made an unintentional noise.

That's as far as I understand it.

Wow. Nel is utterly brutal. I feel for this witness, I would be so intimidated and scared!

Hard to watch this guy.

Oh please let it end. I feel for him.

It's really hard to watch someone who clearly must be an expert in his field but is finding it difficult to read his own report in a language that is not his own.

It makes him appear stilted and therefore not particularly knowledgable - though clearly he is an expert.

"Wow. Nel is utterly brutal. I feel for this witness, I would be so intimidated and scared"

Me too, I'd be scared witless at the thought of getting up on that stand!

Wolmarans is quite indignant at Nel's inference that he's biased and I would be too.

hang on
I think I am watching something different to you all.

I am cringing. Nel smelt blood

I think he is doing a good job in the face of it.

I'm not feeling sorry for him. I don't know why. He's been here before; it's part of his job which he has chosen to do, he's done this countless times.

Though he has dug a bit of a hole for himself here. 'Has your evidence ever been rejected?' 'It has, but I don't remember the case. 'Let me help; it was this case...' He suddenly remembers the Judge name, the advocate names and so forth.

He's not a lay witness, he's an expert witness whose impressive cv includes testifying in court; taking fourteen months to produce a written report when most of the reconstruction testing done February/March 2013 beggars belief.

Finally some clarification on a tiny point that's been bothering me. Wolmaran just referred to 'that wall where the light switch was?'

The light switch was on that wall. In his version, Oscar must have walked past the light switch on several occasions without reaching up and turning it on.

It's a tiny thing, but it's been driving me mad.

On the actual ballistics thing, I think he's doing very well.

www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/former-teazers-manager-guilty-of-murder-1.322848#.U2yk_cK3O2c

Could be wolmarans other case

I like Wolmarans.

Op looks like he could kill WW

I'm not seeing that, but he has just passed a note to his legal team.

Ooooh ouch!! Re mag rack

Seeing the exact position that he fired from towards the cubicle, does that not look like the position one would take in a place of fear - by the door/entrance, so that he could quickly take cover if necessary? To me it's not an aggressive 'take that, I'm angry and firing at you' position.

I wish this case was clearer.

The ballistics in this case are key for the state, if it can be determined that there was a pause and redirection of the gun aim between bullet A and B, in addition to the woman screams heard by neighbours, the state can argue he knew it was Reeva as after he fired A, he heard her scream then paused and had time to think as he was of sound mind enough to change aim so to fire at his target and fired B, and missed and fired c as she fell on the rack, where she assumed a defensive position and D which went through her arm onto her head

Also the gap between A and B lends the double tap or rapid succession firing to doubt