Significant marks 'not present' on the door in the photo, was the evidential door damaged when it was taken down - we have to ponder!! Roux rightly questioning the safeguarding of the evidence - this is amazing, it looks on the surface like the exhibit (a crucial one to the case) was not safeguarded - amazing. It got serious marks on it whilst in the possession of forensics after 8th March - I mean c'mon this is serious stuff. This door should have been wrapped in baby soft cotton or, at the very least bubble wrap, to protect it as it was removed from the bathroom, let alone in the exhibits room at forensics - this is amazing stuff. Absolute fiasco.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

It is way past your bedtime Rumpy, but I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, nay forecast, that OP will not be found guilty of Murder, but will be found guilty of Manslaughter. It's not like me to predict so early in the case, but this is my gut feeling - either way, he's looking at prison time as there are other lesser charges to be considered.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I would say that a Mis-trial is in order... case dismissed with prejudice.


I think Mickey Mouse would be more appropriate than Felix

MY opinion is..... since they went with Murder1 (or equivalent) and in effect accused OP of intentionally killing Reeva... premeditated... and Op in effect claiming "Self Defence".... he should be acquitted if his self defence claim is accepted.

IF they wanted to do him for manslaughter they should have accepted his version and set out to prove it was irresponsible to shoot through a closed door at the intruder (imagined)

As far as the gun charges go... they should be dismissed. I give zero credibility to anything Fresco says or the young giggly/weepy fb bff scorned says.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Putting it another way.

IF there had been an intruder everything else the same... then I do not see it would be manslaughter

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

well actually you're right it would have be self-defense. We should see a change of tac in the coming days.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Thanks for the company, Wroughead... I am off to bed now

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Thanks for the Mickey

A South African Cartoon.....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The Courtroom Toilet

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Close up Screen-shot of door in court showing bullet holes

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I see posting (elsewhere) to the effect that The witness proved that OP was on his stumps when he hit the door with the cricket bat?

Nothing could be further from the truth!

The witness was DISCREDITED to some extent. Extremely sloppy evidence hadling and record keeping by his department bring ANY evidence into question. And Clearly he had fixed notions and an agenda before examining the door and cricket bat. That is NOT a proper scientific approach. He was ONLY looking for posible cricket bat marks. He was predisposed to match what he could to the marks on the door and the marks on the bat. He ignored marks that did not fit into that predetermined category. Even though, for instance, OP had testified to "kicking the door" with his prosthetic leg. A mark that could well have been the result of that kicking was disregarded, beyond classifying as "not cricket bat". Other marks too were ignored. And new marks appeared while the door was in police custody. Clearly this evidence was contaminated. Col. Johannes Vermeulen decided, it seems, that the angle of bat that he estimated suggested that OP was on his stumps while wielding the bat. However on cross Roux pointed out that was an assumption based on the subjective opinion of the witness. What he found "comfortable" may well not apply to all, and certainly not to OP as an amputee wearing prosthetic legs. Furthermore, the evidence of kicking (if he had even considered it) might well have shown that OP WAS wearing his prosthetic legs in order for him to be able to also kick the door.
Roux has indicated that the defence will show sock fibres on the door and door residue (varnish) on the prosthetic. It would seem to me that if anything, it is more likely that OP WAS wearing his legs as he claimed and NOT on his stumps when he wielded the bat.

BUT the BIG thing to come out of today's evidence was:

The GUN SHOTS came BEFORE the cricket bat strikes.

That again is confirmation of OP's version of events. That puts to bed the notion that I "flirted with" yesterday That just maybe OP was hitting the door with the bat (to get at Reeva) then went away and got his gun to "shoot out the lock"
THAT never happened

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Just as a general point.

We ALL add our own prejudices and notions to information as we take in information through our senses. To some extent we take what we see, hear smell etc and make our own sense of it.

A SCIENTIFIC approach tries to eliminate that human factor and potential error. So too should the judicial process. It should strive to get at the actual facts and not what people have done with those facts in perceiving them the way they THINK they should be.

Witnesses notoriously get things wrong. I am disappointed that in SA it seems they are allowed to testify beyond what they hear and see and to testify to what they imagine.

And.... an evidence examiner who sets out to find what he thinks should be present, who does not even do a thorough examination, and so misses things, who excludes some other obvious evidence that he observes in passing... is not being scientific and thorough at all. ( Mickey Mouse comes to mind)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Thanks for the info. I agree with you, there's a lot of supposition coming from witnesses, i've never seen this before and it's not allowed here or in New Zealand or the USA from what I've learned over the years. I've often been amazed and not even mentioned it throughout this OP trial and just what the witnesses get away with beyond what they actually know or witnessed at the time, they seem to be allowed to go on various media reports and gossip after the fact.

This trial has both angered me, and made me laugh on different levels. I looked at those gunshots earlier and to me it bore out what OP said too.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

All is not lost Wroughead.....

At least this trial will be evatuated and verdict deliberated and decided by a Judge and not a Jury, who I am sure could well be mislead by a lot of what has been presented.
The SA system of Judge deciding perhaps ameliorates allowing somewhat "questionable" evidence. A Judge SHOULD be able to evaluate and give weight to evidence taking it's limitations into account

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Another door photo

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The door photo to me looks as if it backs up what OP has said from the beginning - this is a better picture as I think it's more of a close-up photo in situ, unlike when it appeared in the courtroom!!

I dislike the jury system because you can be unable to read or write, yet still be called upon to do your civil duty and sit on a jury - what chance then sometimes of understanding the technicalities of evidence and law enough to reach a decision, particularly in complex cases. At least with a Judge he/she has the legal background and experiences in law enough to enable them to form an opinion in law. I have just never been in favour of the jury system for many reasons.

Here, unlike in many other countries, jurors are not interviewed before a trial, they are simply called and selected on the day or the trial commencement, some will be sent back home because their name has not been selected from the hat or bowl it's as simple as that. Once they're picked the defense can say for no other reason than maybe they don't want too many males or too many females on the jury, or they don't like how someone looks, they can ask that that juror be de-selected, but not from interviews, it's just not done as it is in the States.

So, SA may have it right - time will tell in this case.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I think that is a "weird" grouping on shots on the door. I understand the height, it's that they all are in the right hand area. Wouldn't one shoot towards the middle?

TalkLeft summary of last nights Court session...

Pistorius Trial: Crime Scene Evidence Problems
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 02:33:06 PM EST

It was a dramatic day 8 at the Oscar Pistorius trial. The investigator who took over the case from the Hilton Botha, Colonel Vermulon, testified about the physical evidence. There are some serious problems.

Both sides now agree Oscar was on his stumps when he shot through the door, and after that, he used a cricket bat to bash in the door. Here's the rub: The state, which claimed at the bail hearing Oscar had his prostheses on when he shot at the door, now says he didn't have them on at either time: when he shot through the door or used the cricket bat. The defense says Oscar put them after shooting at the door and had them on when he used the bat.

In Oscar's bail affidavit, he says he shot through the door while on his stumps, then "I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open.

...more at link
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2014/3/12 ... e-Problems

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have an appointment this afternoon, so I'm bound to miss some of the trial even with a 2hr time difference, but will be able to catch up before posting further.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Hi Wroughead
I have been having computer problems

Updating but missing stuff myself.

Its ALWAYS boring when Nel questions... I expect some fun when Roux get a go at this guy

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light