Trial Discussion Thread #30

TipDog · Apr 21, 2014

TorisMom003 said:
What is considered "hard evidence" in this case? I certainly hope that OP's word is not thought of as "hard evidence". He is the one on trial for murder so he does have a reason to lie if he in fact killed Reeva on purpose. So what are some examples of "hard evidence"?

To some on here it is, simply because they don't believe the state has proven that he knew it was RS on the other side of the door.

And from there, the discussion goes in circles.

Carmelita · Apr 21, 2014

I don't think that there is a lot of hard evidence in this case. Reeva's dead body is the saddest evidence. What exactly (sequence of events) made her a body and not a living being is the big question.

Some of you are certain that you know, how and why Oscar shot her through a closed toilet door. I don't make that claim.

nastasya · Apr 21, 2014

JuneBug67 said:
I think there is sound reason to question his reliability though. Mixing up the order of the calls is not insignificant. It's a major error in the narrative.

If you think Baba getting confusing the order of the calls is a major error in the narrative, what do you call OP changing his story from going out onto the deck to bring in the fans to never going on the deck?

OP's first narrative in the BA specifically says that in retrospect, Reeva must have gone to the bathroom when he went out on the deck.

Now he changed that to saying he never went on the deck.

Is that significant to you?

shane13 · Apr 21, 2014

TorisMom003 said:
What is considered "hard evidence" in this case? I certainly hope that OP's word is not thought of as "hard evidence". He is the one on trial for murder so he does have a reason to lie if he in fact killed Reeva on purpose. So what are some examples of "hard evidence"?

"Blood never lies" said Dexter.
All the while he was using his cover as blood spatter analyst and doing plenty of lying asnd killing. Admittedly mostly bad guys (and gals).

Shhh. This also serves as hint that I believe OP used blood and spatter in the minutes after the klling to confuse and confound later on...

While some think he is not intelligent, oh boy...

nastasya · Apr 21, 2014

Carmelita said:
I don't think that there is a lot of hard evidence in this case. Reeva's dead body is the saddest evidence. What exactly (sequence of events) made her a body and not a living being is the big question.

Some of you are certain that you know, how and why Oscar shot her through a closed toilet door. I don't make that claim.

Your post is profound in its simplicity.

The hard evidence is OP killed Reeva. He's the admitted killer.

He now has the burden of proof to show why that killing was justified.

Like you said, there is scant hard evidence to show he was justified in any way to kill her.

Can you think of anything?

liesbeth · Apr 21, 2014

weeeva said:
I do understand why some people don't understand such a blind panic. But all the things you have mentioned that he didn't do are the very things that some of us wouldn't do when in a blind panic. Yes he has a history of different responses but surely you understand that people don't have a list imprinted on their brain of how to react in a particular way at all times, in a panic situation. I think his past escapades are indicative of how he behaved that night, a disaster waiting to happen.

Most of us have a default fight/flight mode. I know when I get a fright I get extremely angry.

Fight. Flight. Freeze. Fawn. These are acute stress responses to fear and terror. A burst of adrenaline prepares our bodies to run, hide, fight or placate. Pupils dilate. Digestion slows. Muscles get more blood in preparation for action.

The name of the response (fight/flight/etc) describes the dominant emotional and physical reaction a person experiences in response to fear and terror.

If we experience a fight reaction it means the dominant emotion we feel in response to fear is anger and aggression, and so we fight. Flight means the dominant emotion is panic and we will run away and leap over a tall fence to escape. Freeze means you can't move. Fawn means you try to placate the aggressor.

Let's look at what OP tells us about that night.

OP says he felt panic and terror and fear. These are the dominant emotions we expect in either a freeze- or flight response. So, if we believe him, we'd expect him to freeze or run away. Because he never mentions feeling anger or aggression. So, by his own testimony, he did not experience the fight response.

But look at his actions. He got a gun. Moved toward the danger. Shot the so called attacker. He fought. A fight response.

The point is that there is a glaring discrepancy between what he tells us he felt that night and what he actually did.

For some reason he does not want to admit to feeling any anger or aggression. Which, if you believe him that there was no argument between him and Reeva, is a very odd reaction indeed.

Carmelita · Apr 21, 2014

nastasya said:
Your post is profound in its simplicity.

The hard evidence is OP killed Reeva. He's the admitted killer.

He now has the burden of proof to show why that killing was justified.

Like you said, there is scant hard evidence to show he was justified in any way to kill her.

Can you think of anything?

Well there you go all along in my simplicity I thought the State had the burden of proving that Oscar was guilty of either premeditated murder, culpable homicide or something along those lines. Wait....

Greater Than · Apr 21, 2014

Carmelita said:
I don't think that there is a lot of hard evidence in this case. Reeva's dead body is the saddest evidence. What exactly (sequence of events) made her a body and not a living being is the big question.

Some of you are certain that you know, how and why Oscar shot her through a closed toilet door. I don't make that claim.

This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. That is no secret. The only eyewitnesses are the accused and the deceased. You appear to accept OP's word on the events simply because no one else was present to claim his account is 100% false. In a case of circumstantial evidence, you must listen to the testimony of all the witnesses, look at the evidence, use common sense, and connect the dots.

JuneBug67 · Apr 21, 2014

BritsKate said:
The defence and State concede the earlier bangs were shortly after 3am. Screaming starts now too. Bangs heard by Dr. & Mrs. Stipp. Oscar called them liars. The defence has stated the earlier set of bangs are the gunshots. The State has intimated the toilet door may have been kicked or hit.

Oscar himself estimates he fired his gun at 3:12am.

The second set of bangs was at 3:17am and heard by all ear witnesses, iirc.

The blood spatter analysis indicates that Reeva was moved very shortly after she'd been shot. Netcare was called at 3:20, after a quick call to Stander. So...witnesses heard screaming shortly after 3am trailing off after the bangs at 3:17. If Oscar was screaming like a woman what was he screaming at before he states he fired his weapon? Or...why did it take him nearly 20 minutes to seek medical help? Or are all the witnesses wrong - including the one who was already awake due to coughing? Why did Oscar call Stander to help move Reeva when he hadn't even called netcare? What do 5 people who don't even know Oscar gain by being dishonest? Why did his own expert contradict his testimony? Why were we told by the defence that there were double taps - then there weren't; Oscar was screaming like a woman but also cried like a man and the nearest neighbours heard no screaming at all; or that Reeva was first shot in her head - meaning she couldn't have screamed - when all the testimony - even the defence's - refutes such a claim. And if those 5 witnesses only heard Oscar screaming like a woman why go after them, to seemingly discredit them, with such a fury?

Those are the just the gaping holes I'm left with only if I don't begin to delve into Oscar's testimony (in which case, I could be typing all night)! So I'd have to argue, at this point, Oscar's own defence doesn't even support the fundamentals of his 'version'.

I think we have to consider everything that is normal and expected in a proceeding like this: Witnesses do not have perfect recall and memories can be subtly shaped post hoc through a number of processes; we cannot know what is normal behaviour in extreme situations the vast majority of us will never navigate; lawyers attempt to furiously test and discredit the other side according to role rather than in service of perfect truth; an experienced prosecutor with some skill can successfully confuse and frustrate most witnesses and eventually draw out intemperate statements as a matter of tactic; and, finally, defendants will probably eventually be defensive.

If you peer through all that we are still left with the major strokes of the known evidence supporting Oscar's basic story. He was in fear, he screamed, he shot through the door, he screamed more, he smashed open the door with a bat. If Reeva was shot shortly after 3:00 she can't have been the source of the screaming after that. If she was shot at 3:17 the bat strikes are not accounted for and the earlier sounds have no explanation.

Bazinga · Apr 21, 2014

James50 said:
CARRIED OVER FROM THREAD 29

All points well taken (and lol to the joke), although may I add that it was not my intention to be personal. Again I was just offering a helpful tip that you can take or leave. You seem to be an intelligent person. I just feel that you can perhaps enhance that smart investigative mind of yours and make it really laser targeted by doing what I suggested, but I'm sorry if that sounded a little too forward.

I was once described by an ex gf mine who has an MS in sub-sea engineering, someone with a very smart mind (much like yours), as "brilliantly perceptive". I don't say that to boast. I say it because I want to share with you something about the way I think so that you can better understand my thinking on the OP case. I don't look at someone and simply take away surface impressions. Or at least I don't satisfy myself with those. I go right down deep, as one would go deep into a mine rich in gems of inestimable value, and look for the gems that I know are inside them.

Or to put it another way, I'm not interested in all the circus antics I see on the surface. I want the inside scoop.

Hi there James50,
Try to apply your brilliant thinking and perception to the bits I've bolded.
1. You appear to be critiquing TipDog's thinking and suggesting she would improve if she follows your suggestion. This is a thinly veiled insult to TipDog and smacks of grandiosity as you think your perception and thinking ability is superior and that she should learn from your tips!
This explains True Detective suggesting you are putting yourself on a pedestal as superior in your perception and thinking.
2. Quoting an ex girl friend who once called you "brilliantly perceptive" is a way of trying to verify your belief that your thinking and perception is superior compared to others' here and does come across as boastful. You know it does so you felt the need to say "I don't say this to boast"

I have a tip for you - read up about grandiosity and see if anything rings a bell.

Carmelita · Apr 21, 2014

Greater Than said:
This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. That is no secret. The only eyewitnesses are the accused and the deceased. You appear to accept OP's word on the events simply because no one else was present to claim his account is 100% false. In a case of circumstantial evidence, you must listen to the testimony of all the witnesses, look at the evidence, use common sense, and connect the dots.

I never said I accept Oscar's version of that morning, neither has the state presented a plausible scenario.

Carmelita · Apr 21, 2014

James50 said:
Oh dear, I see that you have COMPLETELY misconstrued my intention in making that statement about perception. Even when I stated clearly that I didn't say that to boast, you've read into it a message completely opposite to that which I intended. My fault for not anticipating that. No, I was NOT trying to put myself on a pedestal, and that's an example of what I mean by seeing the surface of things and not taking into account the whole context, and not trying to probe deeper.

Given that you are so wrong in your judgement of me, and that you so completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say there, do you think that you couldn't possibly have misinterpreted OP?

And as I note that you have given yourself the handle "True Detective", I'm not sure that you're in the right place to be talking about other people putting themselves on pedestals, no offense intended.

As for applying sound logic etc., given that I see so many illogical theories and scenarios given credence to here without any hard evidence, I'm not sure that my reluctance to accept them is so far removed from reality.

TrueDective is always easygoing, and to make an issue of her (?) user name is a disingenuous assertion. I followed the trail of posts from her quote and I too believe describing oneself as *some kind* of brilliant is boorish. If you are brilliant you really neednt tell people they will recognize it.

TrueDetective · Apr 21, 2014

James50 said:
Oh dear, I see that you have COMPLETELY misconstrued my intention in making that statement about perception. Even when I stated clearly that I didn't say that to boast, you've read into it a message completely opposite to that which I intended. My fault for not anticipating that. No, I was NOT trying to put myself on a pedestal, and that's an example of what I mean by seeing the surface of things and not taking into account the whole context, and not trying to probe deeper.

James. I didn't completely misconstrue it at all. You can wrap it up anyway you want to.. with disclaimers et al.. "I'm not boasting but.."
IMO it was an attempt to elevate your own status. It was what it was.
As I said. No need. But really, it isn't a big deal.

James50 said:
Given that you are so wrong in your judgement of me, and that you so completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say there, do you think that you couldn't possibly have misinterpreted OP?

I'm always open to being proved wrong and actually if it turned out the way OP says - and beyond reasonable doubt.. I would much prefer that to the callous and nasty murder it looks extremely likely to have been.
Either way, he deserves a significant prison sentence.

James50 said:
And as I note that you have given yourself the handle "True Detective", I'm not sure that you're in the right place to be talking about other people putting themselves on pedestals, no offense intended.

It took about 1 minute to come up with the name.. not being a member of any forums I wondered what the heck to choose. This was my thought process..
"erm.. websleuths forum. just finished watching a great drama called True Detective.. bet the name's been taken though.. oh no it hasn't.. that'll do."
In a nutshell!

James50 said:
As for applying sound logic etc., given that I see so many illogical theories and scenarios given credence to here without any hard evidence, I'm not sure that my reluctance to accept them is so far removed from reality.

Cool.

Anyway, I apologise if I upset you James but I just thought you were being a bit sharp with Tip that's all.
Let's stick to the case fella.

BritsKate · Apr 21, 2014

JuneBug67 said:
I think we have to consider everything that is normal and expected in a proceeding like this: Witnesses do not have perfect recall and memories can be subtly shaped post hoc through a number of processes; we cannot know what is normal behaviour in extreme situations the vast majority of us will never navigate; lawyers attempt to furiously test and discredit the other side according to role rather than in service of perfect truth; an experienced prosecutor with some skill can successfully confuse and frustrate most witnesses and eventually draw out intemperate statements as a matter of tactic; and, finally, defendants will probably eventually be defensive.

If you peer through all that we are still left with the major strokes of the known evidence supporting Oscar's basic story. He was in fear, he screamed, he shot through the door, he screamed more, he smashed open the door with a bat. If Reeva was shot shortly after 3:00 she can't have been the source of the screaming after that. If she was shot at 3:17 the bat strikes are not accounted for and the earlier sounds have no explanation.

If Reeva was shot shortly after 3:00am he left her bleeding out for nearly 20 minutes before requesting medical assistance! The blood spatter analysis and pathologists do not support this scenario and it conflicts with the testimony of the defendant himself. Reeva could not have shown any signs of life, much less have died downstairs, twenty minutes after sustaining her head injury.

If she was shot at 3:17 all 5 witnesses heard the 'bat strikes' and again - the State has alluded, intimated, and indeed flat out asked Vermeulen if the door may have been hit before the shots or kicked - specifically with the intent to instill fear - Vermeulen allowed for this possibility. This time also matches the blood spatter analysis, the pathologists and even allows the defendant's statement that Reeva died downstairs to possibly be true. (Though the State has testified she likely expired after 2-3 breaths, if my recall is correct. The defence pathologist disputed the State's gastic emptying testimony but corroborated the State's ballistics expert; allowed for Reeva to possibly scream between shots; and conceded the State's testimony her death would have been swift following her head wound.)

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-defence-pathologist-takes-heat-1.1672127#.U1W_DfldWMM
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2014/03/13/oscar-trial-expert-can-t-fix-sequence-of-shots-bashing

Fuskier · Apr 21, 2014

liesbeth said:
Most of us have a default fight/flight mode. I know when I get a fright I get extremely angry.

Fight. Flight. Freeze. Fawn. These are acute stress responses to fear and terror. A burst of adrenaline prepares our bodies to run, hide, fight or placate. Pupils dilate. Digestion slows. Muscles get more blood in preparation for action.

The name of the response (fight/flight/etc) describes the dominant emotional and physical reaction a person experiences in response to fear and terror.

If we experience a fight reaction it means the dominant emotion we feel in response to fear is anger and aggression, and so we fight. Flight means the dominant emotion is panic and we will run away and leap over a tall fence to escape. Freeze means you can't move. Fawn means you try to placate the aggressor.

Let's look at what OP tells us about that night.

OP says he felt panic and terror and fear. These are the dominant emotions we expect in either a freeze- or flight response. So, if we believe him, we'd expect him to freeze or run away. Because he never mentions feeling anger or aggression. So, by his own testimony, he did not experience the fight response.

But look at his actions. He got a gun. Moved toward the danger. Shot the so called attacker. He fought. A fight response.

The point is that there is a glaring discrepancy between what he tells us he felt that night and what he actually did.

For some reason he does not want to admit to feeling any anger or aggression. Which, if you believe him that there was no argument between him and Reeva, is a very odd reaction indeed.

Thank you for this post. It articulates well the 'flight/fight/freeze' response and the chemical/emotional/physical reactions associated. OP's claims are contradictory. His evidence is 'blurred' to cover all bases IMO. His testimony demonstrated that he moved towards the danger in combat mode i.e. aggressive 'fight' response where he shot the alleged intruder 4 times through the closed door without ever having seen the intruder. By his own testimony he did not experience 'flight' or 'freeze' response. That is, if we believe his story that he suspected an 'armed' intruder.

I try to keep an open mind, but the more I peruse the evidence, the more I see 'tailoring' of evidence. The above is one such example.

TrueDetective · Apr 21, 2014

Carmelita said:
TrueDective is always easygoing, and to make an issue of her (?) user name is a disingenuous assertion. I followed the trail of posts from her quote and I too believe describing oneself as *some kind* of brilliant is boorish. If you are brilliant you really neednt tell people they will recognize it.

Thanks C, I am all man though!
But I feel strangely flattered that people would guess I was female!
:loveyou:

minor4th · Apr 21, 2014

TipDog said:
The DT talking to potential witnesses is not the same as the accused talking directly to them. And I'm of the opinion that, no, the accused should not for a whole host of reasons.

Wow, that would really impede any effort to plan a defense.

Carmelita · Apr 21, 2014

TrueDetective said:
Thanks C, I am all man though!
But I feel strangely flattered that people would guess I was female!
:loveyou:

Sorry TD I don't know why I thought you were of the female persuasion, maybe I was confusing you with TipDog (TD). I shan't make the mistake again kind sir :blushing:

minor4th · Apr 21, 2014

TipDog said:
You mean the lawyers or the accused?

Yes, and the accused unless there's a specific prohibition - like often there's a bail condition that prohibits the accused from talking to a defendant or the defendant's family.

minor4th · Apr 21, 2014

soozieqtips said:
BBM - exactly. Can you imagine how intimidating it would for witnesses if someone as powerful as OP tried to persuade them to change their minds about testifying? He agreed not to 'interfere' with any witnesses in his bail application if I recall.

Ok, there's a big difference between talking to a potential witness and witness tampering. No one is allowed to tamper with witnesses, but that is not what we're talking about.

For instance, Oscar can go to his neighbors and say "did you hear any sounds last night?" "What time did you hear that?" etc etc

Trial Discussion Thread #30

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Retired Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Verified Attorney

Former Member

Verified Attorney

Verified Attorney

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics