Trial Discussion Thread #32

Nausicaa Not only is this an excellent point, Lithgow, but it applies separately to each of the four shots. In other words, even if - by a violent stretch of the imagination - OP believed he was acting in necessary self-defence by firing at an unidentified human being once, how could he have believed he was still acting in necessary self-defence when he fired for the last time, knowing he had already hit his victim with three of those hollow-nosed bullets manufactured to be lethal ?

Click to expand...

PPKik said:

[Brought over from last thread.]



Whatever OP's motive or belief about the "intruder" really was, I'm not understanding how he "knew" he'd hit the person, or what the last shot has to do with his shooting three other times.

From the photos, it looks to me that a person could have stood between the toilet and wall and possibly not have gotten hit (if they had known they were going to be shot at).

I'm not at all suggesting anyone would have known he was going to shoot through the door, just wondering why you believe he knew he had "hit his victim with three of those hollow-nosed bullets," and what was different about the fourth shot?

Click to expand...

PPKik said:

[Brought over from last thread.]



Whatever OP's motive or belief about the "intruder" really was, I'm not understanding how he "knew" he'd hit the person, or what the last shot has to do with his shooting three other times.

From the photos, it looks to me that a person could have stood between the toilet and wall and possibly not have gotten hit (if they had known they were going to be shot at).

I'm not at all suggesting anyone would have known he was going to shoot through the door, just wondering why you believe he knew he had "hit his victim with three of those hollow-nosed bullets," and what was different about the fourth shot?

Click to expand...

Karmady said:

Carmelita,

From the last thread re the gun: Everything I've seen says the gun in this case was a semi-automatic 9mm parabellum. The z88 referenced in the opinion posted also is reported to be a semi-automatic 9 mm. I'm not clear how they are different because of that.

http://www.guntree.co.za/item/351-pistols-semi-automatic-pistols/ZA/0/26736-parabellum-z88

Click to expand...

Paysee said:

BIB

Witnesses have testified the screaming stopped with the 4th shot.

Click to expand...

Viper said:

Cherwell, the severed artery in Reeva's right arm, that was gushing blood with every heartbeat, was the source of the blood pool at her hip, according to Nest. So her right arm was not bleeding in to the toilet.

Click to expand...

Carmelita said:

A lot of people (reporters) confuse or use automatic and semi-automatic interchangeably. Oscar's gun was semi-automatic which means once he chambered the first bullet he would not have to *advertiser censored* the gun again to get a bullet in the chamber so he could shoot by simply repeatedly pulling the trigger. If he just pulled the trigger and kept it depressed there would have only been one shot fired.

The other gun in question was fully automatic meaning that once a bullet was chambered and the trigger depressed bullets would continue to be fired without any repeated action on the trigger other than continuous depression.

Is that what you are asking? Sorry if I'm not answering your question.

Click to expand...

Viper said:

Crasshopper, I remember you posting that Nest use a complex forensic computer application to determine with scientific certainty that the blood on the wall above the bed were definitively caused by arterial spurting. Where did you get that? Is that something that you are just speculating about? I do not recall Nest testifying to that, although I may have missed it with the Internet connection failing many times. And too, if that was used and was scientifically certain, why did Nest immediately concede to Mr. Roux on cross examination that the blood could have been arterial spurt or it could have been blood cast off from OPs hands?

Click to expand...

Karmady said:

Carmelita,

From the last thread re the gun: Everything I've seen says the gun in this case was a semi-automatic 9mm parabellum. The z88 referenced in the opinion posted also is reported to be a semi-automatic 9 mm. I'm not clear how they are different because of that.

http://www.guntree.co.za/item/351-pistols-semi-automatic-pistols/ZA/0/26736-parabellum-z88

Click to expand...

Karmady said:

It would IF I knew that the Z88 referenced in the opinion was fully automatic. But when I search the gun in the opinion (the Z88) ALL of the links come up semi-automatic. What am I missing. Thanks for helping me

Click to expand...

Paysee said:

BIB



Witnesses have testified the screaming stopped with the 4th shot.

Click to expand...

Nausicaa said:

This is true, Paysee, but I assumed that PPKik was discounting those witnesses as obviously if the person in the W.C. was screaming when he shot, OP is guilty of murder.

Click to expand...

Viper said:

The gun that the other shooter used was available in a plain semi automatic version like OPs, but it was also made as a variant where you can also select on the gun to have it fire three bullets with a single pull of the trigger, or fully automatic where it fires until the magazine is empty while holding down the trigger. Hope that makes sense, I can't write a huge post at the moment. :smile:

Click to expand...

Nausicaa said:

My main point, PPKik, was that the situation gets worse for OP with each new shot as each one is very likely to kill the person, whoever it is, behind the door. But he can only risk killing someone in necessary self-defence. So what is different about the fourth shot is that there had already been three previous ones. That's all. He's not asking the court to find that he shot in self defence once but that he shot in self defence four distinct times. And as a matter of fact he successfully "killed" his victim several times over IYSWIM.

As to whether he knew he had already scored three hits - or at least one incapacitating hit - when he fired the fourth time... indeed the court may decide that this is not certain. But the evidence that he did know - which I personally find overwhelming - would be the inevitable audible results of his shots: at the very least gurgling in the throat, thud of falling body, sound of blood spurting, etc. And if the court believes witness evidence that someone other than OP was screaming, the cessation of those screams.

But let me put it to you the other way round. If OP is stricken with panic and firing away for dear life into the door, why did he stop at four rounds? Obviously because he knew that that was enough. What new factor intervened at the fourth shot that immediately calmed his panic so that he could safely take measures to enter the room which a short time before had housed the mythical creature he was so afraid of? I can't see any decisive factor that did not already apply to a significant extent before the fourth shot.

It would of course have been interesting to ask the expert witnesses whether it might have been possible for a hypothetical intruder in the W.C. not to be hit. I don't know. I think they would have - did? - agreed that there would undoubtedly have been audible signs that the person was hit.

Click to expand...

PPKik said:

Thanks for your explanation, Nausicaa, to my questions in your above post. I see, now, exactly what you are saying.

The one thing I do not agree with is that screaming by the victim could have been heard by anyone after the first shot.

I don't know what the ear witnesses heard or did not hear, but I do not believe if Reeva was hit by the second shot, and not the first (all of which it has been testified to would have been fatal), that she could have been screaming while being shot multiple times.

Even if the wounds had not been fatal, it defies my imagination that people from so far way, being woken up, would be able to identify screams through, or simultaneously, (presumably) with rapid-fire gunshots.

Click to expand...