Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[Rumpole]

You may not be watching all of the testimony. Mr. Nel asked the bat forensic witness whether or not his investigation would support the minor marks on the door were intended to break down the door or were they more constant with using the bat to scare Reeva, he affirmed "scare". That is is where the state's case is going.

What did you think the state was going after? :facepalm:

Do you have a link to that bit of testimony?

I assume you are referring to Colonel Vermeulen? He was absolutely clear that shots came before cricket bat... as were all witnesses with relevant information?

 

[Viper]

No, the only evidence is that the gunshots came before the cricket bat hitting the door. That was from the State's forensic witness - two of them in fact. I don't think this can be disputed because there were bullet holes shot through the panel that was broken out by the cricket bat. Nel is not disputing that - it is his own evidence.

I did not say it's the only possibility - I said I don't know how you can reconcile the state's own evidence in any other way. If you can think of a way, I'm open to any and all possibilities.

In your scenario - you are disregarding the states' evidence that the gunshots were before the cricket bat, and you're also disregarding Stipp's testimony that he heard two sets of bangs at 3:10 and 3:17. If you believe that those witnesses and the forensic evidence is not credible, that's fine - but that is the only way to arrive at your conclusions.

But tell me, under your scenario, when did the gunshots occur and when did the cricket bat breaking the door occur?

What did Stipp hear at 3:10 that sounded like gunshots and woke him up?

I went through that long explanation because you said you were not following what I was saying.

Ok, retread what I said in my post real quickly and then this:

The cricket bat did not break down the door.OP used it to sack the door 2-3 times. GE created a divot in the door from one of the strikes. He put the tip of the bat in the divot and pried at the door, causing a crack. Whatever happens blah blah And after all that GE shoots at the door / Reeva. Pacing planning phone calls... And then he pried off the door panels with his hands not the bat.

1 bat strikes to scare and threaten her
2 prying at the door causing a crack
3 shots

That is what the State is saying occurred, based upon all if the investigative results, testimony, and evidence.

If there are any typos, too bad! This is a lot to create on a cell phone.

 

[minor4th]

Well, to be pedantic Point A - if the bangs at 3.10 woke Stipp, then he doesn't know whether there was any screaming or yelling before then because he was asleep. So it's not really correct to say they didn't start until after that - just that that was the first he heard.

Point C: No, the gunshots were before the door was broken open. Clearly OP used the bat to do this, but they showed that he'd inserted the bat into a broken off piece and prised out the panel. All the pieces of door seemed neat - if it had caved in through almighty whacks so powerful they could be heard some distance away, then it would all have splintered - as it did when a bullet shot through.

There were a few splinters, but the pieces were intact enough that the door could be reassembled. This doesn't suggest that enormous force was used, or needed to be.

I don't think anyone heard the bat on the door that night - not loud enough and too far away. I think the noises that sounded like gunshots to everybody were probably gunshots. We know of four because we have the physical evidence. Doesn't mean these were the only ones - he was standing near an open window, and he's not been averse to shooting into the sky before, has he?

And yes, this is all supposition on my part and no, it doesn't prove anything. That's why I don't think the state can prove pre-meditation because all the physical evidence is consistent with OP's story.

I didn't say there was no screaming before 3:10, I said there has been no testimony of screaming until after 3:10.

So no one heard cricket bat sounds, then how did Stipp hear "3 or 4" bangs and ten minutes later heard "2 or 3" bangs?

All of the state's witnesses, including the latest blood spatter witness and ballistics witness said there were only 4 shots fired that night. One can speculate that there were additional shots, but the witnesses say otherwise and we have to follow the evidence, not hypothetical possibilities. We're talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[minor4th]

Ok, retread what I said in my post real quickly and then this:

The cricket bat did not break down the door.OP used it to sack the door 2-3 times. GE created a divot in the door from one of the strikes. He put the tip of the bat in the divot and pried at the door, causing a crack. Whatever happens blah blah And after all that GE shoots at the door / Reeva. Pacing planning phone calls... And then he pried off the door panels with his hands not the bat.

1 bat strikes to scare and threaten her
2 prying at the door causing a crack
3 shots

That is what the State is saying occurred, based upon all if the investigative results, testimony, and evidence.

If there are any typos, too bad! This is a lot to create on a cell phone.

With all due respect, that is not what the state is saying occurred. And the investigative findings indicate quite the opposite, according to the State's witnesses.

 

[MeeBee]

Well *cough* I would hope that if I was in an abusive relationship and had confided in those closest to me I would hope that those confidants would be some sort of witness. No?

How did this become an abusive relationship all of a sudden?

 

[minor4th]

I don't see why he couldn't have struck the door with the bat, without breaking the panels, before shooting. Then used the bat again to break through the weakened panels afterwards.

Is that possible? Sure. Is there evidence of this scenario? No. And that is not the state's theory or evidence.

 

[LemonMousse]

When we're really scared, we look for reassurance that there's nothing to be scared about. OP has shared his bedroom quite often and he would have heard people using the bathroom before...it would have been a very familiar sound. It is genuinely inconceivable that he didn't at least glance in the direction of the most likely source of the sound - the one person, other than him, that could legitimately be causing the sound.....and has done every single time he's ever heard it before.

The best, best, best thing that could have happened to OP in his moment of pure terror would be to see that Reeva wasn't in bed. Panic over. But he can't even turn his head to look?

And conversely - the best thing that could have happened to him after the shooting when he found she wasn't in bed would be to discover her hiding behind the sofa or on the balcony (as she would have been if she'd just heard an intruder being killed in the en-suite) - but he fails to check that too. He just knows it was her because she wasn't lying in bed where he'd left her.

Nah. Just....nah.

I take it he was tested for drugs?

 

[Viper]

Ujg!!!! Trying to do this in a cell phone does not work!

It is when OP tears off the panels with his hands that one of the panels rips right through a bullet hole that OP had fired, one if the total if four that had already been fired before he ripped down the panels.

 

[MeeBee]

BBM...thank you for this.....This is the very reason he should be locked up. Away from society. Trigger happy. moo

He needs help, and yes, he should be punished accordingly for the SA equivalent of manslaughter, IMO. But he shouldn't be locked away forever. When you go charging into your laundry room ready to shoot the washing machine and always think there's an intruder in your home, this was an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Trooper]

every witness has so far adamantly rejected, with total adherence to reality ,that they heard.. gunfire. bang.. pause. bangbangbang.

no witness has even given the slightest consideration to the possibility or the probability or the faintest nod to the suggestion by Roux that they may have, might have, or mistakenly or even as a plot joined up together by the witnesses to collaborate and lie on the stand under oath and probable penalty for perjury, and did this because they all together at the same time conceived a crankup about Oscar for reasons totally unconnected to his murdering propensities , on the spur of the moment , without contacting each other and completely spontaneously..decided to testify to gunshot fire and discard cricket bat sound.


gimme a break,, please.

 

[Trooper]

'So no one heard cricket bat sounds, then how did Stipp hear "3 or 4" bangs and ten minutes later heard "2 or 3" bangs? '


Stipp said no such thing.. this is a gross distortion of Stipps evidence..


please re read his testimony.

 

[Really?]

If you were in an abusive relationship, you should write things down and document with photographs because there is a very good possibility that whoever you confided in would not be allowed to testify about what you said (once you were dead - no disrespect intended)

Really ?...just an fyi I am NOT in one of those types of relationships. But is it hearsay ?. I mean for friends to testify to what a person in that situation has told them.

 

[Mystymiss]

OK here is my thinking.

1. The cricket damage to the door came first. This damage was enough to see where she was standing in the loo. Remember this was a solid wood door.

2. The damage to the door also gave Reeva a view of OP with the gun. She screams he shoots hitting her 3 out of 4 shots ( how in the world could you do that if the door was still solid at that time) she dies. He puts on this blades then takes her body down stairs etc..

JMO

 

[Trooper]

So no one heard cricket bat sounds, then how did Stipp hear "3 or 4" bangs and ten minutes later heard "2 or 3" bangs?

Roux suggested some scenarios Stippp may have heard, but even this one proposed by the poster wasn't one of them. but Stipp, again, I repeat. adamantly rejected this suggested hypothesis..

what Stipp heard, and testified to is easily accessed.. there is no requirement to guess about it.

 

[minor4th]

Really ?...just an fyi I am NOT in one of those types of relationships. But is it hearsay ?. I mean for friends to testify to what a person in that situation has told them.

Yes, it is hearsay. There are certain exceptions that could come into play, and I'll not go through all that - but it's hearsay and you could not count on those statements being admissible in court.

 

[MeeBee]

every witness has so far adamantly rejected, with total adherence to reality ,that they heard.. gunfire. bang.. pause. bangbangbang.

no witness has even given the slightest consideration to the possibility or the probability or the faintest nod to the suggestion by Roux that they may have, might have, or mistakenly or even as a plot joined up together by the witnesses to collaborate and lie on the stand under oath and probable penalty for perjury, and did this because they all together at the same time conceived a crankup about Oscar for reasons totally unconnected to his murdering propensities , on the spur of the moment , without contacting each other and completely spontaneously..decided to testify to gunshot fire and discard cricket bat sound.


gimme a break,, please.

What you are failing to account for is the mere possibility that the witnesses are mistaken. To an untrained ear, a loud bang can sound like a gunshot. The other night I heard banging sounds outside and at first thought they were gunshots. But they weren't, someone was banging on something.

And I don't think it was every witness who heard bang...bangbangbang. It was only one, right?

What I don't understand is how to account for Stipp, who had been awake the longest, hearing two sets of bangs. What was the other set? It stands to reason one set was the gunshots and one was the bat hitting the door. Regardless of the order, he said they sound the same and based on the evidence one set must have been one and another set the other. Doesn't the possibility remain that the witnesses who awoke later heard the bat and mistook it for gunshots if they indeed sounded the same?

ETA: wow, I apologize for my poor English. I hope what I'm trying to say is coming through lol.

 

[kittychi]

A few questions floating in my head...

The air gun that has been mentioned quite a few times. What is an air gun and how does it relate to the scene of the murder?

Also...the mention of a silencer...was this on the air gun? Why would he choose the gun he used instead of one with a silencer on it? Is it only because of the "mushroom" bullets in that gun?

One more thing...if OP felt so vulnerable and was regularly jumpy and terrified at noises, why wouldn't he have bars on windows? He could well afford any security he wanted.

 

[nastasya]

I agree this is a plausible scenario - which coincides with his version. It's believable only because of his documented history and extreme fear of and hyper-sensitivity to possible intruders

Your reasoning is flawed and self-contradictory.

Let's stick to the facts:

• There was no intruder.
• No evidence exists that there was EVER an intruder in OP's house.
• OP claims he shot a woman with whom he was sharing a bed. All she did was use the bathroom and possibly open a 2nd story window.
• OP has heard the women he was sleeping with use the bathroom before. He knows what that sounds like.

OP's story and actions are NOT believable based on the exact reasoning you gave. He has a documented history of hearing women use the bathroom at night and not thinking they were intruders, and not killing them.

• OP knows women get up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night.
• OP knows what that sounds like.
• OP is not a 6-year old mentally disabled child playing with a gun.
• OP is an experienced weapon's owner and user.
• In OP's entire life living in the supposedly "dangerous" Pretoria he's never had to fire his weapons in self-defense.

It is entirely unreasonable that the night of the murders, the very night when witnesses heard gunshots and a woman screaming in terror, with witnesses hearing a man and woman arguing, that this was the ONE night of OP's entire life he mistakenly thought the sound of a woman using the toilet was an intruder threatening his life.

 

[minor4th]

A few questions floating in my head...

The air gun that has been mentioned quite a few times. What is an air gun and how does it relate to the scene of the murder?

Also...the mention of a silencer...was this on the air gun? Why would he choose the gun he used instead of one with a silencer on it? Is it only because of the "mushroom" bullets in that gun?

One more thing...if OP felt so vulnerable and was regularly jumpy and terrified at noises, why wouldn't he have bars on windows? He could well afford any security he wanted.

I dont think the air gun or silencer have anything to do with the scene of the killing. There's been no evidence about them other than they were there on the scene. Just like the display case of oakley sunglasses and a print magazine on the bedside table - they were documented but have nothing to do with what happened.

 

[Viper]

With all due respect, that is not what the state is saying occurred. And the investigative findings indicate quite the opposite, according to the State's witnesses.

I am assuming that you have read the additional post that I created.

The state witness said a bullet went through the door before the panel was broken out, you are taking that to mean bullets and then bat, correct?

But the bat did not break down the door, OP used his bare hands. The bat marks are superficial. You saw that all of the top panels were torn down, the bat did not do that.

The door had holes before OP USED HIS HANDS to rip it apart, one rip or tear went through a bullet hole.

So bat first. Gun shots second.

Add Mr. Nel getting forensics to acknowledge in the affirmative that the bat strikes were superficial and consistent with OP using the bat to hit the door to scare Reeva.

There are many smart people hear, many of them will understand me even if I am cell phone challenged in trying to communicate.