Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[LemonMousse]

I'd be curious to see if Roux took some experts to Oscar's house and did some tests. That should put the matter to rest.

It would. But we're only going to hear about it if the results are in OP's favour.

It would be very curious if Roux didn't do a test like this given that he did a similar one for screaming and shouting. My gut feeling is that he did, and it showed the opposite of what he was hoping so it was quietly dropped.

 

[MeeBee]

It would. But we're only going to hear about it if the results are in OP's favour.

It would be very curious if Roux didn't do a test like this given that he did a similar one for screaming and shouting. My gut feeling is that he did, and it showed the opposite of what he was hoping so it was quietly dropped.

But he brought the test up, indicating he intends to use it. Hardly quietly dropping it. Didn't also mention to one witness that he can prove that from a distance bat sounds can sound like gun shots? So, again, we will see.

 

[Viper]

As soon as i saw that smashed in metal panel in the bathroom my immediate thought was there's the state's explanation for the first set of sounds, makes perfect sense.
This is surely the biggest issue for the state, what was the first set of bangs if as they say it wasn't gunshot's?.

I believe that many here have listened to testimony of the Colonel saying that the shots to the door came before a piece of the door was removed and have interpreted that to mean that the shots were fired first and the bat strikes on the door followed. That is not my interpretation and it does not fit with 1) the very superficial damage that the bat inflicted on the door 2) the fact that all of the upper panels of the door were stripped off, indicating that OP tore them off with his hands after he murdered 3) Mr. Nel specifically questioning the Colonel about whether the bat strikes were consistent with OP trying to scare Reeva; meaning OP hit the door a couple of times and later shot through the door 4) what is confusing many here is that one of the tears or rips in the door went through a bullet hole, so they are mistaking that the bat caused that tear before the bullet hole was made 5) but in fact the bat strikes caused only superficial damage to the door 6) OP ripped down all of the panels with his hands after he pried the slender panel loose with the tip of the bat.

This is not rocket science!!! :banghead:

 

[MeeBee]

I believe that many here have listened to testimony of the Colonel saying that the shots to the door came before a piece of the door was removed and have interpreted that to mean that the shots were fired first and the bat strikes on the door followed. That is not my interpretation and it does not fit with 1) the very superficial damage that the bat inflicted on the door 2) the fact that all of the upper panels of the door were stripped off, indicating that OP tore them off with his hands after he murdered 3) Mr. Nel specifically questioning the Colonel about whether the bat strikes were consistent with OP trying to scare Reeva; meaning OP hit the door a couple of times and later shot through the door 4) what is confusing many here is that one of the tears or rips in the door went through a bullet hole, so they are mistaking that the bat caused that tear before the bullet hole was made 5) but in fact the bat strikes caused only superficial damage to the door 6) OP ripped down all of the panels with his hands after he pried the slender panel loose with the tip of the bat.

This is not rocket science!!! :banghead:

You can't tell from a mark in the door what the intention of the mark is. Asking the Col. If the bat marks could have been made while OP was trying to scare Reeva is pure speculation. Nothing more.

 

[Trooper]

It would. But we're only going to hear about it if the results are in OP's favour.

It would be very curious if Roux didn't do a test like this given that he did a similar one for screaming and shouting. My gut feeling is that he did, and it showed the opposite of what he was hoping so it was quietly dropped.

the judge wont be hearing the screaming tests.. the witnesses who claim they heard a woman screaming will , obviously , be called back to hear it in camera, then they will testify , again, as to whether that sound Oscar makes when he screams as a woman is exactly the same womanly sound they heard that night.

just being able to scream like a woman isn't enough.. he has to scream like that woman they heard.

I am sorry about this, because I want Oscar to do it live in the court..

But I now doubt this will happen. oh well.

 

[Cherwell]

Something just occurred to me about OP version of events .
RS bladder was virtually empty so we know she must have gone to the toilet some time just before she died which means she would likely have wiped herself with tissue and then flushed the toilet .If that is the case the noise of a flushing toilet would have been very obvious . If she hadn't flushed it then there should be forensic evidence of that ?
If the toilet bowl was clean except for blood then surely he can't expect us to believe that he still thought it was an intruder in there using and flushing a toilet ?

If she had got up to go to the loo while he was fetching in the fans, then there is no reason why she would not have flushed. Some people might not flush the loo while their partner is asleep so as not to wake them. But in this scenario she would have known he was awake. So if his story is true, she would have flushed.

 

[LemonMousse]

But he brought the test up, indicating he intends to use it. Hardly quietly dropping it. Didn't also mention to one witness that he can prove that from a distance bat sounds can sound like gun shots? So, again, we will see.

We will. But he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to use the YT video as evidence - any A'level physics student worth their salt would demolish it in seconds.

He also said he can prove that OP screams like a girl. I await all Roux's tests with interest. If he proves his case, then I shall be perfectly fine about being proved wrong since I have no emotional need to be "right".

But I have shown that there are reasonable objections, and I've gone out of my way to explain why. Physics matters.

 

[LemonMousse]

You can't tell from a mark in the door what the intention of the mark is. Asking the Col. If the bat marks could have been made while OP was trying to scare Reeva is pure speculation. Nothing more.

Not really. A mark made by someone trying to desperately smash down a door with all of their strength is significantly different to a few half-hearted whacks done for effect. You can see the difference....and you can see that the gashes are more consistent with the 2nd hypothesis than the first.

 

[MeeBee]

We will. But he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to use the YT video as evidence - any A'level physics student worth their salt would demolish it in seconds.

He also said he can prove that OP screams like a girl. I await all Roux's tests with interest. If he proves his case, then I shall be perfectly fine about being proved wrong since I have no emotional need to be "right".

But I have shown that there are reasonable objections, and I've gone out of my way to explain why. Physics matters.

I doubt that will be Roux's evidence, should he bring it. Because the state will just say, as you are saying, the exact variables of the evening and location were not recreated.

I feel like my conclusion that Oscar's story is at least plausible based on this test is a reasonable one. I don't need to be right, either. I have an opinion just as anyone else does and am sharing it.

 

[MeeBee]

Not really. A mark made by someone trying to desperately smash down a door with all of their strength is significantly different to a few half-hearted whacks done for effect. You can see the difference....and you can see that the gashes are more consistent with the 2nd hypothesis than the first.

Yes. But trying to draw a conclusion as to what the marks mean and why they're there is a different story. They could be from Oscar's foot, as the defense intends to argue. They could have already been there. See what I did there?

 

[Viper]

Yes. But trying to draw a conclusion as to what the marks mean and why they're there is a different story. They could be from Oscar's foot, as the defense intends to argue. They could have already been there. See what I did there?

Yes I did. Roux has made an obvious impression on you! But the question really is, "what is the evidence more consistent with?"

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes. But trying to draw a conclusion as to what the marks mean and why they're there is a different story. They could be from Oscar's foot, as the defense intends to argue. They could have already been there. See what I did there?

Asking whether something is "consistent" with something is not speculation. That is in fact what Nel asked. He didn't say, "Do you think he was trying to scare her?" He asked "Is this consistent with this scenario?". This is precisely the same as asking whether OP's account is consistent with the physical evidence, which no one would dismiss as "speculation".

And I'm afraid I misunderstood you re: Roux's evidence. You said he raised the matter of the YT video so clearly intends to use it. I don't think he will, to be honest.

Look, this seems to be getting a bit fraught, which wasn't my intention. I can't see the value of falling out with a stranger on the internet about an event that happened a year ago thousands of miles away!

None of us were there, so none of us know. But we all have opinions based on various factors, and it's helpful to share them. Food for thought and all that :seeya:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

If she had got up to go to the loo while he was fetching in the fans, then there is no reason why she would not have flushed. Some people might not flush the loo while their partner is asleep so as not to wake them. But in this scenario she would have known he was awake. So if his story is true, she would have flushed.

Exactly . That is my thoughts . So knowing whether the toilet had been flushed or not is quite important ?
OP states he could hear noises that made him think that an there was a dangerous intruder was in the bathroom but couldn't hear a toilet flushing and a cistern re filling in the middle of the night when everything was all quiet .
Even if that could be true why was Reeva still locked in ? As I said previously once you have finished in a toilet you pull your pants up and leave the cubicle immediately . It is a tiny cubicle so there should have been very little time lapse from redressing to unlocking the door and coming out if she had only just nipped to the loo in the middle of the night because she had been woken by OP going outside to allegedly bring the fans in.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes I did. Roux has made an obvious impression on you! But the question really is, "what is the evidence more constant with?"

Yes he has! He has done quite a good job, along with some posters here of placing someone who initially would have convicted him of premeditated murder on the fence. It's not a crime to be discerning. It's not unintelligent to have doubts. We see the same evidence and see it differently and that's ok.

Honestly, the evidence really does support Oscar's version more than it does the state's when I look at it objectively. I've already outlined why several times so I won't get into it again. Not that the state has nothing. But if I'm a juror in the US, the law says if you have persistent doubt as to someone's guilt then you must find them not guilty. That's where I'm at right now.

 

[Harmony 2]

Good morning!
New thread is ready for posting. This thread will close in 10 minutes.

Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes he has! He has done quite a good job, along with some posters here of placing someone who initially would have convicted him of premeditated murder on the fence. It's not a crime to be discerning. It's not unintelligent to have doubts. We see the same evidence and see it differently and that's ok.

Honestly, the evidence really does support Oscar's version more than it does the state's when I look at it objectively. I've already outlined why several times so I went into it again. Not that the state has nothing. But if I'm a juror in the US, the law says if you have persistent doubt as to someone's guilt then you must find them not guilty. That's where I'm at right now.

I completely agree with you. I've said that I feel that I'm looking at the whole thing on two levels - what my gut tells me and what the verdict should be regarding the actual case and evidence.

Roux has so far done a superb job. If I was on the jury and had to decide on the matter today, I would have to find OP not guilty of premeditation.

In my heart of hearts, I don't believe him though. But it's what can be proven that actually matters in a court case.

 

[MeeBee]

Asking whether something is "consistent" with something is not speculation. That is in fact what Nel asked. He didn't say, "Do you think he was trying to scare her?" He asked "Is this consistent with this scenario?". This is precisely the same as asking whether OP's account is consistent with the physical evidence, which no one would dismiss as "speculation".

And I'm afraid I misunderstood you re: Roux's evidence. You said he raised the matter of the YT video so clearly intends to use it. I don't think he will, to be honest.

Look, this seems to be getting a bit fraught, which wasn't my intention. I can't see the value of falling out with a stranger on the internet about an event that happened a year ago thousands of miles away!

None of us were there, so none of us know. But we all have opinions based on various factors, and it's helpful to share them. Food for thought and all that :seeya:

The fact if the matter is there are some here who are convinced the marks on the door mean he must have been trying to scare Reeva simply because the question was asked and the witness agreed it was "consistent."

I am not the one who brought up him bringing up the YT evidence. I brought up the YT video to support why I feel Oscar's story is a possibility. What I brought up was the possibility that Roux has done a better test in Oscar's home. From my memory, he did being up a test like this to one witness, and it wasn't about the YT video, though I know he brought that up too. I'd also like to point out that I saw the video before Roux even brought it up and it really caused me to reexamine things.

I don't see it getting fraught at all. Like at all. I'm not bothered by any of this. I don't hold grudges. I have disagreements with posters on one from then on the next forum I've moved on and we're on the same page and it's all good again. I feel I have been rather reasonable and even mannered. I hope we can continue to have a rational and friendly discussion. It's been, ahem, rather testy in here...

 

[Viper]

Yes he has! He has done quite a good job, along with some posters here of placing someone who initially would have convicted him of premeditated murder on the fence. It's not a crime to be discerning. It's not unintelligent to have doubts. We see the same evidence and see it differently and that's ok.

Honestly, the evidence really does support Oscar's version more than it does the state's when I look at it objectively. I've already outlined why several times so I went into it again. Not that the state has nothing. But if I'm a juror in the US, the law says if you have persistent doubt as to someone's guilt then you must find them not guilty. That's where I'm at right now.

I have zero doubts that he is guilty. You do recognize that he has admitted the he wanted to murder an intruder, he has admitted to firing 4 Boack Talon hollow point bullets at a human being that was not threatening him in any way, and that he killed Reeva, don't you? That is a confession to murder, no doubts.

 

[MeeBee]

I have zero doubts that he is guilty. You do recognize that he has admitted the he wanted to murder an intruder, he has admitted to firing 4 Boack Talon hollow point bullets at a human being that was not threatening him in any way, and that he killed Reeva, don't you? That is a confession to murder, no doubts.

You're not breaking any news to me. My reservations remain, but thank you.

ETA: and not sure I follow your logic. He admits to wanting to kill an intruder, instead he kills Reeva, therefore he's confessed to wanting to kill Reeva? That's an odd equation.

 

[Viper]

You're not breaking any news to me. My reservations remain, but thank you.

:smile: Ok. :smile: