Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[lisasalinger]

Can you imagine being OP right now?! That is about the most stressful situation you will ever encounter in life.

God forbid I ever have to take the witness stand in my own defense, they would need a lot more than a green bucket. They'd need a stretcher, an oxygen mask and a priest. :floorlaugh:

 

[lisasalinger]

Wasn't it Roux who asked Nel to bring "Batman" back today? And for no good reason it turned out, as Nel indicated to m'lady afterward, except to change the subject from yesterday's email release and end Nel's case with a whimper.

Bizarre. I wonder if Nel was obligated to bring him back or had the ability to say yes or no? I would have told Roux to go fly a kite and address it in his own presentation.

 

[minor4th]

I am really hoping that we are going to see some of Nel's best cross examination. I have been kind of disappointed with how the prosecutions case has concluded but it would be disrespectful of me not to bow to Nel 's better knowledge and experience .
He will no doubt manage to shoot down some of their evidence just like the defence has .
Hopefully he won't be quite so annoying as the defence guys although I realise they are only doing their job .

I am just trying to play it out in my mind and I'm wondering exactly how the defense case can go so well for the state. Even if Nel is able to cast doubt on every witness, the defense just has to raise alternate possibilities - they don't have to actually prove anything.

The one exception could be if Nel just destroys OP's story somehow during his testimony but I don't see how he can totally discredit OP's account even in cross examination since he hasn't brought conclusive evidence that refutes it either. Maybe if there is some kind of evidence that somehow makes it clear that it could not have been Oscar screaming.

 

[G.bng]

Can't say it's impossible, but never ever seen that. Not even in the movies, and they do exaggerate :smile:

I guess involuntary reaction is one of those court things that is used to explain away unknowns.

If an involuntary reaction can explain something like that, the defense would have no problem in suggesting that one of those bullets in the leg could certainly send you into a state of shock, and you would therefore not scream.

The unknown will probably remain the unknown unfortunately.

Pathologist said Reeva could breath for a few mins after head shot and as the saying goes, well vaguely similar, where there's a breath there's a scream, and my bet is that an action/reaction is involuntary both in and out of court.

 

[Gryffindor]

Roux told Capt. Mangena that his expert will say the ricochet didn't cause the bruises to RS's back, the magazine rack did. Perhaps he'll say the ricochet shot was 1st and caused RS to immediately bend way down and simultaneously shot 2 hit her lowered head.

Gosh that would be even more incriminating for the defense as Reeva would defo have screamed if a sudden whizzing bullet came through AND missed

 

[minor4th]

Bizarre. I wonder if Nel was obligated to bring him back or had the ability to say yes or no? I would have told Roux to go fly a kite and address it in his own presentation.

I think he had to because Vermeulen was a state's witness and Roux couldn't call him in his own case - he can only cross examine him.

 

[DebinGA]

Bizarre. I wonder if Nel was obligated to bring him back or had the ability to say yes or no? I would have told Roux to go fly a kite and address it in his own presentation.

"On Tuesday, Roux recalled to the witness stand Colonel Johannes Vermeulen who had investigated the marks left by the bat on the meranti door. “It was explained to me that the defence found a new mark on the door which they wanted me to give my view,” said Vermeulen" [The Citizen]

 

[nastasya]

The call with Netcare lasted 1 minute and 6 seconds. Is that long enough to explain that you need an ambulance to this certain address, get asked what is wrong with the patient, tell them exactly what is wrong with the patient (shot 3 times, one in the head) and have them tell the person calling to not wait for the ambulance but to instead bring them in a car to the hospital?

The netcare call is irrelevant. What's relevant is the killer's call to Stander. It is inexplicable the killer would call his friend first. To try to explain this, the killer said he called Stander to call an ambulance.

If somebody suffered a potentially fatal accident in my home, I would call 911 first. I wouldn't be calling a friend at 3:20 am and telling the friend to call the ambulance, then calling the ambulance anyway.

This part of the killer's story, like so many others, is completely illogical and nonsensical.

 

[minor4th]

Wasn't it Roux who asked Nel to bring "Batman" back today? And for no good reason it turned out, as Nel indicated to m'lady afterward, except to change the subject from yesterday's email release and end Nel's case with a whimper.

Well, Vermuelen was supposed to have investigated the "new" mark to determine if it could have been cricket bat - and Vermuelen claimed he didn't know what he was to investigate so he didn't investigate anything.

Then Roux brought pictures that showed that he had already investigated the cricket bat on the third mark.

I think it was a win for the defense for sure.

 

[lisasalinger]

Roux told Capt. Mangena that his expert will say the ricochet didn't cause the bruises to RS's back, the magazine rack did. Perhaps he'll say the ricochet shot was 1st and caused RS to immediately bend way down and simultaneously shot 2 hit her lowered head.

I wish we could see those bruises, just so we had a context of how big, small, etc they may be. Sounds like they are fairly small according to Mangena. I can't remember the last time I watched a trial and didn't see the victim photos or at least a diagram presented by the ME.

 

[Gryffindor]

3rd shot had to be right elbow area with final shot being head. As she was no longer able to maintain protective hand on head position after the 3rd one, hence open shot to head last :-(

 

[weeeva]

You only need the motive for premeditation but HE IS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder according to South African Law.

The why's, wherefore's and but's don't mitigate his shooting an unarmed "intruder" through the door with a barrage of hollow point bullets. He didn't even give them warning or call 911 while holding the gun corning them in the bathroom.

He is NOT innocent, it is just a question of guilty of what.[/QUOTE

Sorry, I was not thinking in legal terms.
He could be innocent of knowing that Reeva was behind the door. This is the major question.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Ok, I was just reading back through zwiebel's post. I don't know how anyone got the impression that OP and Reeva's phones were accessed at the exact same time on that night. I can see that his was accessed at 1:48 but not hers. This says her last internet connection was made around 8:00 o'clock. Thats when the app was opened, the one that stayed open for 11 hours. I did not get the impression that their internet was accessed at the same time that night. If that were true that would be huge...

I think 01.48 was the time her phone switched off. That is why I questioned whether it switched off automatically or whether it had to be switched off. Then I posted that most likely, as it was an iPhone, that its battery ran low. I know they tend to run a day at most and it seems they used their phones quite a lot for calls, texts, internet etc.

 

[lisasalinger]

Well, Vermuelen was supposed to have investigated the "new" mark to determine if it could have been cricket bat - and Vermuelen claimed he didn't know what he was to investigate so he didn't investigate anything.

Then Roux brought pictures that showed that he had already investigated the cricket bat on the third mark.

I think it was a win for the defense for sure.

Vermuelen was a lousy witness for the Prosecution. He comes across as very nervous and unsure. Not much they can do about it I guess if he was the one who did the investigation. He has to come and talk about his work, unless a superior could have done that for him? I don't know.

Roux asked Mangena on the stand to do "homework" and come back and Mangena told him no. Which I thought was great. He doesn't work for Roux.

Why the heck didn't Vermeulen and/or Nel do the same in regards to the bat mark re-testing?

 

[nastasya]

Well what a truly disappointing prosecution case.

Smashed downstairs window
Standers not called to testify
Blood on bedroom walls, duvet and watch box
Apparently Reeva's slippers position was crucial, yet nada on them
Bashed metal plate
Damaged bedroom door & bullet ? hole
Reeva's phone in bathroom with backing case off (dropped?)

TOO many multiple unanswered questions grrr

Surely they could trace call at about 01:48am from Oscar's phone, i.e. to whom

And , why not call "coffee guy" to the stand if he had most recent face to face human contact with Reeva, to ascertain/gauge her mood/mindset etc prior to her untimely, unnecessary death :-( RIP Reeva x

Not disappointing in the least!

State presented a substantial prima facie case:

• Victim
• Admitted killer
• Witnesses who heard woman screaming before shots.

Those three items prove intent to murder.

This forces the defendant to testify. Prosecution will save all those incriminating facts that you mentioned for cross-examination.

 

[minor4th]

From what I can tell, there is no rebuttal case for the prosecution. So that's it for the State's evidence - now they are limited to cross examining the defense witnesses and evidence.

 

[minor4th]

Vermuelen was a lousy witness for the Prosecution. He comes across as very nervous and unsure. Not much they can do about it I guess if he was the one who did the investigation. He has to come and talk about his work, unless a superior could have done that for him? I don't know.

Roux asked Mangena on the stand to do "homework" and come back and Mangena told him no. Which I thought was great. He doesn't work for Roux.

Why the heck didn't Vermeulen and/or Nel do the same in regards to the bat mark re-testing?

I think Mangena adequately explained why it would be unnecessary to conduct the additional tests that Roux suggested.

Vermuelen had claimed that he hadn't investigated the third mark at all (when in fact he had) - and I believe the defense didn't get all of the photographs until after Vermeulen had finished his testimony, so I don't think he was really at liberty to refuse.

 

[Gryffindor]

Not disappointing in the least!

State presented a substantial prima facie case:

• Victim
• Admitted killer
• Witnesses who heard woman screaming before shots.

Those three items prove intent to murder.

This forces the defendant to testify. Prosecution will save all those incriminating facts that you mentioned for cross-examination.

I see. I hope so. Thank you

 

[weeeva]

You only need the motive for premeditation but HE IS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder according to South African Law.

The why's, wherefore's and but's don't mitigate his shooting an unarmed "intruder" through the door with a barrage of hollow point bullets. He didn't even give them warning or call 911 while holding the gun corning them in the bathroom.

He is NOT innocent, it is just a question of guilty of what.

How can he be guilty beyond reasonable doubt? The trial is not over, and the defence has not put their evidence forward yet.

 

[Carol70]

The netcare call is irrelevant. What's relevant is the killer's call to Stander. It is inexplicable the killer would call his friend first. To try to explain this, the killer said he called Stander to call an ambulance.

If somebody suffered a potentially fatal accident in my home, I would call 911 first. I wouldn't be calling a friend at 3:20 am and telling the friend to call the ambulance, then calling the ambulance anyway.

This part of the killer's story, like so many others, is completely illogical and nonsensical.

It's not that relevant, he may have had stander on speed dial and just dialed him first. I can imagine his hands at that point where not exactly steady or he was thinking that rationally. I would have raised an eyebrow if he had called his lawyer/brother/friend that doesn't live close to him first.