Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Feynman]

partial quote:

Nope...nor did we hear from any previous girlfriends who may have suggested he was prone to tantrums and jealous rages...maybe roux will call up an ex or 2.

What about Samantha Taylor?

 

[DebinGA]

From the CNN recap:

"Roux requested an adjournment until Friday to consult witnesses who were on the state's list but were not called. The defense was not allowed to speak to them while they were potential state witnesses. Judge Thokozile Masipa granted the request and adjourned court until Friday morning when the defense will begin its case."


So Roux just had their affidavits to go on until now? That's different than in the U.S.... I believe.

 

[lisasalinger]

Of course THE most nagging question that just about all of us want the answer to from Oscar is what the h#ll were the two series of bangs. Now... of course he's going to say guns first, cricket bat second while Roux is questioning him... but what will Nel have to say about that? This is where the State needs to interject their own theory of those sounds to challenge him.

I have entertained the possibility (just purely my own crazy thinking) that sometime close to 3am, OP shot Reeva in the hip while she was hiding in the bathroom. I don't know why it sounded like 3 shots to the Stipps, I'm just thinking out of the box here.

She is in that toilet room screaming for her life. God knows what he is doing in the bathroom during this time, although we do know at some point a male voice is heard mixed together with her screams. Burger and Johnson heard "help, help, help" in a lower, more monotone voice, possible mocking.

The last 3 shots that finish her off are then shot around 3:14am. The Stipps did say she was screaming that entire time. Maybe it wasn't just fear, maybe it was pain. It would explain two serious of gunshots heard. Again, I can't account for why it sounded like 3. But it would explain why both sounds were exactly the same.

 

[minor4th]

So, legally speaking, I do believe the State has presented a prima facie case for murder and even intentional/premeditated murder.

That is - if you take all of their evidence as true and indulge every possible inference in favor of the prosecution, then they have provided evidence to establish all of the elements of murder.

 

[Gavel Rash]

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.

So, was the third possible bat mark to be applied to the first 3 bangs or the second set of bangs bracketed? ......bang...(bang,bang,bang)?

This is where I am confused by the order of events in defence case. If shots were first as they say and Oscar was screaming, then 3 shots first doesn't correlate to 4 shots being fired?

We have heard witness statements that say they heard 3 then 3 bangs or 3 then four bangs? Four shots were fired so one of these sound sequences must indicate four shots and I would imagine they where in line with each other not bang (1 x gun shot) cricket bat x2 then 2 more gun shots, followed by 2 more bat shots? All the while Oscar is screaming?

Again what caused the damage to panel and the noise it would have created?

I don't think this is necessarily a defence win...as it just doesn't add up

 

[MeeBee]

Well, Stander wasn't just a friend, he was security. And I think it's been established that things are a little different in other countries in that it's not unusual to call security first when there's an emergency. That's not really the most damning thing to me.

 

[Carol70]

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.

Yes I think you're right,have been looking myself and from my limited knowledge of law, I can't find anything to suggest we allow this in SA law. Could also be why Roux asked for permission to use some of the prosecutions witnesses that were not called as there is no possible way that Nel would be calling them to the stand at all since he had rested his case??

 

[Interested Bystander]

partial quote:
That 5 minutes does not prove OP was awake then.

You are right, it doesn't. With my first smart phone I was really surprised to see on my bill that it was connecting to the internet every night, even though I knew I was asleep. I was told it will do this to update information. However, mine only showed seconds not minutes.

 

[james83]

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

Firing 4 shots into that small a space knowing there is someone in there in my view can be considered murder.

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

So often people don't do what is rational in highly stressful and shocking situations. I have read many accounts before of people reacting completely counter-intuitively in circumstances involving great fear, grave injury or death - right down to calling the 'wrong' people. If this happened as Oscar claimed the emotional shock and mental trauma had to have been profound.

As an aside, I was robbed (well, attempted) at knifepoint by two males walking home from a movie once. I tell the story often to illustrate how irrational reactions can be in high stress situations. I won't bore anybody with the story, but my response to the men and the situation was just absolutely insane, and I'm lucky I wasn't stabbed 50 times. I did get to keep my 20 dollars though.

 

[G.bng]

OOPS! what the pathologist said was that the 1st shot was to the hip, the 2nd shot failed, 3rd or 4th shot was to the head and would have stopped her screaming.
This is according to:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Reeva-Steenkamp-gave-her-time-to-scream.html

Ooops... the pathologist didn't say anything about the order of the shots, not his job, the ballistics expert did conclude exactly what you note. As an aside I find strange, but then I am a nobody to opine anything, that the ballistics expert could't distinguish between 3rd and fourth because if, as he determines, for the arm shot the arm was raised it is dubious that after the head shot Reeva could have raised her arm as that is a voluntary movement dependent on the brain functioning. I therefore don't understand the reason for him not determining positively that the arm shot would come first before the brain shot. But then I am not a medical expert.

 

[minor4th]

So, was the third possible bat mark to be applied to the first 3 bangs or the second set of bangs bracketed? ......bang...(bang,bang,bang)?

This is where I am confused by the order of events in defence case. If shots were first as they say and Oscar was screaming, then 3 shots first doesn't correlate to 4 shots being fired?

We have heard witness statements that say they heard 3 then 3 bangs or 3 then four bangs? Four shots were fired so one of these sound sequences must indicate four shots and I would imagine they where in line with each other not bang (1 x gun shot) cricket bat x2 then 2 more gun shots, followed by 2 more bat shots? All the while Oscar is screaming?

Again what caused the damage to panel and the noise it would have created?

I don't think this is necessarily a defence win...as it just doesn't add up

I think it's a win for the defense for a couple of reasons - and I'm just talking about this one witness, not the whole case.

1. Vermeulen was further discredited because he said he didn't investigate that mark with the cricket bat when pictures show that he actually did.

2. It leaves the inference that the third mark could have been caused by the cricket bat because the state's investigation could not rule it out - in fact it looks like they investigated it because they considered the mark could have been caused by the cricket bat, but they intentionally excluded that from the evidence they presented.

So it would be an additional cricket bat bang ...corresponding with the 3 bangs at 3:17 (second set), according to the defense case. I don't know how it could help the prosecution.

 

[lisasalinger]

From the CNN recap:

"Roux requested an adjournment until Friday to consult witnesses who were on the state's list but were not called. The defense was not allowed to speak to them while they were potential state witnesses. Judge Thokozile Masipa granted the request and adjourned court until Friday morning when the defense will begin its case."


So Roux just had their affidavits to go on until now? That's different than in the U.S.... I believe.

It does sounds like it. Typically both sides would have a deposition with the witnesses before trial.

 

[Carol70]

partial quote:
What about Samantha Taylor?

I could be wrong but she didn't indicate nothing on the stand that she feared him, nor were any related questions about their relationship asked??? Bar accusations of cheating. She didn't come across to me that he was prone to jealous rages etc? Sorry man,unless I missed it, I only followed her testimony on twitter. Considering her mother was happy that she was out of his clutches, she didn't dish much dirt on the stand IMO.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

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.

I am just wondering if Nel has admitted/submitted something as evidence but not discussed it yet in either photo's or phone records . That could be because OP is the only one that can respond to it .
Nel is known as a strategist after all .
Or maybe being the experienced one in the SA court system he really does believe he has done enough . If not why not call more witness's from his list especially if he thought he hadn't done enough

 

[nastasya]

The reason why there is a pause between the 1st and 2nd gun shots is because "the target" fell to the ground, so OP had to change the angle of the gun. He either heard her fall/scream or saw her fall.

The 1:48 am phone use lasting 5 minutes is important - OP was awake, not sleeping- just prior to heated argument, screaming and gun shots.

Estelle van der Merwe testified she was awakened by a man and woman arguing at 1:56 am.

So killer access internet for 5 minutes, from 1:48 am to 1:53 am. Three minutes later Van der Merwe wakes up to sounds of an argument.

But that's not all.

Van der Merwe said the argument kept her awake for an hour and heard "bang bang" sounds.

Unless killer is also a time traveler and went back to 1:56 to scream like a woman, Van der Merwe's testimony, combined with other witnesses and internet access at 1:48 am, ALL contradict killer's alibi.

 

[minor4th]

Yes I think you're right,have been looking myself and from my limited knowledge of law, I can't find anything to suggest we allow this in SA law. Could also be why Roux asked for permission to use some of the prosecutions witnesses that were not called as there is no possible way that Nel would be calling them to the stand at all since he had rested his case??

Exactly - I think that is the reason. Essentially at this point, the state's witnesses are released and cannot be recalled by the state.

 

[lisasalinger]

Well, Stander wasn't just a friend, he was security. And I think it's been established that things are a little different in other countries in that it's not unusual to call security first when there's an emergency. That's not really the most damning thing to me.

I agree, their security does seem different.

But I didn't get the impression that Stander was security. I think he's the Estate Manager... more of a business guy. I really want him and his daughter to take the stand!

 

[MeeBee]

Ok, since the state doesn't get another chance I can see why Nel was obligated to comply with Roux's request. Nel did seem frustrated though that he was forced to end his case on such a fizzle.

 

[Gavel Rash]

I think it's a win for the defense for a couple of reasons - and I'm just talking about this one witness, not the whole case.

1. Vermeulen was further discredited because he said he didn't investigate that mark with the cricket bat when pictures show that he actually did.

2. It leaves the inference that the third mark could have been caused by the cricket bat because the state's investigation could not rule it out - in fact it looks like they investigated it because they considered the mark could have been caused by the cricket bat, but they intentionally excluded that from the evidence they presented.

So it would be an additional cricket bat bang ...corresponding with the 3 bangs at 3:17 (second set), according to the defense case. I don't know how it could help the prosecution.

I semi agree for this point however it has errors.

So the DT would argued that there is not sufficient evidence from witnesses to know if they heard 3 shots first or second as perhaps they missed a shot from sequence as per some heard 3 second shots some heard 4 could be applied to first sequence as well?

The fact is 4 shots were fired not disputable casings evidence. So where were those shots applied? Screaming ends at end of second sequence and corresponds to ballistics so I would think the determination of the shots being the second sequence is correct. That only leaves an opportunity of the first 3 shots being the bat harassment.