Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He could also be telling the truth, in which case there won't be a lot of drama

Will see what the trial holds :)

Have a feeling I’m going to be adding often that in South Africa the number one reason women are killed is by a man they know in an altercation. It’s like triple the percentage globally.

I don’t usually use the terms ‘crimes of passion’, ‘blind rage’ because they are loaded and not as nuanced as any complicated connections between behavior and crime. OJ Simpson, who was of course acquitted, he was textbook case of where the ex/partner killed from homicide. (For instance he had choked he before, alcohol abuse, anger issues, custody complaints ra ra ra.)

A lot of our conversation is about plausibility, I have a feeling this was similar in OJ’s case where a famous, charming person is believed while the defense and his supporters painted police as conspiring and biased. Yet in hindsight, take out the context of race and fame, these types of men can kill partners and other’s they are jealous off. I arrive at this with the accumulation of State's evidence to date.

Perhaps Pistorius mindset can be combined with shooters like Michael Dunn or the popcorn retired sheriff shooter. They killed out as a reaction to fear and anger but it seems they carried it out quite systematically. From the Pistorius ear witnesses accounts the could be the screaming started by Steenkamp's fear, she retaliated in some way so he may have then yelled cried: “Help, help, help.”

I find it awfully strange (among so many, many ;) other things about his affidavit) that an Olympic & Paralympic athlete, who understands injury and has been exposed to cuts and bleeding on a constant basis, didn’t put on a tourniquet or use his bandages around his own body to stem any of her wounds. He might have tried to stop some blood with towels but it didn’t look like he tried hard. The best strategy is to kill the witness.
 
It would be interesting to know, is there anyone who believes that OP intentionally killed Reeva, but agrees with any part of his affidavit?

If we go off the presumption that he lied, it would be far more sensible to create a story and change only a few critical parts.

Once on the witness stand the least you have to remember, the less likely you are to trip yourself up.

Most of the theories I've heard so far in favor of prosecution have refuted almost every single part of the affidavit.

Just a thought.

I do believe she was doing yoga. :)
I believe he yelled/screamed at Reeva
I do believe he yelled for help off the balcony after Reeva was killed

To me, the reasonable explanation is that
1. an argument ensued,
2. she locked herself in the bathroom because she was afraid of his temper.
3. He tried to break down the door with a cricket bat and when that failed, fired a shots into the door. He was so blindly angry that he never thought of the consequences of killing Reeva.

I personally suspect he was drunk, which would contribute wholly to his reactionary, poor judgement that night.

IF my theory is true, he could easily write his intruder story while adding explanations as to why neighbors may have heard screaming and yelling, cricket bat marks on the door, etc. He boosted his story by saying why he wouldn't murder Reeva so he added "We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way."

So he wedged his affidavit within the story of really happened.

I still can't get past "blood curdling screams" and "terrified screaming." His affidavit does not cover these screams IMO by just saying he screamed at Reeva to call police and he screamed for help.

IMO the affidavit fails here because he DOES NOT MENTION that he continuously screamed. Even if you believe that the screaming the neighbors heard was Oscar, he only screams twice in his affi. He does not state that he went on screaming, let alone "blood curdling" or "terrified" screams.

Fortunately for Oscar, he has an attorney who, since Day 1 in the trial, has done an exemplary job of IMO intentionally causing confusion and doubt with every single witness testimony. IMO its all he had and he brilliantly made the most of it. He deserves a huge applause for his performance. :clap:
 
You know I believed that the DT had been working with OP for many weeks before the trial to prepare him, but his smirking at the one witness testifying about the shooting the gun out if the sunroof leaves me to question that. That was arrogant and dumb and if they had been working with him why did he make that stupid mistake. I could go on about him adding the eyeglasses, but it just is a question in my mind about whether or not they really expected to put him on the stand. I am thinking not, up until recently.

Oh well...
BBM - probably because he was acting on instinct.

No matter how much coaching he's had, I think it will be difficult for him to keep his instinct in check.
 
I do believe she was doing yoga. :)
I believe he yelled/screamed at Reeva
I do believe he yelled for help off the balcony after Reeva was killed

To me, the reasonable explanation is that
1. an argument ensued,
2. she locked herself in the bathroom because she was afraid of his temper.
3. He tried to break down the door with a cricket bat and when that failed, fired a shots into the door. He was so blindly angry that he never thought of the consequences of killing Reeva.

I personally suspect he was drunk, which would contribute wholly to his reactionary, poor judgement that night.

IF my theory is true, he could easily write his intruder story while adding explanations as to why neighbors may have heard screaming and yelling, cricket bat marks on the door, etc. He boosted his story by saying why he wouldn't murder Reeva so he added "We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way."

So he wedged his affidavit within the story of really happened.

I still can't get past "blood curdling screams" and "terrified screaming." His affidavit does not cover these screams IMO by just saying he screamed at Reeva to call police.

IMO where I think the affidavit fails is that he DOES NOT MENTION that he continuously screamed. Even if you believe that the screaming the neighbors heard was Oscar, he only screams twice in his affi. He does not state that he went on and on screaming because of what he had done nor does he state that he was screaming in terror.

Fortunately for Oscar, he has an attorney who, since Day 1 in the trial, has done an exemplary job of IMO intentionally causing confusion and doubt with every single witness testimony. IMO its all he had and he brilliantly made the most of it. He deserves a huge applause for his performance. :clap:

But the witnesses aren't really clear on the nature of the screaming either, only that they heard screaming. They don't say whether it was continuous or not. They say they heard a man and a woman but don't say if the voices were overlapped or not. I think Stipp was the only one who said they were intermingled, though I fail to remember if he used the exact terminology or if that was just the conclusion drawn based on him saying he heard their voices at the same time. This is why I am confused and reluctant to say that I have it nailed down. The testimonies were all over the place.

ETA: it's also not clear on whose voice they heard first, how long the gap was between the screaming, how long the gap was between the first voice and the first set of bangs, etc. it's all too vague for me.
 
You are probably right. But I saw him in an interview where he exploded, said bad things to the host, and stormed off the set! I also saw him when TMZ caught him in Los Angeles, nice at first but when they asked about the advantage his cheeta legs gave him he snarled and quickly turned and got away. He is going to need 25mg Zanax and a beer for breakfast the day that Nel gets ahold of him! :floorlaugh:

For his sake, I do hope that Roux has worked with him and prepared him to stay calm and civil and just tell what he has to tell without getting defensive
 
But the witnesses aren't really clear on the nature of the screaming either, only that they heard screaming. They don't say whether it was continuous or not. They say they heard a man and a woman but don't say if the voices were overlapped or not. I think Stipp was the only one who said they were intermingled, though I fail to remember if he used the exact terminology or if that was just the conclusion drawn based on him saying he heard their voices at the same time. This is why I am confused and reluctant to say that I have it nailed down. The testimonies were all over the place.

The last witness said it went on "for awhile" and said it was something she would never forget. I think she was very clear.

And by the way, I think we are all confused, which is exactly what Barry Roux wants. IMO of course!
 
I do believe she was doing yoga. :)
I believe he yelled/screamed at Reeva
I do believe he yelled for help off the balcony after Reeva was killed

To me, the reasonable explanation is that
1. an argument ensued,
2. she locked herself in the bathroom because she was afraid of his temper.
3. He tried to break down the door with a cricket bat and when that failed, fired a shots into the door. He was so blindly angry that he never thought of the consequences of killing Reeva.

I personally suspect he was drunk, which would contribute wholly to his reactionary, poor judgement that night.

IF my theory is true, he could easily write his intruder story while adding explanations as to why neighbors may have heard screaming and yelling, cricket bat marks on the door, etc. He boosted his story by saying why he wouldn't murder Reeva so he added "We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way."

So he wedged his affidavit within the story of really happened.

I still can't get past "blood curdling screams" and "terrified screaming." His affidavit does not cover these screams IMO by just saying he screamed at Reeva to call police and he screamed for help.

IMO the affidavit fails here because he DOES NOT MENTION that he continuously screamed. Even if you believe that the screaming the neighbors heard was Oscar, he only screams twice in his affi. He does not state that he went on screaming, let alone "blood curdling" or "terrified" screams.

Fortunately for Oscar, he has an attorney who, since Day 1 in the trial, has done an exemplary job of IMO intentionally causing confusion and doubt with every single witness testimony. IMO its all he had and he brilliantly made the most of it. He deserves a huge applause for his performance. :clap:

In addition to the above, have you given any serious consideration to the damage to the bedroom door and the damage to OPs prosthetic legs? Someone broke through the bedroom door at some time, and OPs legs look like they went to war on something (the bedroom door).
 
In addition to the above, have you given any serious consideration to the damage to the bedroom door and the damage to OPs prosthetic legs? Someone broke through the bedroom door at some time, and OPs legs look like they went to war on something (the bedroom door).

Yes...I have to question why the prosecution never covered any of that!

So far Nel just is no match for Roux!
 
The last witness said it went on "for awhile" and said it was something she would never forget. I think she was very clear.

Yes, saying it went on for a while is still entirely too vague. That could mean the screaming was continuous or that she continued to hear screams for a while with some gaps in between. There's no clear evidence that the screaming was continuous. Far as I can tell, that is yet another assumption.

We're all confused because the testimony wasn't clear and Roux made some fair points while cross examining them.
 
Yes...I have to question why the prosecution never covered any of that!

So far Nel just is no match for Roux!

I wouldn't bet money on it. The damage to the door and to the legs could have happened that night or anytime before that night. So Nel has to put them in to finish the puzzle that is the States case of what happened; that is coming!
 
Yes, saying it went on for a while is still entirely too vague. That could mean the screaming was continuous or that she continued to hear screams for a while with some gaps in between. There's no clear evidence that the screaming was continuous. Far as I can tell, that is yet another assumption.

Okay, to clarify, are you saying that Oscar's mentions of two screams--

1. inside the house to Reeva to call police and
2. off the balcony for help

...that the "blood curdling" and "terrifying" screams the neighbors heard could have been these two screams by Oscar?
 
The mods have said that if there are posts that you feel cross the line or break the rules then it's better to ignore and report to let them handle the situation and address the poster accordingly instead of quote and respond, making it harder for them to search and destroy.
 
Okay, to clarify, are you saying that Oscar's mentions of two of his screams--

1. inside the house to Reeva to call police and
2. off the balcony for help

...that these two "blood curdling" and "terrifying" screams the neighbors heard could just as well have been Oscar?

I believe they heard him yelling in words (man's voice) and I believe that in addition to that he may have screamed or wailed in a blood curdling manner (woman's voice) So, yes, I believe they could just as well have been Oscar. Thus, my doubt. Thus, my dilemma.
 
I wouldn't bet money on it. The damage to the door and to the legs could have happened that night or anytime before that night. So Nel has to put them in to finish the puzzle that is the States case of what happened; that is coming!

But they have already had their chance, no?
 
But they have already had their chance, no?

Yeah, people seem to believe that Nel is saving this stuff to ask Oscar personally. I don't believe so. I think that's too risky if he doesn't know what Oscar is going to say because there's a chance Oscar has a reasonable explanation for that stuff. I think he feels it's better to get that in there and leave it up in the air without a clear explanation so the judge can possibly use her imagination. I think this is all we'll hear for now about the unanswered evidence, unless Roux questions OP about it.
 
But they have already had their chance, no?

No, Nel quietly introduced stacks of evidence, he did not talk about every photo or every call or every text or every drop of blood and he did not ask the experts to comment on everything that they saw and documented and investigated. Nel will use things that he introduced in to evidence, things that we did not learn about yet. For example the jeans, those are in the states photo book but we have no clue why, the damage to the bedroom doors and OP prosthetics too; but the State put that book together for a reason, and we will soon learn what the reason is.
 
No, Nel quietly introduced stacks of evidence, he did not talk about every photo or every call or every text or every drop of blood and he did not ask the experts to comment on everything that they saw and documented and investigated. Nel will use things that he introduced in to evidence, things that we did not learn about yet. For example the jeans, those are in the states photo book but we have no clue why, the damage to the bedroom doors and OP prosthetics too; but the State put that book together for a reason, and we will soon learn what the reason is.

But the state probably doesn't even know what that evidence means either. They may have their theories but without an way of proving them they cannot put it out there. And, again, saving it for Oscar leaves open the possibility of him giving a reasonable explanation for the jeans and the other damage. Even if it's not true, he's now made an alternate explanation for the judge to consider as opposed to leaving it to the judge's imagination. I think it's a safer bet for him to leave it in the air.

IMO.
 
Goodnight everyone, talk with you in 5 hours or so! :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
2,016
Total visitors
2,209

Forum statistics

Threads
602,888
Messages
18,148,431
Members
231,573
Latest member
SaltPetals
Back
Top