Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[Cherwell]

Also, the two small marks don't really support a frenzied bashing of the door panels out.

That's right. I tend to think he went on a bit of a rampage with the bat earlier, smashing the bathroom tiles and the bath panel (the tiles probably made quite a crack), and a couple of strikes at the door. Then he levers out the door panel after the shooting, which wouldn't have sounded like gunshots.

 

[G.bng]

I agree. The state have made there play regarding their theory, and the questions asked of witnesses gives me no reason to believe they will even attempt to provide an alternative.

With regard to evidence already submitted, again I suspect all the heavy plays have been made. It's far too risky for the state to have a big disclose and not introduce it in prosecution.

So you are saying that if OP on the stand were to let out something that proved his guilt BARD even if in a different way to what the State had thought or showed in their evidence that it would be irrelevant ? Both in the presentation and during Roux's cross of Stipp the state has stated that their "theory" is more or less changeable. I think that because they have been unable to question OP they are waiting for this to be able to state their full case in the submissions. Or do you think Nel and Co. weren't aware of the problems and deficiencies of their witnesses. Nel has a reputation of being much too clever for that. jmo.

 

[Rumpole]

If you have a presumption of guilt.. then you can keep denying, downplaying, and explaining away facts and posing (unsubstantiated) alternative suppositions.

If you have a presumption on innocence, or even just a "wait and see what gets proven by the State" attitude, then OP's version is plausible at the very least. In my mind much of it is more than plausible now because it has been confirmed by testimony, expert testimony, and evidence (such as phone records, ballistic report etc). And we have only heard the State case so far.
I don't think anybody can deny that Roux will have a lot of witness testimony and evidence to present in defense. I think it is a bit naive (delusional) to imagine that Gerrie "Popeye" Nel will down a can of spinach and find some bulging legal muscles at this stage

 

[Duchy]

That's a possibility, but it would suggest that the guy's an Olympian athlete and strong enough to bash in the bedroom door,
but he's not strong enough to stop Reeva overpowering him to get to the toilet?

I just can't picture him letting Reeva get to the toilet on purpose and then re-enacting a scene from The Shining.

It would take him a while to bash it down and Reeva, anticipating that he was going to succeed, ran to the loo and locked herself in and him out. She had nowhere else to go an she would have been screaming in terror all the while.:scared:

 

[wishIknewmore]

Who knows about lawyer-client relationships in SA? If OP did kill Reeva in a fit of rage, would he tell his lawyer the truth? Would Roux want to know the truth if his client was guilty or could the lawyer be held liable for perjury by allowing OP to plead not guilty. Not even sure if I'm using the correct terms but you know what I mean.

 

[G.bng]

Or, perhaps he remembered something later on and simply decided to include it.
If it strengthens his case then fine, he'd be foolish not to.
Any omission will be fair game for the state and they'll happily grill you for it, you don't need to give them a lift.

Ah, but when Mrs Stipp voluntary corrects her statement because she goes over it in her mind and realises that she didn't actually recall the shadow but had unwittingly adopted it as her recollection from talking with her husband, that demonstrates she is dishonest. Or if Burger adds "curdling" and further details she hadn't written in her statement when in the witness box that is her lying or colluding!

 

[Viper]

At that point... OP having realized he had just shot though the door with Reeva inside.... I think "frenzied" is likely?

Certainly more than tap the door and cough discretely...."ahem"

Two (small) marks that "Rickey Gervais" bothered to include photos of and comment on.. but other marks also... and a solid wooden panel wrenched out completely... and splinters and large shards of wood (some lost by the cops)... so I'll stick with "frenzied"

It's not the point though. It is a FACT that bashing your way through a solid wooden door with a cricket bat will make some noise. We can debate if anybody heard that noise, but not that the noise happened.

As they say... "When a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" :scared:

Actually OP "suspected" that Reeva may be in the WC; he had just fired four bullets at what he believed was an intruder a few seconds before. How could he completely change his firm beliefs that quickly with certainty?

I agree with you that the bat strikes on the door will make noise. I Disagree that the bat noises came after the gunshot noises. I disagree with you that the bat was used to break down the door, the two marks are just superficial dings, not evidence if significant damage to bash down the door. The bat was used to pry loose a panel on the door and Oscar then ripped that panel and the two others out by hand; in your own post you note that panels were "wretched out completely" and that is different from bashed out, in any way.

 

[Duchy]

If that door has been bashed in, it's been charged through in seconds. If it had been hit with a bat or similar, it would have taken a while, and would be in a similar state as the bathroom door.

Does the damage look similar to the bathroom door to anyone?

About the same time she would take to run to the loo and get the door shut (not enough time to move out of the way of the door though which is why she was standing behind and facing the loo door when shot in the hip.

 

[steveml]

Also, could someone please clarify for me .. do they know exactly at which point OP is said to have started calling out to Reeva to call the police (if we take his version of events) while moving towards the toilet door. OP must've been making quite a bit of noise himself, I would imagine .. so why, if Reeva was in the loo taking a pee, did she not call out to OP something like "what's going on out there"?

So much of this seems to have taken place in complete silence .. either Reeva being totally silent in the toilet cubicle, and therefore not alerting OP to it being her in there .. and then OP being totally silent when apprehending the 'intruder', and thus not alerting Reeva to OP moving about doing something a bit abnormal for that hour of the morning in the bathroom area. It just doesn't ring true that in the quiet of the night, neither of them appear to have heard the other (if you take it from Oscars version of events).

The only one sound that was ever heard by either of them (in his version of events) was 'the intruder'/Reeva sliding the bathroom window open .. and that is pretty much it.

How does that work then?

It would be quite reasonable to presume that as OP screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of his house, Reeva wouldn't know where the alleged intruders were in the house.
As such, she's unlikely to alert them by shouting out 'I'm in the toilet'. I know I'd keep quiet.

 

[steveml]

About the same time she would take to run to the loo and get the door shut (not enough time to move out of the way of the door though which is why she was standing behind and facing the loo door when shot in the hip.

If OP is supposed to have barged through the door with his bat and chased Reeva to the bathroom she'd have plenty of time to move from the door, as OP has made error no.1 in the assassination handbook and forgotten his gun.

 

[Rumpole]

Actually OP "suspected" that Reeva may be in the WC; he had just fired four bullets at what he believed was an intruder a few seconds before. How could he completely change his firm beliefs that quickly with certainty?

I agree with you that the bat strikes on the door will make noise. I Disagree that the bat noises came after the gunshot noises. I disagree with you that the bat was used to break down the door, the two marks are just superficial dings, not evidence if significant damage to bash down the door. The bat was used to pry loose a panel on the door and Oscar then ripped that panel and the two others out by hand; in your own post you note that panels were "wretched out completely" and that is different from bashed out, in any way.

It is the State case, presented by their experts that bat was after shots. And I agree with them. It is no longer a point at issue?

To deny it just because you want it to be not true does not make sense?
It is not something that there is any doubt about.
That supposition stems from a presumption of guilt. You reject the obvious explanation in preference for ANY explanation that refutes any part of OP's version. There is NO EVIDENCE presented (or likely to be presented) that proves the bat damage was done in two stages... you can propose any alternative as pure speculation,why stop at two. Why not OP bashed the door and came back several times before finally wrenching free the door panel. But there is no point to that unless it is something you can test with the evidence already presented... or at the very least, propose some investigation that could test that theory.

I am sure the Judge gets it.

Well I hope the Judge gets it. I am hoping for a rational decision based on the evidence with a Judge deciding the verdict. I cringe when I hear some jury interviews after a trial.

 

[G.bng]

Agreed. He added a minor detail. If he outright changed something or one account was vastly different from the next, filled with inconsistencies, that would be a problem. So far, every account he's made has lined up. He remembered he'd spoken to her so added the detail. It's not like he completely fabricates something, the way Mrs. Stipp did, for instance.

Can you not consider that maybe Mrs Stipp didn't "fabricate" anything as you so judgementally accuse, merely that from discussing it with her husband, a normal activity after such a traumatic event, at one point she got confused as to what she had seen and what her husband had told her he had seen. I have had several instances where I am unsure if I said, did or heard something or my OH did, and IMO Mrs Stipp proved her honesty when, after re-reading and thinking more about it, she asked to change it.

I seem to recall someone inferring that posters who believed OP guilty were only willing to accept as evidence things that confirmed their beliefs... could this be an example of the reverse?

 

[steveml]

Actually OP "suspected" that Reeva may be in the WC; he had just fired four bullets at what he believed was an intruder a few seconds before. How could he completely change his firm beliefs that quickly with certainty?

I agree with you that the bat strikes on the door will make noise. I Disagree that the bat noises came after the gunshot noises. I disagree with you that the bat was used to break down the door, the two marks are just superficial dings, not evidence if significant damage to bash down the door. The bat was used to pry loose a panel on the door and Oscar then ripped that panel and the two others out by hand; in your own post you note that panels were "wretched out completely" and that is different from bashed out, in any way.

How could you pry a panel out of a door with a cricket bat? A cricket bat's completely blunt, and thick.

 

[Viper]

It is the State case, presented by their experts that bat was after shots. And I agree with them. It is no longer a point at issue?

To deny it just because you want it to be not true does not make sense?
It is not something that there is not any doubt about. I am sure the Judge gets it.

Well I hope the Judge gets it. I am hoping for a rational decision based on the evidence with a Judge deciding the verdict. I cringe when I hear some jury interviews after a trial.

Sorry, that is not the State's case. Mr. Nel has been very careful not to give too much away about the State's case. With regards to Batman, please see my reply to Minor a couple of pages back near the bottom of the page. Also for another example: the State submitted a photo book with 100's of hand picked images. Amount them were images of the bedroom doors that were barged through, including a air gun pellet hole in one door. Did Nel cover that with the witnesses? No. What about Reeva's jeans? No. But the State include those images in their case photo book because they will be covering it with the DT witnesses. And along that same line watch for more from the WhatsApp texts!

 

[luvmygarden]

so you can see the substance of what I was getting at by asking
"How long did it take you to bring in the fans". ?
I put it in a lay persons terms ,I can't ask questions in barrister talk so may be better bowing out of this and leaving it to Nel lol
One last thing he didn't hear any noise from the bathroom whilst on the balcony only after he came in closed the doors ,curtains and blinds [/quote]

I don't know if I live in a normal household or not but in my house if I am home alone I hear noises Just ordinary everyday noises they don't scare me. When my husband is home say sleeping maybe taking a nap I would never get a gun and go looking for intruders if I heard a window open because I would just guess he was warm and got up and opened the window. I don't live in a gated community. These fears we hear about are making me think it is paranoia.

 

[Rumpole]

Sorry, that is not the State's case. Mr. Nel has been very careful not to give too much away about the State's case. With regards to Batman, please see my reply to Minor a couple of pages back near the bottom of the page. Also for another example: the State submitted a photo book with 100's of hand picked images. Amount them were images of the bedroom doors that were barged through, including a air gun pellet hole in one door. Did Nel cover that with the witnesses? No. What about Reeva's jeans? No. But the State include those images in their case photo book because they will be covering it with the DT witnesses. And along that same line watch for more from the WhatsApp texts!

So... you are one of those who think that Nel's lack-luster performance and shortage of evidence presented somehow indicates that he is actually a "Tiger" playing rope-a-dope... about to come off the ropes in the last round? :floorlaugh:

A bit risky to NOT present evidence that he has and hope he can sneak it in during the Defense case via cross examination.

Once again I apply Occams Razor... Nel looks to be a bit limp as an advocate, because he is a bit limp.
And the lack of conclusive evidence was because he has none.

We'll see


"including a air gun pellet hole in one door"

WHEN did it become an "air pellet hole"?

It is a HOLE shown in photos. No mention of it being inspected, let alone confirmed as a bullet hole? Ballistics expert on the scene did not inspect, or at least did not report. I would have expected the hole to be probed for bullet or pellet fragments... if it was thought relevant.Door damage guys did not report on damage to that door (or inspect it)
We do not even know that the damaged door was relevant to the night in question.

Similarly... a photo showing spots on wall by the bed and on duvet..... nobody has testified it was blood, whose blood, when it was deposited. Blood spatter guy did not inspect, or at least did not report. There are a lot of assumptions being made... and theories running off from those assumptions. It all seems to stem from a Presumption of Guilt such that any photo is seen as important evidence, regardless of no details provided.

 

[TorisMom003]

There's a big problem for OP no matter what came first, bat or gun. If the defense/OP continue to claim that the gun came first then OP still showed blatant disregard for Reeva's life and intentionally killed her. If the bat came first then OP showed that he intended to kill Reeva.

1. The gun first story:
OP, according to his story, shot the gun 4 times into the toilet room door beginning at 3 am. OP does not call Netcare until 3:20 am. That is 20 mins of Reeva bleeding out at which point she would be dead. A shot to the hip and to the head would both cause massive bleeding. OP still didn't offer any aid to Reeva until AFTER the 3:20 am call to Netcare. This shows a blatant disregard for Reeva's life and a desire for her to die.

2. Bat first theory:
OP clearly knows that it is Reeva in the toilet room. He bangs on the door with the cricket bat to scare Reeva and/or make her come out. She refuses and he then gets his gun. He shoots Reeva three times after firing four shots throught the toilet room door. This occurs at 3:17 am. OP then waits until 3:20 am to call Netcare. Instead of doing what they said (if they even said it) he does not immediately take her to the hospital. This shows a blatant disregard for Reeva's life and a desire for her to be dead.

Either way, no matter what the defense wants to argue, they are going to have to explain away why OP did not immediately get Reeva help. If they can not do that then the judge will have to rule that OP intended to shoot and kill Reeva.

MOO

 

[Viper]

So... you are one of those who think that Nel's lack-luster performance and shortage of evidence presented somehow indicates that he is actually a "Tiger" playing rope-a-dope... about to come off the ropes in the last round? :floorlaugh:

A bit risky to NOT present evidence that he has and hope he can sneak it in during the Defense case via cross examination.

Once again I apply Occams Razor... Nel looks to be a bit limp as an advocate, because he is a bit limp.
And the lack of conclusive evidence was because he has none.

We'll see

Yes I do see more respect for the Court in Mr. Nel than I do in Roux, considerably more. And I know that the two have gone up against each other in the past, all three times Mr. Nel won convictions. Regarding conclusive evidence, Mr. Nel walked in to the courtroom with that: the body of the deceased victim, the murder weapon, and the confession of the killer. So now it is about his proving premeditation, and the five witnesses have testified to hearing a fight between a man and a woman, and hearing the woman's blood curdling screams, which were silenced by the volley of bullets OP fired at her.

 

[steveml]

Ah, but when Mrs Stipp voluntary corrects her statement because she goes over it in her mind and realises that she didn't actually recall the shadow but had unwittingly adopted it as her recollection from talking with her husband, that demonstrates she is dishonest. Or if Burger adds "curdling" and further details she hadn't written in her statement when in the witness box that is her lying or colluding!

I think I mentioned earlier in my posts that I don't think it's really a question of lying, more a question of witnesses trying to provide answers for everything rather than just saying 'I don't know'.
It appeared to me that she had adopted a bit too much from her husbands statement. It's not too big a deal however, I just find her husbands statement rather more credible.

 

[minor4th]

I think the idea is to press the button and leave the property immediately unless there is no way out. Security guards were only a very short distance away.

Right, and according to Oscar's story, that was not a reliable option