Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Really?]

The difference is...... IF OP shot KNOWING Reeva was behind the door.. then I for one would want him found guilty of the highest degree of murder possible in SA.. sentenced to LWOP.

IF he shot thinking it was an intruder, then the crime (if any) is open to debate.. depends on details of law in SA. Personally I do not have a problem with shooting to kill an intruder. If OP genuinely thought he was doing just that, then it becomes a case of mistaken identity.. an accident even, but I imagine some sort of lesser crime such as manslaughter (or the SA equivalent)

BBM:
I disagree......he didn't know what was behind that door.....what if his dog climbed the ladder...my cat even?....sheeesh. ......trigger happy should have shouted something more than " get out of my house"....oooooo scarey.

 

[BlueShoe]

I'm enjoying reading the speculations from both sides. Here's one possible: OP shoots at 3:17. He panics, runs to put on his prosthesis, grabs his cricket bat and pries the door open. Sees that Reeva is dead. Then he makes the phone calls around 3:19. Whatever is said causes him to get the key, unlock the door, drag Reeva out and carry her downstairs. Sure it's speculative, but I don't see why it couldn't have happened. I think 3:17 gunshots are possible. IMO

 

[Val1]

Rather than twising into contortions to Try (and fail) to explain how OP might have been able to have been making phone calls a minute or so after the gunshots at 3:17... it makes FAR more sense to apply Occam's Razor.

There were TWO sets ob bangs heard. Two known events that caused bangs. Even the State argues the shots came first. IMO it should be beyond question at this stage that the shots were the first set of bangs and the bat was the second. Hard to pin the Stipps down on precise time of the first bangs... could be anywhere from 3:00 to 3:10... but I put it to y'all that shots even at around 3:10 implying 9 minutes for OP to do all the stuff he did clearly do after the shots makes sense. Shots at 3:17 makes no sense at all.

If the time of shots was earlier than 3:10... it still makes sense... there was a LOT of stuff to do.. and it could easily have taken a bit longer that 9 minutes. To suggest a time for shots leaving just over a minute is..... DAFT!

bbm - I disagree, that was the opinion of one of the State's "expert" witnesses that was only asked to determine if and how the bat was used, not to determine the ballistics of the case and what came first, the bat marks or the gun shots. He also agreed with the possibility that the dent marks could have come first to "scare" the victim since the whole "put it to you" argument had previously suggested that the bat marks came after the gunshots and ignored that he was presenting not bat whack marks but bat wedging marks as having come after the gunshots. Obviously this "expert" doesn't have much experience with wood either way.

As for the gunshots, I'm more convinced by the witness' that heard screaming as to the order. Screams that are silenced by the second volley are much more convincing in light of the brain damage RS sustained than OP screaming like a woman for upwards of 15 minutes or so and then breaking into sobs before he would have had time to get into the room to see what he'd done, unless you agree that he was able to see what he was doing the whole time...

Imo the evidence points more towards bat whacks damaging the bathroom tiles/metal plate and denting and splintering the toilet door came first, during which RS was screaming for help and OP was mocking her, then came the gun and intensified screams of RS just before and as OP aimed and shot her dead. Then, oops, I better call for someone to clean up for me(paid help dontcha know), run down and unlock the door so his cleaner/s can get in, go finish pulling apart the door to get the body out and take it downstairs but dang it, nosy neighbours not only called the security patrol that kept interrupting me(hangups) but then actually came over and interfered.

 

[G.bng]

I'm not talking about the brainstorming aspect of this. Surely, we're all brainstorming. But, again, at this point, if we have to brainstorm the state's case then, again, that's a problem.

Ooops... sorry... I thought that was the whole point, "brainstorming the state's case", and the defence's too... i.e. websleuthing! Testing ourselves, each other, as investigators, detectives, lawyers, etc.., practising powers of observation, reasoning, logic, capacity to come up with new ideas, new theories, difficult legal issues, attempting to work out what may have happened, where the prosecutor or the defence are going, etc. In resume, an innocent, enjoyable pastime in which none of us risk loosing our lives or job, nor risk leaving a reckless killer to walk the streets nor preventing a responsible gun owner from continuing to protect their house-guests!

Maybe I am in the wrong blog...?! ;-)

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes, I have considered why she would do that in fact. However, it's irrelevant to talk about her motive to deceive - we know that she did. That's not in question at all.

Calling someone a liar without qualifying why you made that accusation doesn't make sense given that you've explained why you thought other witnesses were lying/mistaken. But fair enough. You don't want to say why...

 

[minor4th]

After reading your post, I just banged my head against a wall:banghead:. If you read the evidence, the known three emotionally abusive incidents happened in the four weeks immediately prior to OP murdering RS. We will hear about the 4th one very soon and it will not suprise me if this is very near the other three. Time will tell. These were conversations not single messages.

Wait ....what 4th one?

 

[G.bng]

This may seem a naive question but what does a defence barrister do if s/he becomes aware that the accused is guilty? I don't mean suspects, but knows, because the accused has said "yes, I did it, I'm guilty". What happens then? I think under British law the barrister has to withdraw from the case, but I'm really not certain.

I believe they can continue to represent but it makes a defence very difficult as officers of the court they are unable to lie to a court so unless they have a technicality to go on they could not promote a plea for "not guilty". Something like that...

 

[minor4th]

Calling someone a liar without qualifying why you made that accusation doesn't make sense given that you've explained why you thought other witnesses were lying/mistaken. But fair enough. You don't want to say why...

That's a different question -I thought you were asking what he motive was.

I can certainly tell you why I say she lied. It's because she admitted it on the stand when she acknowledged that she signed her first sworn statement saying she saw a figure in the lighted window when had not seen such a thing.

 

[MeeBee]

bbm - I disagree, that was the opinion of one of the State's "expert" witnesses that was only asked to determine if and how the bat was used, not to determine the ballistics of the case and what came first, the bat marks or the gun shots. He also agreed with the possibility that the dent marks could have come first to "scare" the victim since the whole "put it to you" argument had previously suggested that the bat marks came after the gunshots and ignored that he was presenting not bat whack marks but bat wedging marks as having come after the gunshots. Obviously this "expert" doesn't have much experience with wood either way.

As for the gunshots, I'm more convinced by the witness' that heard screaming as to the order. Screams that are silenced by the second volley are much more convincing in light of the brain damage RS sustained than OP screaming like a woman for upwards of 15 minutes or so and then breaking into sobs before he would have had time to get into the room to see what he'd done, unless you agree that he was able to see what he was doing the whole time...

Imo the evidence points more towards bat whacks damaging the bathroom tiles/metal plate and denting and splintering the toilet door came first, during which RS was screaming for help and OP was mocking her, then came the gun and intensified screams of RS just before and as OP aimed and shot her dead. Then, oops, I better call for someone to clean up for me(paid help dontcha know), run down and unlock the door so his cleaner/s can get in, go finish pulling apart the door to get the body out and take it downstairs but dang it, nosy neighbours not only called the security patrol that kept interrupting me(hangups) but then actually came over and interfered.

But there were screams heard after the last volley. Don't know if it was screams, but they were heard, mistaken for a woman, then understood to be OP.

The bit about the cleaners is bold. It's interesting but why would he call security first and then Netcare if he was planning on hiding the body? And he sure got it together quickly to act the part of the devastated boyfriend.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes ! possible title......." If I killed Reeva".

No "if" about that

Alternative title: "If I was on my stumps"

 

[Cherwell]

It's such a double standard for people to say Oscar is a proven liar because he changed his statement from "the fan" to "two fans" - yet when we have a witness on the stand who unequivocally admits that she swore to a statement that was false ...we can't call her a liar.

That really and truly makes no sense whatsoever.

You might have a case if she hadn't corrected it, and was later caught out. It seems clear to me that it was a mistake, not a "lie". Perhaps it might be fair to say that she was careless in not correcting it on the spot, but there may be an innocent reason for that. I see no reason to think that she deliberately set out to deceive.

 

[minor4th]

It was actually 4 .. and that was 4 'occasions'/exchanges (i.e. comprising a number of messages per occasion) .. it wasn't 4 'messages'. Those 4 occasions/text exchanges related to things that had happened a day or so earlier in real life, so each of those text exchanges you can now double up to 8 occasions where they were arguing or not happy with each other. 8 occasions after 2 months dating seems quite a lot to me. There may even have been more 'face to face' ones on top of that, we just don't know .. but certainly there is proof of 4 occasions of something upsetting happening in real life, then 4 more occasions of a 'follow up' argument/disagreement, so you've got 8 altogether.

It's pointless doing all this numbers and percentages stuff though .. it's the 'content' of the messages that needs to be understood .. and fully understood .. not what percentage they amount to. Even just one message in the same vein of those presented in court, would've been enough to show there was something very badly wrong with that relationship, and not just a normal argument.

Ok, whether it was 3, 5, or 10 messages or conversations out of thousands, you cannot discern the entire context of the relationship from that little bitty glimpse.

Yes, you may be able to say that on these occasions there were problems in the relationship. But that's all you can say. The "content" of these particular messages is not particularly revealing - it's not like a man telling his wife she's going to pay for talking back to him; it's not like a man telling his girlfriend that she better not look at John that way again or she'll be sorry; it's not like he said, I'm sorry I choked you ..but I just got out of control and that's not really me, I promise it won't happen again, please dont leave.

You see what I'm saying? If you see messages like that you might be able to conclude from just one message that this is an abusive relationship. That is not what we have here at all.

 

[screecher]

Here's the FACT, not theory:

Killer was aware likelihood of Reeva using bathroom to pee was infinitely greater than likelihood that intruder scaled 2nd story window and immediately hid in toilet stall during the 45 seconds killer went to get the fans.

Think about that.

Killer shot and killed Reeva based on 1 in a million chance somebody climbed the ladder, entered the bathroom, went into the toilet, AND was going to hurt him even while he was holding a loaded 9 mm gun vs. the 99.9995% chance that it was Reeva using the toilet.

He played Russian Roulette with Reeva's life, with the odds stacked a million to 1 against her.

I won't be the tiniest bit upset to know that killer will soon be screaming like a woman in prison even if his idiotic story is true.

Oscar Pistorius is either a sociopathic killer or a recklessly dangerous killer with no regard for anybody's life but his own.

BBM

Replying to second bold by me

And then, with his/her magical powers, made ladder disappear! Bwahahaha!

 

[Gryffindor]

I do appreciate that, and I'm not for one minute trying to be insensitive.

:whiteflag:

Oh not at all, I totally understand. I didn't think you were one bit Just agreeing with you it's very tricky to prove. They purposely don't leave trails or evidence either, paper or otherwise x x

 

[steveml]

[/b]

BIB That is incorrect. The forensic officer was very clear that the technology they used does recover deleted data, period. All of the texts sent without WhatsApp were entered in to evidence, Nel only disclosed a few of them, but the rest are in evidence. In adition all of the phone's data were entered in to evidence, along with the instructions on how to access them. IIRC the data recovered from OPs WhatsApp after the day of the 13th were not read out or shown on the monitors, but they are there. So many may be very surprised when Nel starts reading more text messages during his x-exam of OP.

I really think you're going to be disappointed if you're expecting all these major sensations to come out in cross. :no:

 

[MeeBee]

Ooops... sorry... I thought that was the whole point, "brainstorming the state's case", and the defence's too... i.e. websleuthing! Testing ourselves, each other, as investigators, detectives, lawyers, etc.., practising powers of observation, reasoning, logic, capacity to come up with new ideas, new theories, difficult legal issues, attempting to work out what may have happened, where the prosecutor or the defence are going, etc. In resume, an innocent, enjoyable pastime in which none of us risk loosing our lives or job, nor risk leaving a reckless killer to walk the streets nor preventing a responsible gun owner from continuing to protect their house-guests!

Maybe I am in the wrong blog...?! ;-)

This is like a really bad game of telephone. My initial post expressed no issues with people putting on different theories and expressing different opinions. Just that there were so many sure footed theories around was a problem for me because it leads me to suspect the state's case is not that strong. I'm sure you can appreciate what the difference is. I wish people would listen to what I'm saying and not what others interpret me as saying. I'm sure I know what my own words mean.

 

[minor4th]

You might have a case if she hadn't corrected it, and was later caught out. It seems clear to me that it was a mistake, not a "lie". Perhaps it might be fair to say that she was careless in not correcting it on the spot, but there may be an innocent reason for that. I see no reason to think that she deliberately set out to deceive.

I have a case because she corrected it.

When someone makes a statement under oath, and swears to its truth subject to penalties of perjury - you cannot write it off as a simple mistake or carelessness.

 

[screecher]

I read this article, written before the murder, and in one of the photos of OP's prosthetic legs it shows them scratched, dented and missing pieces. It seems a lot of the damage already existed.

I'd be willing to wager OP has more than one pair of prosthetic legs.

 

[MeeBee]

I'd be willing to wager OP has more than one pair of prosthetic legs.

I think you'd need proof of that.

 

[Cherwell]

I have a case because she corrected it.

When someone makes a statement under oath, and swears to its truth subject to penalties of perjury - you cannot write it off as a simple mistake or carelessness.

If she hadn't corrected it, you wouldn't be any the wiser, would you? I think it highlights her honesty, rather than the reverse.

I am not going to engage any further with you on this.