Trial Discussion Thread #15

[jay-jay]

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.

From what you have said there, it seems that you do not have a very in depth knowledge or understanding of how these types of relationships work .. particularly the bits I have put in bold.

 

[Rumpole]

Beg your pardon? You asked for speculation.

Granted!

Did I ask for speculation? Does not sound like me. My cat often types when I leave the keyboard.

Generally I don't see the point in speculation.. little value if it is something that can never be tested against the facts.

On the other hand... something that can (and will) be tested against the evidence is what is known as a "working hypothesis" and example of that is my post that OP described Reeva's wounds to Netcare. THAT is open to be tested.. when OP gives evidence and potentially when there is evidence from the Netcare side of the phone conversation.
One of the defining features of logical (scientific) method is that one proposes hypotheses that can be DISPROVED. The hypothesis (theory) is accepted only until it is disproved in some way.. at which point it is modified to incorporate new facts.. or else it is abandoned in favor of a new theory.
When you speculate things that can never be evaluated and tested it is pure speculation.

 

[minor4th]

From what you have said there, it seems that you do not have a very in depth knowledge or understanding of how these types of relationships work .. particularly the bits I have put in bold.

Actually I do.

 

[jay-jay]

Well, we seem to be going round and round in circles about the meaning/relevance of the text messages .. some of us get it and it's ringing extremely loud alarm bells, but others aren't getting that and I doubt ever will, no matter which way you try to explain it .. so

.. can I go onto/back to the sliding window thing in the bathroom. Have any tests been carried out to see whether it is actually possible to hear the bathroom window slide, from just outside/inside the balcony doors, does anyone know? How noisy would a sliding window like that be and how likely is it that he would've been able to hear it from that distance, realistically?

 

[Rumpole]

IMO Nel doesn't need to do anything more than he has about the burglar, and albeit probably not in the case of a home intruder, in the US you have "transferred intent" too so there could also be cases where if shooting unlawfully and killing another by accident an accused could be found guilty too.

In any case, in a bench system the judge is obliged to strictly follow the laws and only when not covered and there is no jurisprudence to use as guidance either will a judge be able to resort to a new interpretation. IMBW, but from how I see it Masipa will be reasoning as if ticking boxes, i.e. was it unlawful for OP to shoot an intruder ?(IDK for sure but it appears under SA law and the constitution it was: no gun, no imminent threat, other options to avert danger, etc.); if yes to the previous, is there evidence OP "intended" to kill the intruder ? (I reckon 4 shots into the door of a reduced area, knowing someone is inside will summarily deal with that); if yes, was OP's a "reasonable response" in all of the circumstances ? (imo this one may be where OP may be given a little leeway); if no, would it be "reasonable" for OP to know that shooting through a door could possibly, and yes it is "possibly", result in death ? (again I reckon shooting 4 times through the door of a reduced area knowing someone was inside should deal with that one super quick too). There are more conundrums the judge will have to pose herself I am sure but as I see it this would be the basic idea. JMO

I think YOU make good points.... you are making the sort of case that I think Nel should have made.
In SA as in USA the burden is on the State to lay out a case with evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant is presumed innocent. The defendant can, and always does, answer the State's case. I still don't see that Nel has put much at all to M'Lady.. other than his contention that Op is lying about what transpired and that he fired at the door knowing that Reeva was behind it. ... and that he has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt (IMO) and so what is so far put before the Judge other than that is... nothing.

 

[BlueShoe]

Granted!

Did I ask for peculation? Does not sound like me. My cat often types when I leave the keyboard.

Generally I don't see the point in speculation.. little value if it is something that can never be tested against the facts.

On the other hand... something that can (and will) be tested against the evidence is what is known as a "working hypothesis" and example of that is my post that OP described Reeva's wounds to Netcare. THAT is open to be tested.. when OP gives evidence and potentially when there is evidence from the Netcare side of the phone conversation.
One of the defining features of logical (scientific) method is that one proposes hypotheses that can be DISPROVED. The hypothesis (theory) is accepted only until it is disproved in some way.. at which point it is modified to incorporate new facts.. or else it is abandoned in favor of a new theory.
When you speculate things that can never be evaluated and tested it is pure speculation.

Good points! Yet not all the evidence we have is purely scientific. In your expample of the phone call, unless it has been recorded, the new evidence will be based on testimony by OP and Netcare. Therefore, we will have to judge based on our own interpretations of what is most logical. Then we must decide who has the best logic. Do we believe Oscar and Netcare? What if there is a conflict? If they basically agree, they could still be remembering wrong (certainly what is true for the five ear-witnesses would be true for them, no?). So although it seems so clean-cut to be logical, it isn't always quite that simple (or even scientific).

 

[minor4th]

Well, we seem to be going round and round in circles about the meaning/relevance of the text messages .. some of us get it and it's ringing extremely loud alarm bells, but others aren't getting that and I doubt ever will, no matter which way you try to explain it .. so

.. can I go onto/back to the sliding window thing in the bathroom. Have any tests been carried out to see whether it is actually possible to hear the bathroom window slide, from just outside/inside the balcony doors, does anyone know? How noisy would a sliding window like that be and how likely is it that he would've been able to hear it from that distance, realistically?

The point is you cannot know for certain from those messages that this was an abusive relationship. It might have been - but you can't know from those messages. The examples I gave above are extreme examples, but that was the point - if you saw extreme messages like that, you could conclude it is an abusive relationship just from reading one or two messages, but there is no such clarity in these messages.

That doesn't mean anyone doesn't understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship or the warning signs or red flags. That doesn't mean anyone is discounting the gravity of emotional abuse. In fact, it doesn't even mean that anyone has concluded for sure that Oscar is not abusive.

It just means you cannot come to a certain conclusion based on those few messages.

 

[G.bng]

Just setting the record straight and owning up to my own posts about witnesses who lied. I don't know why it's such a big taboo to say a witness lied when they clearly did.

Don't know about "verified attorneys" but in the UK, except for barristers in court crossing or questioning a witness, and judges when they read the sentences, it is impolite to say accused and witnesses "lie", rather that they tell their "version of the truth". Part of the good old English etiquette, at least mine.

In any case, it is your opinion, and Roux's of course, that Mrs Stipp lied, but I watched the whole testimony and at worst I saw mistakes. So are you going to call me a liar too?

How can you prove it was not a mistake, I read somewhere how you yourself said that what annoyed you most was she wouldn't admit that possibility, so why now must it be a lie and not a mistake. A lie is a will to deceive... can you prove that ? Can you prove that when she mistook her hand under pressure from Roux who was aggressively trying to trick her about something as absurd as that she couldn't see OP's window in full when even an idiot could see that from down on the bed where she would be laying and, not up high from where the shot was taken, she evidently could see the window and when there had been two days of shooting and she was referring to the first. Well!

 

[katydid23]

Just pure curiosity and probably stupid question :blushing: , which was probably discussed - it is said that the black talon bullets open up when hitting human flesh and break into pieces when hitting a bone. So if fired through a door or any other material don't they open up before hitting the body?

IIRC, there was testimony that they expand when hitting soft, wet target, like flesh?

 

[Insp.Dots]

Hi everyone. Happy Sunday and Mothers' Day :-D

A few issues I have: Why 4 shots? Do they possibly correlate with words spoken by Oscar ? E.g. "you lied to me", "say you love me" or "GET OUT MY HOUSE!!" More bullets were available. Why did he stop at 4?

Toilet cubicle key, if it was indeed inside, it would've had blood on it during the firing, thus likely he indeed locked her in and had the key all along. That is plausible imo.

But hypothetically - assume that OP really is guilty and his story is a fabrication constructed to account for evidence he thought might come out through ear witnesses and such. Just take that as a given for the sake of trying to put yourself in the prosecution's shoes.

How do you prove it and where do you attack? The things you've mentioned have already been undermined with considerable doubt. So what would it take for Nel now to clearly show that Oscar's version is false in some major aspect that would indicate he was making up the whole story to cover a crime

I agree and have been trying to come up with a realistic answer. I can't help thinking there has to be more to the phone/iPad evidence. It felt like we were on the verge of something last week, like Nel was building it up, ready to pounce and then something changed...it makes no sense.
Did Reeva send some kind of message out, saying he had got angry?
Are the jeans in the garden included for cross examination?
Did OP do something to hide evidence when he went back upstairs, were the extra phones deliberately put down to throw the IT off the scent?
Too many questions, not enough answers!!!
Maybe Nel, is hoping with enough pressure and a few surprises, he may get OP to mess up on the stand and crumble.
I think it will tell us everything we need. Whenever OP has had a problem he has had 'whoever' at a click of his fingers to solve it for him.
On the stand he is on his own, if he makes the slightest hiccup in what he says IMO he will be done for.

*LIES CAN BE CHANGED, THE TRUTH DOES NOT*

 

[minor4th]

I agree and have been trying to come up with a realistic answer. I can't help thinking there has to be more to the phone/iPad evidence. It felt like we were on the verge of something last week, like Nel was building it up, ready to pounce and then something changed...it makes no sense.
Did Reeva send some kind of message out, saying he had got angry?
Are the jeans in the garden included for cross examination?
Did OP do something to hide evidence when he went back upstairs, were the extra phones deliberately put down to throw the IT off the scent?
Too many questions, not enough answers!!!
Maybe Nel, is hoping with enough pressure and a few surprises, he may get OP to mess up on the stand and crumble.
I think it will tell us everything we need. Whenever OP has had a problem he has had 'whoever' at a click of his fingers to solve it for him.
On the stand he is on his own, if he makes the slightest hiccup in what he says IMO he will be done for.

*LIES CAN BE CHANGED, THE TRUTH DOES NOT*

I think if Oscar has made this all up as a coverup then he will not be able to withstand the pressure of cross examination and it will become apparent that he is lying.

 

[minor4th]

FYI - I did not put the tag "verified attorney" under my name. That is something the mods use as a tag to indicate that they have actually verified that a poster claiming to be an attorney is actually an attorney.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well, we seem to be going round and round in circles about the meaning/relevance of the text messages .. some of us get it and it's ringing extremely loud alarm bells, but others aren't getting that and I doubt ever will, no matter which way you try to explain it .. so

.. can I go onto/back to the sliding window thing in the bathroom. Have any tests been carried out to see whether it is actually possible to hear the bathroom window slide, from just outside/inside the balcony doors, does anyone know? How noisy would a sliding window like that be and how likely is it that he would've been able to hear it from that distance, realistically?

BBM - Good point, and like I posted earlier, if he heard the window sliding open, how come he didn't hear the 'intruder' climbing in through the window and landing on the floor?? And by the way, I totally get the tone of the text messages, and I do not think they're irrelevant at all. They're indicative of a highly insecure and manipulative control freak, prone to rages, jealousy and narcissism. They're not text messages that portray a normal relationship whatsoever. It's clearly intense, hard work and stressful for Reeva as she tries in vain to predict how OP will react to the most minor of situations, and attempts to avoid any conflict for fear of him 'scaring' her. Not healthy. Not pleasant. Not normal. Not by a stretch.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It was Roux that found a text that he didn't want to read out because it would reveal personal things about Reeva and he didn't feel it appropriate. I don't remember if he was the one that said, "you'll hear about this later," though.

ETA: never mind you said Roux, I apologize.

What he said was "There will be evidence about that".

 

[Rumpole]

Good points! Yet not all the evidence we have is purely scientific. In your expample of the phone call, unless it has been recorded, the new evidence will be based on testimony by OP and Netcare. Therefore, we will have to judge based on our own interpretations of what is most logical. Then we must decide who has the best logic. Do we believe Oscar and Netcare? What if there is a conflict? If they basically agree, they could still be remembering wrong (certainly what is true for the five ear-witnesses would be true for them, no?). So although it seems so clean-cut to be logical, it isn't always quite that simple (or even scientific).

The Netcare thing was just an example, not a critical point really... but to carry that further... there would be little doubt if Netcare and OP both testified to a similar convo... and we already have the evidence of OP getting the car ready and then carrying Reeva's body.. so its not a point that is going to require further proof. Life is not all recorded and subject to slowmo replay and so there are always limits to how much evidence there is of anything.

I grow weary of the 5 witnesses hearing a woman's screams. The fact is IMO they heard screams after Reeva was incapable of uttering screams and so they are all mistaken. I don't have a problem with that. If one person perceived OP's anguished cries as sounding like a woman screaming.. then clearly that is how it sounded.. perhaps to everyone. It is an example of an auditory illusion. Illusions that "fool" everybody are well documented (usually visual) but it is possible for something to be perceived as something it is not ... by everybody.. even after the "mistake" is explained. People still can not get past the illusion.

 

[minor4th]

Which window slides open? If anyone knows ...

 

[katydid23]

Well she admitted that she voluntarily signed it after reading it - she wasn't under duress or forced to sign it, knowing it contains false statements about what she saw.

That's deliberate, that's intentional and that's deceptive.

And you can believe whatever you want, but the fact that a crucial ear/eye witness is willing to swear to a false statement impeaches their testimony. Judges take this oath thing pretty seriously.

It is deliberate, but was it intentionally deceptive?

I once signed a witness statement that was used in a fatal accident trial. And after I signed it, deliberately and intentionally, I realised I had made a significant error in wording. And during my witness testimony, the defense atty called me out and implied I was lying.

I can tell you now with all sincerity that it was an HONEST MISTAKE. Even though I read it carefully before I signed it, I did not catch it at the time. I said that I saw the cars hit, but I heard them hit, and then I looked. Big difference, but I truly did not catch it when I signed the statement.

eta: I did not know either of the parties in the accident case and was a random bystander. Like the Stipps, I had no reason to lie.

 

[steveml]

I'm not really sure where you get that figure from? In England and Wales, three women every two weeks are killed at the hand of their partner/former partner (doesn't matter if they are shot or not, that part is not relevant in the overall statistics of women being killed by a violent partner .. it's the fact that those women are killed by whatever means)

I totally agree, one is one too many, but the figure will be 99% or thereabouts. We'd have to know the exact amount of abusive males to be exact, and most of them would never admit it.

Anyhow, we both appreciate it's a serious issue, but there's lots of other things for us to have a look at as well.

 

[G.bng]

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.

Why not name the "people" you are referring to instead of lumping anyone who can't agree with you, for their own distinct reasons, as having "double standards"?

And have you never "remembered" something that turned out to be that you heard it from someone else ? I once enthusiastically went and said hello to a very famous actor in a restaurant convinced I knew them... luckily my partner of the time realised I only "knew" them from films and managed to extricate me before I made an even bigger fool of myself than I already had. Or have you never sworn blind to your spouse, parent, child, sibling, that you did or told them something only to realise later that you never had... and would you say sorry or just keep schtum to not let them know how you "lied" (your definition not mine) or would you own up to making a mistake (my definition not yours) just like Mrs Stipps owned up to her mistake and corrected her statement?

 

[katydid23]

I think if Oscar has made this all up as a coverup then he will not be able to withstand the pressure of cross examination and it will become apparent that he is lying.

Not necessarily. If the defense has done a through job tying up the loose ends, and helping him to practice, and readied him for the upcoming cross, then he might squeak through successfully.