Trial Discussion Thread #15

[lisasalinger]

And what I see is those on the firmly guilty side have many different theories about what happened, theories that don't even support the state's case. They themselves are confident in their theories but this is certainly a problem for me and has created even more doubt. If a clear picture of the state's case hasn't come through and a clear picture of what happened that night has not emerged that is a problem. At this point, it should be clearer what the state wants to say. That to me shows that state's case is not as strong as I initially thought it would be. So many unanswered questions yet so many are so convicted they have it all figured out.

BBM

I understand your thinking here. However, the reality is that rarely are we ever going to know exactly what happened in situations between two people that nobody saw.

Do we know how Scott Peterson killed Lacey? No. Do you believe that Scott is guilty? I do. But I have no idea how he killed her. Did anybody in their family or circle of friends think that he was going to kill her before that day? No.

I know that every case is different, so we can't do exact parallels, but my main point is that in situations between two people only, you are never going to know the exact story.

In this case the female screaming for a period of time is an enormous part of the State's case. And a powerful one.

Many of us are going on all or nothing assertions with the bats vs. bangs theories. All bat or all bang at either 3am or 3:17am. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

The fact that there is other damage in the bathroom and bedroom, and that the head shot was very likely last, and that there could have been some banging on the door prior to the panels ultimately being ripped out absolutely leaves wide open the reality that Reeva was screaming.

That is a million times easier for me to believe, using my human common sense, than the theories the defense has floated thus far.

 

[curiousjo]

I don't think there is a physical door to the bathroom, going by the plans that have been published.

I would expect the key to the toilet door to be kept in the keyhole (on the inside) at all times, otherwise there's no point in having one. Unless there's a bolt on the inside of the door, butt I've seen no mention of one.

Thx. Clarification: When I say bathroom - I mean toilet room. I want to know if toilet room and bedroom use the SAME keys. If they do, OP is in big trouble.... and she had to stand to keep door closed because he had the key.

I am wondering if she was standing holding door closed (and screaming), and he was hitting it to scare her. Ultimately he could see her after a panel broke, then 4 shots rang out, then he had to break down door as part of his cover up. I bet that if you broke the door panel at 3 am in your homes, and stood outside on your lawn - that you wouldn't hear much of anything - and it would not sound like a gun shot. Think about it... kids are playing baseball/basketball, neighbors are doing home construction, lawn walk during the daytime hours, using drill, saw, axe, bush wacker, etc... - do you hear it? When you do, does it sound like a gun shot? No. The neighbors all said it was distinctly gun shots, and I think that is exactly what I think they heard - maybe 1-2 gun shots fired downstairs/or at bedroom door/or bedroom hallway to bathroom (these were shots fired to scare OP and that is why neighbors heard a woman screaming for her life!), then final fatal 4 gun shots in bathroom with 3/4 hitting R. Ultimately, they never heard him breaking down the door.

 

[Interested Bystander]

UOTE=G.bng;10395624]First thanks for replying. However, if we start from the word fabricate as defined the by the Oxford Dictionary:



I really don't mean to "misconstrue" you, but unfortunately I just cannot agree that your use of fabricate does not have an accusatory and judgemental sense, in the same way as when you use it again here in this post:



or when you repeat,



both of which imo cleasly indicate you believe Mrs Stipp was deceitful, the first because that is exactly what "fabricate" means, the second, because as you say the detail was "plain(ly) not part of Mrs Stipp’s memory" you leave no option for her to have included it by mistake so that the only inference I am able to take is that you mean Mrs Stipp purposefully set out to deceive. Damning accusations without any evidence.

Witnesses very often do not coincide on details such as how many shots, screams, lights, etc., and can often recall insignificant details directly after an event with very important ones only coming back to them months later and by chance. It is reasonable to think they can also mistakenly include details they heard as their own, and that it could take quite an effort to sort it all out. Memory is not an exact science and plays tricks on us all. We have all mixed up our memories of an event with those of others, only to later realise the error with, "Ooops, tell a lie... it wasn't X but Y" without any intent, need, motive or reason to lie whatsoever. I "recall" events as a child that I clarify with, "I am not sure if I remember it or if I was told it by my mum, dad, brother, etc."

Now it may be you are using the words incorrectly, but by asserting Mrs Stipp "fabricated" or added a detail "plain(ly) not part of her memory" you deny her the same benefit of the doubt, that, you quite rightly expect for OP. Even if inadvertently, or unconsciously, you can I am sure see how it could smell of hypocrisy to be seeming to uphold one person’s rights while trashing another's.

And what proof is there that Mrs Stipp (and I could include here Burger, Johnson, Mr Stipp, the police, experts, etc.) "fabricated" or affirmed what she knew was "plain(ly)" untrue and that it was not an unwitting mistake which she quickly rectified? I am sure you agree that OP demonstrably has 15-25 years of reasons to lie, but, while Mrs Stipp may have many reasons we could "fabricate" and conjecture about, she has no motive we can affirm as a certainty in the same way. IMO, without hard evidence in contra, independent witnesses deserve an even higher presumption of innocence by a judge or jury than an accused with a life to defend (the prosecution by its very nature can't "presume" innocence otherwise they would not prosecute in the first place), so imo without evidence to the contrary, all witnesses should be presumed to be testifying as best they can, with errors, mistakes and contradictions, simply trying to fulfil their civic duty in the search for truth and justice, trying to help a court decide, after weighing up all the evidence, not just Mrs Stipps, whether or not a murder was committed so that if the judge determines it was then a person who could pose a threat to someone else’s daughter, yours, Mrs Stipp’s or mine, can be contained where they no longer can pose a threat to anyone, at least not for a time.

I have lived most of my life in Spain under a bench system and, as I am sure is the same in SA, (and even the same here in the UK with police, prosecutors, judges and juries, and insurance claim investigators), it is a known fact judges give much more weight to independent witnesses than to those close to an accused such as family, friends (or enemies!), business associates, etc., precisely because wherever there is an interest the likelihood of a hidden agenda is significantly enhanced, whether to favour or prejudice an accused.

So, what do you think could be Mrs Stipp’s hidden agenda for her to lie under oath and try to pervert the course of her nation’s search for truth and justice in respect of OP? And do you doubt OP likely has motives to lie, (even if he did kill Reeva by mistake which under SA law may not save him), contrary to those very same reasons?[/QUOTE]

:goodpost:

 

[strydohj]

Exactly, and this is why it is intriguing me as to why the key ever ended up on the floor. Why would it? Reeva wouldn't have needed to take it out of the door herself, had she either gone for a pee and locked the door, or if she had fled there for safety. In neither scenario would she need to take the key out of the keyhole on the inside of the door. So how did it end up on the floor? (if it really ever did?)

It would have been interesting to know if there was gun discharge residue found on the key...

 

[G.bng]

deleted

 

[Rumpole]

The only way I can see that the State can turn this around and make their own case stronger is by somehow revealing a major, significant flaw in Oscar's version during his cross examination.

When I proposed the mock cross examination yesterday, this is what I was getting at - I'm trying to figure out exactly where Nel can score some points and discredit Oscar's version. I don't think it will be something like the unexplained damage to the bedroom door or spots on the wall - because there's no way for Nel to predict what Oscar's answer will be or to refute it IMO

Putting myself in a prosecutor's shoes, the aspects of Oscar's story that I find most suspect are not the little discrepancies about one fan or two fans or going to bed at 10 or whatever because those can be explained away.

I'd focus on things that Oscar is committed to in his version - like bringing the fans in. Is there any way that Nel can show that didn't really happen? What about the blinds and sliding door being open/closed?

What window would Oscar have heard "sliding open"? Is that the little window in the toilet cubicle - because I don't think the big windows slide open. We really need to know whether that little window was open or closed. I thought both sides agreed that it was closed but then that begs the question - then what did Oscar hear sliding open?

I think OP said he was back in the bedroom with the fans in, blinds and doors and curtains closed when he heard the bathroom sound ..had he plugged in one of the fans before he heard the sounds and got his gun? If so this is a pretty big flaw because he claimed it was so dark he was virtually blind.

It gives me a headache trying to think down to Nel's level :floorlaugh:

But for the sake of discussion....

I think he has bet all his chips on the gunshots starting after 3:17 at the time that the Stipps heard a second set of bangs, and burgers heard their one and only set of bangs. That time is at least set and confirmed by independent phone records time. It is not in dispute, and fairly precisely defined. I have already noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the shots were at that time, given just the one fact that phone records also precisely give time 3:19 that OP made his first call. However, it seems that Nel will persist with trying to prove the unprovable. There is no disagreement that OP was on his stumps when he fired. It would be ludicrous to propose that he was chasing Reeva with his prostheses on, bashing the door etc with his prostheses on, and then took them off to shoot, before VERY quickly putting them back on straight after as the rest of the drama unfolded.

So..... I think issues around when OP was and wasn't wearing his prostheses are key for Nel. We have already seen Col Johannes Vermeulen push the narrative that OP was wearing prostheses when he hit the door with the bat. Even to the point of selectively editing his evidence and testimony and down-playing some door damage, and even omitting some evidence (photos of marks and tests he did on marks higher up the door). Vermeulen also (IMO) went out of his way to demonstrate that it would be awkward to swing the bat and make the marks if OP was wearing prostheses... IMO a demonstration that was about as scientific as OJ trying on the gloves and making it look awkward But I digress......

Nel will, I think be questioning vigorously to get OP to slip up in regards when he did and did not have his prostheses on. It is critical to the State case that OP should have been without his prostheses the whole time, including for the shots and ONLY THEN put his prostheses on.

 

[steveml]

According to the Wikipedia entry it appears that the SXT has notable differences from the original Black Talon despite the myth that they are the same. Further, IMBW, but from Mangena's testimony, OP had genuine Black Talon's which haven't been manufactured since 2000 and so are rare, costly, and difficult to find.

On the other hand, despite being from the UK where there is no real gun culture and being a complete ignoramus in respect of almost all gun paraphernalia, I had heard of "dum-dum" bullets and the incredibly destructive injuries they inflict from the days of our colonial wars in both India and Africa, where dum-dums may have won the brits the colonies but never the moral high ground!

Yes, they are quite rare now. The SXT's are different as they're supposed to be more effective. I generally construe that when a bullet is more effective, it usually does a better job at doing what a bullet is meant to do.

I can agree with the previous comments regarding how the hollow-point bullet can actually cause less peripheral damage. A full metal jacket bullet can penetrate a body and carry on going.

This happened recently in the UK case of the shooting of Mark Duggan. A bullet went through the target's body and hit a policemen in the top of his chest. Luckily his Police radio was in his top pocket and saved his life.

#veryluckyguy

 

[Val1]

Interesting indeed!

I have a feeling this Roger Dixon may testify to crime scene contamination. Roux's strategy thus far has been to try to discredit several of the investigators' testimony by pointing to alleged contamination. I think this expert may bring in evidence pertaining to police shoe prints.

Of course, this is just a guess. Thoughts, anyone?

Actually, the first thing to pop into my head was that this is going to be Roux's basis for acquittal... then OP will throw himself on the court's mercy claiming he had been out of his mind at discovering his beloved in such dire straits in the toilet room and mistakenly confessed to killing her and that he does not remember anything..... anything.....he still thinks it's all just a bad nightmare and is hoping to wake up soon. Those dang head injuries and ptsd eh?

Ergo, does the prosecution have dna testing that can prove anything against OP? The powder residue could be considered inconclusive because not only was the crime scene tampered with by the accused, friends and family but the accused himself washed off much of the evidence on himself. Without eye witnesses the accused could claim that RS must have been screaming in terror from the intruder/s before "they" shot and killed her and before he woke up/came to/came back in from the patio/use your imagination and pick something and found her.

 

[minor4th]

It gives me a headache trying to think down to Nel's level :floorlaugh:

But for the sake of discussion....

I think he has bet all his chips on the gunshots starting after 3:17 at the time that the Stipps heard a second set of bangs, and burgers heard their one and only set of bangs. That time is at least set and confirmed by independent phone records time. It is not in dispute, and fairly precisely defined. I have already noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the shots were at that time, given just the one fact that phone records also precisely give time 3:19 that OP mad his first call. However, it seems that Nel will persist with trying to prove the unprovable. There is no disagreement that OP was on his stumps when he fired. It would be ludicrous to propose that he was chasing Reeva with his prostheses on, bashing the door etc with his prostheses on, and then took them off to shoot, before VERY quickly putting them back on straight after as the rest of the drama unfolded.

So..... I think issues around when OP was and wasn't wearing his prostheses are key for Nel. We have already seen Col Johannes Vermeulen push the narrative that OP was wearing prostheses when he hit the door with the bat. Even to the point of selectively editing his evidence and testimony by down-playing some door damage, and even omitting some evidence (photos of marks and tests he did on marks higher up the door). Vermeulen also (IMO) went out of his way to demonstrate that it would be awkward to swing the bat and make the marks if OP was wearing prostheses... IMO a demonstration that was about as scientific as OJ trying on the gloves and making it look awkward But I digress......

Nel will, I think be questioning vigorously to get OP to slip up in regards when he did and did not have his prostheses on. It is critical to the State case that OP should have been without his prostheses the whole time, including for the shots and ONLY THEN put his prostheses on.

I know, but it was getting boring saying the same thing over and over and being ignored and/or ridiculed.

I have a hard time coming up with anything that Nel could really nail Oscar on other than speculation about evidence that is unknown to me

 

[minor4th]

It gives me a headache trying to think down to Nel's level :floorlaugh:

But for the sake of discussion....

I think he has bet all his chips on the gunshots starting after 3:17 at the time that the Stipps heard a second set of bangs, and burgers heard their one and only set of bangs. That time is at least set and confirmed by independent phone records time. It is not in dispute, and fairly precisely defined. I have already noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the shots were at that time, given just the one fact that phone records also precisely give time 3:19 that OP made his first call. However, it seems that Nel will persist with trying to prove the unprovable. There is no disagreement that OP was on his stumps when he fired. It would be ludicrous to propose that he was chasing Reeva with his prostheses on, bashing the door etc with his prostheses on, and then took them off to shoot, before VERY quickly putting them back on straight after as the rest of the drama unfolded.

So..... I think issues around when OP was and wasn't wearing his prostheses are key for Nel. We have already seen Col Johannes Vermeulen push the narrative that OP was wearing prostheses when he hit the door with the bat. Even to the point of selectively editing his evidence and testimony by down-playing some door damage, and even omitting some evidence (photos of marks and tests he did on marks higher up the door). Vermeulen also (IMO) went out of his way to demonstrate that it would be awkward to swing the bat and make the marks if OP was wearing prostheses... IMO a demonstration that was about as scientific as OJ trying on the gloves and making it look awkward But I digress......

Nel will, I think be questioning vigorously to get OP to slip up in regards when he did and did not have his prostheses on. It is critical to the State case that OP should have been without his prostheses the whole time, including for the shots and ONLY THEN put his prostheses on.

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

 

[whiterum]

For what reason would any if these witnesses lie, they have no reason whatever to do so. They heard a young woman screaming for her life, a young woman shot to death and they should be commended for coming forward to tell the court what they heard.

RS may have been literally silenced regarding the events that led to her violent death but through the witnesses who heard arguing , heard her scream out in terror, her version is now being told and it flies in the face of OP's version. Also his version of a loving relationship is being shown up as a big fat lie in RS's own words. Her messages to OP as read out in court reveal a jealous, controlling and verbally abusive character which had despite the many soppy mostly one liners, had on a number of occasions raised it's ugly head !

 

[Val1]

It would have been interesting to know if there was gun discharge residue found on the key...

I could easily be mistaken, but didn't Roux cover that already in one of his crosses by claiming that it would not be unreasonable that residue could be found anywhere in OP's home because of OP's "hobby" or some such excuse? (Possibly by using some example of OP having been prevented from entering some country once because he still had residue on him from target practice earlier that week, maybe it was in one of the many OP interviews I've read...)

I do agree it would be interesting, though I don't think it would prove anything beyond that at some time OP had used the toilet door key before washing his hands after using his "firearm". There's at least one interview where OP states he often goes target shooting at night when he can't sleep.:waitasec:

 

[luvmygarden]

Thanks for your post.

If I can just clarify the bullet situation. The Black Talon bullets used in the handgun were not illegal, I think you may be referring to the bullets in the safe.

There has been quite a bit of misinformation regarding the Black Talon bullets due to media speculation and twitter-talk. Black Talon was simply a brand-name made by a company called Winchester. A person went on a killing spree a while ago killing many people, therefore Winchester decided to re-brand the bullet, and for years have sold the same bullets, but re-named.
They had to change the name as they knew lawyers would have a field day in court.

This bullet is a type of hollow-point expanding bullet of which many variations are available today, the same type of which are used by Police forces.

I'll take away the brand name and give you the common name for the Black Talon bullet. It's called a dum-dum.

I think you'll agree, 'he loaded his gun with dum-dums and fired' doesn't sound nearly as sinister or dramatic.

Thank You. I'm sorry, I did mix up the story on the bullets in the safe I can see. If those bullets in the safe are his dad's should it be fair for OP to take the wrap for them I don't think that's fair.

 

[Val1]

Thank You. I'm sorry, I did mix up the story on the bullets in the safe I can see. If those bullets in the safe are his dad's should it be fair for OP to take the wrap for them I don't think that's fair.

It's the law. You cannot possess ammo for weapons you do not have the license for.

 

[Rumpole]

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 can only repeat.... when was he wearing his prostheses? I am quite serious about that.

The State narrative of an argument and Reeva seeking refuge in the toilet and OP firing through the door (while not wearing prostheses) must include OP being on his stumps the whole time. Arguing, bashing the door, chasing Reeva all done on stumps.

This really is JUST an academic exercise for me. Shots after 3:17 is still-born as a hypothesis. I am totally convinced of that. What I really think Nel should do is concede OP's version of events and his belief that there was an intruder... But I don't see Nel doing that.

 

[Viper]

It gives me a headache trying to think down to Nel's level :floorlaugh:

But for the sake of discussion....

I think he has bet all his chips on the gunshots starting after 3:17 at the time that the Stipps heard a second set of bangs, and burgers heard their one and only set of bangs. That time is at least set and confirmed by independent phone records time. It is not in dispute, and fairly precisely defined. I have already noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the shots were at that time, given just the one fact that phone records also precisely give time 3:19 that OP made his first call. However, it seems that Nel will persist with trying to prove the unprovable. There is no disagreement that OP was on his stumps when he fired. It would be ludicrous to propose that he was chasing Reeva with his prostheses on, bashing the door etc with his prostheses on, and then took them off to shoot, before VERY quickly putting them back on straight after as the rest of the drama unfolded.

So..... I think issues around when OP was and wasn't wearing his prostheses are key for Nel. We have already seen Col Johannes Vermeulen push the narrative that OP was wearing prostheses when he hit the door with the bat. Even to the point of selectively editing his evidence and testimony and down-playing some door damage, and even omitting some evidence (photos of marks and tests he did on marks higher up the door). Vermeulen also (IMO) went out of his way to demonstrate that it would be awkward to swing the bat and make the marks if OP was wearing prostheses... IMO a demonstration that was about as scientific as OJ trying on the gloves and making it look awkward But I digress......

Nel will, I think be questioning vigorously to get OP to slip up in regards when he did and did not have his prostheses on. It is critical to the State case that OP should have been without his prostheses the whole time, including for the shots and ONLY THEN put his prostheses on.

I missed your post where you demonstrated that it would be impossible for the gunshots to have occurred at 3:17. I certainly would not ask you to rewrite that just for me, but would you mind giving me the 15 second version so that I can understand your take on things?

 

[minor4th]

I can only repeat.... when was he wearing his prostheses? I am quite serious about that.

The State narrative of an argument and Reeva seeking refuge in the toilet and OP firing through the door (while not wearing prostheses) must include OP being on his stumps the whole time. Arguing, bashing the door, chasing Reeva all done on stumps.

This really is JUST an academic exercise for me. Shots after 3:17 is still-born as a hypothesis. I am totally convinced of that. What I really think Nel should do is concede OP's version of events and his belief that there was an intruder... But I don't see Nel doing that.

Me too, which is why I can't come up with anything. The more I try, the more I see the impossibility of the state's case.

 

[Val1]

I can only repeat.... when he was wearing his prostheses. I am quite serious about that.

The State narrative of an argument and Reeva seeking refuge in the toilet and OP firing through the door (while not wearing prostheses) must include OP being on his stumps the whole time. Arguing, bashing the door, chasing Reeva all done on stumps.

This really is JUST an academic exercise for me. Shots after 3:17 is still-born as a hypothesis. I am totally convinced of that. What I really think Nel should do is concede OP's version of events and his belief that there was an intruder... But I don't see Nel doing that.

That's what I've believed the evidence has shown all along, heck the sock fibres on the bloody door panel attest to that. Anyway, ever heard the expression "you can run but you can't hide"? I so far believe that's what happened to RS and will now hopefully happen to her murderer.

 

[Rumpole]

I missed your post where you demonstrated that it would be impossible for the gunshots to have occurred at 3:17. I certainly would not ask you to rewrite that just for me, but would you mind giving me the 15 second version so that I can understand your take on things?

Sure, for you anything :blowkiss:

Shots 3:17 ish... lasting one presumes a few seconds... and so a little over a minute then until OP made a phone call at 3:19.

There was a LOT of stuff that OP MUST have done after the shots... stuff that would take several minutes... there is simply no time to do all that... even if you discount OP's version... just stuff the State narrative includes... such as putting on his prostheses, getting the bat and bashing down the door, prising the door open, lifting/dragging Reeva to bathroom etc.

 

[Viper]

Wasn't there blood on the outside top of the box of watches as well as on the inside? If anyone knows for certain...