Trial Discussion Thread #16

[G.bng]

That is an extremely valid point.

If we accept that this the shooting was way beyond skill, and we're not willing to accept it was four random shots fired at a door, perhaps there's another angle we should be looking at.

:thumb:

I do accept it was random but I don't think that will make any difference to OP being found guilty of murder, or at very least culpable homicide, because even if OP did not consciously "intend" to kill a burglar or Reeva, he reasonably should have known that shooting blind 4 times through a door of such a reduced space with the knowledge there was someone in that space would likely cause death... and, from how I understand it, SA law only requires it to be "possibly" and not "likely" as I used.

 

[Lyra500]

There were spatters on the sofa and, I think, on the wall, that attributed to arterial spray.

In that case, the defence argument that Reeva was shot at around 3am just is not tenable. She would have bled to death or died from the head shot long before OP carried her downstairs so no chance of arterial spurt. So that leaves the shots at 3.17 which all the witnesses heard following the screams and which would potentially have left enough time for arterial spurt as she was carried downstairs.

I wonder how the defence can square that particular circle.

 

[DebinGA]

Common sense says there was some light somewhere in the bed/bath area to light the way, especially for an athlete whose livelihood depended on remaining injury free. Not even a floor level plug-in nightlight so he wouldn't trip over an errant laundry basket, pair of shoes, etc.?

 

[jay-jay]

I never argued for double taps.

I didn't say you had. I was addressing your initial question.

 

[G.bng]

There was arterial spurt blood patterns found downstairs, according to the blood spatter expert.

I may have been mistaken so if you could tell me even roughly at what point of his testimony I will check it again. However, if there were still spurts down the stairs then I can understand why the prosecution believe that the second volley of bangs were the actual gun shots.

 

[jay-jay]

Prostheses on? Both sides agree OP wasn't wearing them when the shots were fired.

Yes, they do .. but I can't make out how they came to that conclusion. It seems as if they have just based it on the fact the bullet holes are low down .. but then, if he was shooting from the hip (with protheses on) they would be low down. They only seemed to have considered that he was holding the gun high up, in line of sight .. but my view is that I doubt he would've bothered lining up his sight with the gun .. he may even had deliberately shooted from the hip/lower down (with his prostheses on) to make it appear that he was on his stumps at the time.

 

[Viper]

Death has different definitions.

BIB. Ok. From the link:

Quote:
Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives.[1] It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest. The term is also sometimes used in resuscitation research.

Stopped blood circulation has historically proven irreversible in most cases. Prior to the invention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defibrillation, epinephrine injection, and other treatments in the 20th century, the absence of blood circulation (and vital functions related to blood circulation) was historically considered the official definition of death. With the advent of these strategies, cardiac arrest came to be called clinical death rather than simply death, to reflect the possibility of post-arrest resuscitation. For medical purposes, it is considered the final physical state before legal death.[citation needed]

At the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[2] Irregular gasping may occur during this early time period, and is sometimes mistaken by rescuers as a sign that CPR is not necessary.[3] During clinical death, all tissues and organs in the body steadily accumulate a type of injury called ischemic injury.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

 

[steveml]

Yup, and still, the killer was able to perfectly aim. Through a closed door. Hinky, much?

Perfect/good aim = 1 head shot.

Reeva would be silenced, neighbours have less chance to hear or report, easier to convince intruder story with 1 shot.

All these factors show that this was anything but a perfect or even a good aim. It was 4 shots in a general area, and OP did not have a specific target. Where and if the bullets hit would be totally unknown from OP's side of the door.


This is why I maintain OP did not aim at a specific target, he fired 4 shots through the door just in a general area.

 

[MeeBee]

In that case, the defence argument that Reeva was shot at around 3am just is not tenable. She would have bled to death or died from the head shot long before OP carried her downstairs so no chance of arterial spurt. So that leaves the shots at 3.17 which all the witnesses heard following the screams and which would potentially have left enough time for arterial spurt as she was carried downstairs.

I wonder how the defence can square that particular circle.

Since the spray was not continuous, but appears to have happened a couple times, maybe once, it seems her heart wasn't really beating, but giving final flutters or spasms. This leaves the door open for the shots to have occurred at either time.

And I don't think we've gotten the timeline nailed down yet. 17 minutes is not ringing true to me, it's all messed up with different people reporting different times and clocks being fast. When Stipp was asked to guesstimate that it was 10 minutes between bangs, he said, I wouldn't say 10 minutes. And if Oscar's other neighbor testifies he will say, presumably, he heard a set of shots around 3:08, further adding to the confusion. It's not clear cut yet.

 

[Insp.Dots]

In that case, the defence argument that Reeva was shot at around 3am just is not tenable. She would have bled to death or died from the head shot long before OP carried her downstairs so no chance of arterial spurt. So that leaves the shots at 3.17 which all the witnesses heard following the screams and which would potentially have left enough time for arterial spurt as she was carried downstairs.

I wonder how the defence can square that particular circle.

Have the defence actually said Reeva was shot at 3am?

 

[MeeBee]

I may have been mistaken so if you could tell me even roughly at what point of his testimony I will check it again. However, if there were still spurts down the stairs then I can understand why the prosecution believe that the second volley of bangs were the actual gun shots.

Couldn't, tell you. I twice posted a link and if you find the discussion thread from that day it should be transcribed and I remember it being heavily discussed. You could also google the testimony of the blood spatter expert.

 

[G.bng]

We've already established he never gave a statement and why. :seeya:

I know, I've now read the posts, but I am always having to try to catch up between caring duties so I am always several pages behind. Sorry...

 

[lisasalinger]

The pathologist did not say all of that, it's an assumption made on this board and it is a wrong one, IMO. That's not how the human body works. Any kind of pressure on a wound is not going to create the kind of pressure the heart will and cause arterial spray. It just cannot be. He didn't explicitly say it, because all those things will not necessarily show in an autopsy and Nel didn't ask him because it's not actually important to him. The blood splatter expert also didn't say this is arterial spray but it was probably just caused by pushing on the wounds. That too is nonsensical. There's only one thing that can cause arterial spray. And I'm curious why you think Roux is fighting the died downstairs thing? I haven't heard him argue the point particularly vehemently. He seems pretty on board with the death upstairs thing.

The reason that this issue is important is because if Reeva died upstairs in the bathroom, then Oscar bringing Reeva downstairs was not to get her help. It was likely to give the impression that he was trying to help her and/or to disturb the scene.

I do think that determining where/when she died does have relevance to the full story.

 

[MeeBee]

Have the defence actually said Reeva was shot at 3am?

Nope.

 

[Danta]

BIB. That is highly likely. Her head wounds, perhaps both of them, bled in to the toilet bowl. But you may be overlooking / forgetting that she had a severed artery in her arm and a bullet to her hip that was equally destructive; the minimal bleeding from those extremely serious wounds cannot be explained away. She died with the head shot, in seconds not minutes, not 17 minutes and not 6 minutes, 2-3 seconds or 2-3 breaths, not longer. And death includes the heart stops beating.

Those arterial spurts where over by the couch downstairs. At first it was thought that he may have injured here downstairs (i.e. fight happening in other areas of the house) but that was ruled out because the blood by the couch was an arterial spurt pattern.

The heart can beat after breathing stops or a head wound.

People can be resuscitated through CPR, but not after they bleed to death.

I don't think walking down the stairs can mimic the beating of someone's heart.

I also think it is hard to believe that her heart was still beating downstairs and would love to ask the pathologist or blood spatter experts these questions.

 

[nastasya]

I've got that one in dispute at present as it suggests 1 gunshot, a break and then 3 gunshots.

Estelle Van Der Merwe stated in her testimony that she awoke at 3.00am to four consecutive noises. Bang-bang-bang-bang.

What reason would a witness have to lie?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

She would have no reason to lie. Witnesses might have been mistaken or lacked precision in their memories.

I'm just entertaining possible theories inspired by all the different views here.

The only scenario that I see right now that could explain bangs - screaming - bangs - silence and include OP's version is a) first shot was accident, then he flipped and killed her because she was screaming, or b) OP's screaming fooled every witness who said they heard a woman.

 

[MeeBee]

The reason that this issue is important is because if Reeva died upstairs in the bathroom, then Oscar bringing Reeva downstairs was not to get her help. It was likely to give the impression that he was trying to help her and/or to disturb the scene.

I do think that determining where/when she died does have relevance to the full story.

I disagree. And even so, OP is not a medical doctor and was in state of panic, perhaps thinking he could still help her, and might have been also following orders from Netcare to bring her in. Seems a lot of different people have a lot of different reasons for arguing this point.

 

[MeeBee]

I know, I've now read the posts, but I am always having to try to catch up between caring duties so I am always several pages behind. Sorry...

You're fine, I apologize. It's just not the funnest being told you're wrong over and over again and then later on when you've already conceded to being wrong.

:whiteflag:

 

[Trotterly]

Prostheses on? Both sides agree OP wasn't wearing them when the shots were fired.

It might be OP's version but I don't think I've seen anywhere where the state has said he was not wearing prostheses.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Adjourning to review the actual evidence.....g'night sleuthers.