Trial Discussion Thread #17

[minor4th]

he never thought there was an intruder.....this is his way to explain as to why Reeva is dead.

Let us not forget the argument heard roughly at 1:58 a.m.

Yes he did ...

 

[whiterum]

They did not respond to his challenge and they were fiddling with the door they were hiding behind, possibly armed and ready to come at him.

I'll ask you something. For whose benefit would Oscar shout out giving away his position in the hall?

IMO for his own benefit , his scream supposedly to the burglar/s on his way to the bathroom was carefully worded and placed in his concocted intruder story, so the DT can claim that RS on hearing this scream then hid in the toilet and locked the door thinking a burglar had entered the house.

This was all discussed here a year ago when Roux implied this at the BH. One problem is the witnesses to the heated argument and RS being heard screaming out before , during and after the attack puts a glaring big spanner in the works . This is why Roux and Co are at pains to try and destroy the witnesses testimony. His implausible intruder story is the only option he has to save his own skin , how else could he try and explain away a dead GF in his toilet.

 

[Rumpole]

he never thought there was an intruder.....this is his way to explain as to why Reeva is dead.

Let us not forget the argument heard roughly at 1:58 a.m.

I think you are correct if you are saying that that has been the State case.

OP never thought there was an intruder

I put it to you that the State have to PROVE that beyond reasonable doubt if they continue with that as their case. They have simply FAILED to do that. Even the posters here have doubts. They are expecting Nel to pull all manner of bombshells out of his hat when he cross-examins OP.

He may possibly do that... but I doubt he will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that OP knew Reeva was behind the door. There will always be some doubt about that. That is why I say the State over-charged and have so far argued a case they can not win. I see a case they could perhaps win.. but they have not made it yet.

 

[Viper]

Don't know how the DT can make the arguing and screaming evidence go away, truly. I imagine roux bringing in 15-20 neighbors that slept though all of it, but that just means that they slept through all of it, that doesn't mean that those who awoke did not hear what they heard. Also, OP screaming like a girl and arguing with himself for all of that time, culminating in Reeva's death, is just not going to fly; I'm really amused that they would even try that!

 

[Rumpole]

Don't know how the DT can make the arguing and screaming evidence go away, truly. I imagine roux bringing in 15-20 neighbors that slept though all of it, but that just means that they slept through all of it, that doesn't mean that those who awoke did not hear what they heard. Also, OP screaming like a girl and arguing with himself for all of that time, culminating in Reeva's death, is just not going to fly; I'm really amused that they would even try that!

Just in cross examination of State witnesses, the defense has raised doubts about testimony. We assume witnesses (for the most part) are not blatantly lying about what they heard, but their interpretation of what it means is just their own speculation. Easy to cast doubts on that... as Roux has done.

I know that the testimony is regarded as proof possitive if you have a presumption of guilt to start with, but I view it from the perspective of a presumption of innocence (as I hope the Judge will) and the "Gestalt" I take from all the State witness testimony seen together is a confirmation of OP's version. Dr Stipp in particular is a fantastic witness for the Defense.

I did not follow the lead up to the trial... in an offhand way I thought a guy shooting girlfriend and claiming he thought it was a burglar was BS. I read what he said at bail hearing and that left me 50/50 on whether I believed him. I am now 75/25 believing him BECAUSE the State witnesses confirm his version. As we all know even 50/50 means State has not proved its case, and IMO they are worse than that now...on the wrong side of disproving OP's version even.

 

[TorisMom003]

Which State witnesses have confirmed OP's version and what was their testimony that shows they have confirmed OP's version?

 

[DebinGA]

Why would the ballistics expert say he was on his stumps if he wasn't?

IIRC Mangena said with legs on OP would have shot from his waist, not his shoulder, which makes shooting easier. I don't believe Mangena said OP couldn't have been wearing his legs though.

 

[Rumpole]

Which State witnesses have confirmed OP's version and what was their testimony that shows they have confirmed OP's version?

All of them.

I don't want to keep posting the same thing. You could look back at what I have posted... there are not a huge number of posts.

Take Dr Stipps testimony and time from the few phone record time points we have. Use that as basis of time line. Shots at 3:10 ish (not precisely pinpointed yet) Cricket bat just after 3:17.... read all the other testimony in the context of that, and most importantly PRESUME OP is innocent (telling the truth in his version)

 

[MeeBee]

IIRC Mangena said with legs on OP would have shot from his waist, not his shoulder, which makes shooting easier. I don't believe Mangena said OP couldn't have been wearing his legs though.

Then why would the state change their assertion that OP was wearing his prosthetics to he wasn't wearing them, based on ballistics testimony, shortly before trial?

 

[Viper]

All of them.

:goodpost:

 

[jilly]

Don't know how the DT can make the arguing and screaming evidence go away, truly. I imagine roux bringing in 15-20 neighbors that slept though all of it, but that just means that they slept through all of it, that doesn't mean that those who awoke did not hear what they heard. Also, OP screaming like a girl and arguing with himself for all of that time, culminating in Reeva's death, is just not going to fly; I'm really amused that they would even try that!

Amused, amazed...I agree. If it was trial by jury, maybe but Judge alone?:crazy:

 

[TorisMom003]

All of them.

I don't want to keep posting the same thing. You could look back at what I have posted... there are not a huge number of posts.

Take Dr Stipps testimony and time from the few phone record time points we have. Use that as basis of time line. Shots at 3:10 ish (not precisely pinpointed yet) Cricket bat just after 3:17.... read all the other testimony in the context of that, and most importantly PRESUME OP is innocent (telling the truth in his version)

So then it took OP 7 mins to get Reeva out of the toilet room? And what of the testimony that has the first set of sounds closer to 3 am? And Dr. Stipp was one of those that testified that the first set of sounds (gunshots) was heard closer to 3 am than 3:10 am. Are we going to cherry pick what "matches" up with OP's version and ignore the rest?

 

[Viper]

Then why would the state change their assertion that OP was wearing his prosthetics to he wasn't wearing them, based on ballistics testimony, shortly before trial.

BIB. Because they conducted an investigation that took months and that was their conclusion after the investigation was completed. Their initial observations are what they presented at the bail hearing, ballistics was just getting started with their work at that early time.

 

[MeeBee]

BIB. Because they conducted an investigation that took months and that was their conclusion after the investigation was completed. Their initial observations are what they presented at the bail hearing, ballistics was just getting started with their work at that early time.

Exactly. So the state agrees OP was on his stumps.

 

[Val1]

Yepp. Below link there is a mention about 'the engagement party 'where Reeva and OP argued because of jealousy and had to leave early .. FG was Reeva's former BF before OP..

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/hougaard-denies-sms-to-reeva-1.1583956

Hougaard had, however, seen her about two weeks before her death, at a mutual friend’s engagement dinner, he told the magazine.

“If I had wanted to be in a serious relationship we would probably still be dating,” he said.

Both men had also gone out with Melissa Rom.

We didn’t really chat. I respected what they had going and obviously if you’re the ex and the person you’re speaking to is now their chick, they’re going to feel … not threatened – it’s just not nice, you know.”

Didn't really chat.. does that mean no chat but just a tweet?

A tweet from him is in the link below 10:59 pm 13 feb 2013

http://deadspin.com/5984927/a-text-...e-at-the-center-of-the-pistorius-shooting/all

I had posted this awhile back and noone seemed to notice just what the tweet had said... bbm seriously??

Happy Valentines day tweets chocolates romantic dinners & wink wink also shoot your gal 4 times if u get the chance

 

[DebinGA]

Exactly. So the state agrees OP was on his stumps.

I think so, and Batman believed OP was on his stumps for the door-bashing too iirc.

 

[Rumpole]

So then it took OP 7 mins to get Reeva out of the toilet room? And what of the testimony that has the first set of sounds closer to 3 am? And Dr. Stipp was one of those that testified that the first set of sounds (gunshots) was heard closer to 3 am than 3:10 am. Are we going to cherry pick what "matches" up with OP's version and ignore the rest?

Mrs Stipps said closer to 3:00.. Dr Stipps 3:10 ish.... but i agree not confirmed precisely yet.

However... after the shots there was a lot of "stuff" OP had to do.... 7 or more minutes for that stuff is not unreasonable.
On the other hand.. the State contention that shots started after 3:17 is quite frankly daft. Impossible to do all that he would have to do after the shots and be making phone calls at 3:19.
I do not have a problem with the times including OP faffing about or stunned and inactive for short spells... minutes could be "used up".

 

[TorisMom003]

Mrs Stipps said closer to 3:00.. Dr Stipps 3:10 ish.... but i agree not confirmed precisely yet.

However... after the shots there was a lot of "stuff" OP had to do.... 7 or more minutes for that stuff is not unreasonable.
On the other hand.. the State contention that shots started after 3:17 is quite frankly daft. Impossible to do all that he would have to do after the shots and be making phone calls at 3:19.
I do not have a problem with the times including OP faffing about or stunned and inactive for short spells... minutes could be "used up".

Just because OP claims that he did all of those things does not make it true. If it takes 5 seconds to get from the bathroom to the bedroom, then why would it take 7 mins for everything OP says he did?

Sorry but for me the timeline is still off.

 

[Val1]

You've clarified my point there. He didn't have to say that, but look what happened as a result, pages and pages of messages are investigated to try and discredit the fact. I'm not saying they wouldn't have done this anyway, but you've highlighted a good example.

Best policy is always say as little as possible. Prosecutors will have a field day wherever possible, they don't need a helping hand.

bbm - Some of you must have had some kind of bad experience to think that the very people that we as citizens count on to keep those that endanger law abiding citizens(presumably most of us) safe, are out to imprison us all under false pretenses... I'm hoping you all are forgetting that without a crime having been committed in the first place, there would be no reason whatsoever for anyone to find themselves in the accused position, heck, we wouldn't need law enforcement at all.

Imo, there are two irrefutable facts in this case, killing someone without just cause is against the law and OP not only confessed to killing someone but with his own words admitted he did it by disobeying the very rules that help to determine if he had just cause. The only reason he is having this trial is because after admitting to having killed someone outside the dictates of the rules that would have supported his need for doing so, is because he then refused to accept responsibility by pleading not guilty.:banghead:

 

[Rumpole]

Just because OP claims that he did all of those things does not make it true. If it takes 5 seconds to get from the bathroom to the bedroom, then why would it take 7 mins for everything OP says he did?

Sorry but for me the timeline is still off.

I appreciate your point of view, and the concerns about times.

I have argued the details several times. Maybe we should reconvene after some more trial and more details