Trial Discussion Thread #17

[jay-jay]

I just want something more solid, a stronger motive and reason for OP to WANT Reeva dead.

I don't believe actually wanted her dead .. just that he lost his rag with her, and in a fit of pique, he shot one shot at her through the bathroom door .. then immediately realised what he had done, so he had to finish the job off, just so that she couldn't speak or be a witness to the event (remember, after the first shot he would've been aware he had hit her, but wouldn't have known the extent of the injury or whether she would've been able to survive it .. so he continued shooting until she fell silent).

 

[foxbluff]

Or "in my induced state of terror and fear" I may have done that or "don't know why I did that"

I didn't think, I was being driven by instinct . .

Baloney . . . Ugh

Agreed. Also, I'm wondering if DT will suggest that OP's inability to clearly remember what happened that night, is because OP is suffering from PTS Disorder?

 

[jay-jay]

But why? What made him flip, IF he knew it was Reeva?

He flipped because he was annoyed with Reeva .. you can tell that just from what Reeva told us in her WhatsApp messages that he was becoming increasingly irritated by her .. a thorn in his side all the time.

 

[crasshopper]

I think EVERYONE agrees that one of the sets of bangs that the Stipps heard WERE the gunshots?

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE that the second set of bangs was the gunshots...

NO everyone does NOT agree...

:jail:

 

[Viper]

A presumption of guilt means that prosecution witnesses are to be believed. Lay witnesses are only there to tell what they saw/heard and truly believe. I have seen people post and take umbrage at any questioning of witness testimony. Roux is a nasty man for doubting them and cross examining them. State experts are all professional people whose opinion should be accepted as confirmed facts.
Defense lay witnesses are all biased and are making stuff up to help OP.
Defense experts are just saying what they are paid to say, and their opinion is to be disregarded, whatever it is, even before they have taken the stand :floorlaugh:

If you watched the George Zimmerman trial it was just the opposite of what I am seeing here. The State's pathologist was a joke!!!! And the hired expert was completely credible. I just call things as I see them.

 

[jay-jay]

OP's statements are simply nonsensical. Taken one at a time, the pieces of his statements that don't add up can possibly be explained away, if your stretch your imagination. Put together as a whole, I do not believe the events of that night could have possibly occurred the way he says it does. I have tried and tried to imagine this through OP's eyes, and to imagine it occurring the way he states. I can't. It's not even close to believable.

^^ this ^^ (espesh the bit in bold)

 

[Insp.Dots]

she had by then her fill of his childish nonsense and was telling him it is over...

But where's the proof of that? Roux will just pull out the amazing Valentine's gift Reeva gave him that same night, full of photos of happy times together?
What changed in those few hours to make him want to kill her?

 

[jay-jay]

I believe OP has a story to tell and so far it hasn't been the truth. I don't believe he would ever even whisper the truth to anyone.

I reckon 'Uncle Arnold' knows. JMO.


I think someone should tell OP that Uncle Arnold is not doing him any favours .. all that stuff he does being over pleasant with people in the court all the time (didn't he bring in food goodies for everyone at the start of the trial or something?) .. and the absolute nerve of him going over to June Steenkamp to 'offer his condolences' .. this is a murder trial where his nephew is on trial for murdering her daughter, it's not a church fete.

 

[Gryffindor]

Quote from Debora Patta, a South African broadcast journalist and TV producer.

"Nel is known to keep his cards close to his chest and for throwing out bombshells during his cross-examination of witnesses. Expect fireworks in court and a few surprises along the way".

God, I bloomin hope so. IMO he's had it far too easy thus far for actually murdering someone. Reeva or not.

 

[Viper]

I don't believe actually wanted her dead .. just that he lost his rag with her, and in a fit of pique, he shot one shot at her through the bathroom door .. then immediately realised what he had done, so he had to finish the job off, just so that she couldn't speak or be a witness to the event (remember, after the first shot he would've been aware he had hit her, but wouldn't have known the extent of the injury or whether she would've been able to survive it .. so he continued shooting until she fell silent).

I see OP wanting her dead. It takes a lot for a person to argue or yell at another person all night and spend 15 minutes doing the same with that person locked in a closet, and then deciding that the only way to settle the matter is to fire a series of bullets at the other person until she is dead. Him not wanting to see her really bothers me; he could have got to her and beat her or whatever, but he did not want to see her face when he murdered her... Just my thoughts.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Fair comment.

We have a problem though if we don't test things to conclusion, as then a plea of momentary rage becomes the norm. There is a leniency in certain cases when somebody just flips out, and I don't want this to be an excuse for OP or anyone.

If he has stalked or planned to kill Reeva he deserves the maximum sentence possible. That is achievable but we have to go through due process.

Thank you, this is where I am coming from. I am 99% per cent sure he should be locked up for a very long time but it needs to be 100% with no doubt and then no chance of him being let out in years time on a technicality!

 

[Rumpole]

If you watched the George Zimmerman trial it was just the opposite of what I am seeing here. The State's pathologist was a joke!!!! And the hired expert was completely credible. I just call things as I see them.

Yes I watched GZ trial.

For that, those who presumed GZ guilty thought those dingbat State experts were marvelous... that is my point

When you have a preconceived verdict already imprinted in your mind.. Cognitive Dissonance causes you to believe one side's witnesses as honest and credible... the other side's witnesses as shonkey.

We have not seen the Defense witnesses yet, yet their future testimony is being questioned in advance.

I found most of the State expert witnesses to be credible in this case. They were giving a considered opinion.. but its only ONE opinion. I am sure the defence experts will have a slightly different take, but still an honest opinion. It's up to the Judge to weight the two testimonies. The State witnesses too may be influenced by the fact that they are employed by the State.. no more and no less than defense witnesses.

I do have HUGE reservations about Vermeulen' evidence... too many things to cover again in this post. Not because he is a State witness, but because I saw and heard his testimony and have given it the weight it deserves. He was very selective in what he looked at and admits himself he was looking for evidence he had predetermined (or been told) was important. He missed stuff!!! Found another mark on bat the day of the trial. That is unforgivably sloppy work. He was "begging the question" in claiming OP would be "uncomfortable" wielding the bat with his legs on. How would he know what is "uncomfortable for a double amputee who had learned to balance etc in a way likely VERY different from a chubby evidence examiner with legs intact. What was made very clear from Samantha Taylor's evidence (and common sense) was that OP had difficulty balancing when on his stumps. Not a situation where he would likely have balance and power to swing the bat at the door. Vermeulen omitted evidence and photos that did not suit his narrative. I could go on.

I gather from what Roux said while cross examining Vermeulen, that the defence will refute his evidence with an expert who was Vermeulen's boss... the guy who "taught him everything he knows". Apparently he did not grasp what he was being taught... it could be fun to watch his old boss rip him a new one

 

[Gryffindor]

Quote from Debora Patta, a South African broadcast journalist and TV producer.

"Nel is known to keep his cards close to his chest and for throwing out bombshells during his cross-examination of witnesses. Expect fireworks in court and a few surprises along the way".

Really hope so x

 

[Insp.Dots]

bbm - I simply couldn't agree more.

IMO, regardless of who he might have thought was behind the door, he's guilty of premeditated murder.

No matter how much I agree with that, if the defence show that OP was in fear of his life and unable to think in a rational way at that point he will get away on culpable homicide. That isn't just my view it is what other Lawyers are fearful of.

 

[Gryffindor]

I see OP wanting her dead. It takes a lot for a person to argue or yell at another person all night and spend 15 minutes doing the same with that person locked in a closet, and then deciding that the only way to settle the matter is to fire a series of bullets at the other person until she is dead. Him not wanting to see her really bothers me; he could have got to her and beat her or whatever, but he did not want to see her face when he murdered her... Just my thoughts.

Coward. And again, passing the blame - to a door this time

And the phrase, though all too uncomfortably literal this time,

"What goes on being closed doors".

Just galling

 

[Gbtaketwo]

In SA the only way you'd probably shout 'it's me honey' is if you thought it was some kind of joke. The sensible thing would be to lock the door and not shout or even say anything.

If you're going to speak you may as well shout 'I'm over here', to the intruders.

It could well be that Reeva did exactly the sensible thing, to her detriment.

Yes I agree the sensible thing would be to keep quiet which apparently Reeva did . That being the case do you not find that it is highly unlikely that if she was scared enough to not answer back she wouldn't have been moving around when she heard the intruder advancing towards her .
I think she wouldn't have moved a muscle in such a circumstance
OP states he heard movement in the toilet which was enough to make him shoot .

 

[Insp.Dots]

Ah brilliant! Thanks Viper So everything Nel has submitted is fair game, even though Roux doesn't address anything Nel wishes to bring up? X

I don't see how that works as the State have presented their case. OP doesn't have to take the stand and say anything, mad though that would be. The defence could just leave it and not bring any witnesses. Nel can only cross examine now, he has given the States version apart from hopefully catching OP out on the stand and asking him to explain things that are already in evidence and his summing up. MOO His chance to read out the 'explosive' text or phone call was last week.

 

[foxbluff]

I can't see how it would do him any good not to answer, surely the Judge would send him down on a premed murder charge if she wasn't satisfied with his answers.

Hi fox.

I see what you're saying. My thought was that if he said he didn't recall things then judge would have to consider that he might be telling the truth. On the other hand, IMO, if he tells the truth as to what took place that night, it's a slam dunk for premeditation.

 

[crasshopper]

... and the absolute nerve of him going over to June Steenkamp to 'offer his condolences' ...

I was frankly disgusted by that. That was something that should have been done long ago and in PRIVATE. smh

 

[Insp.Dots]

I wonder whether we will get to hear and see the Defence Pathologist or whether again it will be behind closed doors with only tweeting allowed. Standby for some more puking.

I don't understand why they are using a pathologist that wasn't at the autopsy, that seems odd to me.