Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

[jilly]

yeah, LOL and Nel forgot that part in his first questioning......had to bring it up later.......geesh.

:banghead:

I didn't know that....haven't watched.....just reading. Glad he remembered!

 

[Jamtart]

when the guard was speaking to OP on the phone, what language were they speaking?

I ask because of the confusion over the terms OK vs FINE. If one is translating from english, those terms are interchangeable. So I don't understand why Roux was making such a big issue of those two words.

Roux must have been aware how problematic Baba's assertion that OP stated "everything is fine" is under the circumstances...therefore I imagine that he was hoping Baba would say "I don't remember exactly the words he used"...giving Roux an opportunity to repeat several times "you're saying that you don't remember what he said, you don't remember, I put it to you that you don't remember what he said, I'm not doubting your integrity, not at all, I'm not doubting your integrity, but I put it to you that understandably you are confused, you don't remember. Also...we have carried out tests that prove that when Mr Pistorious is upset he speaks in tongues and "everything is *advertiser censored***d" changes itself into "everything is fine". But you don't remember" :banghead:

 

[sorrell skye]

I must say that I find this trial VERY hard to follow - perhaps as a cultural difference. As I'm used to ask/answer without obfuscation. So many compound questions by the defense attorney that is being attempted to answer and doesn't answer what I thought was being asked is VERY confusing.

Again, this must be a difference in cultures? Or is it a difference in folks that I associate with? Dunno.

The US style of court procedure during a jury trial is much easier to follow, as it's very organized with strict rules as to what counsel can bring up and what they can't (whether during direct examination, during cross, or during redirect). But I think it also has its drawbacks, in that there is little to no wiggle room. One of the things I'm coming to appreciate as I've watched this trial is that there seems to be a LOT of wiggle room in SA trial procedure - sometimes too much, though lol!

Roux's style of cross-examination drives me absolutely batty! ullhair: Rarely does he ask a simple question. Most of time, he delivers long-winded monologues that aren't questions at all, but come off as testifying by counsel. Other times, his questions are like easter eggs buried beneath a tangle of weeds that one can only discover after breaking out the weed whacker.

I'm beginning to suspect there's a method to his madness. I think he's purposefully trying to cause confusion with the goal of tripping up the witness. When I watch his face & body posture during his cross examination, he consistently has the look of someone who is either on the verge or in the full throes of a "gotcha" moment.

I'm amazed when a witness is able to follow & answer. I am also greatly amused when either the witness or My Lady says they don't understand the question, especially when, after Roux concludes one of his monologues, they ask "Was that a question?" :lol:

 

[curiousjo]

I think the Ex girlfriend's testimony was simply to show that he was reckless with his gun. She is only a young girl - a teenager that he dated.

I found the doctor to be very credible. Interesting that he was awakened to 3 gunshot sounding bangs, then continued to hear woman screaming with man, then heard 3 additional gun shot sounding bangs. So, what really happened? He admitted that the head wound was fatal. So, if he heard a woman screaming after the first gunshots, then the final blow had not happened yet! Was she fully dressed in the BR, as if she was going to leave at 3am? I suspect she was scared and took refuge behind a locked BR door. There were 2 phones found in BR - was she or did she call anyone? Also, why did OP go back upstairs after the doctor came? Did he change, call anyone, hide anything?

I think OP was a hot head who had rages. Her parents said they had never met him, but were surprised when the two did not spend the Christmas holiday together (implying a possible argument) and then upset when she called them from his car saying he was driving recklessly. They went on to say that she was not one to be controlled, and I wonder if that OP couldn't control her and that is why this happened. Her Ex boyfriend said that he had recently run into her, and they went to lunch. OP called twice in 20 min during the lunch, leading the Ex to ask her if everything was okay. The Ex continued to text message her after the lunch - which may have lead to a fight that night on the eve of Valentines Day.

 

[minor4th]

I think the Ex testimony was simply to show that he was reckless with his gun. She is only a young girl - a teenager that he dated.

I found the doctor to be very credible. Interesting that he was awakened to 3 gunshot sounding bangs, then continued to hear woman screaming with man, then heard 3 additional gun shot sounding bangs. So, what really happened? He admitted that the head wound was fatal. So, if he heard a woman screaming after the first gunshots, then the final blow had not happened yet!

I think OP was a hot head who had rages. Her parents said they had never met him, but were surprised when the two did not spend the Christmas holiday together (implying a possible argument) and then upset when she called her Mom from his car saying he was driving recklessly. They went on to say that she was not one to be controlled, and I wonder if that OP couldn't control her and that is why this happened. Her Ex said that he had recently run into her, and they went to lunch. OP called twice in 20 min and he asked her if everything was okay. The Ex continued to text message her after the lunch - which may have lead to a fight that night on the eve of Valentines Day.

I think the shooting through the sunroof is maybe one of the additional gun charges?

 

[Schuby]

Hey all, I posted earlier that there is a CNN special on the trial airing at 9 PM EST.
Just updating that info because it was wrong, it airs at 10 PM EST. Whoops!

 

[lisasalinger]

excerpted quote:
I'll take a shot at it. OP's bathroom windows are at the very back of his house on the left; they look out onto the open field. Stipp's home is directly across the open field from those windows.

Ah, got it. I see it now. Thank you :seeya:

 

[minor4th]

P.S. I do find it kind of gross that he was dating a 17 year old. How old was he at the time?

 

[Schuby]

Yeah, he's been ordered to stay at his uncle's house and not return home.

P.S. I do find it kind of gross that he was dating a 17 year old. How old was he at the time?

It is odd, I wonder what the age of consent is in SA?

ETA: no idea how I carried a quote from myself over

 

[curiousjo]

They say he is dating another teenager now!

 

[Really?]

am I wrong in assuming Reeva was a few years older than OP?

 

[katydid23]

If you take each witness, individually, you can see where Roux was able to poke some holes in their testimony. In that context, he did a great job. But after a week of witness testimony, if you look at the entire week's testimony as a whole, then OP is in big trouble. I think in the big picture, as a whole, they have painted a picture of an entitled, reckless, arrogant tyrant, who was most likely angry at Reeva, and not going after a phantom burglar at all. :moo:

 

[Really?]

If you take each witness, individually, you can see where Roux was able to poke some holes in their testimony. In that context, he did a great job. But after a week of witness testimony, if you look at the entire week's testimony as a whole, then OP is in big trouble. I think in the big picture, as a whole, they have painted a picture of an entitled, reckless, arrogant tyrant, who was most likely angry at Reeva, and not going after a phantom burglar at all. :moo:

I think this is correct......really...if you have a bed partner......and you leave the room for a moment.......come back in and hear noises......why not check if it is the other person in the bathroom?????

 

[curiousjo]

What do you guys think of the 2 sets of "gunshot" sounding noises that the doctor heard? And remember, he said the yelling continued after the first round of noises.

 

[jilly]

Yes, the whole incident at the bar was reckless, but it was also unintentional - as opposed to the shots out of the car that Samantha testified about.

He admitted he shot her because he shot her. Why try to impute some kind of motive?

Oscar's "motive" for his reckless behavior is that it was an accident. He took responsibility for shooting her only because his back was against the wall. The prosecution is building a case against him, block by block. There's more to come!

 

[Jamtart]

Truth be told, I found Samantha's testimony full of nonsense. I'm actually shocked that Roux didn't lay into her. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out post about why but I literally rolled my eyes when I read that when they were pulled off by police, OP was asked to step out the vehicle (why?? He was not the driver who was speeding) and secondly...who the hell shouts at a South African policeman and gets to drive off?? The only conclusion I can come to as to why OP might have been "angry" and they were allowed to drive off was because the officer solicited a bribe and OP paid it, (naturally this won't be brought up in court as it opens a whole can of worms)...you actually get arrested for speeding in this country, nevermind shouting at police, they don't care who you are..even esteemed members of our society have had the joy of being escorted to the state hotel for speeding. Ithe bribe is the only conclusion I can come up with as to why Roux didn't follow on with this. And SA metro are notorious for soliciting on the spot bribes, it's actually a huge problem in Jhb/Pretoria.

Sorry guys, I have found all the witnesses plausible so far, maybe not agreeing but definitely possibilities but not ST. She is full of it! And really, who drives around in the city you live in and not know where you are or at least ask where are we going??? I don't think roux is finished with her!

I would just like to say here that as a non-driver myself when I am a passenger in a car, I pay no attention to where we are or the route taken...and I don't know the roads or districts well at all where I live for this reason even though I have lived here for a number of years. I didn't find anything odd about this part of her evidence at all I do, however agree strongly with a point you made in another post, that they seem to skirt over some apparently important questions and go into other apparently trivial points in tedious drawn out detail...quite baffling at times, and certainly frustrating.

 

[Schuby]

am I wrong in assuming Reeva was a few years older than OP?

She was 29, he is 26 I think?

 

[curiousjo]

He is 27 yo, she is 29 yo.

 

[katydid23]

I would just like to say here that as a non-driver myself when I am a passenger in a car, I pay no attention to where we are or the route taken...and I don't know the roads or districts well at all where I live for this reason even though I have lived here for a number of years. I didn't find anything odd about this part of her evidence at all I do, however agree strongly with a point you made in another post, that they seem to skirt over some apparently important questions and go into other apparently trivial points in tedious drawn out detail...quite baffling at times, and certainly frustrating.

Especially true for a 17 yr old. I remember when my daughter first got her drivers license she did not know the driving directions to many of her routine destinations. But that was because she had always been the passenger, not the driver.

 

[Harmony 2]

Minor, what about the other witness who testified previously that OP was careless with a gun..in a bar? I think the judge may take into account his air of entitlement due to his celebrity status. His ex girlfriend's testimony relates to this..plus his lies?
Maybe some of her other testimony could be sour grapes, but there seems to be a theme of a certain kind of behavior that is not in OP's favor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My take is that the ex-girlfriend witnessed OP's recklessness with guns, she was present when he thought an intruder was in the house, and was aware of his rage over the billionaire, Quinton, so she was emotional because it could have been her instead of RS. The "breakup" email reminded her she was lucky because circumstances could have been different.