Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

[JuneBug67]

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!

Very interesting observations from a first hand cultural standpoint. Appreciated! How do you think his celebrity might have altered the interaction?

 

[JuneBug67]

I got that vibe in a big way

Interesting that we see it quite differently. I wonder what we all bring to the table to make these judgements. I tend to default to expecting honesty and good intention from people, which can be naive I suppose. Perhaps as an attorney you see obfuscation all the time, and are perhaps more jaded or more attuned to it.

 

[aa9511]

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 think Roux has an uphill battle with this witness, for the reason that he has already had 1,2,3,4,5 - 5 witnesses - who seemed credible and whose testimonies went against Oscar's version of his story.

So I get what you're saying, but I think there has already been too much damage done.

If it was just this witness word against Oscar, then definately one would have some questions. But by now, IMO, it's too late. Damage has already been done with the 5 previous witness, YKWIM?

 

[minor4th]

Interesting that we see it quite differently. I wonder what we all bring to the table to make these judgements. I tend to default to expecting honesty and good intention from people, which can be naive I suppose. Perhaps as an attorney you see obfuscation all the time, and are perhaps more jaded or more attuned to it.

It is fascinating how two people can watch/hear the exact same thing and have completely different impressions.

I may have been listening with a bias or preconceived idea that you can't take the testimony from an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife because I deal with that a lot in my practice - it's generally accepted that the testimony from an ex should be taken cautiously.

 

[minor4th]

Aside from whether Samantha was biased or not, I don't think her testimony really has anything to do with the murder charge. It neither helped nor hurt the prosecution or defense IMO

 

[zqtpie]

It is fascinating how two people can watch/hear the exact same thing and have completely different impressions.

I may have been listening with a bias or preconceived idea that you can't take the testimony from an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife because I deal with that a lot in my practice - it's generally accepted that the testimony from an ex should be taken cautiously.

All the same, I'd want to be sure to be honest on the stand knowing that you will be cross-examined on your testimony. Lying may work well for a sociopath, but normal people don't pull it off that well. JMO.

 

[minor4th]

All the same, I'd want to be sure to be honest on the stand knowing that you will be cross-examined on your testimony. Lying may work well for a sociopath, but normal people don't pull it off that well. JMO.

Lying on the stand does not work well for sociopaths either. And I'm not so much talking about lying as maybe having distorted or exaggerated perceptions based on residual ill-will after a bad breakup.

ETA: People lie and exaggerate on the witness stand all the time - like every single trial I've ever done, there is always at least one witness who is not truthful.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Aside from whether Samantha was biased or not, I don't think her testimony really has anything to do with the murder charge. It neither helped nor hurt the prosecution or defense IMO

I too don't think it is of much value. All it did was to add a little weight to the picture being painted of a rather immature hothead who has neither his temper or gun under control. That doesn't make him a murderer.

 

[Ranchgirl]

Aside from whether Samantha was biased or not, I don't think her testimony really has anything to do with the murder charge. It neither helped nor hurt the prosecution or defense IMO

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

 

[Really?]

Aside from whether Samantha was biased or not, I don't think her testimony really has anything to do with the murder charge. It neither helped nor hurt the prosecution or defense IMO

But remember, ST did testify that OP always woke her first if he thought he heard something in the house.....asking if she heard the same.

 

[ShadyLady]

I found ex-girl friend VERY credible.

 

[jilly]

I too don't think it is of much value. All it did was to add a little weight to the picture being painted of a rather immature hothead who has neither his temper or gun under control. That doesn't make him a murderer.

Didn't she say that he awoke her everytime he heard a single noise? He apparently didn't do that with Reeva.

 

[minor4th]

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

I don't think so much about the gun in the bar - they should not have been handling it, but the culpability for that falls more squarely on the gun owner who was passing it around, in my view.

If he was shooting out of a car, that is certainly reckless. From what I have read, Oscar does seem to be rather reckless and a thrill seeker. But I really don't think any of that matters on the issue of premeditated murder. He's not claiming he did not shoot her, nor is he denying that it was dark and he did not know where Reeva was or who was behind the door - so on those facts alone the judge will decide whether he acted reasonably or recklessly. I don't think any of the past episodes really come into play.

 

[jilly]

But remember, ST did testify that OP always woke her first if he thought he heard something in the house.....asking if she heard the same.

sorry really, I was posting while you clicked sumbit! Like you...that sure got my attention.

 

[minor4th]

But remember, ST did testify that OP always woke her first if he thought he heard something in the house.....asking if she heard the same.

Yes, and because she is a scorned ex-girlfriend I suggest that you take her testimony with a grain of salt.

 

[Really?]

sorry really, I was posting while you clicked sumbit! Like you...that sure got my attention.

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

:banghead:

 

[Really?]

Yes, and because she is a scorned ex-girlfriend I suggest that you take her testimony with a grain of salt.

I did worry about that when she broke down whenever the "breakup" was mentioned. I agreee.

 

[jilly]

I don't think so much about the gun in the bar - they should not have been handling it, but the culpability for that falls more squarely on the gun owner who was passing it around, in my view.

If he was shooting out of a car, that is certainly reckless. From what I have read, Oscar does seem to be rather reckless and a thrill seeker. But I really don't think any of that matters on the issue of premeditated murder. He's not claiming he did not shoot her, nor is he denying that it was dark and he did not know where Reeva was or who was behind the door - so on those facts alone the judge will decide whether he acted reasonably or recklessly. I don't think any of the past episodes really come into play.

Why not? As I recall it was outside on a patio and a child was sitting nearby? It's more than "reckless" imo.

He had no choice but to admit he shot her. There was no one around to accept blame (if you know what I mean).

 

[minor4th]

I did worry about that when she broke down whenever the "breakup" was mentioned. I agreee.

Exactly

 

[minor4th]

Why not? As I recall it was outside on a patio and a child was sitting nearby? It's more than "reckless" imo.

He had no choice but to admit he shot her. There was no one around to accept blame (if you know what I mean).

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?