Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[MeeBee]

But on the balance of things, OP needs more than just 5 witnesses that heard something else, he needs 5 witnesses that heard something completely different.

He doesn't need that at all.

 

[aa9511]

Exactly. Why would he lie about that?

I don't know but he did lie about it. I think it's one of those things that now he has said it, he can't take it back.

I think he added the 2nd fan in to give Reeva more "time" to go the bathroom without him noticing.

But problem is, he can't "take it back" now. Or else his whole story will be exposed as a lie.

It's just like with Jodi and the 3rd gas can.

JMO.

 

[MeeBee]

...........and he even "adds" that little detail of covering the blue little light with Reeva's jeans......so were Reeva's jeans still there when police got there? Somehow I don't it.

Why would he add such an inconsequential detail? What exactly could he be hiding?

The jeans were found next to the duvet.

 

[aa9511]

I suggest that he insists there were 2 fans because there were 2 fans and not because it is a lie and there must be some unspoken motive for it.

It doesn't make sense because of your assumption that it's false.

What about the evidence that there was really no where to plug it in, unless somewhere where he would have tripped over it or clearly remembered where he plug in it.

Basically he is a liar, it has been clearly shown many times, and the Judge is going to give him Guilty.

JMO.

 

[TorisMom003]

I don't know but he did lie about it. I think it's one of those things that now he has said it, he can't take it back.

I think he added the 2nd fan in to give Reeva more "time" to go the bathroom without him noticing.

But problem is, he can't "take it back" now. Or else his whole story will be exposed as a lie.

It's just like with Jodi and the 3rd gas can.

JMO.

Which is why in his BAS it is stated that OP went onto the balcony to bring in the fan. To make more time for Reeva to leave the bedroom without him being there to notice it. But when called out for that in court, after telling a different version that must have just slipped into his mind, he blamed it on his lawyers. He only signed what was put in front of him. He didn't type it out, they did. It is always someone else's fault when something goes wrong in the life of OP.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

How does the lack of bangs to break down door, after last 'bangs' that match ballistics and stopped the female screams, correlate? And why would Oscar, in minute detail, tell us how he pried the panel out with the bat? He only said he 'hit' the door and a panel came out. So who pried with the bat?

Oscar didn't say he pried the panel out with the bat. Vermuelen said that. Oscar said he broke the door, a piece came off and he used his hands to break the panels.

There were two sets of bangs.

One set of bangs was gunshots, the other set of bangs was not gunshots.

There's no evidence or suggestion or testimony of any possibilities for those bangs other than gunshots and cricket bat hitting the door.

The gunshots had to have happened before the cricket bat hit and broke the door.

Ergo - the first set of loud bangs must have been the gunshots and the second set of loud bangs must have been the cricket bat hitting the door.

Ergo - the screaming after the first set of loud bangs was not Reeva because she was dead.

That's as plainly as I can put it.

 

[aa9511]

Does anyone seriously still entertain the idea that he is telling the truth?.

Yes, some people do.

 

[Trooper]

I'm not "thinking thinking thinking." The evidence is that one bang had to be the gunshots and one the cricket bat. According to Dr. Stipp, they sounded the same. There is a compelling demonstration on YT that really makes it very believable to me that they could sound exactly the same from a distance. One was only duller, but the sounds were identical. No discrepancies. It's perfectly logical.

All these other theories and yet the state has not even said what they think the two sets of bangs could have been. Fascinating.

who is this YT clip compelling to? is it evidence?? has it been tabled as such?? .. is this the evidence that Oscar will bring to the table as supporting his story??

compelling to whom, is really the key here.. compelling to people whose experience of both sounds is wide and long or ?? compelling to Judge Masipa and the Assessors??

 

[TorisMom003]

Why would he add such an inconsequential detail? What exactly could he be hiding?

The jeans were found next to the duvet.

No. A pair of jeans were found next to the duvet. A feminine looking pair of jeans with a white belt in the belt loops was found on the ground outside and under the bathroom window area.

 

[MeeBee]

No. A pair of jeans were found next to the duvet. A feminine looking pair of jeans with a white belt in the belt loops was found on the ground outside and under the bathroom window area.

Uh Huh. And how do those jeans relate to the jeans he was trying to cover the light with?

 

[MeeBee]

who is this YT clip compelling to? is it evidence?? has it been tabled as such?? .. is this the evidence that Oscar will bring to the table as supporting his story??

compelling to whom, is really the key here.. compelling to people whose experience of both sounds is wide and long or ?? compelling to Judge Masipa and the Assessors??

Compelling to me, trooper.

 

[ShadyLady]

Why would he add such an inconsequential detail? What exactly could he be hiding?

The jeans were found next to the duvet.

He added that because he knew with that light on his story would make no sense. If that light was such a bother....why wasn't it covered all along. Those lights are pretty bright and he should have been able to see Reeva clearly. IMO

 

[MeeBee]

He added that because he knew with that light on his story would make no sense. If that light was such a bother....why wasn't it covered all along. Those lights are pretty bright and he should have been able to see Reeva clearly. IMO

But clearly, the light was never covered. He was going to cover but heard the sound before he could. How does this help his story?

 

[Gavel Rash]

Oscar didn't say he pried the panel out with the bat. Vermuelen said that. Oscar said he broke the door, a piece came off and he used his hands to break the panels.

There were two sets of bangs.

One set of bangs was gunshots, the other set of bangs was not gunshots.

There's no evidence or suggestion or testimony of any possibilities for those bangs other than gunshots and cricket bat hitting the door.

The gunshots had to have happened before the cricket bat hit and broke the door.

Ergo - the first set of loud bangs must have been the gunshots and the second set of loud bangs must have been the cricket bat hitting the door.

Ergo - the screaming after the first set of loud bangs was not Reeva because she was dead.

That's as plainly as I can put it.

Then plainly explain the mark on the bat that correlates to the angle it was placed into the crack in the door, that also shows an indented mark on timber of pressure from prying?

 

[TorisMom003]

Uh Huh. And how do those jeans relate to the jeans he was trying to cover the light with?

Another great question for OP. How exactly did those jeans get outside of the open bathroom window? Why are Reeva's jeans not covering the LED light that OP was so concerned with covering? How long does it take to put a pair of jeans on top of an LED light when one is standing right next to it?

 

[Viper]

He doesn't need that at all.

OK, if so then what new witness evidense does he need to overcome the existing witness evidence?

 

[ShadyLady]

But clearly, the light was never covered. He was going to cover but heard the sound before he could. How does this help his story?

I thought he said he covered it. I posted link above. With light on.....he could see clearly.

 

[Rumpole]

But on the balance of things, OP needs more than just 5 witnesses that heard something else, he needs 5 witnesses that heard something completely different.

Reality is not decided by a vote

 

[MeeBee]

OK, if so then what new witness evidense does he need to overcome the existing witness evidence?

All he needs is witnesses that believably, fundamentally contradict what the other witnesses heard. That he needs exactly the same amount of witnesses the state had and they had to have heard the exact opposite of what the state's witnesses heard is a strange expectation to have. The judge isn't going to throw away their testimony just because there were less witnesses. :facepalm:

 

[minor4th]

What about the evidence that there was really no where to plug it in, unless somewhere where he would have tripped over it or clearly remembered where he plug in it.

Basically he is a liar, it has been clearly shown many times, and the Judge is going to give him Guilty.

JMO.

There wasn't evidence that there was nowhere to plug it in. There was a picture that Nel displayed that showed one extension chord with no available slots. But there was no foundation about when that picture was taken, who plugged those devices in or if it was even supposed to be a picture of the exact crime scene before anything was moved.

There were other places to plug it in. But I don't even get why this is important or why anyone thinks this is some kind of win for the State.