Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

[BritsKate]

Hi there

Once again there is a split decision,not sure anyone has changed their original views.

I have just been on another website and was interested to read that several people who were fence sitters or even staunchly defending OP and sticking to the "innocent until proven guilty" line have thrown in the towel after this morning's testimony and now believe that he is guilty of deliberately killing Reeva. The reason cited was his truly appalling and obviously untruthful testimony.

RBBM

Don't worry. You'll be alerted by seas parting, swarms of locusts, pigs flying backwards, and hell freezing first. We're an obstinate lot, all of us. :biggrin:

 

[james83]

...the best defence team in the world can't make the witness statements fit the timeline after OP has given his statement. Not unless hypnotism was involved.

Notice the lack of detail in his original affidavit and think about it.

 

[MeeBee]

Hi there

Once again there is a split decision,not sure anyone has changed their original views.

I have just been on another website and was interested to read that several people who were fence sitters or even staunchly defending OP and sticking to the "innocent until proven guilty" line have thrown in the towel after this morning's testimony and now believe that he is guilty of deliberately killing Reeva. The reason cited was his truly appalling and obviously untruthful testimony.

For me as the trial began I was totally on the guilty side. My early posts in this forum confirm this. But as the trial and testimony went on, I began to have doubts. The impossibility of OP's version turned into it actually being possible. I was on the fence for a while. I now believe he did not intend to kill Reeva.

 

[Carol70]

I don't agree that's been established. We've heard Reeva was victim to an intruder by testimony from one person - Oscar. I'd really like Reeva's mother to testify on that since she was actually there.

What Oscar said today was that she locked herself away and wouldn't speak to anyone for a day. Because of the 2nd half of his statement I have my doubts. Whenever something traumatic has happened to me, I've locked myself away for days and refused to speak to others.

Until there's confirmation from someone other than Oscar, I just can't accept his account of anything. Too many inconsistencies so far just in his testimony alone.

Her mother gave an interview sometime ago in the YOU magazine about the entire ordeal they went through. Reeva and June were very traumatized by what happened. I don't believe June will be taking the stand however, I don't understand why not as she should be a good source of info on the state of her daughters relationship!

 

[jay-jay]

For reals?? I also wish she had screamed out, and I'm in NO way blaming her for what happened. I totally understand why she didn't... even though no one else appears to.

OP was the one who was about to shoot to kill .. in his version, he had a duty to make sure that it was not Reeva in that toilet cubicle. He had two occasions where he could have made sure of that .. he could've checked she was still in bed when he 'whispered' to her to call the police .. and when he was stood outside the toilet door, he could've called to her to make sure it was not her .. it wouldn't have taken him a second to do that as he was coming up the corridor, and for her to reply.

In his version, he never even gave her time to scream out or to come out of the toilet .. if she had opened the door he would've shot immediately, and which is exactly what he claims he did because he says he thought it was an intruder coming out, so he never even gave that person (intruder or Reeva) a chance to even open the door. He shot as soon as he heard the sound of what he thought was the door being opened.

 

[shane13]

Not if she thought he was shouting out the bathroom at "intruders". For all Reeva knew, OP ran towards the bathroom screaming about intruders who she may have perceived to have been in the bedroom, TV lounge etc, not realizing that OP has mistaken HER for the intruder.

Well you've got the 2 of them there--and only the 2 of them--3 m apart, and OP is yelling towards the door where Reeva is...

 

[steveml]

Hey stevemi

I was reading yesterdays post in the old thread and realized the discussion about glock and automatic went full blown. I read for a little bit yesterday and saw thought the safety issue was resolved and went back to watching on tv.

Please know I didn't mean by my response to a member was not intended to go full blown. Thanks for picking up my slack.

No worries at all.

It was a storm in a teacup over a post that was taken out of context, nothing more.

:smile:

 

[Val1]

I was following here, not listening. Did OP use the words "door opening"? Sounds like he's saying he anticipated it might open, but there was no door knob turning, lock unclicking, but just his perception based on "a noise in the toilet"?

OP backtracked on what he said, again, and no he didn't claim to hear the door being unlocked unless that's what he "perceived" the wood moving noise was.... No worries.

 

[Patagonia]

I wanted to post this yesterday, but got interrupted and later never got the chance to come back to it, so I'll put it here:

Nel: Was it an accident? Did you mean to fire? Did you fire at the door? Do you remember shooting 4 shots? etc etc etc

He's attempting to get Oscar to use the word intend, meant to, purposely etc

Securing an "intent" charge at least. I think that's why Oscar's hedging and skirting round Nel's play on words and ambiguity.

I agree, and this is very important, I think. Because we can be sure that he was definitely well prepared and instructed by Roux on what to say and exactly which words to avoid saying. That is why OP is repeating the same phrases and answers, over and over, like a broken record. (Even when being asked a completely different question; he goes to great lengths to put certain exact & same 'words' on the record.)

And it is also exactly the reason why he said that he never intended to shoot anyone, when he opened fire. (Which he did out of fear - something he also stated repeatedly, whenever he got the chance, because this is also another important ''fact'' & 'word' from a legal/defense stand point.)

That is why he said he never intended to shoot Reeva - nor the intruder/s. Which is a blatant lie, of course, and it is impossible to accept, because his own ''facts'' and admissions completely contradict it: - since he claims he heard a noise, coming from the cubicle (and heard someone closing this door) - which then caused him to know there was - at that very moment - someone in that cubicle, which then caused him to shoot AT (the direction of) THAT PERSON (making the noise.)

This is the intent, as clear as the summer sky!

How can you 'hide' your intent, your intention to shoot at that person in this version of events? His own version? I can's see a way how! But this is why he ''dances'' so much around the 'words' used when talking about this moment.

And had he truly not intended to shoot anyone, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that, in that case, he wouldn't have AIMED and SHOT at that place at the door. It really is as simple as that.

And he can't (reasonably) have those 2 things together. Avoid 'intent' and have his shots fired at that moment. Because had he truly not intended to shoot anyone - he would have fired either above his own head, or much HIGHER at the door, or anywhere else for that matter, anywhere BUT the place where he aimed and shot. Anywhere but precisely at the source of the 'intruder's' movements and noise! There is no way in my mind that he can ask anyone to believe that argument, that there was no intent to shoot ANYONE. It is simply not possible.

It's like claiming you didn't intend to get wet, yet you ran out of the house and positioned yourself precisely below a rain-pouring cumulonimbus!

 

[BritsKate]

What has struck me throughout this case is OP's deep seated sense of paranoia and insecurity.

I think this is the reason he has been so involved in the case so much and why he is trying to to defend Nel's questions rather than give direct answers.

A normal person would keep answers simple, and let the lawyers do the defending.
I think he truly believes that the PT have gone out of their way to exaggerate the claim of him knowingly intending to kill Reeva, and he doesn't want it to be left totally at the mercy of his lawyers.

I can't say this approach is beneficial, but I really would like to see Nel start to provide some solid foundation to justify the PT's beliefs.

Herein lies the problem. Your normal person is akin to a person Not Guilty in the view of others. A person not guilty wouldn't keep evading questions either. Few defendants testify for a multitude of reasons so there's already a minimal amount of data to extrapolate information from - but certain similarities can be seen when defendants do take the stand and hedging questions or arguing with the opposing attorneys are a couple.

JMO

 

[jassy writer]

Reeva opens the window and goes into the toilet room. OP hears it. As he's going for his gun, unholsters it, whispers to Reeva, Reeba sits down and begins peeing. He starts shouting, she slams the door, pulls her pants up and listens through the door.

It certainly makes more sense in the defense's version than the state's.

The door opens outwards. She can't slam it if she's sitting on the toilet.

 

[DebinGA]

OP didn't seem to come up with any verifiable evidence he'd been victimized before, did he? He blamed that on his distrust of police and the time lapses. The one thing he mentioned and I don't think Nel pursued was his claim that one fracas required him to get stitches in his head afterward. Surely there'd be a record of that and Nel would have confronted him about it if there wasn't?

 

[Peliman]

Warning this is paraphrased until I read a transcript.

What I'm processing is when Nel asked him if it's possible he couldn't hear her scream after she was first shot in the hip and OP said if she did he couldn't hear it "maybe because his ears were ringing"

 

[Carol70]

BBM With respect, would it have been okay then if it had been an intruder and he/she had been shot dead?

Truth be told, if it was indeed an intruder, I have no doubt he would have been hailed a hero!

 

[MeeBee]

The door opens outwards. She can't slam it if she's sitting on the toilet.

So she stands up, pulls her pants up and closes the door and begins listening through the door.

 

[Val1]

Well you've got the 2 of them there--and only the 2 of them--3 m apart, and OP is yelling towards the door where Reeva is...

Exactly, if I had been RS, if nothing else I would have opened the door to let him in to safety after having heard him screaming all the way down the hallway towards me, obviously in fear for his life(assuming you believe OP's version).

 

[BritsKate]

Great points, Patagonia.

If his intent was to make the intruder flee...why was there no warning shot? Of course, I think can predict the answer - 'I didn't have time to think'. (Has anyone else noticed he hasn't repeated he's fighting for his life since Nel called him out on it?)

 

[Apollo]

As my post above noted: He said: "I heard the door opening"

He then changed it to he "perceived" that he heard the door opening.

Strange he didn't 'perceive' she was no longer in the bedroom when he spoke softly to her and told her to stay down and call the police. No response of "OK" or "What's going on?" or "Where's my phone"---nothing. But he still thought she was in the room.

 

[Bazinga]

Oscar's right. The State have changed their case and proposals within it numerous times. Is the State actually tailoring its case as per evidence, witnesses and statements???

The state naturally uses the evidence and witness statements to determine its case. The police and Nel were not there at the time Oscar shot and killed Reeva and from day one had to come up with the most likely scenario with the information they had at the time. The state has more information now than they did on day 5 during the bail hearing. It seems unacceptable to some here that the state has changed their "version" of events since that day 5 bail hearing.
I cannot understand this.
Oscar had made no statement to police before the bail hearing - why not on if he was innocent and this was an accident? The police and prosecutor were left to make an initial guess and build on that with evidence as the only first hand witness was not talking.

 

[G.bng]

I would say his job is to base it on facts not his personal perceptions.

That's silly. A prosecution that is relying on circumstantial evidence from which the judge draw inferences, or not, depending on what weight she gives each piece of circumstantial evidence, obviously holds a belief of what they think could have happened otherwise they wouldn't bother to prosecute in the first place. So when Nel states what "he" believes I don't think you should be taking that as Nel's "personal perception" but as one of the inferences the prosecution team have drawn from the circumstantial evidence being discussed.