Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

[Gryffindor]

Do PT work from the premise innocent till proven guilty also, out of interest?

Or assume guilt and do and say whatever necessary, as well as twisting things, to determine guilt?

 

[Carol70]

Especially when his alleged screaming words were meant for a threatening burglar "Get out of my house now" or such.

If OP really had said that, Reeva would immediately have known that if she did not reply quickly, she would be in some kind of big trouble.

Shane, how on earth could she have possibly known that??

 

[jay-jay]

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"

That's correct ..

.. but aren't they also still sticking to the 4 shots in quick succession thing? (double-tap now ditched) I don't think they have gone for the shot-pause-shot-shot-shot yet have they .. so why has he even needed to say that it was because of his ears ringing if he just did shot-shot-shot-shot anyway? He wouldn't even have been listening after the first shot, ears ringing or not. (.. would be grateful if someone could confirm if they are still going with the shot-shot-shot-shot in quick succesion .. but not double taps .. please )

 

[jassy writer]

His story is so full of holes... the crime incident on the highway he referred to, for instance. He knew what time it took place, where he was travelling, exactly what turnoff he was near, the make of the car that followed him, why he thought it was a shot fired (noise and muzzle flash).

He remembers turning around, getting off the highway, parking at Rhapsody's.

Then he told Nel that he called for somebody to come and take him home, leaving his car there.

But he could not remember who that somebody was!

Nel asked him how he retrieved his car the next day. Again, vagueness. "I must have gotten a lift from somebody to fetch it."

As soon as confirmable evidence is required, he becomes vague ... why? Because there was no shooting incident and he cannot give the name of somebody who would then be contacted by prosecution to fact check. If that happened, one would DEFINITELY remember who you called to pick you up, or at least be able to name a shortlist of close friends, or a driver who you sometimes use in those situations.

He has been caught out for lying again and again... it astonishes me beyond belief that people on this forum still believe his version of the shooting to be the truth, in spite of this!

 

[DebinGA]

Do PT work from the premise innocent till proven guilty also, out of interest?

Or assume guilt and do and say whatever necessary, as well as twisting things, to determine guilt?

Prosecutor Gerrie Nell has been described as "beyond reproach", so in this case the PT has followed where the evidence has taken them imo.

 

[Patagonia]

Another thing re intent, and his (imo, clear) intention to shoot someone (whoever was behind that door, whether Reeva, or intruders), which he is trying to deny:

First and foremost, c'mon, he hit the person behind the door with 3 out of 4 bullets! And he is trying to argue that he never intended to shoot/hit anyone?! For crying out loud, there is no way in this universe that one would be able to manage to hit someone (in his version the intruder), with 3 out of 4 bullets, and through the closed door no less, by mistake and sheer ''luck'', had hitting that very target (intruder) was never his intention!

And OP's explanation for this utter, nonsensical, contradiction is that he didn't have time to think. He didn't have time to realize that the best chance of hitting the target (that you don't want to hit!) is by aiming and then shooting multiple number of bullets - straight at it?!

Hi didn't have time to think and to realize this, but he did have the time to think about MANY other things (by his own admission - ''lots of things were going through his head''), like - what could happen to Reeva if intruders get to her, and that he must 'put as much distance as possible between her and them', and so on...

So this wasn't all over in one split second, without any time to think. Because he DID think ''about many things''.

 

[steveml]

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

The affidavit is meant to include what are perceived to be facts of the case, it''s not meant to be a detailed statement.
OP's has far more detail than many.

Why would you present more case information than required to someone as sharp as Nel, even if you are telling the truth?
It's the equivalent of giving the PT some rope to hang you with.
We've already seen how something as minutiae as a thin black cable under a speaker can be distorted by the PT.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

I was just about to reply with the same thing, only you've explained it far better than I would've!

 

[Carol70]

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:

hahaha

 

[jay-jay]

So this wasn't all over in one split second, without any time to think. Because he DID think ''about many things''.

.. yes, "minee, minee, minee, minee, minee things"!

 

[Val1]

That's correct ..

.. but aren't they also still sticking to the 4 shots in quick succession thing? (double-tap now ditched) I don't think they have gone for the shot-pause-shot-shot-shot yet have they .. so why has he even needed to say that it was because of his ears ringing if he just did shot-shot-shot-shot anyway? He wouldn't even have been listening after the first shot, ears ringing or not. (.. would be grateful if someone could confirm if they are still going with the shot-shot-shot-shot in quick succesion .. but not double taps .. please )

Perhaps that was why Nel stopped for the weekend, because OP accepted the pause version without question(bang....bang, bang, bang)?

 

[G.bng]

Judge tells N he must quote from the actual bail statement if he wants to use it, and I don't think N has it with him.

Bit disorganised to keep finding they are missing documents. Different to the UK where from my experience 4 copies of the evidence ring binders have to be filed with the court several days before, 1 for the witness box, 1 for the judge and one for either side.

 

[jay-jay]

His story is so full of holes... the crime incident on the highway he referred to, for instance. He knew what time it took place, where he was travelling, exactly what turnoff he was near, the make of the car that followed him, why he thought it was a shot fired (noise and muzzle flash).

He remembers turning around, getting off the highway, parking at Rhapsody's.

Then he told Nel that he called for somebody to come and take him home, leaving his car there.

But he could not remember who that somebody was!

Nel asked him how he retrieved his car the next day. Again, vagueness. "I must have gotten a lift from somebody to fetch it."

As soon as confirmable evidence is required, he becomes vague ... why? Because there was no shooting incident and he cannot give the name of somebody who would then be contacted by prosecution to fact check. If that happened, one would DEFINITELY remember who you called to pick you up, or at least be able to name a shortlist of close friends, or a driver who you sometimes use in those situations.

He has been caught out for lying again and again... it astonishes me beyond belief that people on this forum still believe his version of the shooting to be the truth, in spite of this!

Yup .. that highway incident was one of many instances cited by Nel in an important part of establishing this .. and I couldn't understand why some on here were not able to see the significance of Nel raising these types of incidents and were just saying Nel should move on to the incident of the 13/14th Feb itself.

 

[Gryffindor]

Prosecutor Gerrie Nell has been described as "beyond reproach", so in this case the PT has followed where the evidence has taken them imo.

But is their premise "innocent till proven guilty" ?

Thanks

 

[Carol70]

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.

yep, my husband has been firmly entrenched in the guilty camp and its been great for debates and arguments but yesterday, he conceded that maybe, just maybe is was just a terrible accident.

It could change thou!

 

[jassy writer]

I was hijacked about ten years ago in my driveway.

I still remember:
Exactly how it happened. The number of assailants. The colour of the gun. Most of what they said and what I said. The friend who was working at my house at the time, who let me in. The policeman who came around to take a statement. The friends who came round that night to have dinner with me so I would not be alone. The feel of walking down my driveway knowing there might be a gun pointing at my back and wondering if they would shoot (they were too busy working out reverse gear in my car, as it happened!)

I don't remember / never recalled:
Exactly what they looked like and were wearing. Shabby clothes would be my best guess. I wasn't trying to look.

I recalled a few weeks after the incident:
That they grabbed me by my throat while pulling me out of the car. That was a bit scary so my mind blanked it out for a while.

But the point is that, in a stressful situation like that, the people who help you become very important! You are vulnerable and scared, and you remember who comes to your rescue!

 

[jay-jay]

Perhaps that was why Nel stopped for the weekend, because OP accepted the pause version without question(bang....bang, bang, bang)?

Yes, quite possibly :thumb:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Need to get out and about and clear my mind .
Thanks to all for the super running commentary You do a great job.
I don't know why ,I don't like to listen to the live proceedings until I have read up on it first and then can fast forward the pauses etc

 

[Val1]

But is their premise "innocent till proven guilty" ?

Thanks

Why would the prosecution, who are supposed to make sure the guilty party gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law, work under the premise that the accused is innocent? The whole reason the accused is the accused is because there is enough evidence pointing to them as guilty enough to go to trial. It's the court that deems the accused as innocent until proven guilty, ergo why Nel could not call OP a liar and we're not allowed to call him an outright m.......

 

[shane13]

Shane, how on earth could she have possibly known that??

In many ways, she knew him and his guns, the screaming statement is quite clear that there is in OP's mind a great crisis underway and fear that burglars were perceived by him to be in his house etc.