Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[zwiebel]

Sorry...I've searched and searched but can't find original references to jeans being found outside the house. Am I understanding correctly that is so? Then whose jeans were found inside out in his bedroom????

I don't know if there is a msm reference. One of our posters noticed the jeans in a shot outside the house. They look like female ones to me. (Sorry, terrible quality).

 

[TrueDetective]

Just yesterday, the BBC and the Telegraph suggested there was at least another couple of full days to go of Nel questioning OP on the stand. Then today, quite suddenly, he ended his cross without going through some of the finer details I would have expected him to. For example, the trip upstairs, the missing phone (who took it and why??), the toilet door slamming (why didn't he suggest to OP that Reeva must have been upset when she slammed the door?). He was much more subdued (Nel) than the last few days. Hmmmm. I'm not a lawyer so I realise he did whatever he thought he had to do. But I have to admit I was surprised at the sudden end.

Me too soozie, I expected so much more from Nel today and maybe even tomorrow - not just the things you mention but also the *advertiser censored*, possibly more what's apps and the calls after the shooting. The biggest missing part though for me is the damage and hole to the bedroom door. I cannot believe this has been ignored to such a degree. It is a huge red flag for me and I cannot explain its omission.
All I can think is that something is going on behind the scenes which may lead to a lesser plea as I don't understand why a prosecution would leave alone a crucial set of physical details which could bolster their crucial stance on there having being an argument. It makes no sense to me at all and I was very very surprised things ended so quickly and undramatically today.

We just have to trust that there is a very good reason for today and that justice will be done.

 

[Cherwell]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

I don't remember seeing any such comments.

 

[clearskies1]

Pretty amazing that all of OP's statements about the shooting -- bail application, plea statement, testimony on direct -- were so vague that we only learned on cross-exam his actual defense of involuntary/nonintentional shooting. Just re-watched Roux's direct exam and all OP said was "before I knew it I had shot four times." Roux never even asked OP why he shot the gun. Never saw this in a case before.

MOO

 

[Lyra500]

Maybe that's why Roux looks so depressed today and all that huffing!!

I have to admit that he is not my favourite person. I know he was only doing his job, but the way he treated some of the prosecution witnesses seemed OTT.

Having said that, I have been feeling genuinely sorry for him over the last few days as OP single handedly trashes all the hard work and preparation he must have put in over the last year or so.

 

[TorisMom003]

From listening to OP's testimony about how Reeva was positioned in the toilet room when he saw her, and remembering the trajectory photo, how is it possible that Reeva is where OP claims she was? Wouldn't her head need to be more to the right, when facing the toilet room, instead of to the left as OP is claiming? And if her head was more to the right, why would she then fall to the left after the shots to her arm and head?

 

[TipDog]

I don't believe she even thought that he would come after her with the gun. Unfortunately she didn't know exactly how bad his temper was until he fired that first shot.

MOO

It didn't take until the first shot going by witness evidence. She was already screaming blood curdling screams before he shot the first shot, the screams escalated until the fourth shot silenced them altogether. At least, that's what I gathered, anyway. I could be slightly off.

And, truthfully, I don't think she'd lock herself in that toilet unless to get away from his temper. The raging may have happened in a matter of minutes, but that's a long time to be in fear, threaten to call the police, perhaps hesitate and then realize that the person threatening you means to make good on those threats.

All conjecture, certainly, but I just don't believe that she didn't have a horrible ah-ha moment right before he shot her.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

Ya lost me...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Viper]

Just yesterday, the BBC and the Telegraph suggested there was at least another couple of full days to go of Nel questioning OP on the stand. Then today, quite suddenly, he ended his cross without going through some of the finer details I would have expected him to. For example, the trip upstairs, the missing phone (who took it and why??), the toilet door slamming (why didn't he suggest to OP that Reeva must have been upset when she slammed the door?). He was much more subdued (Nel) than the last few days. Hmmmm. I'm not a lawyer so I realise he did whatever he thought he had to do. But I have to admit I was surprised at the sudden end.

BIB. It had to come to an end at some point. I was rivoted by Mr. Nel's fine and simple points; things that are so reasonable. The same way he shocked me at the opening of the case with something so simple and obvious as an extention cord and an electric razor! Mind blowing! Especially after hanging around here with you folks looking for complex explanations for every conceivable thing (which is a lot of fun BTW). It is just so basic and obvious if you look at the evidence and accept that it is really what it appears to be.

For instance, Nel saved this for today - He described to OP that at the moment that OP heard the window open Reeva was moving to the toilet. So OP armed himself and went after the intruders. But there was not enough time. Not enough time for Reeva to then enter the WC, empty her bladder, finish up, pull up her shorts, and somewhere in that sequence of events slam the WC door and lock the door. It is unreasonable to expect the judges to believe that there was. So OP is lying.

 

[DebinGA]

What Dixon did explain quite well was the splinters in Reeva's right arm and the distance and position her arm had to be in behind the door to receive the splinters to her skin. IIRC According to Dixon's investigation Reeva was standing very close to the door, 6-10 cm, at 20 cm the splinters would not penetrate the skin. Reeva had splinters in the upper and lower outer portions of her arm extending away from the elbow.

Looking at his positioning to demonstrate for the court, his right arm is acoss his stomach with the arm extended towards his left hip and his elbow bent. IMO it is likely Reeva was holding the door handle with (at least) her right hand, for safety just in case OP managed to open the lock or physically open the door open. I like that he did the tests to determine that, it gives a clearer picture.

Thanks much, Viper. That explains why Nel kept telling OP, "She was talking to you" ... when he fired. She was right there, turned slightly with her right hip toward the door.

 

[TorisMom003]

I don't remember seeing any such comments.

There haven't been any. There have however been ones stating that it proves that there was NO abuse from OP. Not sure how a card FROM Reeva proves that though.

 

[04009margaret]

The gunshots and the 'sliver' out of the door that Oscar himself said he could see Reeva through. Are they panicked shots? Or calculated, oscar aiming at Reeva through that missing sliver of wood?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27041156

Zwie, explained by an expert in my post above, including the searching for Reeva with a cocked gun

 

[TorisMom003]

It didn't take until the first shot going by witness evidence. She was already screaming blood curdling screams before he shot the first shot, the screams escalated until the fourth shot silenced them altogether. At least, that's what I gathered, anyway. I could be slightly off.

And, truthfully, I don't think she'd lock herself in that toilet unless to get away from his temper. The raging may have happened in a matter of minutes, but that's a long time to be in fear, threaten to call the police, perhaps hesitate and then realize that the person threatening you means to make good on those threats.

All conjecture, certainly, but I just don't believe that she didn't have a horrible ah-ha moment right before he shot her.

Oh I think she knew that he had a temper before the first shot. I don't think that she knew just how bad his temper really was. I don't think that she had any idea that he would get his gun and shoot her. Yell, scream, curse, attempt to hit her with his hand, things of that nature, YES. Shoot to kill her, NO. Not until he fired that first shot.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

I simply disagree THAT THE EVIDENCE TENDERED IN THE CASE points to it being of the nature and magnitude that is being proposed here. Respectfully, I am allowed to do that. I understand why you think the way you do, I just don't agree. . Do I think it makes Oscar less guilty? I never said that, but it does mean the motive may not be as Nel is proposing, and that is important. If Nel had not thought it would damage his case he would have shared it freely himself, thinking objectively that speaks volumes that his version may not be truth either.

BIB The motive is not that important. Legally there is no need to prove a motive.

I don't understand what you mean by Nel thinking it would "damage his case". Could you explain further, please?

 

[TrueDetective]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion as that doesn't make sense. People have been discussing DV in general. Her what's apps and the fact he shot her 4 times is the best indicator of an abusive relationship. Nt to mention the titbits of knowledge from RS's friends and Sam Taylor's testimony.
However, her card is not proof of a perfect relationship either. in fact, it could point to a big difference in feelings that came to a head on that night.

 

[james83]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

Havent seen anyone say that, it`s been a talking point for weeks now.

 

[TipDog]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

Agreed. But it is also shouldn't be interpreted as the two of them being in a loving relationship either.

 

[Lyra500]

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting OP demonstrated unselfish love for Reeva - or even any love at all. I think she did for him though. The few texts we saw, she was very supportive and caring. That's love, to me.

I think she may have thought she could 'save' him.

She comes across as a very warm and loving woman. Possibly a little over sentimental (I grew up in Yorkshire and we don't hold with too much soppiness!), but lovely. Such a sad and awful way to end her life.

 

[Gryffindor]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

Indeed.

Hey Minor!

Can I ask for your valued thoughts on today please?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Oh I think she knew that he had a temper before the first shot. I don't think that she knew just how bad his temper really was. I don't think that she had any idea that he would get his gun and shoot her. Yell, scream, curse, attempt to hit her with his hand, things of that nature, YES. Shoot to kill her, NO. Not until he fired that first shot.



MOO

In fairness, I don't believe he thought he was capable either.
Insight certainly isn't his strong suit. In his head, he believes it was an accident, he didn't mean to killer her. He believes SHE made him do it.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk