Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[BabaJ]

No, that's incorrect. The State's forensic expert and the defense forensic expert explained that the gunshots must have happened before the cricket bat hitting the door. They explained this by reference to cracks through the bullet hole and through the panels that were torn out.

Nel is not disputing this.

I am just wondering, is it crack or cracks? Was there confirmation that the crack(s) were caused by the bat or tearing the panels? I have to go back and check if the bullets went through the bat marks or the cracks. I am just trying to figure out whether the sequence could be:

- bat and/or other object
- shots
- torn panels

or

- shots
- bat and/or other object
- torn panels

Can somebody provide a link with clear explanation? I am a little bit confused, there was discussion on two possibly bat marks and then other marks on the door, from what I understand the other marks were not clearly identified either. To my understanding (and I am often wrong only two marks on the door were identified as bat marks. Could the cracks in the door be the result of prying the panels after the shots?

 

[G.bng]

My view from early on has been that the State overcharged. They went for proving that OP shot Reeva intentionally.

There was NEVER enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

And that OP shot at an intruder intentionally !

Rather than question why OP did not plea down to lesser charge, I question why the lesser charge was not laid in the first place. Seeing how Nasty Nel is... I doubt he offered any plea deal.

1. How could they offer a lesser charge. OP denied himself the opportunity of a plea deal as he did not co-operate one iota with the police but pronto lawyered up and refused to say anything other than the sketchy version of the bail affi he was forced to write if he didn't want to await trial in jail. There are three widely reported cases similar to OP's; Visagie who shot his teenage daughter, Boshoff who shot his 8 year old daughter, and Mdunge who shot his heavily pregnant wife. All of them co-operated with the police. Visagie was not charged, (this was before the SA constitution confirmed that the life of a thief was more precious than property); Mdunge pleaded guilty to CH for an 8-year suspended sentence; Boshoff is to be charged with CH. My bet is that had he explained in full what happened there would have been a plea opportunit.

I think the State COULD have made a good case on lesser charges... but instead we wasted day after day after day with Nel repeatedly banging on about trivia.... Trying to build a "circumstantial case" that was doomed from the outset.

You are joking... or not? There are 5 independent witnesses who heard a woman scream. OP never mentioned any screams in his bail affi other than his screaming "help help help". Had Reeva been your daughter would you agree the police just trashed the witnesses and took OP's sketchy bail affi at face value ? Only a judge can decide here.

In any case OP's bail affi accepts he fired unlawfully so minimum CH was a given. And BTW, spot the difference: Visagie saw a person he mistook for a thief in the act of stealing daughter's car and... BANG; Boshoff saw an armed intruder at the bottom of the stairs and taking refuge in his bedroom saw the door opening and... BANG; Mdunge heard a noise and when he went to investigate was startled and panicked when he saw the bathroom door open and perceived it was a burglar was coming out... BANG; OP heard a noise and perceived a burglar, heard a second noise and perceived the door was opening and perceived a burglar coming out to attack and... BANG, BANG BANG BANG

Since Nel did neglect arguing in and around lesser charges, he may have lessened the chance of conviction there as well.

The charging doc states "an error in persona will not affect the intention to kill a human being". The judge is not a jury. The judge works entirely on the law and the evidence both of which are what they are, so difficult to see how Nel could lessen the chances of conviction.

I am pleased that the basic facts of the case have been put clearly to the Judge. I (of course) defer to her as to what lesser charges may apply (if any)

Wise choice.

I have posted that there is an argument that it boils down to an "Accident" and so warrants an acquittal.. but IANAL most certainly

Accident ?! An involuntary act? Is that OP's defence? What evidence? Nope, IMO you are again using US self defence and SYG law to form your opinion when it could be more sensible to use SA criminal law as a base.

 

[nastasya]

All of the forensic experts have said the gunshots must have been before the cricket bat hit the door. Both sides agree that the gunshots happened all at once and were not separated by minutes.

That's incorrect, and illogical on it's face.

The experts identified that one piece of wood was ripped out after one gun shot. There is no way to tell if the cricket bat hit was before or after the gunshots.

OP himself testified that the bat hit the door and damaged it. Then subsequently he ripped out the wood.

 

[Feynman]

He said that he examined the bedroom on a moonless night (the same as the night of the murder). When the curtains were drawn , the room was pitch black and slight illumination down the passage.

That was clear earlier from the fact that the PT never challenged this part of OP's story.

 

[nastasya]

If the shots were fired at 3:00 or thereabouts, then all the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva.

If that's the case the state has zero evidence to support premeditation.

If the cricket bat hit the door at 3:00 am, and Reeva screamed in terror until OP finally shot her, then OP broke the pieces out of the door, every bit of evidence fits.

 

[BabaJ]

If the shots were fired at 3:00 or thereabouts, then all the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva.

If that's the case the state has zero evidence to support premeditation.

I am just wondering, if we accept the OP's version that Reeva was shot around or slightly after 3:00 am, why were OP's fingers in her mouth around 3:25 am (I believe this was the time when Dr. Stipp arrived)? She must have been dead for at least 15 minutes or more, it would be way too late for any CPR efforts.

 

[minor4th]

If the cricket bat hit the door at 3:00 am, and Reeva screamed in terror until OP finally shot her, then OP broke the pieces out of the door, every bit of evidence fits.

Except both sides have provided expert testimony that the gunshots were before the bat. So ....cricket bat didn't hit the door at 3:00 a.m.

 

[jassy writer]

There is no proof that the bat sounds OP made when breaking the door down were heard.

They could have occurred just a minute or two after the shots, when people were busy phoning security, police, getting ready to go round there... Also he may not have used the bat in such a way as to create a crisp, clear banging noise; he could have rammed the door with it. (would explain the odd height of the marks as well as creating a more muffled sound).

Earlier bangs, accompanied by screams, might have been something different altogether (the dented panel in bathroom, the damaged bedroom door...?)

 

[molly333]

I am just wondering, if we accept the OP's version that Reeva was shot around or slightly after 3:00 am, why were OP's fingers in her mouth around 3:25 am (I believe this was the time when Dr. Stipp arrived)? She must have been dead for at least 15 minutes or more, it would be way too late for any CPR efforts.

Right. She was dead when Dr. Stipp arrived.

 

[Rumpole]

I have addressed all those issues directed at me many times already.

I'll just redo ONE

There were not "5 independent witnesses" at all. The two couples are not necessarily each made up of two independent testimonies. Regardless, they heard screams at a time that it could not have been Reeva. She was dead. They were mistaken (IMO). I do not have the slightest problem with that. If OP's distressed screams gave the false impression of a woman screaming.. then I am not surprised that is how it sounded to both couples.
In addition.. one couple was so far away that their testimony should be given less weight, as it was at the extreme range of being able to hear clearly.

The 5th person heard woman's voice and crying (which she conceded was Oscar). She DID NOT hear any screaming.. woman or otherwise.

These two couples and one other witness were ALL the State could find with any hint of support for what they propose. There were maybe hundreds of potential witnesses in a radius set by the distance to the Burger(s) house.
So like the text messages, the State can find only a very small percentage that support their version (Though these witnesses don't necessarily do that). That leaves a large number of potential witness who don't support. No doubt we will be hearing from some of those who, beyond simply "not supporting" actually refute the State claims.

 

[molly333]

Except both sides have provided expert testimony that the gunshots were before the bat. So ....cricket bat didn't hit the door at 3:00 a.m.

This is the fatal flaw in the State's case.

 

[wb180]

Oscar just won his case.

Stipp both thwarted and saved him.

Sorry I can't keep up with all the posts. How did Oscar win the case after lying on the stand?

 

[minor4th]

This is the fatal flaw in the State's case.

That and the fact that all experts agree that Oscar was on his stumps when he fired the shots (contrary to the allegations made at the bail hearing)

 

[wb180]

How is it possible that the prosecutor does not appreciate that this is fatal to his case? jmo

How is that fatal to the case? Really don't understand this.

 

[molly333]

I have addressed all those issues directed at me many times already.

I'll just redo ONE

There were not "5 independent witnesses" at all. The two couples are not necessarily each made up of two independent testimonies. Regardless, they heard screams at a time that it could not have been Reeva. She was dead. They were mistaken (IMO). I do not have the slightest problem with that. If OP's distressed screams gave the false impression of a woman screaming.. then I am not surprised that is how it sounded to both couples.
In addition.. one couple was so far away that there testimony should be given less weight, as it was at the extreme range of being able to hear clearly.

The 5th person heard woman's voice and crying (which she conceded was Oscar). She DID NOT hear any screaming.. woman or otherwise.

These two couples and one other witness were ALL the State could find with any hint of support for what they propose. There were maybe hundreds of potential witnesses in a radius set by the distance to the Burger(s) house.
So like the text messages, the State can find only a very small percentage that support their version (Though these witnesses don't necessarily do that). That leaves a large number of potential witness who don't support. No doubt we will be hearing from some of those who, beyond simply "not supporting" actually refute the State claims.

The State overreached. I wonder why.

 

[jassy writer]

I have addressed all those issues directed at me many times already.

I'll just redo ONE

There were not "5 independent witnesses" at all. The two couples are not necessarily each made up of two independent testimonies. Regardless, they heard screams at a time that it could not have been Reeva. She was dead. They were mistaken (IMO). I do not have the slightest problem with that. If OP's distressed screams gave the false impression of a woman screaming.. then I am not surprised that is how it sounded to both couples.
In addition.. one couple was so far away that there testimony should be given less weight, as it was at the extreme range of being able to hear clearly.

The 5th person heard woman's voice and crying (which she conceded was Oscar). She DID NOT hear any screaming.. woman or otherwise.

These two couples and one other witness were ALL the State could find with any hint of support for what they propose. There were maybe hundreds of potential witnesses in a radius set by the distance to the Burger(s) house.
So like the text messages, the State can find only a very small percentage that support their version (Though these witnesses don't necessarily do that). That leaves a large number of potential witness who don't support. No doubt we will be hearing from some of those who, beyond simply "not supporting" actually refute the State claims.

No, there would not be hundreds of witnesses in a relatively new and upmarket housing estate like that, with large stands, large homes and many empty plots still not sold (hence all the building which has occurred over the past year). This is expensive, roomy real estate belonging to the wealthy, not a council housing estate with thin walls and many, many close neighbours.

 

[shane13]

yes, although i initially thought it looked like a huge tattoo

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-officers-crucial-hours-fatal-shooting.html

Yes,that's the photo.
Still looks to me like part of the tatoos.
How do you distnguish?

 

[wb180]

I have addressed all those issues directed at me many times already.

I'll just redo ONE

There were not "5 independent witnesses" at all. The two couples are not necessarily each made up of two independent testimonies. Regardless, they heard screams at a time that it could not have been Reeva. She was dead. They were mistaken (IMO). I do not have the slightest problem with that. If OP's distressed screams gave the false impression of a woman screaming.. then I am not surprised that is how it sounded to both couples.
In addition.. one couple was so far away that there testimony should be given less weight, as it was at the extreme range of being able to hear clearly.

The 5th person heard woman's voice and crying (which she conceded was Oscar). She DID NOT hear any screaming.. woman or otherwise.

These two couples and one other witness were ALL the State could find with any hint of support for what they propose. There were maybe hundreds of potential witnesses in a radius set by the distance to the Burger(s) house.
So like the text messages, the State can find only a very small percentage that support their version (Though these witnesses don't necessarily do that). That leaves a large number of potential witness who don't support. No doubt we will be hearing from some of those who, beyond simply "not supporting" actually refute the State claims.

Man this is so weird - somehow we now have "witnesses" that never gave evidence that overwhelming proves the witnesses are liars. Wow

 

[minor4th]

I am just wondering, if we accept the OP's version that Reeva was shot around or slightly after 3:00 am, why were OP's fingers in her mouth around 3:25 am (I believe this was the time when Dr. Stipp arrived)? She must have been dead for at least 15 minutes or more, it would be way too late for any CPR efforts.

I don't know - I'm using 3:00 a.m. but that's not exact - the Stipps gave different times, so it was some time between 3 - 3:15.

Oscar must have thought there was a chance to save her if he was giving her CPR.

 

[BabaJ]

I have addressed all those issues directed at me many times already.

I'll just redo ONE

There were not "5 independent witnesses" at all. The two couples are not necessarily each made up of two independent testimonies. Regardless, they heard screams at a time that it could not have been Reeva. She was dead. They were mistaken (IMO). I do not have the slightest problem with that. If OP's distressed screams gave the false impression of a woman screaming.. then I am not surprised that is how it sounded to both couples.
In addition.. one couple was so far away that there testimony should be given less weight, as it was at the extreme range of being able to hear clearly.

The 5th person heard woman's voice and crying (which she conceded was Oscar). She DID NOT hear any screaming.. woman or otherwise.

These two couples and one other witness were ALL the State could find with any hint of support for what they propose. There were maybe hundreds of potential witnesses in a radius set by the distance to the Burger(s) house.
So like the text messages, the State can find only a very small percentage that support their version (Though these witnesses don't necessarily do that). That leaves a large number of potential witness who don't support. No doubt we will be hearing from some of those who, beyond simply "not supporting" actually refute the State claims.

I am just wondering, would the judge take in consideration the Stipps' testimony with respect to a woman screaming or intermingled voices or is she just going to discredit this information in favour of more affirmative evidence? How are the witness statements evaluated in a situation like this? From a lay person's point of view I would put a lot of weight on for example Dr. Stipps. Does it happen often that the witnesses are mistaken or confused even if they have the best intentions?