Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Deleted member 102539]

bet you he starts with his two fans

If he could as he would like to do, then he would blame only Reeva. But he isn't allowed to, because then flies up, that he is an intentional murderer. IMO

 

[Viper]

I totally agree. It's still a mystery to me why those aspects have been ignored.
They are too potentially important to disregard. I just don't get it! Especially the bedroom door damage.

BIB. This: KISS. Keep it simple stupid! It seems to be Mr. Nels position. All he cared about was the argument (witnesses), the murder (OP), and what OPs version of events was. Those were the three things that he had and he stayed focused on them.

Photos of a lot of stuff that we did not hear about are in the photo books that was put in to evidence. So he may have considered needing them at the start of the trial and later decided he did not. JMO. I do believe that after the verdict is read many fascinating revelations will come out from Mr. Nel and the NPA.

 

[TipDog]

Noooooooo! Don't give in and start believing in an absurdity just because it's repeated over and over and over!

I'm not giving in, minor! :loveyou:

I'm thinking it through. I stumped myself earlier and forgot the sequence of when the helps were yelled (I get confused so easily; good thing I'm not a judge!) but now I can't just ignore that. In which case, I am wrong assuming that the helps were nonsensical.

If OP yelled help after RS yelled help and then shot her, it has to be either him mocking her or yelling it for....? What reason?

Plus, I do agree that it's been proven that he is short tempered and likely very mean to deal with when angered. (I believe his ex & the friend)

What I don't agree with:

1. that he mistook her for an intruder
2. that he accidentally shot in any kind of panic/fear/terror
3. that he meticulously planned this murder; I believe it was spontaneous
4. that he truly was trying to help her in any way after he shot her (he knew she was dead)
5. that he didn't know it was her behind the door when he pulled the trigger

Other than that, I'm open to changing my mind if, in fact, I'm talking out both sides of my mouth, if you know what I mean.

I'm here to really discuss this and I have no problem whatsoever admitting I may be wrong or that my arguments are flimsy if they are.

 

[minor4th]

No, he is a geologist. His expertise is in geology. Has his entire testimony been watched? Including the cross by Nel?



The gun test, yea Mr. Dixon wasn't there. The kick marks on the door, he didn't test anything other than the fibers on the pros. legs foot and the fibers from the door. He didn't test to see if those fibers could have come from something other than a sock.



Now if there was soil to be examined or some rocks, then yes he was perfect for the task at hand. The other stuff that he "expertly" testified to? Not even close. At one point, while testifying about ballistics, Mr. Dixon actually stated that he is NOT a ballistics expert.

Remember Vermulen - who wasn't even certified as a tool examiner -- giving expert testimony about the marks on the door and the position of of Oscar's body?

Remember his testimony from photographs that he didn't take?

Remember the ballistics guy testifying about pathology?

It's happened a number of times in this case that so-called experts have testified about all kinds of things that are beyond their actual expertise.

Likely the judge will give more weight to the pathologists about medical evidence. But she will consider his forensic examinations and analysis on the door marks and socks and window lighting and so forth.

And she's not going to just disregard how loud a cricket bay hitting a door is, even if he's not a sound expert -- especially since the prosecution has put forth no sound evidence and didn't do any tests.

 

[molly333]

Very much so.

Anything that could be important physical or circumstantial evidence that is not examined and not used to question witnesses is in my opinion not merely an oversight, but negligent.

Considering the fine detail and exhaustive nature of other areas, I cannot believe tat this (and bedroom door damage) have been almost completely ignored.

Briefly mentioned during photo walkthroughs yes, but IIRC there have been absolutely no follow ups which I find shocking and inexplicable. I'm sure there are logical reasons for this - there must be. But I really want to understand them as they remain huge red flags for me.

As Shane keeps telling us "this one runs deep"

I'd like to know how. And why.

Other things ignored like--there must be two keys for that toilet room.

Did anybody ask?

 

[soozieqtips]

I think Roux established during redirect that his defense is still putative self defense - although I'm sure Nel would love for to have changed to involuntary action.

<modsnip> Re: the absurdity you mentioned to TipDog about OP mocking Reeva that night, I'd like to say it's not nearly as absurd as believing that a Valentine's Day card is 'evidence' of a loving relationship.

 

[katydid23]

YES, I stand corrected. It was Mrs. Stipp:
"Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

We don't know when and under what circumstances she changed it, but it doesn't matter - she swore to something she knew was false. Are you saying in general we can't rely on sworn statements from lay witnesses because they are lay witnesses and don't know what it means to make a sworn statement? That does not make any sense at all to me.

If Oscar signed a sworn statement that contained knowingly false information, would you write it off as a simple and irrelevant mistake? Heck no - you would call him a calculating liar and likely declare that nothing he says can be believed. It's no different except that her dishonesty does not support the outcome you desire IMO"
======================================================


So after this post was written, back in thread 12, we have seen that OP has said there were 'errors' in his statement. And he said it was because his attorneys wrote it out, and he just signed it. Does this trouble you?

 

[G.bng]

respectfully snipped so focus the points

If there was any evidence that OP used the cricket bat as a weapon against Reeva, why was this not addressed by Nel during cross-x with OP?

Iirc no evidence was presented OP used cricket bat against Reeva, indeed, in my recollection both PT's pathologist and blood spatter experts debunked it totally in their testimonies saying no evidence of blunt trauma.

If OP had an available panic button/s why was this not addressed by Nel during cross-x with OP?

Could the "panic button" be Baba's term for wireless controller referred to with which you can turn the alarm off and on and I would think even set it off? Presumably the estate's alarm system has alerts in the guard house so they can attend immediately if one goes off?

If there is any dispute regarding events after OP carried Reeva downstairs, why was this not addressed by Nel during cross-x with OP?

Did I not hear something about Nel on finishing cross affirming that the prosecution accepted all of OP's testimony for the latter part of the event, i.e. from gathering Reeva up and taking her downstairs, phone calls etc.?

 

[soozieqtips]

IIRC, you called her an outright liar, and thus you could not accept any of her testimony. I am pretty sure that was your stance.

eta: I only remember this because we asked you if you would take a similar position of future defense witnesses...

He's referring to Mrs Stipp, who was apparently a liar and not credible at all... because she knowingly signed a document that contained false information. The fact she changed it doesn't mean she's not a deliberate liar... apparently - but OP doing the same thing, and not correcting all his glaring errors means nothing at all. So there you go! Only one of those people had reason to deliberately lie, and it wasn't Mrs Stipp.

 

[Emz73]

I have to run but I have to disagree with the criticism of it being possible for Oscar to have been "screaming like a woman".

I fell from a 12 foot high concrete slab and broke some bones. The fall was purely accidental caused by a small child jumping on me in a playful way. I screamed on the way down and I remember getting up and say “what is wrong with my voice?” I was screaming and didn’t know it. Oscar was in an extreme situation (regardless of what anyone believes the situation was) how his voice was modulated during that time is simply an unknown and he could have very easily been shrill and sounded like a "woman".

You do realise Oscar was screaming...a blood curdling terrified scream that went on for 10 minutes or so....because he shot into a door? A DOOR. After he found Reeva he didn't utter a word. Unless you count a "everything is fine"

 

[James50]

BBM - That's a comforting thing to believe...

True.

but if [Reeva's family don't believe in it, then she is gone from their lives forever.

That's a non sequitur. If it's true, then whether they believe it or not, then she is not, she will not be gone forever. But they are Christians, so they do also believe it.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No, he is a geologist. His expertise is in geology. Has his entire testimony been watched? Including the cross by Nel?

The gun test, yea Mr. Dixon wasn't there. The kick marks on the door, he didn't test anything other than the fibers on the pros. legs foot and the fibers from the door. He didn't test to see if those fibers could have come from something other than a sock.

Now if there was soil to be examined or some rocks, then yes he was perfect for the task at hand. The other stuff that he "expertly" testified to? Not even close. At one point, while testifying about ballistics, Mr. Dixon actually stated that he is NOT a ballistics expert.

He had a certain order and had to change with every new statement from OP in the witness stand. What to do right in this position and situation.

 

[Giles]

YES, I stand corrected. It was Mrs. Stipp:
"Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

We don't know when and under what circumstances she changed it, but it doesn't matter - she swore to something she knew was false. Are you saying in general we can't rely on sworn statements from lay witnesses because they are lay witnesses and don't know what it means to make a sworn statement? That does not make any sense at all to me.

If Oscar signed a sworn statement that contained knowingly false information, would you write it off as a simple and irrelevant mistake? Heck no - you would call him a calculating liar and likely declare that nothing he says can be believed. It's no different except that her dishonesty does not support the outcome you desire IMO"
======================================================


So after this post was written, back in thread 12, we have seen that OP has said there were 'errors' in his statement. And he said it was because his attorneys wrote it out, and he just signed it. Does this trouble you?

Even more staggering during her testimony was when she was looking at a photo of her house - the curtains by the window overlooking OP's house, and she categorically stated that she wasn't there when the photo was taken. They zoomed in on the photo and saw HER hand holding the curtain. Astonishing and wonderful theater.

 

[aoibhinn]

How can any testimony given by an "expert" be credible when it is proven that "expert" is nothing more than an average joe giving his opinion?

I do believe Mr. Dixon has relevant experience but today, he purported to be an expert in a wide range of disciplines. Having 'experience' does not make one an 'expert'.

I started compiling a list of all the areas that he was willing to testify as an expert. I gave up half an hour into Nel's x-exam so it's not exhaustive:

Not an acoustic expert (Hit a door with a bat)
Not a lighting expert (Used eyes as a measurement tool)
Not a fibres expert (comparison by looking but didn't have the actual socks, just a photo - more eyes, a microscope)
Not a blood spatter expert (nope, no training)
Not a physical match expert (I'm hearing some confusing analogies with map training but nope)
Not a ballistics expert (extracted info from Simon's/Mangena's affidavit)
Not a pathology expert (extracted info from DT/PT pathologist's reports)

 

[Really?]

This is close to what I think happened. But in my theory, he is screaming at her in an uncontrollable rage and kicking and banging on the door. I think he may have even used the bat once or twice but decided to get the gun. He came back and took 1 look through the keyhole and saw where she was and then blasted in her direction 4 rapid shots.

I dont think she had a clue how violent he was about to get.

I also think that maybe that valentines day card was a clue to him that she wanted him to either say he loved her or not. I think the whole argument may have been her trying to see if he really loved her or not. He probably never told her he loved her and she was probably wanting a Yes or No. She may have said if you dont love me, I am going to have to end our relationship. Something along those lines.

here is my version (lol) of the argument.......OP-----> so, Reeva....tell me about your nice chat with your boyfriend. (Feb12). 'what did he say about me?,....did you talk about me?....did he give you something.....wink wink.....did you give him anything. 'what did you talk about....' does he know who I am?.......when are you two getting together again?

you will embarrass me when your show airs.....what else..(or...who) did you do in Jamaica......(remember she toked soom weed there and there is talk she kissed a guy?)



get it?...moo

 

[Gbtaketwo]

YES, I stand corrected. It was Mrs. Stipp:
"Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

We don't know when and under what circumstances she changed it, but it doesn't matter - she swore to something she knew was false. Are you saying in general we can't rely on sworn statements from lay witnesses because they are lay witnesses and don't know what it means to make a sworn statement? That does not make any sense at all to me.

If Oscar signed a sworn statement that contained knowingly false information, would you write it off as a simple and irrelevant mistake? Heck no - you would call him a calculating liar and likely declare that nothing he says can be believed. It's no different except that her dishonesty does not support the outcome you desire IMO"
======================================================


So after this post was written, back in thread 12, we have seen that OP has said there were 'errors' in his statement. And he said it was because his attorneys wrote it out, and he just signed it. Does this trouble you?

This case makes us all a little dizzy at times ,me especially .
I did however think Mrs Stipp's came over as very honest and I would not dismiss her testimony because she corrected something voluntary.
I sometimes get confused about he said she said when discussing things with my hubby but I regard it as an oversight or confusion rather than deliberately lying .
Also Mrs stipp's was an ear witness to a very traumatic event that she must have been affected by and probably was very tired when she gave the statement originally .

 

[whiterum]

As OP testified he was temporarily unable to hear as firing the shots caused a ringing in his ears. Yet in his version he supposedly immediately after the shots shouts for RS to phone the police and she did not respond from the bedroom.

How would he possibly know that she did not respond if his ears were ringing and he had temporary deafness?

 

[katydid23]

Even more staggering during her testimony was when she was looking at a photo of her house - the curtains by the window overlooking OP's house, and she categorically stated that she wasn't there when the photo was taken. They zoomed in on the photo and saw HER hand holding the curtain. Astonishing and wonderful theater.

I think you left out her explanation for that error. Pictures were taken at two separate times. And one time she was present, and another she was not. So I have no problem with her statement, knowing that info.

 

[TipDog]

You do realise Oscar was screaming...a blood curdling terrified scream that went on for 10 minutes or so....because he shot into a door? A DOOR. After he found Reeva he didn't utter a word. Unless you count a "everything is fine"

Did any of the witnesses say they heard a woman screaming, "Reeva! Reeva!" - ?

B/C that is what OP said he screamed, iirc. If "help, help, help" was heard along with the blood curdling screams of a man who sounds like a woman screaming, why wasn't "Reeva, Reeva!" over and over heard?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

As OP testified he was temporarily unable to hear as firing the shots caused a ringing in his ears. Yet in his version he supposedly immediately after the shots shouts for RS to phone the police and she did not respond from the bedroom.

How would he possibly know that she did not respond if his ears were ringing and he had temporary deafness?

That is a good point and not one I had thought of before .
EtA
I bet the judge or her assessors picked up on this though .
Nothing much seems to get passed judge Masipa