Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[TipDog]

I think he lost his temper. How that happens with a gun I don't know. I'm lost past my thoughts that he knew she was behind the door.....he tried to scare her? He thought *advertiser censored* it I'm gonna shoot without thinking of the repercussions? Maybe he's telling the truth when he says "I didn't think"? He was so angry he just didn't care?
Its possible I've been strangled before. 0-60 over nothing can happen and with no warning or history of it. (With me anyway)

Completely agree with this. 0-60 seems to be the norm for Mr. Pistorius.

 

[anagrammy]

D: There are so many variable factors....I'm not saying this hole made this wound.....I'm not speaking as a ballistics expert, I'm speaking as a person trying to establish the facts...

OP speak is a string of non sequiturs pasted together. And look, Dixon can do it too!

 

[supernovaNic]

But more importantly 'Jack' Dixon was
A) cheap
B) available

Or could it be that they couldn't find an expert that would say the things Dixon did?
If they had consulted with other experts, and didn't like their theory because it didn't fit OP's story, would they have to disclose that to the court?

 

[Emz73]

Can you explain how you think it was an accident?

There were 4 shots all fired in quick succession because of the location which proves very fast shots. I cant see him doing this by accident at all. The shots seem purposeful so curious how you or others think it was accidental.

I'm not sure what I mean. Some men/women can really loose their temper when angry/jealous. They can get in such a rage they don't care whether they did fire 4 shots. They feel entitled at that moment. Is that intent?

 

[james83]

So can anyone offer a good reason why the defence would send this guy Dixon up to talk about such a wide range of topics that he is not an expert in?, because it comes across as if they couldn't get real experts to say the things that they wanted to here.
My personal favourite part was when he contradicted Saayman, now given the fact that Saayman has carried out somewhere in the region of 10000-15000 autopsies and Dixon has only ever been to 3, i tend to think Saayman has more credibility, just a hunch.

 

[Viper]

You might be right.
Do you think they could still be mentioned during closing argument as the photos are in evidence?
Can/will the judge use them in her own thought process or as the PT haven't pursued them will she disregard?

I think the images that Mr. Nel did not use with OP will be left aside at this point, because there would be no context just inferance. The judges will not care at all about the images that were not discussed; they have work to do and they won't sit around trying to figure out why this door is barged or that panel is bashed. JMO

 

[BritsKate]

Interesting fact. Cheers...

That's another curiosity...when I first moved here I was trying to figure out why people were toasting me when I didn't have a drink. It took me a couple of days to work it out. :blushing:

I also have been here too long now because I thought sn*gger meant snogger before I read the post and was trying to work out who was kissing, why, where and when. Put all kinds of disturbing images of courtroom individuals in my head!

My husband says we are separated by a common language. I tell him to eat my cookies. :biggrin:

(Sorry for the O/T!)

 

[Hatfield]

But more importantly 'Jack' Dixon was
A) cheap
B) available

And Dixon explains himself much better than OP. As soon as they found someone that can be clear in what they said they had their man. Thats all they need because they are directing what he says. They just needed him to say it well.

Also, it was obvious to me that OP was well coached because he kept throwing in terms like I dont want to contradict myself and things like that. Also, he latched onto a "i dont remember" and once he had that he used it a lot. LOL
The problem with OP is even though he was well coached he is pathetic at communicating but does great at twisting things all around and giving nonanswers.

 

[Val1]

Instead of taking someone else's word for it, here's the official videos from sabc. Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.
Session 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ
Session 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only the portion of the door with the crack that the witness identified the bullet hole as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identifed marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8#aid=P-14bhKWdfY

Sorry, just noticed I said "the witness identified the bullet hole as coming after the gunshots.", duh... .. no wonder people are confused about that whole testimony.:facepalm:

I took that whole bit to mean that the panels having been broken out could only have come after the bullet holes, but the two initial bat strikes could have come before the bullet holes.

 

[nastasya]

If you could prove she screamed and then he shot her, you have your case.

Your implying that any man can murder his wife so long as there were no witnesses to hear her screams.

That makes zero sense.

When a person admittedly kills somebody the burden shifts to them to prove the killing was justified.

OP is the one who needed to prove he was justified in killing Reeva. He botched his "intruder" version so horribly that he had to switch his defense.

He no longer is claiming he killed Reeva while defending himself against an intruder. He is claiming the gun went off spontaneously.

Doesn't anybody get the significance of this shift in his defense? Seriously? He abandoned the self-defense claim after his story was proven false, i.e., the fan was blocking the door, the denim was on the duvet, the door was broken down by him.

None of the points that are being debated are even relevant anymore. He's now claimed he didn't mean to fire the gun.

 

[liesbeth]

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.

She explained that there were two set of photos taken on two different occasions. She was present one time and was under the impression that these particular photos were taken the time she wasn't there. When they showed her the zoomed photo she readily admitted that it was indeed her hand. What possible reason did she have to lie about this? The photos were taken in her home and not at the crime scene.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Your implying that any man can murder his wife so long as there were no witnesses to hear her screams.

That makes zero sense.

When a person admittedly kills somebody the burden shifts to them to prove the killing was justified.

OP is the one who needed to prove he was justified in killing Reeva. He botched his "intruder" version so horribly that he had to switch his defense.

He no longer is claiming he killed Reeva while defending himself against an intruder. He is claiming the gun went off spontaneously.

Doesn't anybody get the significance of this shift in his defense? Seriously? He abandoned the self-defense claim after his story was proven false, i.e., the fan was blocking the door, the denim was on the duvet, the door was broken down by him.

None of the points that are being debated are even relevant anymore. He's now claimed he didn't mean to fire the gun.

Thank you button wasn't enough.

Exceptional post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[molly333]

Didn't more than one earwitness state that there was a pause between the first shot and the other three? I don't believe RS wouldn't have screamed in utter pain, shock and terror (probably like any animal would as we are, after all, animals) after being shot in the hip (which shattered her hip bone).

It's far more unrealistic to me that she'd not have made a peep while being shot than OP screaming while shooting. Personally, I think that was laughable coming from him. This is not a man unfamiliar with shooting a gun. There was no reason for him to scream blood curdling screams that escalated while shooting at a intruder locked behind a door.

M2¢

More than one said a pause, but not much of a pause. He had them speak it out --bang pause bang bang bang.

More than one said the screaming stopped shortly after the 'gunshots.' I noticed that because that was definitely not Reeva. So, maybe they were mistaken, but they did say that.

If that is Oscar, he is screaming after he shoots, all the way through to finally breaking open the closet. Meaning, what they thought was 'gunshots' was really the cricket bat sounding like gunshots.

 

[Carmelita]

Your implying that any man can murder his wife so long as there were no witnesses to hear her screams.

That makes zero sense.

When a person admittedly kills somebody the burden shifts to them to prove the killing was justified.

OP is the one who needed to prove he was justified in killing Reeva. He botched his "intruder" version so horribly that he had to switch his defense.

He no longer is claiming he killed Reeva while defending himself against an intruder. He is claiming the gun went off spontaneously.

Doesn't anybody get the significance of this shift in his defense? Seriously? He abandoned the self-defense claim after his story was proven false, i.e., the fan was blocking the door, the denim was on the duvet, the door was broken down by him.

None of the points that are being debated are even relevant anymore. He's now claimed he didn't mean to fire the gun.

Please note I am not saying that this is what happened I am offering an opinion as to what the defense’s psychologist will testify to.

I will guess that the psychologist will testify that it is no surprise that Oscar does not remember the dramatic moment of pulling the trigger. We will hear all about Oscar’s inner child and how the man Oscar, lived in a heightened state of paranoia. The psychologist will likely testify that in Oscar’s mind an intruder was in his home and that the intruder put Oscar and Reeva in grave danger, (exasperated by Oscar not having his prosthetics on.) The psychologist will likely maintain that at the moment of pulling the trigger Oscar was in a dissociative state but was immediately brought back to “conscious action” by the sound of the gun shots, the kick back from the gun or some other reason that I have not thought of.

The defense position has not legally changed to “involuntary action,” the dissociative state (involuntary action) is simply part of the proof that Oscar was in sheer terror and reached his tipping point when he turned the corner and heard a sound in the loo. Oscar was still acting in self-defense and with deliberate action since he somewhat remembers (and has testified to) making cognizant decisions up until the point and after the point of firing the gun.

That IMO is the defense in a nut shell.


And there is a difference between exhibiting histrionic behavior and having a histrionic disorder. Oscar displays histrionic behavior but does not present with histrionic disorder.

 

[Hatfield]

I'm not sure what I mean. Some men/women can really loose their temper when angry/jealous. They can get in such a rage they don't care whether they did fire 4 shots. They feel entitled at that moment. Is that intent?

I see what you mean now although I dont think it would be considered an accident at that point. More like losing control and doing it on purpose.
But there is a vaild defense for that which I cant remember the term. Something like Lovers Rage. It doesnt make someone get off scott free but can reduce the sentence.

 

[Carmelita]

O no one is implying that a man can murder his wife if there is no one there to hear her scream.

 

[steveml]

I'd like to see the courtroom cleaners on the stand next, and for them to be asked the simple but extremely important question...'what colour cleaning cloths do you use?'

This would serve a dual purpose of establishing the legitimacy of the fluff contained in the door scuff mark, and helping to restore a bit of Roger Dixon's pride.

 

[james83]

Something else that i thought was strange that Roger Dixon said today, he says they took off another door from Oscar's house to a shooting range to do there test's, why did they not just set the door up in Oscar's bathroom do the bat test at 3am and record the sound's from close to the state witness's house's?.

 

[molly333]

Your implying that any man can murder his wife so long as there were no witnesses to hear her screams.

That makes zero sense.

*snip*

No, of course I'm not implying that. I'm trying to deal with this particular case.

 

[kittychi]

I'm not sure what I mean. Some men/women can really loose their temper when angry/jealous. They can get in such a rage they don't care whether they did fire 4 shots. They feel entitled at that moment. Is that intent?

BBM: Especially if they are drunk. I believe OP was drunk, but this can never be proven because they didn't test him until the next day. Alcohol would certainly have enhanced any rage he felt and also would have affected his judgement.

:maddening:

.