Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Emz73]

I just can't help but be very very suspicious of the fact that these cricket bat tests are done outside, it doesn't make sense and i wonder if there would be such a dramatic echo if they were tested from inside a room like the actual incident itself.

Mmmmm is somebody trying to get him off or making sure he's put away for a long long time?
Is this bigger than we could realise? Making some sort of point? White, rich young guy. Numbers.
(Sends myself off to a David icke forum as punishment)

 

[TipDog]

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.

I do. :clap:

 

[Plumeria5]

1) He could already have had his legs on(up arguing with her), gone after her with bat, bashed door to get at her, then got gun (do we know for sure he kept it in bedroom?Or closer to bathroom?)and shot, then broke open door.

Could he have been shooting downwards at some point, to hit her as she crouched on toilet or once she had fallen? He needn't have been kneeling or crouched, simply aimed gun lower--which would imply he heard or saw that she was on toilet or slumped down in stall. I'm not clear on how it is known that she was pressed full height against the stall door at first.

2) If she was in stall to escape him and he had to put legs on, that would have given her time to phone for help. Unless he had shot her, disabled her.
3) Could he have originally been on stumps because they were preparing for bed when an argument broke out, she runs, he hastily puts legs on in pursuit--
4) Is it established that at the time of the incident (when he supposedly hears intruder and the whole thing is kicked off) they were in the bedroom? Could have been in the hallway or the bathroom together when all heck breaks out.
5) If he did not have legs on during the entire time he shot at her, he could have put them on post-shooting, as he says he did, but not for the reason he says. Not to be less vulnerable to more intruders or ready for police or security when he called, but to do whatever he was going to do in full knowledge that he had killed Reeva--as cover up of that knowledge.

I have never been able to believe he would abandon his combat readiness and his gun to get his legs on without knowing if the intruder was dead behind the door, or whether more were coming.

I still want to know why no follow-up on his explanation for screaming as being that he wanted to ask her "why are you calling the police?" Will we hear more about this? Did I miss something and he has said it was a slip of the tongue? Did Murphy'sLaw and others not hear correctly?

Your post got me wondering. Let's say OP did have his legs on. Has it been confirmed that both sides believe he was on his stumps? Could he have been on his knees as in the photo below shooting at a height that would make himself look vulnerable and on his stumps? Probably not as I think this all happened in the heat of the moment but stranger things have happened. Does the keyhole go all the way through? Could he have looked through it to see where Reeva was or wasn't? I think maybe I have been listening and watching Mr. Dixon with my own eyes a little too long. :blushing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/london-2012-olympics/files/2012/08/pistorius.jpg

 

[James50]

I follow your logic and you make a valid point with respect to him being highly sensitive (which I think contributes to his anger management issues).

However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't OP say he screamed those blood curdling screams because he realized that it might be Reeva behind that door? If so, then his being shocked (or embarrassed) won't fit in his version.

That's a good point, Tipdog. Let's assume he did. It makes total sense given that he was not yet sure that Reeva was in the toilet. Notice that the histrionics only ever occur when he is unsure of something or fears for his safety because all his life he has felt vulnerable on his stumps, and this is the way he reacts to perceived danger to himself. The only way he has ever been able to protect himself from that very real vulnerability is to arm himself and shout for help.

As soon as he becomes aware that there is in fact no danger and no further uncertainty but rather he has made a ghastly mistake, a different emotion takes over: one of extreme inner and private anguish.

And as has been pointed out on here many times, why did he just make an assumption that Reeva hadn't excited off the balcony?

He didn't. He said that he checked the balcony when he went on it to shout for help. But also it wasn't in Reeva's character to simply abandon him. According to his sister, she was very assertive and would not have just run away from trouble and he would have guessed that. Then again, he didn't say he knew she was there. He FEARED she was in there. Big difference. In a situation like that you fear the worst and eliminate that option first. Finally, as he stated, he wasn't thinking rationally.

(In fact, had there been an intruder and OP had been so foolish and reckless to go rushing on his stumps, vulnerable, into a possible line of fire, it is not inconceivable that Reeva might have dodged out that bedroom door and locked it behind her for her own protection followed by calling the police and so forth. Reeva, unlike OP, was incredibly bright.)

Well he wasn't on his stumps by then, he was on his prosthetics, and he was shouting for Reeva the whole time. I think he realised that it was almost certainly her in the toilet because she would have replied otherwise. And he has a habit of not considering alternatives when he believes one things or the other is true.

 

[Cherwell]

Sorry but we do say sn*gger in the UK. Sn#ggered, sn*ggering...to supress laughter. Its very common. Its even in my android spelling. Unless I took your message wrong.

Indeed we do. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. I will say that I resent being prevented from using a perfectly innocuous word by a piece of software.

Am I allowed to say that I was born in Scunthorpe, I wonder? I can!
(I bet you all sn-iggered at that) :giggle:

 

[BritsKate]

Isn't that the one where, say the wife has an affair then he looses it? I think this is about him and his entitlement issues.
I don't want him to get off Scott free. Just imagine :-(

I think what you're describing is a crime of passion defence. When someone just snaps. Sometimes, in some jurisdictions, such a defense might lead to a lesser conviction and shorter sentence - like 2nd degree murder instead of 1st.

But South Africa doesn't recognize crime of passion.

 

[steveml]

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.

I take the view that the DT perhaps thought it would be beneficial for Judge Masipa to hear more of a laypersons view of things.

I found I understood a couple of things better today than when they were explained by the technical guys. I do think that there were many things that should have remained unsaid though.

 

[aoibhinn]

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

Awww.... I'm guessing that's you both in your profile pic, cute photo. So glad you found happiness (if you don't mind me saying...)

Respectfully snipped because O/T...

 

[Val1]

BBM - Most likely! Dixon didn't even take a photograph of the door till last month, and I think the sound tests were only done last week - and they had a whole year to do that. I suspect that some actual experts refused to put their integrity and credibility on the line, and so had to refuse to be part of the 'team'. I dread to think how many experts were approached if Dixon was what they ended up with

Although he testified that he had been involved since the bail hearing, makes one wonder.

 

[anagrammy]

Yes your scenario sounds very likely, especially considering the dent in the bathtub. It does make sense that he would be kicking things and in an uncontrollable rage.

That makes a lot of sense. Also, it looks like he got frustrated by his inabliity to get her out of the bathroom (while alive I mean), and that's why he got so frustrated and got his gun.

I just wish he had been taught easy ways to control his anger - like, leave the situation. If he had just gone outside and hit something outside like a tree or something, just to catch his breath. This tragedy would have never happened. This is IN NO WAY an excuse for him, I just wish he had been taught this from an early age so that he would have learned to deal with his anger.

Of course, if his temper escalated b/c of fear that she would call the police and/or call someone else, I suppose it wouldn't really have done any good. For example, if he went outside and she ended up calling the police, his anger would be even greater when he got back. B/c the root cause of the problem is something that wouldn't go away - fear of any bad publicity. If she really had called the police, it would have triggered his anger anyway.

I have also thought about the reason you mentioned about the "I love you," but the only thing is didn't he open the card, along with the present, like a year later? Or did he open it that night?

I have always wondered why the gift was not taken by the police as evidence? Perhaps if he had been Joe Blow, they would have. The quality of the relationship with the romantic partner is ALWAYS examined carefully by police in a murder investigation. They claim they charged him immediately just because he was the only other person present and the house had blood and damage about.

The authorities allowing the defense to keep the phone? Allowing Mr. National Pride to keep the gift? It stinks.

And just to slip in another comment: I am perfectly fine with sister consoling brother bending over or rolling on the floor. It makes me feel good to see her despair as she gives up hope that he is going to get off scot free (yet again). Because of what he did to Reeva was, in my view, premeditated. She had to die and he went out of his way to construct a situation that mirrored the recent case of the man accidentally killing his daughter.

It doesn't take much thought, really to figure out why Reeva had to die. She disrespected him. That's all it takes for a guy like him-- he is looking for an opportunity to use a gun and it has all come out what an aggressive, angry, demeaning, entitled spoiled professional athlete he is. Once Reeva shared with him that he disappointed here and she didn't think he was all that good a boyfriend/lover/man, she had to go.

Because OP must be worshipped. JMO

 

[james83]

I take the view that the DT perhaps thought it would be beneficial for Judge Masipa to hear more of a laypersons view of things.

I found I understood a couple of things better today than when they were explained by the technical guys. I do think that there were many things that should have remained unsaid though.

They must have knew he was going to get a mauling, they really should have thought it through a bit more, quality over quantity if you like.

 

[Murphys_Law]

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.

I think he is serving as cannon fodder for the Defence's more controversial bits of evidence, that is, the bits that the Defense couldn't get a real professional to stand behind/risk their reputation on.

Secondly, and less importantly, I think he has been put on the stand (unwittingly) to probe and extract more of the prosecutions case by proffering opinions on subjects and evidence out of his depth, to which the prosecution must respond.

As you know, the prosecution has revealed very little by way of narrative at this stage. Further, we have only heard a part, albeit a large part of the ballistics report. The bedroom door holes have not been discussed at all, yet they have been entered into evidence via photos. And let us not forget the 5th cartridge case that Nel mentioned without correction from his team, the defense or the judge. That cartridge, if it exists, could be in one of the many photos logged into evidence.

I still think they will haul out their ballistics "experts"
Further, I think we will hear more from the blood splatter experts, but not before Professor Dixon has offered his learned opinion

 

[BritsKate]

I take the view that the DT perhaps thought it would be beneficial for Judge Masipa to hear more of a laypersons view of things.

I found I understood a couple of things better today than when they were explained by the technical guys. I do think that there were many things that should have remained unsaid though.

If that's true it is absolutely my first experience seeing that tactic. Usually an expert is touted for their superior (to layman) knowledge.

Never have I heard of an attorney, either side, putting forth an expert to give a layman's view. Ever.

 

[molly333]

[/B]

I have always wondered why the gift was not taken by the police as evidence? Perhaps if he had been Joe Blow, they would have. The quality of the relationship with the romantic partner is ALWAYS examined carefully by police in a murder investigation. They claim they charged him immediately just because he was the only other person present and the house had blood and damage about.

The authorities allowing the defense to keep the phone? Allowing Mr. National Pride to keep the gift? It stinks.

And just to slip in another comment: I am perfectly fine with sister consoling brother bending over or rolling on the floor. It makes me feel good to see her despair as she gives up hope that he is going to get off scot free (yet again). Because of what he did to Reeva was, in my view, premeditated. She had to die and he went out of his way to construct a situation that mirrored the recent case of the man accidentally killing his daughter.

It doesn't take much thought, really to figure out why Reeva had to die. She disrespected him. That's all it takes for a guy like him-- he is looking for an opportunity to use a gun and it has all come out what an aggressive, angry, demeaning, entitled spoiled professional athlete he is. Once Reeva shared with him that he disappointed here and she didn't think he was all that good a boyfriend/lover/man, she had to go.

Because OP must be worshipped. JMO

Wait a minute.

That gift was not taken into custody of police.

How do we know that is the letter Reeva sent him? :banghead:

 

[steveml]

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?.

I guess it depends how long ago the new builds started.

 

[wb180]

I take the view that the DT perhaps thought it would be beneficial for Judge Masipa to hear more of a laypersons view of things.

I found I understood a couple of things better today than when they were explained by the technical guys. I do think that there were many things that should have remained unsaid though.

No, DT just made a stupid mistake on picking this expert. He wasn't giving a layperson view of anything. He was represented as an expert.

That's why Roux said he was ducking and diving.

 

[Val1]

I think he is serving as cannon fodder for the Defence's more controversial bits of evidence, that is, the bits that the Defense couldn't get a real professional to stand behind/risk their reputation on.

Secondly, and less importantly, I think he has been put on the stand (unwittingly) to probe and extract more of the prosecutions case by proffering opinions on subjects and evidence out of his depth, to which the prosecution must respond.

As you know, the prosecution has revealed very little by way of narrative at this stage. Further, we have only heard a part, albeit a large part of the ballistics report. The bedroom door holes have not been discussed at all, yet they have been entered into evidence via photos. And let us not forget the 5th cartridge case that Nel mentioned without correction from his team, the defense or the judge. That cartridge, if it exists, could be in one of the many photos logged into evidence.

I still think they will haul out their ballistics "experts"
Further, I think we will hear more from the blood splatter experts, but not before Professor Dixon has offered his learned opinion

bbm - Nel was pretty upset about some hearsay that Mr.D let "slip", anyone catch what that was all about, I really don't want to listen to his testimony again... :/

 

[aoibhinn]

A) cheap
B) available

Seriously! Cannot think of any other explanation, other than the fact they could not find anyone else able and willing to try and support the defence case. I find that hard to believe though as Defence experts are guns for hire and human nature dictates that if you offer the right price, there will be plenty of takers.

I suspect that the reality is that he was recommended, his previous role as Batman's boss was important and that the resulting charade of his testimony is more damning of the defence's case and lack of credible supporting evidence than it is of Dixon personally. Bless his cotton socks (white, never tested them)

Yes, the tests were useless but most experts would struggle to present anything credible and coherent when tied to such a narrow and improbable narrative. They will try but the lack of authenticity shows just how weak it actually is.

There is also the actual reality of life... You instruct someone to do a job and by the time you realise that it is not up to scratch, it's too late. You have to manage with what you've got! By all accounts Dixon was still scrabbling about 2 nights ago outside the front of the Stipps house, at a lower viewing angle and with a new property between. Farcical!

BIB especially. This is not the first time today that I've come across that conclusion. Very good point. In fact, he mentioned his analyses were in progress until the last moment in light of continuously changing information.

 

[Emz73]

Indeed we do. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. I will say that I resent being prevented from using a perfectly innocuous word by a piece of software.

Am I allowed to say that I was born in Scunthorpe, I wonder? I can!
(I bet you all sn-iggered at that) :giggle:

Sure did. :seeya:

 

[soozieqtips]

Well he wasn't on his stumps by then, he was on his prosthetics, and he was shouting for Reeva the whole time. I think he realised that it was almost certainly here in the toilet because she would have replied otherwise. And he has a habit of not considering alternatives when he believes one things or the other is true.

~snipped~

BBM - If she'd heard him screaming and shooting while she was supposed to still be in bed... then why didn't he think she might have left the house in panic and called for help once outside? And not only that, but having feared there could have been more than one intruder, his concern about that suddenly disappeared after the shooting. So how did he know there weren't any others lying in wait to kill him and steal a watch? And why oh why didn't he think that the most obvious reason for Reeva not being in the bedroom was because she'd left to call the police from a safe place. The bedroom door was the closest exit, remember? He feels all around the curtains for her (allegedly) but doesn't think the most obvious thing - that she's left... via the closest exit. He's a nasty piece of work and I hope he gets severely punished for what he did. Your post about Reeva's family getting to be with her in the afterlife (because she's not really 'gone') doesn't lessen his crime, and most certainly won't make Reeva's family feel better about it. He belongs somewhere away from society with a team of psychiatrists studying him in great detail. He's dangerous and unpredictable, and he had been for a long while before he murdered Reeva.