Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[kittychi]

I still think this was alcohol fueled and he was drunk. Alcohol would exaggerate his anger and rage, enhance impulsiveness, and greatly affect his judgement.

No fluid tests were done on him for hours after the shooting, so my theory can't be proven, but I still think so. Its the only thing that explains to me why he would so irrationally go off like a mad man.

I have been around drunk people...they are set off and anger easily and often act on it (and feel bad the next day, of course, especially if they killed someone, I imagine).

 

[molly333]

So, OP had no reason to kill Reeva with intent, because she's gorgeous and she adored him? Is that really what you are saying? :facepalm:

No. I'm saying I don't think he sat around for days and hours working out his plan.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

BBM Remember Alice from the Jodi case :giggle:

This is the first case I have ever followed but from the sounds of it I should be checking out Jodi case

 

[shane13]

Barry Bateman (SA court reporter) asked to settle twitter debate.

(see attachment)

https://twitter.com/barrybateman

Disingenuous or disinformed (not likely as he was there throughout.)
He uses plural when Vermeulen specifically spoke about 1 bullet hole and 1 panel. And added that what he was saying only pertained to that, not all bullet holes and all panels broken off.

Much of MSM has always used Oscar-Speak...

 

[molly333]

I still think this was alcohol fueled and he was drunk. Alcohol would exaggerate his anger and rage, enhance impulsiveness, and greatly affect his judgement.

No fluid tests were done on him for hours after the shooting, so my theory can't be proven, but I still think so. Its the only thing that explains to me why he would so irrationally go off like a mad man.

I have been around drunk people...they are set off and anger easily and often act on it (and feel bad the next day, of course, especially if they killed someone, I imagine).

Could be...but we have no evidence of alcohol to work with.

 

[Val1]

I'm not aware that Mr Dixon ever said that he used someone the same height as OP? In any case, I think it can be concluded from the pictures (despite the 10cm difference) that it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would have been able to see a man on stumps in the top half of the window, don't you?

They did at least make an attempt to show this to the judge. Again the PT elected not to show any information to the contrary. The judge may well prefer this to the alternative of nothing.

I could spend quite a while discussing the evidence that the SAPS and PT have purposely not included because it weakens their case. I won't though, as it doesn't surprise me and is only to be expected.

Where do you now get only 10cm difference?! The model used was stated to have been 1.1 metres on his knees, which he was for the "demonstration" and his nose up against the window/wall, whereas OP is 1.55 metres on his stumps which is in evidence as per Mangena's testimony. That's a difference of 45cm or 18 inches, big difference!

 

[TipDog]

This confuses me because remember Nel saying to Oscar---she was standing facing the door and you were standing in front of her talking to her.

That would make sense if it was premeditated. He would go stand in front of the door and scream at her through the door, finally shoot directly into the door from the front, at whatever angle he pleases.

This position of OP negates that scene. It also shows he is staying as far away from the door as possible so he himself cannot be shot by the person inside the closet while he's standing there.

BIB

Doesn't confuse me at all. He could have been standing in front of that door, holding his beloved gun, screaming right at her to GTFO, she kept screaming for help, pleading with him and refusing to come out because she was scared to death; he then paced back and forth, turned and shot at her through the door from a distance. It might have even been a warning shot that hit her in the hip. Quite plausible and more in line with my thinking that he shot her in utter, blind rage (i.e. he got the gun but didn't intend to actually kill her up until he did, and did). It also satisfies me as to why there was such a long pause in his testimony about whether or not he had heard her scream after the first shot. Rage boils over, boom! - impulse to kill has taken over - I bet in that long pause, his recollection of the moment he first pulled that trigger is exactly what silenced him. He was reliving the split second before and after he shot, and there wasn't any going back.

Now, he's remorseful. Sure he is, because now, long after that fatal morning, he too has lost the life he once had and is about to lose his freedom. I can only imagine how much he wishes he hadn't done it. But that does not make it an accident.

Do you not question how his aim was so spot on for someone you think was shooting involuntarily out of fear at an angle away from the toilet closet door? Especially that fourth shot, the one that hit her in the brain, killing her nearly instantly? And all after not hearing a single peep out of her?

OP must be one very unlucky "lucky" shooter.

 

[Viper]

This confuses me because remember Nel saying to Oscar---she was standing facing the door and you were standing in front of her talking to her.

That would make sense if it was premeditated. He would go stand in front of the door and scream at her through the door, finally shoot directly into the door from the front, at whatever angle he pleases.

This position of OP negates that scene. It also shows he is staying as far away from the door as possible so he himself cannot be shot by the person inside the closet while he's standing there.

Ugh, just leaving the store but stopped to catch up. This website is like crack cocaine! You have to keep coming back for more.

BIB. Premeditation in SA may be different that what you think it is. It is my understanding that if it can be shown that the accused wanted the victim to die by his actions, then that is premeditated murder. An example would be a man stabbing another man 20 times. After stabbing him the first time when he goes about stabbing him the second time and so on it is obvious that he wanted to kill or seriously injure the victim. With OP he fired four times, hitting Reeva with three of the bullets. Since the WC was so tiny and it had hard tiles all around it is reasonable that whomever was in the WC would be hit directly with the bullets or indirectly with ricochets and be killed or seriously injured. So I have no doubt that OP intended to kill or seriously injure the person in the WC, and he did in fact kill Reeva. That is premeditated murder as I understand it in SA.

Please forgive any typos as I am using my mobile phone. Gotta go home and cook me and my wife some dinner! TTYL

 

[soozieqtips]

He wasn't standing in front of the door. That's the whole point of what I'm saying.

I should have said Reeva was standing in front of the door, sorry. Doesn't change that OP held the upper hand though knowing his target was in such a confined area with him pointing a gun at it.

ETA. Hang on. Nel said Reeva was facing the door OP when he shot. Therefore, OP must have been standing opposite the door in order for Reeva to have been facing him.

 

[TrueDetective]

Fair enough. An alternative scenario (I don't necessarily agree with it I'm just trying them out)

If I imagine myself as an attacker in the situation you describe I suspect I would step back and give myself a bit of space before I shot. I think I might also step to the side in order to allow my bullets to cover the greater extent of the toilet should she try and avoid my shots.

Spot on IMO
This is very probable behaviour for a controlled, premeditated shooting.

 

[TipDog]

I still think this was alcohol fueled and he was drunk. Alcohol would exaggerate his anger and rage, enhance impulsiveness, and greatly affect his judgement.

No fluid tests were done on him for hours after the shooting, so my theory can't be proven, but I still think so. Its the only thing that explains to me why he would so irrationally go off like a mad man.

I have been around drunk people...they are set off and anger easily and often act on it (and feel bad the next day, of course, especially if they killed someone, I imagine).

Alcohol would have impeded his aim. I doubt there were any drugs involved. Instead, this really is the kind of angry, dangerous, sinister man OP truly is.

 

[TrueDetective]

Do you think angry people with guns think about their position when they totally lose it and start firing?.

Yes. He was reasonably proficient with guns and habit and technique are likely to kick in IMO

 

[whiterum]

Threshold of pain is 120 decibels.

357 magnum is 164 decibels.

This is not a linear scale.

I would say 'deaf' for a while afterwards.

Shot is inside and echoing also.

In his version if he were deafened for a while as he claims how could he tell that Reeva did not respond from the bedroom to his shout to phone the police immediately after he fired the shots through the door.

 

[jay-jay]

No. I'm saying I don't think he sat around for days and hours working out his plan.

I/we haven't said he did, either .. premeditated doesn't need to be something planned days in advance, it can be minutes or seconds in advance.

 

[kittychi]

Alcohol would have impeded his aim. I doubt there were any drugs involved. Instead, this really is the kind of angry, dangerous, sinister man OP truly is.

Not necessarily. I have seen drunk people use a chain saw, drive a car, use a table saw, pound nails, with no problem. I haven't seen them shoot a gun, but I think it could be done based on my other observations.

He didn't have to be "falling down drunk" to have his judgement impaired.

All MOO, of course!

ETA: TipDog, I think this is the first time I have disagreed with any of your extremely well thought out posts.

 

[kittychi]

Could be...but we have no evidence of alcohol to work with.

I know, and we never will have. It is just my theory.

 

[jay-jay]

If he were deafened for a while how could he tell that Reeva did not respond from the bedroom to his shout to phone the police immediately after he fired the shots through the door.

Excellent point there.

 

[dianebowen]

Listen to his testimony in context - the first thing he says is that it's his view that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hit the door. He doesn't say the gunshots were before he pried open the door with the cricket bat that he used several minutes earlier to make a hole in the door.

Maybe he wasn't taking into consideration at that point that the door panels could have been pried out instead of batted out.

 

[DebinGA]

Maybe it was Reeva who had a "hot drink" and OP wove the idea she'd fixed one for him into his tale.

 

[TrueDetective]

It negates it because she is no threat to him inside the closet.

He can go stand right in front of the closet and shoot her.

The only reason to stand way off to the side of the closet is because you are afraid the person inside might shoot you if you stand in front.

You would have to understand the method of aiming and firing a gun to accept that the point you are making is not logical.
Some distance and perspective is important. Good training and old habits die hard.

Also, "way off to the side" is a wild exaggeration... IMO it was the optimum angle to not only gain that distance and perspective but to fire accurately into the heart of the WC where he thought/knew Reeva was.
He was pretty accurate I'd say.