Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No I mean, back up against a side wall so he's nowhere in front. That's if he had no intention of shooting anyone and you were scared.

Yes, that's what he did. Where he stood, he could not have been shot, unless the shooter came out of the closet.
 
Yes is was pitch black. Let's forget for a minute the question--why didn't he turn on the lights?

He could have stood there and said, "Reeva?"

I don't think he ever said he did that. Instead he's feeling around for her in the dark--feeling the bed, feeling the floor, feeling the curtains.

He was deaf! [and blind].

OR he was lying?
 
That's why his testimony sounded so weird. He was feeling around for her in the bedroom---feeling the floor, feeling the curtains.

He was deaf!

That's not why his testimony sounded weird. It sounded weird because it's a total fabrication that changes like sands thru the hourglass... like Days of Our Lives.

This is what Oscar testified (I am paraphrasing a bit here):

He crossed the bed (but has no clue if there was a duvet on it, he can't remember)

When he was on the bed it occurred to him it could be Reeva in the bathroom (before he checked anywhere else)

Nel says to him, so you can see the floor?

Oscar says no, he was feeling for her.

Nel asks him if he's feeling around frantically for her, why are the clippers still upright?

Oscar then says, I wasn't feeling for her.

Nel, um ok - how did you check the floor.

Oscar says that his act of standing up and walking thru that area was how he felt for her. He clearly would have stepped on her if she were there which he did not, that is how he knew she wasn't on the floor.

Then he said he ran his hands along the curtains to "check for her". She wasn't there.

When Nel circled back on this, Oscar says he didn't check the curtains.

Nel, um ok - what were you doing with the curtains.

Oscar, I used them to balance and by my act of balancing I was also checking for her.

Oscar later says he "checked" for her on the balcony and quickly tried to back track to say that he went to the balcony to call for help.

Nel asks him why he just said he "checked" for her on the balcony?

Oops, mistake, my bad.... tears
 
Dixon testified to it

I only caught the last 45 minutes today and based on how that made me feel I refuse to watch any more of him. But please, do share with me how Dixon scientically determined the light in the WC was inoperable over a year ago!!! I'm on the edge of my seat... :popcorn:
 
Yes is was pitch black. Let's forget for a minute the question--why didn't he turn on the lights?

He could have stood there and said, "Reeva?"

I don't think he ever said he did that. Instead he's feeling around for her in the dark--feeling the bed, feeling the floor, feeling the curtains.

He was deaf! [and blind].

Sorry but he knew exactly where she was.
 
I haven't seen any evidence that the WC light was broken. OP says it was, but what are his words worth after that meltdown in the box? The Stipps say it was working and on. I'll go with what the Stipps say on this one.

WC light working is debatable, but the bathroom light working isn't.
 
I don't know why he didn't turn on the light.

Still afraid?

IMO, the lights were never off (and they never went to sleep that night, he never took his legs off, and OP has a bridge he'd like to sell you! ;))

What's to be afraid of? He just blasted 4 bullets into a tiny enclosed space, and must have been confident (for some mysterious reason*) that his intruder was dead...since he stopped shooting before he ran out of bullets and left the bathroom as though he knew the job was finished.

Intruder's dead, but Oscar's too afraid to turn on the lights?

*mysterious reason: Reeva stopped screaming
 
Yes, that's what he did. Where he stood, he could not have been shot, unless the shooter came out of the closet.

How do you know where he stood? If the "intruder" was standing in the tub OP would have been shot in the head when he entered the bathroom.
 
We should really have a thread for 'quotes of the day'. My absolute favourite yesterday was when Dixon was testifying (expertly) about sounds... and Nel asked him if he was a sound expert... and after a pause, Dixon said something like: "I like to think my testimony is sound". Now that made me laugh!!
 
By 'tested it' do you mean he looked it up on the internet? :angel:

LOL
Probably.

But some simple things are hard to lie and go on record to w.o. some truth in it.
Light being non-working is a simple matter for the now-layman.
 
Originally Posted by Cape Town Crim.
[Q]Thank you for the welcome.

Yes, I have been incredibly fortunate enough to witness 'the 'brutal then bored' Gerrie Nel 'live' in court on more than one occasion. He is a very astute cross examiner and whilst many will question his strategy/methods etc, his closing argument is always a thing of beauty. That moment when all he has done, all he has alluded to, all he has inferred, deducted, insinuated is patched together for the 1st time like a completed patchwork quilt.

He doesn't go for the 'complicated theories' etc. He likes to work in 'lists' and will target 5/6/7/ things that he will focus on. The simplicity is actually the 'thing of beauty'.

I've always been a huge admirer. The cross examiner supreme (or the cross examiner from Dante's version of hell if you're the accused)[/Q]
===============================================================================

Ah, Thank You. That is exactly what I am waiting for. I was hoping that he was going to wrap this all up neatly with a big red bow. I am an avid trial watcher, and the closing statements are the keys to the entire process. You can win or lose the case, right then and there.
 
An interesting connection from a previous case involving Roger Dixon, Dup de Bruyn (Steenkamp family lawyer) and autopsy pathologist Gert Saayman :-

Link

I don't think that is quite right not that it changes much. Neither appears to have exactly the qualifications that were needed but Vermeulen has undertaken many courses in various aspects associated with his work. I imagine, in his time with the police, that Dixon probably did too.

Vermeulen has a BSc degree majoring in Chemistry and Zoology not Geology.

He also has an Hons Degree and MSc in Chemistry.

All obtained from North West University.

Vermeulen has obviously studied a great deal more than Dixon but in their jobs I think it is experience that matters. Vermeulen was expected to be able to comment on something he had no real training for. Just like poor old Dixon.

I wasn't able to find out much about Colonel Johannes Vermeulen online but maybe someone else knows.

Vermeulen is classified as a Colonel at the SAPS Forensic Lab now, the same as Dixon was in 1998-2012. Did Vermeulen replace Dixon?


I also remember Dixon testifying under Nel's cross that he was required when he was at the SAPS to be recertified every year on some aspects of forensics and every 2 years on others. So I imagine Vermeulen would do the same. This leads me to believe that yes there was other training in addition to their formal training for which they hold degrees.
 
Molly i found this clip from 16 25


[video=youtube;l_hle5shsDY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

he says he shouted out for reeva on his way back to the bedroom...then felt the bed curtains etc to find her...i got fed up searching and listening but if he said he called to her once in the bedroom it should be in there any time after that
 
The whole episode according to OP fails miserably right from the beginning. When getting ready to search for intruders everyone's immediate first reaction is to shake their partner and say "Did you hear that?" Hey wake up.

Anyone would first locate their partner because of the obvious danger of mistaking your partner for the intruder. The girlfriend could have gotten up for any number of reasons in the middle of the night. Hungry, bathroom break, thirsty, etc.

It is such a common occurrence that you always assume the noise is the partner not the other way around.

His story fails right from the start.

According to OP his first reaction was to tell Reeva to call the police because he heard the sound of a woman using the bathroom.

After shooting Reeva, curiously, OP never called the police.
 
It was said there was 20cm difference to OP, if that's any help. In other words, a lot.

I believe it was Roux who stated the 20, I'll have to confirm that, either way if the measurements were 1.1 to 1.55, that's more than 20. Just like Roux tried to tell Dr. Stipp that his call to security was at 3:27 and not 3:15:51 or thereabouts. Just more defense tricks imo.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-day-5-kicks-doc-who-tried-save-reeva
According to Roux, the first call was made at 3.27am, and after this the male screams were heard.
 
That's not why his testimony sounded weird. It sounded weird because it's a total fabrication that changes like sands thru the hourglass... like Days of Our Lives.

This is what Oscar testified (I am paraphrasing a bit here):

He crossed the bed (but has no clue if there was a duvet on it, he can't remember)

When he was on the bed it occurred to him it could be Reeva in the bathroom (before he checked anywhere else)

Nel says to him, so you can see the floor?

Oscar says no, he was feeling for her.

Nel asks him if he's feeling around frantically for her, why are the clippers still upright?

Oscar then says, I wasn't feeling for her.

Nel, um ok - how did you check the floor.

Oscar says that his act of standing up and walking thru that area was how he felt for her. He clearly would have stepped on her if she were there which he did not, that is how he knew she wasn't on the floor.

Then he said he ran his hands along the curtains to "check for her". She wasn't there.

When Nel circled back on this, Oscar says he didn't check the curtains.

Nel, um ok - what were you doing with the curtains.

Oscar, I used them to balance and by my act of balancing I was also checking for her.

Oscar later says he "checked" for her on the balcony and quickly tried to back track to say that he went to the balcony to call for help.

Nel asks him why he just said he "checked" for her on the balcony?

Oops, mistake, my bad.... tears


Oh God THIS ^^^^^

I periodically try to reign myself back and try to see things from an innocent point of view especially when hes blubbering and I feel compassion but then all the dropped clangers and improbabilities and lies and cintradictions reign me right back..and I dont believe for a nanosecond gerrie Nel is the type of person who would want to convict an innocent person

Im sooo glad I dont have that judges job!!!!
 
I only caught the last 45 minutes today and based on how that made me feel I refuse to watch any more of him. But please, do share with me how Dixon scientically determined the light in the WC was inoperable over a year ago!!! I'm on the edge of my seat... :popcorn:

Well see my post just above this one.
I was being semi-facetious first.

Second as per my above post, the simple man (now layman) may get some simple things right.
And his dates of going to the house indicate he first went there shortly after the crime.

Dixon is the last person I would want to defend. but a simple matter like the light not working the next day is hard to lie about.

but this would have been a simple thing for OP to do, or has OP testified that many things in his house were not working, and blamed his workers for this?
 
According to OP his first reaction was to tell Reeva to call the police because he heard the sound of a woman using the bathroom.

After shooting Reeva, curiously, OP never called the police.

From a room away, and the toilet room door closed, he could differentiate between a female going wee and a male going wee?

:gasp:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
2,084
Total visitors
2,225

Forum statistics

Threads
602,901
Messages
18,148,670
Members
231,583
Latest member
Karen Simmons Guinn
Back
Top