Trial Discussion Thread #30

[TipDog]

Sorry, I have been off here for a few days so am confused....did Oscar do this with witnesses and if so, which ones??

I don't know, sorry. It came up with mention of OP asking for more rights with respect to his bail requirements.

 

[molly333]

<modsnip>
You compared OP to a soldier acting in circumstances that require bravery and possible sacrifice of life. What OP did (in his fantasy version) was not brave in the least (and if he were a soldier, he'd be facing court-martial at the very least).

No matter how much you feel compassion for OP, the fact that he shot through a closed door simply cannot be ignored. Forget whether it was premeditated. He shot through a closed door not knowing who was there (not hearing a gun *advertiser censored* or a verbal threat), without any weapon of any kind visible to him, four times (not once, not twice, not three times...four times).

Nothing at all courageous about that. It's cowardly and breaking all the rules of a responsible gun owner (add to that, running and jumping around on this stumps with a cocked pistol, per his own words).

Oh, and let's not forget...there was 29 year old woman, unarmed and defenseless, standing behind that door who's dead now.

<modsnip>


I was responding to a post which I thought was claiming that OP was faking being scared to death because he went towards the threat instead of fleeing it, and those two things were somehow inconsistent.

I merely pointed out that soldiers do this every day of the week, and top athletes, as well.

Just because you are scared to death doesn't mean you are going to turn tail and run. It's called courage.

Or fools rush in where angels fear to tread. But, it is not inconsistent behavior by any means.

 

[minor4th]

I've not questioned your credentials (the opposite; I've just accepted them as fact). Nor have I told you you are wrong. But if you are going to identify yourself as an attorney and insist something is true with respect to laws, then you shouldn't take offense to being questioned with respect to those laws and in particular to the case being discussed.

BIB

That's dismissive, as you were arguing the law. And, respectfully, it could also be construed that you can't argue it (with respect to this case and the questions being raised about interactions between accused killers and witnesses).

But I'll certainly respect your wishes and now move on...

Please feel free to construe it however it suits you.

If you do not fit the description in my post that you responded to, then I was not referring to you

 

[Fuskier]

This is a case imo where witnesses could feel starstruck and/or potentally like the were trying to be manipulated or won over with charm. Valid point imo.

Personally, I would not in this casein particular, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Were I destitute with limited legal resources, he!! yeah would I talk to them.

BBM. Excerpt from Post by Soozieqtips No:1034
"exactly. Can you imagine how intimidating it would for witnesses if someone as powerful as OP tried to persuade them to change their minds about testifying?..."
The power of being SA Olympic Gold Medalist (Para-olympics), a South African icon.

 

[molly333]

That was not reported by any reporters that heard his live testimony. Did Dr. Saymaan find that? Probably not. Something like that would catch a reporter's ear. If you respect this professor, why must his finding that Reeva died within 2-3 last breaths after she was shot in her head be so difficult to accept?

I thought I posted this but can't find it now, so I'll post it again.


I'm just wondering, if you have an artery that is still spurting blood, why isn't it spurting blood everywhere from the bathroom to the hallway to the bedroom to the stairs to the downstairs?

Was there just one so called arterial blood spatter in the whole scene?

Something's wrong with that.

 

[Mango33]

Just bumping up my post.....

TIA.

No, there is no indication he did.
The discussion was just about bail conditions and whether lifting bail conditions was the right judgement.

 

[TipDog]

What does what have to do with what?


I was responding to a post which I thought was claiming that OP was faking being scared to death because he went towards the threat instead of fleeing it, and those two things were somehow inconsistent.

I merely pointed out that soldiers do this every day of the week, and top athletes, as well.

Just because you are scared to death doesn't mean you are going to turn tail and run. It's called courage.

Or fools rush in where angels fear to tread. But, it is not inconsistent behavior by any means.

Please consider this perspective (and pretending that OP's version is true) - the courageous act that evening would have been finding out exactly where the woman he wanted to protect was located and getting her out of the room to safety, whatever that took. His options were: physically finding her and making sure she heard his instructions, telling her to get to the bedroom door as he got the gun (so she'd be aware he had one), shielding her while unlocking the bedroom door and then having her run from the danger to call the police. Then, and only then, had he wanted to go face any intruder, he'd have made sure she could get to safety should the intruder over power him.

Anything less than the above is illogical, reckless, cowardly, stupid and, in my opinion, unbelievable. And...it resulted in the death of the very woman he claims he was trying to protect.

 

[minor4th]

Can you imagine the pressure for witnesses to say what the police want them to say when the police are pressuring them to tailor their statements to get a conviction and to provide details that are not really factual?

Do you wonder how Mrs Stipp's statement ended up with a declaration that she saw a person walking in OP's bathroom when she really didn't see that?

 

[Emz73]

No or I guess I would be on a weather site

I am just fascinated by human nature and thought it was interesting how when a person or persons believe that someone is guilty that they tend to see many points of guilt.

Just observing.

NO ONE said the pieces we found or discussed meant that he was guilty. It all shows a side which wasn't well known before the shooting.

Why would we look up charity work etc, we already knew he did that!

 

[Carmelita]

You picked up exactly what I was putting down. Thank you.

Anyone who is innocent but charged with a crime who thinks that their own innocence will carry the day and that there is no need for planning is in for a very rude awakening when they enter the judicial system.

 

[molly333]

Please consider this perspective (and pretending that OP's version is true) - the courageous act that evening would have been finding out exactly where the woman he wanted to protect was located and getting her out of the room to safety, whatever that took. His options were: physically finding her and making sure she heard his instructions, telling her to get to the bedroom door as he got the gun (so she'd be aware he had one), shielding her while unlocking the bedroom door and then having her run from the danger to call the police. Then, and only then, had he wanted to go face any intruder, he'd have made sure she could get to safety should the intruder over power him.

Anything less than the above is illogical, reckless, cowardly, stupid and, in my opinion, unbelievable. And...it resulted in the death of the very woman he claims he was trying to protect.

It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

And, there is more than one way to interpret another person's actions, as well.

But, I will stand by my statement that it is possible to be scared to death and still face the threat instead of turning tail and running.

Like I said, soldiers do it every day of the week.

 

[Carmelita]

Just bumping up my post.....

TIA.

No it was being discussed as to whether he could talk to his old neighbors.

 

[Emz73]

Can you imagine the pressure for witnesses to say what the police want them to say when the police are pressuring them to tailor their statements to get a conviction and to provide details that are not really factual?

Do you wonder how Mrs Stipp's statement ended up with a declaration that she saw a person walking in OP's bathroom when she really didn't see that?

No. Please. You didn't just write that did you.

 

[wb180]

It must be my bedtime because I really do take issue with comparing someone on trial for murdering his girlfriend to courageous and brave soldiers. Might be that I am a Vet's daughter. I honestly don't know if this is more disturbing...or comparing him to a 10 year old shooter protecting his babysitter.

Accident or not...Oscar did nothing brave or courageous by firing four highly lethal bullets into a closed door, not knowing who or what was beyond it. A much loved young woman lost her life because of his 'bravery and courage'.

Don't worry, if OP is a soldier, he just killed his own mate coz he just assumed. He is not a patch to the real soldiers.

 

[molly333]

I have close relatives in the military as well.

And, guess what they are fighting for? Our way of life.

Which includes, among other things, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Emz73]

For all those questioning why an accused should be allowed to speak to witnesses and prepare a defense, I choose not to play this game - if there were legitimate questions about how the legal process works, I'd be glad to discuss. But on this issue, the comments I have made from a legal perspective are met with argument and questions about my credentials and essentially a variety of posts telling me I'm wrong. This is why it gets seriously intimidating to post here sometimes.

Any and all are more than welcome to disagree with me or think whatever they wish. But I'm not arguing the law, so please move on.

So the law says Oscar has every right to talk to his neighbours who maybe witnesses?
He could go and knock on the stipps door anytime he wanted?

 

[Jake18]

That was not reported by any reporters that heard his live testimony. Did Dr. Saymaan find that? Probably not. Something like that would catch a reporter's ear. If you respect this professor, why must his finding that Reeva died within 2-3 last breaths after she was shot in her head be so difficult to accept?

I'm getting a bit bored with this because we're talking in circles and I won't reply again.

I keep saying : Prof Saayman say she took a few breaths only after the head injury. The head injury killed her. However there was arterial spurting on the landing so after she stopped breathing there was some cardiac activity for some minutes (you do know you don't need to breathe for this to happen). There's obviously transcription issues from the testimony but there's a tweet saying that Prof said the head injury would have incapacitated her but she did not necessarily die straight away. We're talking about weak cardiac activity- she would have been blue and corpse like. Her heart was pale which he attributed to "significant blood loss".

You're saying : Prof Saayman said she only breathed 2-3 more times after the head injury so she was dead. There was no blood in her airways so she didn't breathe so she was dead. Not breathing = dead. The arterial spurting makes no sense so I'm going to go with other, unusual theories for the arterial splatter pattern that was seen and decide that the blood splatter expert was probably wrong.

I'm bored with this because, either way, Reeva died very quickly after the head shot.

 

[Viper]

I thought I posted this but can't find it now, so I'll post it again.


I'm just wondering, if you have an artery that is still spurting blood, why isn't it spurting blood everywhere from the bathroom to the hallway to the bedroom to the stairs to the downstairs?

Was there just one so called arterial blood spatter in the whole scene?

Something's wrong with that.

BIB. Indeed Molly!

Dexter screwed up. I can't explain it any other way. If Reeva's heart was pumping blood through her body all of that time there would be blood all over the house. There is no getting around that. Some want to say that her heart kicked in at certain times along the path between the bathroom and the staircase, but IMO that is pure nonsense. You were right this morning and you are right tonight. The DT and the PT pathologist are not disputing when Reeva died. It is only Dexter that is confusing everyone with his "arterial spurts" opinions.

 

[Emz73]

I have close relatives in the military as well.

And, guess what they are fighting for? Our way of life.

Which includes, among other things, innocent until proven guilty.

No Molly. Most soldiers are fighting for governments over oil reserves and politics.
To put our Democratically minded government of choice into those countries so we have allies. One world government. Nobody cares about "our" way of life.

 

[Viper]

i'm getting a bit bored with this because we're talking in circles and i won't reply again.

I keep saying : Prof saayman say she took a few breaths only after the head injury. The head injury killed her. However there was arterial spurting on the landing so after she stopped breathing there was some cardiac activity for some minutes (you do know you don't need to breathe for this to happen). There's obviously transcription issues from the testimony but there's a tweet saying that prof said the head injury would have incapacitated her but she did not necessarily die straight away. We're talking about weak cardiac activity- she would have been blue and corpse like. Her heart was pale which he attributed to "significant blood loss".

You're saying : Prof saayman said she only breathed 2-3 more times after the head injury so she was dead. There was no blood in her airways so she didn't breathe so she was dead. Not breathing = dead. The arterial spurting makes no sense so i'm going to go with other, unusual theories for the arterial splatter pattern that was seen and decide that the blood splatter expert was probably wrong.

i'm bored with this because, either way, reeva died very quickly after the head shot.

BIB I am too! BTW Your previous point about Reeva not breathing but her heart still beating are utter nonsense, given that her heart would have to had functioned without oxygen for 6-20 minutes, and that is impossible.