Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Hatfield]

Addressing the angle while shooting, that's obvious, he needed the support of the counter/wall for the recoil, especially if he was doing what I suspect, using the peephole he'd created with the bat whacks to help determine where his "target" was. What's that saying? "know your target and what lays beyond it"... maybe he was being a "responsible" gun owner, just not a good bf.

Its even simpler than that. When he looked through the crack he saw her crouched off to 1 side so he had to stand off to 1 side to get an angle on her with the shots.

 

[fox1lady]

If the judge decides that there isn't enough evidence to convict OP for murdering Reeva, is it possible to convict him for murder of "the intruder(s)" or would that be impossible because the state hasn't put that option forward? Just trying to get my head around why it's so important that Reeva was heard screaming etc. I just think that OP armed himself as he heard a noise and shot the perceived intruder - am I wrong in thinking that arming oneself and going towards the danger when there were other options constitutes premediation?

 

[crasshopper]

I only started following this right before the trial started, and I read a few articles and thought the state is going to have a really hard time proving premeditation and murder -- but of course there was not much information out at the time. Here's my progression of how I have swayed from "not guilty" to "definitely guilty" to "not guilty" to "I don't know:

...

Then Nel brings these pictures back out that would really obliterate Oscar's account if we could confidently accept that they were actually depictions of the crime scene as the police initially found it (untouched).

OP also made some mistakes that are concerning - I can't recall exactly what they were but there were a couple that really made me question whether he's hiding something.

Other issues of concern: The food in Reeva's stomach and what appears to be an improbability that her last meal was at 7:30 as Oscar reports. Another issue is the addition of the assertion that Reeva was awake and talking to him as he was getting the fans. Another issue - the whole layout of their bedroom and all the maneuvers OP would have had to go through to get from the point of first hearing the sound in the bathroom until the point that he is at the corner of the bathroom with his gun pointed at the toilet.

At this point, I am keeping an open mind and I'm anxious to hear more evidence that might instill a more abiding conclusion in my mind.

As you know, I think he's guilty of premeditated murder I think something put him over the edge as he stood outside the bathroom door and he decided to shoot to kill...just the way he has practiced so often. Whether he thought it was an intruder or Reeva is not relevant to the crux of the case just OP's version imo.

It will be interesting if or when we read the judge's opinion to find out if her reasoning and conclusions are similar on several of the points you so clearly elucidated. Most interesting, I think, will be

1) If she finds Mrs. Stipp's testimony reliable
2) If she finds Oscar's testimony reliable
3) If she makes a determination regarding bat, screams, gunshots or not

As you stated earlier, the DT's case has only just started and with that and probable rebuttal, more will emerge for discussion AND perhaps to shift the pendulum yet again

(the latter works both ways)

 

[Hatfield]

If the judge decides that there isn't enough evidence to convict OP for murdering Reeva, is it possible to convict him for murder of "the intruder(s)" or would that be impossible because the state hasn't put that option forward? Just trying to get my head around why it's so important that Reeva was heard screaming etc. I just think that OP armed himself as he heard a noise and shot the perceived intruder - am I wrong in thinking that arming oneself and going towards the danger when there were other options constitutes premediation?

Its a good question and I dont have enough legal knowledge of SA laws but I do know that in the least he should be found guilty of what here in the US would be called "manslaughter" or something like that. I think I have heard the term "culpable homicide" which maybe a SA thing.

He has to be guilty of something because you cannot just shoot willy nilly in your own house at a door when you know someone is behind it but you have no idea who it is no matter who you thought was there. It could have been the drunk neighbors kid or the senile old lady across the street coming into your home to use the bathroom.

This is why the judge has an important responsibility to do the right thing and convict him of something. Otherwise all people in bad relationships will shoot their spouse when they go to the bathroom and claim they thought it was a robber.

 

[crasshopper]

BBM... you qualify to be on the defense team! :giggle: (just teasing)

OP added the "heard window slide open" detail to his plea statement prior to court. It was not in his bail affidavit.

When OP was on the stand, part of his reasoning for not asking Reeva if she heard the noise was because he said he KNEW exactly what he heard, he didn't need confirmation.

When Nel pushed him on how he KNEW what he heard was the window, he masterfully tailored in the window hitting its wooden frame... you could see the wheels churning in his mind as he said it. Yea, that's right, Nel... I heard wood slam on wood and that totally means that the window opened and I heard it. If I could read minds, I bet at that point he was thinking "man, I'm brilliant."

The funny thing is, he previously had stated that when he entered the bathroom, "seeing" the window openis what confirmed it for him.

Oops.

I needed some comic relief tonight, so thank you! :floorlaugh:

 

[crasshopper]

Hello Everyone! I have been watching and listening with interest to all the various educated guesses with regard to this trial.

Just a thought .... Suppose there was quite a lot of blood that happened to fill up the toilet (under 2 gallons) Is there not then a type of siphon effect that lowers the water in the toilet?
See below
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/toilet/toilet.html
...

If fluid (anything under approximately 2 gallons) is added to the toilet bowl itself, notice that the water level does not change. The extra fluid will cause the water level in the bowl to rise slightly for a moment, but then that extra water overflows into the siphon tube, passes through the tube, and out of the system (but this does not cause the toilet to flush).
When the toilet is flushed, 2 gallons of water rush quickly through the bowl, causing the siphon tube to fill up completely, resulting in a change in pressure (lower pressure inside the tube ahead of the flowing water, and higher pressure in the water (at the inlet of the siphon) in the bowl. Once all the water has passed through the tube, air enters and interrupts the siphoning process (causing the gurgle you hear after you flush). Then water in the bowl is replenished when the inlet valve in the tank allows more water to come in through the supply line.

BBM

Excellent post!

 

[nastasya]

Gestalt means (roughly) looking at the whole picture. In this case all of the STATE evidence:

Two events KNOWN to produce loud bangs.
Two sets of bangs heard
State expert stating gunshots were first
Every witness that heard screams heard them after time of first bangs AND before time of second bangs.

Take that lot, and combine---->Gestalt

Gunshots-----> screams---> cricket bat

<modsnip>

State expert said gunshot came before crack in the door that went through the bullet hole.

Both the state expert and OP testified that the panel was pried off, which would have caused the crack in the door through the hole.

The Stipps were closest and heard both sets of noises. The witnesses further away, Burger, Johnson, and Van der Merwe only heard the louder of the bangs, which occurred at 3:17 or so.

The Gestalt is 100% as follows:

5 people testified to hearing a woman screaming. This evidence has not been challenged other than Roux claiming it was OP.

If a woman screamed, OP is guilty of premeditated murder.

<modsnip>

 

[lithgow1]

Its a good question and I dont have enough legal knowledge of SA laws but I do know that in the least he should be found guilty of what here in the US would be called "manslaughter" or something like that. I think I have heard the term "culpable homicide" which maybe a SA thing.

He has to be guilty of something because you cannot just shoot willy nilly in your own house at a door when you know someone is behind it but you have no idea who it is no matter who you thought was there. It could have been the drunk neighbors kid or the senile old lady across the street coming into your home to use the bathroom.

This is why the judge has an important responsibility to do the right thing and convict him of something. Otherwise all people in bad relationships will shoot their spouse when they go to the bathroom and claim they thought it was a robber.

From my understanding of it, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, if he fired knowing as a reasonable person that his actions would likely result in the death of someone then that is murder. It doesn't need to be shown that he knew it was RS behind the door.

As for all the talking about screaming, and as I think someone else said way back, if a verdict of 'Guilty' is read out then at that very moment he'll probably prove all we naysayers wrong.

On a side note, early in this trial I had some sympathy for him despite not believing his 'version'. No matter who they are or what they've done it's not pleasant to hear someone in obvious distress. A few weeks in and after all his lies while branding everyone else a liar any sympathy on my part has long gone. All I see now is a man unable to own up to ANY wrongdoings on his part, no matter how relatively minor they might be.

 

[nastasya]

As I have said before.... independent of OP's "version".Put that to one side totally.

After the shots there was stuff that HAD to have happened. I have outlined some of it (many times) There is simply no time.

I am reluctant to repeat it all. It just gets countered with never ending "What ifs" that STILL do not explain all that had to have happened in just a few minutes.

He started calls at 3:19 and ended them at 3:22. He walked down the stairs at 3:26.

What are all those other things he had to do? All he had to do was put his legs on, run downstairs and open the door for Stander, then run up and pick up the body and begin to carry her downstairs.

 

[steveml]

ALL the witnesses who heard "a woman scream" in this case is just two married couples.. and one of those couples DID only come forward and describe what they heard AFTER seeing news reports etc for weeks. (And they were 200M away, and so unlikely to hear the nuances that they have evolved and embellished their testimony with eg "Blood Curdling")

It is not hard for me to imagine that if I heard a high pitched, anguished "scream" in the night.. I would assume it was a woman. That is the way human perception works. We make some sort of sense out of ambiguous information, based on our experiences and expectations.
It would be more precise to say the witnesses heard screams that to them sounded like a woman. But in the realm of "Reasonable doubt".. OP being the source is at the very least a reasonable alternative explanation. Add to that the fact that it is reasonable to conclude from the State's own evidence that the screams were heard AFTER the shots and so in that case it is not possible it was Reeva. It is logical to infer that it was OP screaming.

BBM

This is a very good point. It's been continually stressed that it would be improbable that 5 witnesses mistook a male voice for a female voice. It sounds a strong point, but in the grand scheme of things the determination of the gender of the screaming was made by residents from two properties, the furthest being almost 2 football pitches away in distance.

Throughout the case I haven't given the witnesses the same weight as if they were totally independent and from separate properties. That's just personal to me, and I guess each individual will have their own view on this. To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that a couple will discuss events that happen and reach some kind of a loose consensus based on certain aspects of the incident. It's human nature, and they wouldn't know at the time that they would be testifying as ear-witnesses to a murder.

It's also worth noting that from all the residents living within the Silverwoods Country Estate, the prosecution team only managed to locate one property whereby the residents would/could testify to having heard a woman screaming.

Similarly, from all the houses within the Silver Stream Estate, the prosecution team only managed to locate one property whereby the residents would/could testify to having heard a woman screaming.

 

[nastasya]

Yep, I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life :facepalm:

How about OP claiming two different guns he was holding fired 5 bullets without him intending to fire any of them?

 

[sicknote]

As much as I want the gunshots to come first for the sake of Reeva not knowing what was coming, it just doesn't make sense.

I find it totally bizarre that the DT expects me to believe that an Alpha male in Combat Mode suddenly has a female voice......think about it.

If the 3D animation team recreates Oscars version of events, we will all be staring at a black screen......think about it.

If I watched this movie in the cinema and it captioned 'Based on a true story', I still wouldn't believe it.

 

[Val1]

If so, I guess the clothing reference could be the jeans shown in the photo on the ground below the toilet window, though I'm surprised it wasn't brought up in OP's cross examination when Nel was putting forward his theory that Reeva was leaving.

I also noticed that the only WhatsApp messages that were read out in court came directly from Reeva's phone. OP's phone data was passed to the defence and entered as evidence but the data wasn't specifically analysed in court. I'm guessing this may be because there is no chain of custody for the 0020 phone.

Added: I've watched to the video again and they refer to what she was wearing as being key, so I guess it can't be the jeans.

Hmm, did RS wear contacts?

 

[steveml]

Remember when OP was really emotional when Nel asked him what did he actually say/screamed to the intruder (i.e he said "get the XXXX of my house")?

Why the heck would you get so emotional over this? It's really weird. And that's why, I have a feeling he wasn't really screaming at the intruder but in his mind he was actually screaming at RS when he said those words (just like what Nel suggested). (Also, just like when there was a long pause when Nel asked him if RS screamed).

I am sure those behavioral psychs guys in the courtroom must have thought this was interesting.

BBM

It was literally seconds before he fired the shots that killed his girlfriend. I'd be more concerned if he wasn't emotional at this very moment.

I guess one theory doesn't outweigh the other.

 

[G.bng]

He has three versions of this. She was 'slumped over but still alive' (from affidavit)... 'she wasn't breathing' (from testimony)... 'she was struggling to breathe' (from testimony).

Not breathing... breathing... struggling... a spit and a sputter... a gasp... a cough... a rasp... a strange whining noise... oh, now breathing again... oh no, now not breathing again...

Depending on illness, cause, circumstances, from my experience and from what a doctor told me that can be absolutely normal for a moribund... of course, certainly not for someone who is dead already or who dies in their sleep! My father died at home like the above from from a brain tumour and spent his last 5 days, 3 on morphine in that "breathing not breathing" state so I really can't see the problem here. Agreed OP may well be lying on many things, but what is the point of him lying about this?!

And according to all reports Saayman only said Reeva would probably have only taken a few breaths after the head shot, and "probably" is absolutely not definitely not least because medicine is not an exact science. Nor did Saayman give a time span for in between those "few" breaths and my father could go several minutes at a time without a breath during which we would all think he had died until a deep breath and there he was back again breathing at times for an hour or more as rhythmically as a baby while other times rasping and gasping for a while leaving us to watch, and listen, waiting for him to die. And then he did. He died at the same time as he raised one arm in the air as if in a nazi salute and let out the most enormous sigh as if all the air in his tissues was leaving him in one go.

No, I don't believe OP is lying here, but even if I didm Nel informed the court the State accepts his story after the downing of the door so it would mean a hiding to nowhere while there are other more important conundrums unresolved.

 

[Forensics]

Hello everyone

I've been reading this thread since the beginning, pretty much - thank you all for your interesting and insightful comments.

However, I have specifically signed up to weigh in on the heart beating issue.

Viper, you are not correct.

Saayman only ever said that Reeva took a few breaths after the head shot - Botha said the same. He also said she would have died fairly soon after that.

Not breathing does not necessarily equal dead. I think that you have assumed it means the same thing when it does not.

Her skull fractured after the last shot meaning that the brain stem was destroyed. This is the area of the brain responsible for breathing, so she stopped.

Hearts are autonomous organs with their own electrical system. They can continue to beat for up to 6 minutes after breathing stops (depending on many factors, of course). It is highly likely that Reeva's managed to keep beating for a few minutes at least - this would not be unusual.

Blood spatter analysis is more than some man looking at spots of blood and deciding they are arterial. There is a a specific type of pattern than can only be formed by blood being pulsed out because of ventricular movement. If Van Der Nest said the spots were arterial, then they were. No amount of jiggling a body about will form the exact same pattern as arterial spurts.

What you seem to be suggesting is that two very important state witnesses are in direct contradiction - Van der Nest says her heart was beating as she was brought down the stairs while Saayman says this stopped in the toilet?! This isn't very likely.

Also, a thread or two back, someone was confusing Reeva's clenched teeth with rigor mortis. Obviously, this wasn't rigor mortis (impossible), but there is a thing called caderivic spasm where muscles stiffen at the moment of death - usually when a death has been particularly violent and emotional.

This explains Reeva clenching her teeth as witnessed by Dr Stipp - further evidence that she died at the bottom of the stairs.

For what it's worth, Jake18 and Crasshopper clearly are medical professionals and know what they are talking about - and they are right.

Reeva's head injury stopped her breathing. OP brought her out of the toilet very soon after this, and her heart was managing to beat weakly as she was brought downstairs. This stopped and she went into spasm either halfway down or at the bottom of the stairs.

The cast off spatter that Roux mentioned would be in relation to the spatters on the headboard & wall - OP mentioned that himself on the stand. At no time did Roux query the arterial spurting evidence, which he would have done if there was dispute about this.

For me, this is the evidence that will convict OP. It is impossible for him to have shot Reeva at around 3am given that her heart was still beating 20 minutes later. It's totally possible for him to have been standing on the stairs with her 5 or so minutes later with her heart feebly managing a few dying beats, though.

To reiterate, the confusion has come about because of your assumption that Saayman saying she took a few breaths meant this was when she died. It would not mean that, and this does not necessarily follow - death is often a process not a single event.

I am sure many have mentioned this before me....as I am a tad behind and trying to catch up with all posts. However, I would like to extend a welcome to Websleuths and to commend you on a highly informative post. Congratulations and I look forward to reading more..:loveyou:

 

[steveml]

As much as I want the gunshots to come first for the sake of Reeva not knowing what was coming, it just doesn't make sense.

I find it totally bizarre that the DT expects me to believe that an Alpha male in Combat Mode suddenly has a female voice......think about it.

If the 3D animation team recreates Oscars version of events, we will all be staring at a black screen......think about it.

If I watched this movie in the cinema and it captioned 'Based on a true story', I still wouldn't believe it.

I'm not aware there was anybody representing an Alpha male in combat mode at the time of the screaming.

The screaming referred to by witnesses would be after Reeva had been killed.

 

[lithgow1]

BBM

It was literally seconds before he fired the shots that killed his girlfriend. I'd be more concerned if he wasn't emotional at this very moment.

I guess one theory doesn't outweigh the other.

The theory put forward that he did scream those words out but they were knowingly directed at RS makes a lot of sense to me. His emotion when recalling it sounded genuine at that particular point.

In terms of what it suggests, I'm more interested in why he started crying when explaining the position of a duvet, or how he opened double doors with a cocked gun in his hand, or whether or not he recalled turning off the alarm.

 

[crasshopper]

How did intruder know where key was. Its ridiculous.

Oh Hatfield thank you for pointing this out again! BIG PROBLEM for the DT, imo.

It just occurred to me that at no time in his version did Oscar describe when he realized the door was locked by key. I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS, so correct me if wrong.

OP has to account for when he discovered the locked door because otherwise his story doesn't make sense.

According to OP

-He's backing away from the shot "door" never having checked the handle or opened door to see who is inside. He's backing up into to bedroom to check on Reeva, after 'protecting' her with the 4 gunshots.

-Suddenly, after Reeva not answering his continued cries to call the police, feeling around the bed and behind the curtains (but not checking outside bedroom door or yelling downstairs to see if she escaped that way)...yes suddenly it dawns on him that it must be his Baba in the toilet.

- He hops runs over the duvet in a single bound, goes out onto the balcony through the fan & yells for help, puts on his prosthetics, remembers to grab the loaded cocked gun, AND GRABS BAT WHY??? He shouldn't have known or expected the door to be locked!

- He has specifically said he grabbed the bat to get the door open...when he shouldn't have even expected it to have been locked ESPECIALLY after it occurred to him that it was Reeva behind that door. Seriously, in a moment of panic and shock does it occur to you 'maybe I should grab a bat because my GF always locks the bathroom' or 'just in case she locked the bathroom'.

edit:
-Would make more sense if in his version he ran to bathroom then found the door was locked and ran back to get the bat (all while holding the cocked gun). end of edit

I wish they would have Reeva's bf of 4 years testify, if he could, to when exactly in their relationship Reeva stopped locking the door to the loo...in the middle of night.:facepalm:

 

[steveml]

About arm's length for OP? Arm locked, in gun shooting stance.

He wasn't hiding from an alleged intruder. He was VERY close to that door.

The gun stance is entirely possible.

The position at an angle to the toilet door can be anywhere from fairly close to against the back wall, as indicated by the state expert witness.