Trial Discussion Thread #31

[BritsKate]

Remaining silent in court is viewed very badly these days and the defendant is warned it may count against him/her.

South African law is the very reason Oscar couldn't remain silent and had to testify too. In order to provide the court with 'state of mind' testimony to bolster his putative self-defence claim. De Oliveira didn't, in another case claiming putative self-defence, and was found guilty of murder in part due to the very fact he remained silent. The appeal court found the trial court correctly rejected his defence and upheld the conviction, but did modify his sentence.

 

[Giles]

Judge Masipa is going to weigh up the evidence on the balance of probabilities.. . on the one hand, 5 people, all unrelated to Oscar in any context, sleeping peacefully In their own beds, minding their own business, were driven from that sleep , all about the same time, by the sound of gunfire and a woman screaming and a man screaming and the mingled sound of a woman , man and gunfire at the same time.

up against the proposition that either (a) no one screamed or (b) Oscar screamed, and these 5 disinterested bystanders each made the exact same error at the exact same time and misinterpreted the sound of a woman for the sound of a man. One is a doctor, ( former military medic) one is an occupational therapist, one is a former music teacher, now lecturer at Witwatersrand Uni, one is a retired teacher, I forget what the other one is..

At the same time , these people also, and without checking with each other, as they don't know each other, mistook gunfire for the sound of a cricket bat.

And this is what Judge Masipa will weigh up. Who is more credible? them , or Oscar?

I think you make some good points and then I think you take it too far. It's not that 5 people all made the exact same error at the exact same time. If Oscar was screaming like a woman then they still all heard the exact same thing at the exact same time. It doesn't matter if 100 people heard it and all thought it sounded like a woman. If the Defense can prove Oscar can sound like a woman when he screams then this could be what was heard - by all 5 witnesses.

I do concur, that the intermingling would take more of a leap to prove...

Your second point about them mistaking gunfire for cricket bat strikes seems counter productive, because we know this to be true.

 

[patCee]

Yes, and as some witnesses stated the 4 shots went "bang..... (pause)... Bang bang bang".... Seeing that shot A (closest to toilet on the photo I posted above) was first, it could reasonably be argued that the pause was him repositioning as he heard the falling and movement of the target, or indeed saw her, as many believe. Gives me shivers looking at that photo.

In addition, regardless of whether or not he could see RS, he was aware of the the risk of a bullet ricocheting off the tiled walls. One bullet did just that and would have been very loud. Black Talons open up in a moist target (human) so I suspect he would know when a bullet hit RS (quieter) and identify/adjust his position having identified his target. Horrific to even think about.

 

[DebinGA]

Raised voice/voices between 2 and 3am followed by woman's terrified screams which were heard by 5 witnesses before gunshots silenced her...........no brainer IMO.

"could OP see RS when he shot her". ....absolutely just look at the trajectory of the last 3 bullets from the 'above' shot of the toilet cubicle...........he could see her alright and as Nel said in cross.........." you changed your aim after the first shot".
Execution in my mind and don't need to hear anything else really.

... and OP answered, "That's not true." He should have just cried and not answered, but something in his character/psyche made him lie. In OP World enemies are everywhere and must be given no quarter, even when attacking them or what they say only hurts himself.

 

[crasshopper]

So, in the interests of the forum I have just poured 4 litres of water down the toilet. Granted, water is less viscous than blood but 4 litres is a generous amount. This experiment was carried out in a carefully controlled environment otherwise known as the kids' bathroom so I could blame them if something went wrong. Anyway, the water level didn't rise at all. To ascertain this i used specially calibrated measuring instruments, otherwise known as my eyes.

:floorlaugh:

 

[BritsKate]

I think you make some good points and then I think you take it too far. It's not that 5 people all made the exact same error at the exact same time. If Oscar was screaming like a woman then they still all heard the exact same thing at the exact same time. It doesn't matter if 100 people heard it and all thought it sounded like a woman. If the Defense can prove Oscar can sound like a woman when he screams then this could be what was heard - by all 5 witnesses.

I do concur, that the intermingling would take more of a leap to prove...

Your second point about them mistaking gunfire for cricket bat strikes seems counter productive, because we know this to be true.

RBBM
I don't think its that easy though for all the reasons I pointed out in the 'novel' I just posted. It isn't just showing Oscar can scream like a woman but also must explain away the timing of everything in relation to the screams. Because even if Oscar does indeed scream like a teenage babysitter in a B grade horror flick, that alone does not and cannot account for all the inconsistencies just on the screams and the time frame surrounding them.

But that's JMO

 

[wb180]

While it's easy to see the possibility of confusing shots and bat as almost "common cause" at this stage, I'm not sure that this was the case at the time Dr. Stipp testified, nor that it was something the state would have happily conceded then. They went to the trouble of establishing Dr. Stipp's familiarity with guns, after all, and hence the implausibility of him confusing the two sounds. It was almost as if they hadn't considered the problems it would raise for their case for there to be two sets of gunshots, which considering they must have known what the witnesses were going to say, is very odd.

The reasons I see Dr. Stipp's admission as a win for the defence are two-fold: first, it opened up the possibility the shots were first, and so the screams can't have been Reeva (remembering that the earlier witnesses had only heard screams and then shots, a much stronger position for the state); and second, it tends to undermine the reliability of their witnesses: if the Stipps were absolutely convinced at the time that they heard shots, and yet were wrong, what does it say about their reliability generally? Might they have been wrong about hearing a woman as well? Sure, they were certain about that, but then they were pretty certain they heard two sets of shots as well... Even if it can be seen as a neutral point now, at the time I think it was very important for the defence to get that admission from Dr. Stipp.

On the timing, yes I agree, that's certainly one of the things (along with the stomach contents) that bothers me about the defence case. I must admit I haven't looked at it in much detail yet, except what I've read on here. So here are a couple of questions for anyone who might know: firstly, doesn't OP HAVE to be wrong about Reeva breathing when he found her, regardless of whether the shots came first or second? If she only took two or three breaths, then surely she can't have been breathing by the time he got to her, even if it only took, say, 30 seconds. Second, and in some ways a similar question, isn't it also very likely her heart stopped beating before she was taken downstairs?

If the above points are correct (i.e. Reeva stopped breathing and her heart stopped beating while she was still in the bathroom), is there still a problem for the defence about how long Reeva was alive after the shots?

I like ur argument regarding Stipps. Good thinking. But the problem for me is that it doesn't tally with the other evidence. In isolation, your argument is good but when you put the other evidence together it doesn't work as well.

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC there was no ambiguity in both Stipps regarding the bathroom light (not WC light) being ON "immediately" (Mrs. Stipp) or "several moments" (Dr. Stipp) when they looked over after the first set of bangs. OP lied about shooting the intruder in the dark bathroom and backing out into the dark passage and into the dark bedroom and feeling all around the bed for Reeva, and the curtains, and. only after putting on his legs, returning to the bathroom and turning on the light.

I don't think Roux/Outwage put even a dent in the Stipps testimony re the bathroom light being ON.

 

[beach]

Mod note:

Guys, I've got a project for y'all that I've been trying to find time to implement since Monday. The intention is to give us something relevant and productive to do while Court is dark. Bessie & I have put a lot of work & time into it and I am determined to get the details up later tonight so we can start working on it no later than tomorrow.

We'll never get it done if we are continually having to referee in here. I have had it "up to HERE" with the baiting, bickering, fielding alerts that are solely intended to target those with differing opinions. The mod team in here has over 16 yrs. combined experience - we're very familiar with the patterns.

The behavior in here has been deplorable lately and you guys all know it. Stop it. Please.

There is no excuse whatsoever for not acting like civil, respectful adults.

I will not stop what I'm doing re. the project again to come babysit this thread. I will simply close it until I'm done.

Update:

Let me apologize for not being able to meet my goal and have the initial thread outlining the project posted by last night. I feel like I owe you guys an explanation so briefly - you know how some weeks just explode with serious, time-sensitive personal issues? Well this has been a big one of those for me. Someone I love and is very dear to me is facing a life threatening illness and it has been a terribly trying week. Obviously that has taken precedence over everything for me. I've also had what seems like a billion other sudden unexpected interruptions that have thrown my usual routine into a disorganized tailspin. In short, this week has sucked and I'd like a do-over.

On the positive side, I've been working on it this morning and I'm almost done! Barring any further unexpected interruptions, I should have something posted within an hour, give or take 30 min.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

 

[Viper]

Crasshopper, I remember you posting that Nest use a complex forensic computer application to determine with scientific certainty that the blood on the wall above the bed were definitively caused by arterial spurting. Where did you get that? Is that something that you are just speculating about? I do not recall Nest testifying to that, although I may have missed it with the Internet connection failing many times. And too, if that was used and was scientifically certain, why did Nest immediately concede to Mr. Roux on cross examination that the blood could have been arterial spurt or it could have been blood cast off from OPs hands?

 

[sleuth-d-]

That's a really good question! LOL!!!

Others will answer differently, but I would focus on the blood pool in the WC. Reeva was there for some time and that is the largest, really the only, blood pool. What is on the bathroom floor and the entryway floor appear to me as blood that settled from Reeva's blood soaked / saturated clothes and hair, they are not blood pools IMO.

there is also a blood pool of unknown quantity that fell directly into the bowl of the wc.
if her arm and head were both over this point, the blood from these two wounds could have gone directly into the bowl.
that would leave just the blood from the hip wound on the floor of the toilet.

[apologies if this has already been covered]

 

[jay-jay]

Your loved ones must come first, beach .. very best wishes, and thanks for all you do :thumb:

 

[BritsKate]

While it's easy to see the possibility of confusing shots and bat as almost "common cause" at this stage, I'm not sure that this was the case at the time Dr. Stipp testified, nor that it was something the state would have happily conceded then. They went to the trouble of establishing Dr. Stipp's familiarity with guns, after all, and hence the implausibility of him confusing the two sounds. It was almost as if they hadn't considered the problems it would raise for their case for there to be two sets of gunshots, which considering they must have known what the witnesses were going to say, is very odd.

The reasons I see Dr. Stipp's admission as a win for the defence are two-fold: first, it opened up the possibility the shots were first, and so the screams can't have been Reeva (remembering that the earlier witnesses had only heard screams and then shots, a much stronger position for the state); and second, it tends to undermine the reliability of their witnesses: if the Stipps were absolutely convinced at the time that they heard shots, and yet were wrong, what does it say about their reliability generally? Might they have been wrong about hearing a woman as well? Sure, they were certain about that, but then they were pretty certain they heard two sets of shots as well... Even if it can be seen as a neutral point now, at the time I think it was very important for the defence to get that admission from Dr. Stipp.

On the timing, yes I agree, that's certainly one of the things (along with the stomach contents) that bothers me about the defence case. I must admit I haven't looked at it in much detail yet, except what I've read on here. So here are a couple of questions for anyone who might know: firstly, doesn't OP HAVE to be wrong about Reeva breathing when he found her, regardless of whether the shots came first or second? If she only took two or three breaths, then surely she can't have been breathing by the time he got to her, even if it only took, say, 30 seconds. Second, and in some ways a similar question, isn't it also very likely her heart stopped beating before she was taken downstairs?

If the above points are correct (i.e. Reeva stopped breathing and her heart stopped beating while she was still in the bathroom), is there still a problem for the defence about how long Reeva was alive after the shots?

Remember that Oscar called the Stipps liars on the stand. Considering they're liars, should we reject some of their testimony or all of it? Dr. Stipp also couldn't have seen Oscar, as he testified to, according to the defence. So obviously that must be a lie as well. It's difficult to accept evidence good for the defence when the defence and defendant both question the credibility of that witness, kwim?

It's debatable whether Reeva may have breathed. Some more medically minded have posted on the matter though. If Oscar's testimony on this is true though he had to have seen her seconds after shooting her, not minutes, as he has testified to. This contradicts the 5 minutes it supposedly took to do everything he had to before he broke the door down.

By all accounts, including all those shared by posters in the medical profession who post here, Reeva absolutely could not have been alive more than approximately 5 minutes after the head wound. At the most, while for some posters, this time is much less. This places her at the top of the stairs at approximately 3:22 and is consistent with blood splatter analysis. If Reeva was shot earlier than 3:17 it is medically impossible, to my knowledge, for there to even be arterial spray where it is. In either instance, it is still unlikely (but in the State's account less so) that she died on the floor downstairs.

And lastly, it really isn't as simple as any witnesses hearing a woman scream or whether they heard Oscar screaming like a woman. There is at least 10-15 minutes surrounding those screams that do not make sense at all when considered in their entirety. Picked apart, we can create some reasonable scenarios to excuse some inconsistencies - but when viewed as a whole, it becomes much, much more problematic for the defence. But I've already posted that saga this afternoon.

Note: There is a lot of debate around the blood splatter even within our forum. For the purpose of this post, I've ignored that debate but don't want to discount their opinions entirely either. And I am one of the squeamish posters who barely know my toe from my ear, so this is moo, based on what I understand the facts to be, so far.

HTH and welcome to this crazy case!

 

[Irisha]

...and the intruder took off his jeans and then climbed up the ladder in his underwear.

Because he had to go to the bathroom so bad:facepalm:

 

[Carmelita]

perhaps some posters don't understand that Oscar is answering to a prima facie case against him he is already guilty.. its a matter of degree.. Oscar has gambled on being found not guilty of anything, and this is a rather odd stance to take, but he is within his rights to do so. but at the same time, it is to be remembered that Oscar is, indeed , under South African law, guilty of culpable homicide.. so all this talk of him being presumed innocent is bonkers in that context. He isn't.

Prima facie simply means "on its face" something appears to be such and such. Oscar defense must present substantial evidence that it is not what it appears to be “on its face”. Oscar has pleaded not guilty by way of putative defense.

In other words the offense must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

 

[Nausicaa]

Molly - if the judge determines that OP fired knowing that whoever was behind that door would likely die as a result of his actions and that at the time he fired he had no reason to genuinely fear that his life was in danger then she will find him guilty of murder. He doesn't need to know it was Reeva - any old intruder will do.

Not only is this an excellent point, Lithgow, but it applies separately to each of the four shots. In other words, even if - by a violent stretch of the imagination - OP believed he was acting in necessary self-defence by firing at an unidentified human being once, how could he have believed he was still acting in necessary self-defence when he fired for the last time, knowing he had already hit his victim with three of those hollow-nosed bullets manufactured to be lethal ?

 

[Viper]

<RSBM>

By all accounts, including all those shared by posters in the medical profession who post here, Reeva absolutely could not have been alive more than approximately 5 minutes after the head wound. At the most, while for some posters, this time is much less. This places her at the top of the stairs at approximately 3:22 and is consistent with blood splatter analysis. If Reeva was shot earlier than 3:17 it is medically impossible, to my knowledge, for there to even be arterial spray where it is. In either instance, it is still unlikely (but in the State's account less so) that she died on the floor downstairs.

<RSBM>

BIB. The shots were fired at 3:16 IIRC and the texting and calls starts at 3:18 45, finished at 3:22. The Standers and Baba saw OP carrying Reeva down at 3:25. That is 9 minutes from Reeva being killed to when she came down the stairs, not 5 minutes.

The 2 minutes 45 seconds from gunshots to OP using his phone is interesting to me. I suspect that he got the door open and touched or talked to Reeva but he did not immediately move her. He ran to yell for help from the balcony and then ran for his phone at 3:18 to start calling others for help. That blood pool in the WC is the only true blood pool. The blood on the bathroom floor looks like blood that settled from Reeva's blood soaked hair and clothes after she was pulled out. I don't think that she layed there very long at all. I think that OP pulled her out and set her on the floor and right away reposition himself to be able to pick her up and carry her downstairs. She sat in the WC 95% of the time before being brought downstairs.

If Reeva's heart continued to beat for 9 minutes, the PT version based on Nest and arterial spurt at the staircase, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The DT can easily go outside the bound of current scientific knowledge too. All Mr. Roux has to do is apply the same logic that many here are applying, namely he just points to Nest's arterial spray at the staircase and Reeva's biting OPs fingers and says that is proof of life, that is proof that Reeva died when OP took her downstairs 17 minutes after he accidentally shot her three times.

 

[lithgow1]

Prima facie simply means "on its face" something appears to be such and such. Oscar defense must present substantial evidence that it is not what it appears to be “on its face”. Oscar has pleaded not guilty by way of putative defense.

In other words the offense must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

What offence are you referring to that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Most commentators say they cannot see how he will escape the lesser charge of culpable homicide. So I guess it's the murder charge you mean by 'beyond reasonable doubt', in which case it reallly seems to come down to whether or not the court accepts his reasons as to why he chose to act as he did. Apologies in advance if I misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[Nausicaa]

Crasshopper, I remember you posting that Nest use a complex forensic computer application to determine with scientific certainty that the blood on the wall above the bed were definitively caused by arterial spurting. Where did you get that? Is that something that you are just speculating about? I do not recall Nest testifying to that, although I may have missed it with the Internet connection failing many times. And too, if that was used and was scientifically certain, why did Nest immediately concede to Mr. Roux on cross examination that the blood could have been arterial spurt or it could have been blood cast off from OPs hands?

Viper, I don't know if he did or not use this equipment or reach that finding, but if he is competent at his job he must have made the analysis and found the right answer. A trained forensic investigator specializing in blood and properly equipped can usually tell for each drop or stain of blood the angle, velocity and any other relevant parameters and even you or I can tell whether it was arterial blood.
Exasperating to think that so much potentially useful information is withheld from such skilful sleuths as we!

 

[BritsKate]

Prima facie simply means "on its face" something appears to be such and such. Oscar defense must present substantial evidence that it is not what it appears to be “on its face”. Oscar has pleaded not guilty by way of putative defense.



In other words the offense must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

Are we quite certain, under South African law, that there is not and cannot be a shift in burden when a defendant has admitted the killing? The following is based on UK law, as an example:

"When it has been proved that one person's death has been caused by another, there is a prima facie presumption of law that the act of the person causing the death is murder, unless the contrary appears from the evidence either for the prosecution or for the defence. The onus is upon such person when accused to show that his act did not amount to murder."

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.