Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[sleuth-d-]

I'm glad this one has come back up for renewed discussion. I have listened to it several times now and each time I'm getting what sounds like a short word beginning with "h" between "why" and "she's". This leaves me unsure of exactly what he was saying. Can anyone fill in that blank or tell me I'm as deaf as Woollie?
Certainly that statement looks very bad for OP but the conveniently blurred articulation might get him off the hook. If for instance he meant to say, "I wanted to ask Reeva whether [or if] she was phoning the police," this might save his bacon.

16:55-17:05 in the youtube video. this is what i hear…

nel: "why would you scream out?"

op: "i was scared…"

nel: "sc…" [beginning of word 'scared', then he let's op continue]

op: "…i wanted to ask reeva why she's phoning the police"


no idea why nel doesn't stop op here. poor nel, he's so absent-minded.

 

[Nausicaa]

Surely you recognise Barnacle?

I certainly do.

Well you would wouldn't you?

 

[BabaJ]

It was a bullet fragment as far as I understand, not a whole bullet.

Although I do not believe OP's story etc. I agree with steveml that missing the bullet fragment in the toilet was a significant oversight, the fact that the toilet bowl was full of blood should not be an excuse. Love steve's comparison to a mechanic Especially in view of the fact that it is the prosecution case that Reeva fell on the toilet. after being shot in the head.

On another note, I am also a huge Gerrie Nel fan. I know that a lot of people on the board do not agree but I looove his approach; as I said previously, he is extremely systematic and pays attention to detail.

 

[Nausicaa]

16:55-17:05 in the youtube video. this is what i hear…

nel: "why would you scream out?"

op: "i was scared…"

nel: "sc…" [beginning of word 'scared', then he let's op continue]

op: "…i wanted to ask reeva why she's phoning the police"


no idea why nel doesn't stop op here. poor nel, he's so absent-minded.

No Sleuth - there's something between "why" and "she's". Cherwell thinks it's "if".

 

[DebinGA]

where are you reading the rugby story from, is there an online article? i have read similar in his book, but am not sure it can be copied hear due to copyright. tia

I read the anecdote in an article about OP's early life posted here weeks ago. The article was written pre-murder and was very friendly toward him iirc.

 

[Murphys_Law]

The time line is important in terms of the screams yes, but more specifically, the defence wants it to be in a single rapid burst to show it was more of a panic...

With Mangena we had Bang...BangBangBang, with Wollie and defence BangBangBangBang. Neither of these explain the differences in position of the deceased...
Now to give you my personal description based on what was heard in testimony so far.

1. First shot hits A on door and hits Reeva's hip (height matches) cannot wish it away. Fixed.
2. Reeva does not collapse as suggested (remember she can have most of her weight on the left leg) and moves to the left, far enough for the second bullet, through B to miss her and strike E. The bullet passes however close enough to her forearm for wood splinters to cause the marks there. As she is still close to the door, between the toilet itself and the door. The bullet ricochets of E, strikes F then hits her back with much less energy to only cause a bruise and falls into the toilet.
3. She then starts to fall backwards, as she tries to place some weight onto the right leg, but it buckles and number three hits her arm.
4. Still going down number four is the head shot.

Therefore... Bang...(slight delay and screaming)... Bang... (More screaming as she goes down)... BangBang (rather quick succession while falling to strike the arm and the head). C and D is also quite close together on the door, similar to a double-tap...

Barnacle, your scenario has lots of merit. I just have one question...
The defence has claimed that the direction of force related to the bruise on her lower back was upward - this was not challenged by the PT. A fragment rebounding off point F would be directionally downward.

Question: How do you reconcile the downward trajectory of the fragment with an upward direction of force associated with the bruise?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I get "I wanted to ask Reeva w__ (maybe why) I hope she's phoning the police" There's no break in cadence to suggest that he slipped and said why and it's clear that he didn't just say "I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police." I don't think it means anything.

jmo

bbm. just wondering, why have you added the words 'i hope' in here?

 

[Karmady]

bbm. just wondering, why have you added the words 'i hope' in here?

because those are the words I hear?

 

[sleuth-d-]

No Sleuth - there's something between "why" and "she's". Cherwell thinks it's "if".

not to me, although i have no problem if others think op added an 'if'. i have listened to it a few times now with headphones, and to me the sound between 'why' and 'she's' is just his voice slightly breaking.

moo.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<respectfully snipped>

I am more than happy to be proved totally wrong as I think he should be imprisoned for what has happened, assuming he is given a guilty verdict. Like Barnacle, I don't think he will get the full 25 year sentence - it is only a gut feeling I have. I am hoping for 15 years but I still won't be surprised if it is CH and he gets far less than that, and possibly a non-custodial sentence, a large fine and correctional supervision. If this were to happen, I would be utterly horrified.

I'll be horrified too. I've heard this sort of sentence bandied about before, but that was prior to OP testifying. I was hoping that it would be at least 15 years before being eligible for parole. Life's cheap isn't it? Reeva's family will be utterly devastated if a light sentence is handed down.

 

[patCee]

No Sleuth - there's something between "why" and "she's". Cherwell thinks it's "if".

Definitely something between 'why' and 'she's' could be 'if', but at a stretch what about 'not' with a soft 'n'?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Its just too weird. I've never seen an expert witness so touchy feely with a patient, much less a defendant.

I gotta say though I think she's simply convenient because she's been duped and now sympathetic to him. Unfortunately, some in the psychological community are not impervious to manipulation. I think Reeva was a convenience because she was intelligent, ingratiating, and looked good on his arm. Its my opinion Oscar uses people while they can benefit him, and tosses them aside when they've served their purpose.


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

I found it quite cringeworthy and wholly unprofessional. I pulled up images, via Google, of Oscar in court with family etc and was amazed at how many depicted him being cuddled, hugged, stroked etc. I think part of his problem, before this event, is that he has been allowed too much consolation and not enough tough love. I get the feeling he only has to blub/get angry and everyone runs to his support and makes exceptional allowances for him. Surely, this cannot be a new phenomenon.

I am sure his family will support him as any family would but this is a bit OTT for me. They treat him like one might a young child.

 

[BritsKate]

<respectfully snipped>







I'll be horrified too. I've heard this sort of sentence bandied about before, but that was prior to OP testifying. I was hoping that it would be at least 15 years before being eligible for parole. Life's cheap isn't it? Reeva's family will be utterly devastated if a light sentence is handed down.

Right or wrong, I think having the eyes of the world watching what transpires will have an impact on sentencing. South Africa is already inundated by allegations that rich white defendants are afforded a different brand of justice. Its possible not wanting that image perpetuated might have an effect - I don't think Masipa will be unduly unfair either though - just conscious, careful and conscientious.


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

 

[soozieqtips]

<modsnip>

Sure is. Not pleasant at all for Barnacle either, who could understandably be put off posting here again. I hope not though, because I found his posts extremely informative and helpful.

 

[Fuskier]

I think it was I who got involved with that thread. I have no experience in law whatsoever and was reading about SA appeals where it stated that if on bail before the trial, at appeal for conviction, it was very likely that bail would be granted if there had been no intervening problems. However, I did point out in one of the posts that the information I gleaned did not mention murder or guns. I also said that I thought OP, being who he is and how his family seem to be able to pull strings, that he might well stay out on bail, even if convicted. I was so surprised he got his original bail because in SA being charged with a Schedule 6 usually prevents bail (I think it is the sole purpose of Schedule 6) yet he managed to circumvent that.

I am hoping Barnacle can shed some light on what might happen, given that Oscar already does not seem to be required by to abide by norms of SA law. He even managed to get virtually all his bail conditions thrown out.

I am more than happy to be proved totally wrong as I think he should be imprisoned for what has happened, assuming he is given a guilty verdict. Like Barnacle, I don't think he will get the full 25 year sentence - it is only a gut feeling I have. I am hoping for 15 years but I still won't be surprised if it is CH and he gets far less than that, and possibly a non-custodial sentence, a large fine and correctional supervision. If this were to happen, I would be utterly horrified.

... and so would many other interested observers around the world IMO. The world is watching SA Law on this one.

 

[james83]

Still love this bizarre part of Oscar on the stand

Nel: What position did you hold the gun?

OP: The gun was in my right hand, bent not extended. Pointing towards the door. I wasn't aiming at the door.

OP: The firearm was up, but I was not extending my arm.

Nel: If I just listen to your answer now, you weren't aiming?

OP: I was aiming at the door

Nel: There is a big difference between aim or point. Did you aim at the door or point?

OP: I pointed at the door, I didn't aim at the door.

Nel: You heard the sound, what happened then?

OP: I fired the gun.

Nel: Why?

OP: I didn't have time to think, I was terrified.

Nel: This is the first instance that you are not thinking at this scene. Now you want to tell the court at this instance you didn't think?

OP: That is correct

Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the attack?

OP: No, my lady

Nel: Did you fire at the perceived attack?

OP: I fired at the door.

Nel: Listen, is it your defence that you fired at the attacker?

OP: No, my lady. I heard a noise and didn't have time and I fired my weapon.

Nel: The way I understand the case is that you acted in self-defence. That you fired at the attack to ward off the intruder?

OP: I didn't fire to attack, I didn't have time to think.

Nel: Your defence has now changed to unvoluntary defence.

OP: I don't understand.

 

[lithgow1]

I think it's been mentioned here before that Roger Dixon may have been a sort of advance sacrifice - testing the waters by letting him jump in to see if there's sharks. By him testifying on a range of areas beyond his expertise the defence got some forwarning about likely challenges to their proper experts. The more I think about it, the more I reckon that's rwhat and how it was.

After Dixon's testimony I was annoyed by Kelly Phelps on CNN saying that he was just laying a foundation, that others would follow and that Roux was a canny lawyer, and not mentioning how bad he had come across. Now looking back, Kelly had a bit of a smug look about her, a bit 'in the know', and now I have a hunch why.

 

[DebinGA]

Re OP's sentence, I console myself with imagining OP's public and private life once he's convicted of at least culpable homicide, when he's no longer "the accused" but now and forever "the negligent killer". I have no interest in hearing from OP's coddling psychologist, but I'd love to hear a qualified opinion of how an uber-narcissist like OP will react to going from golden boy to felon, and the restrictions he'll then face (like loss of right to own/use a gun)

 

[JuneBug67]

Does anybody have a sense of whether the defense 'scream' evidence is still coming? I think they've succeeded in leaving it an open question with the recent neighbour testimony, but if the issue is left at that I think they step into a hole I don't currently perceive them to be in.

 

[BritsKate]

I found it quite cringeworthy and wholly unprofessional. I pulled up images, via Google, of Oscar in court with family etc and was amazed at how many depicted him being cuddled, hugged, stroked etc. I think part of his problem, before this event, is that he has been allowed too much consolation and not enough tough love. I get the feeling he only has to blub/get angry and everyone runs to his support and makes exceptional allowances for him. Surely, this cannot be a new phenomenon.



I am sure his family will support him as any family would but this is a bit OTT for me. They treat him like one might a young child.

Well said, IB. There's much debate over what causes abusive personalities (I believe OP is) and personality disorders (I believe OP has) and one of the primary contenders is actually extremes in child rearing, such as pampering and overindulgence. I believe a sense of entitlement was likely introduced at a very young age - though he was told he was no different - I think he was treated very differently nonetheless. If he does have NPD, it would be very likely that Oscar has honed his emotional responce as means of manipulating those around him. People dx'd with NPD have a deep, incessant need for attention and learn many tools to manipulate people in their lives to that end - guilt-tripping others to threatening suicide, and everything in between. Very often they 'need' to be perceived as a victim themselves so pity, sympathy, guilt, remorse, etc. become key areas of exploitation.

All MOO

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