Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[lithgow1]

Idk, if I saw brain matter, I'd think either this person is dead already or will die pronto absent a miracle. I'd probably take the chance of doing something rather than nothing if I were thinking rationally. Which I wouldn't be if I'd just shot my house guest such that their brain matter was coming out.

jmo

Fair enough. Re the 2nd part of my post, do you think emergency services would have said to bring her in had they known her true condition? Despite OP being in a panic, and I don't doubt that, I don't think he can have told them the full extent of her injuries.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Fair enough. Re the 2nd part of my post, do you think emergency services would have said to bring her in had they known her true condition? Despite OP being in a panic, and I don't doubt that, I don't think he can have told them the full extent of her injuries.

It is so hard to believe that Netcare does not record incoming emergency calls-- can someone confirm that for me, please? (Apologies if this has already been answered.)

 

[JudgeJudi]

Mods, can we please have a smiley of a large pot with a spoon in it? Seriously.

 

[Suthrnqt]

A quick question for those who know about guns - does the term "grouping" refer to a specific type of bullet hole pattern? Bullseye targets keep being shown which are not really relevant to OP shooting Reeva. Mangena's lasers mean I don't think OP was randomly shooting through the door but if holes B,C and D aren't a "grouping" then what are they? A non random cluster?

I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious (and a bit confused).

Yeah, I'm confused too. The bullet holes don't seem random at all to me either. :dunno:

 

[Nausicaa]

Please excuse my ignorance as I am sure this has been asked and answered, but I am curious as to how OP knew where to shoot through the door to strike Reeva? If he really thought it was an intruder, wouldn't he have shot more than 4 times and in not so narrow a pattern? TIA

He didn't shoot. The gun did.

 

[lithgow1]

Mods, can we please have a smiley of a large pot with a spoon it? Seriously.

Personally I'd vote for a large spoon with pot in it but that's just me.

 

[Jake18]

Yeah, I'm confused too. The bullet holes don't seem random at all to me either. :dunno:

Maybe "grouping" refers to the pattern of holes around a stationary, circular target. But then why would both the DT and the PT use the term to refer to the door if it wasn't appropriate? If the term has connotations with target shooting it may have been intentionally used by the PT.

 

[jay-jay]

Originally Posted by Viper

What else is Wollie wrong about, in your opinion.

Regarding my use of the image, I disagree with your comment. You were brazen enough to post an image of a paper target that someone shot at while stationary, standing steady on both legs or seated, while having full view of his stationary paper target. And then you attempted to use that as a comparison to OP wabbling on his stumps on a slippery tiled floor, shooting while he was moving from left to right, and holding his gun with just one hand and the other hand bracing his wobbly body on the wall, shooting at Reeva as she fell and he moved from left to right.

If you do not accept my image, post your own that shows something much more comparable than the one that you passed off to the forum; mine was exact!

Unfortunately Viper we can only thank you once. I'm here to thank you 10 times over for your comments.

Agreed. I didn't particularly want to see that image, but I do feel that some people need to keep being reminded of exactly how serious this crime was and it wasn't just some kind of sad accident .. it was *horrific* .. no other words for it, and nobody but *nobody* should have to die in such sheer fear and pain as the way that Reeva did, yet to me it seems as though some are just treating this in the same way you would if someone just tripped over and happened to die as a result of that accident.

 

[Viper]

A quick question for those who know about guns - does the term "grouping" refer to a specific type of bullet hole pattern? Bullseye targets keep being shown which are not really relevant to OP shooting Reeva. Mangena's lasers mean I don't think OP was randomly shooting through the door but if holes B,C and D aren't a "grouping" then what are they? A non random cluster?

I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious (and a bit confused).

Grouping is where the bullets hit the paper target, the bullseye on the target.

All of the bullet holes on the door can be viewed as a grouping, but they are not his target like the paper target bullseyes. In this case they are an intermediary indication of OPs grouping of the bullets that he fired. His true grouping is where his bullets hit or ended up, where they hit Reeva. OP and the bullseye (Reeva) were moving, so using a single image of a paper bullseye is very misleading. There should be three images of three paper targets to truly represent OPs grouping of his shots that night.

I can hit the center of a bullseye at the gun range, but often times I don't! It is harder than people may think. Especially when you are trying to fire in quick succession. The gun can move in your hands causing your aim to be off, the slightest movement up or down or side to side means that the bullet will travel to a different spot on the target than what you intended when you pulled the trigger. Many times I was aiming for the heart and a bullet strayed and hit the shoulder or the hip; it just happens sometimes for non professional shooters, especially when trying to shoot quickly.

Bullet hole A was a hit but it was low. Bullet hole B was a miss because the bullseye was falling, moving behind the door. Bullet holes C and D where direct hits near the center of the bullseye, one to Reeva's head and one to her upper center mass (her upper arm).

 

[JudgeJudi]

He didn't shoot. The gun did.

He didn't aim and he didn't pull the trigger. :floorlaugh:

 

[patCee]

The grouping is clearer when looking at the rods from above, than looking at the holes in the door. To me that looks as though it took some skill. IMO







http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

Viper I was still uploading pics when you posted. Hope these illustrate what you are saying.

 

[DebinGA]

He didn't aim and he didn't pull the trigger. :floorlaugh:

... and he didn't think.

 

[Carmelita]

And IIRC, he also stated he did not fire warning shots in the bathroom because he was concerned about possible ricochet. Either way-- whether he was trying to protect himself from a potentially armed intruder hiding in the toilet or just wanted to protect himself from possible ricochet as he opened fire at at an unarmed Reeva, he consciously sought to fire from a secure position-- a very considered and deliberate action when he has repeatedly claimed he charged toward the perceived intruder and fired without thinking.

But that is not the essence of what he said. He said that although he was in extreme fear he was deliberate in his advance toward the toilet it is only when he was very near the toilet and heard a noise that he interpreted as an aggressive intruder opening the door to the loo does he claim that he completely stopped "thinking" and shot on an instinctual self preservation level to protect himself and Reeva.

 

[Suthrnqt]

But that is not the essence of what he said. He said that although he was in extreme fear he was deliberate in his advance toward the toilet it is only when he was very near the toilet and heard a noise that he interpreted as an aggressive intruder opening the door to the loo does he claim that he completely stopped "thinking" and shot on an instinctual self preservation level to protect himself and Reeva.

He also said he didn't shoot into the shower because he didn't want the ricochet to hit him. He was thinking .....and knew who he was shooting. jmo

 

[JudgeJudi]

Personally I'd vote for a large spoon with pot in it but that's just me.

Hahahaha. There's always one, isn't there?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I had a dream about the trial last night. lol. In my dream Nel was explaining the pros version saying that there was an argument before the shots and explained a very probable reason for the argument with putting kind of evidence in detail. I remember being shocked and saying Yessss.. He killed her because of that!!
I'm struggling for a few hours :tantrum:but unfortunately can't remember what that motive /subject was ?? maybe I should give a break reading here lol :floorlaugh:

 

[Carmelita]

Murder is anything but ambiguous. If he shot at an intruder, intending to cause that intruder's death, it's murder. If he shot, not intending to kill anyone, but could have foreseen his actions could have resulted in someone's death, it's still murder.

The options on the table are not premeditated murder OR culpable homocide. SA doesn't recognise a separate and specific charge for premeditated murder. Instead, premeditation is used as an aggravating factor. So, it will simply be determined if the intent was there to kill Reeva, an intruder, or he should have foreseen the consequences of his actions.

If the court finds he intended to kill Reeva, murder is a done deal. Intending to kill an intruder - done deal too unless the panel believes his defence. And the last, proving intent by using dolus eventualis, will be considered only if they believe his defence. Then the reasonable person test will be used to determine intent.

Culpable homicide will not even be contemplated until the issue of murder is resolved.

His disability, IF it is considered, would not be (until sentencing) if they believe Oscar intentionally killed Reeva or an intruder.

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

I didn't say that murder is ambiguous.

I don't agree with your opinion as to what judge Masipa's options are. I don't believe anyone here is qualified to surmise SA law with 100% certainty. Law is more complicated than a three month study of it on the internet can possibly reveal.

Extreme situations can be considered in rendering a verdict, a man on his stumps may be considered an extreme situation. No one here knows what the judge and here assessors will use or dismiss in their assessment of this case.

 

[Jake18]

Grouping is where the bullets hit the paper target, the bullseye on the target.

All of the bullet holes on the door can be viewed as a grouping, but they are not his target like the paper target bullseyes. In this case they are an intermediary indication of OPs grouping of the bullets that he fired. His true grouping is where his bullets hit or ended up, where they hit Reeva. OP and the bullseye (Reeva) were moving, so using a single image of a paper bullseye is very misleading. There should be three images of three paper targets to truly represent OPs grouping of his shots that night.

I can hit the center of a bullseye at the gun range, but often times I don't! It is harder than people may think. Especially when you are trying to fire in quick succession. The gun can move in your hands causing your aim to be off, the slightest movement up or down or side to side means that the bullet will travel to a different spot on the target than what you intended when you pulled the trigger. Many times I was aiming for the heart and a bullet strayed and hit the shoulder or the hip; it just happens sometimes for non professional shooters, especially when trying to shoot quickly.

Bullet hole A was a hit but it was low. Bullet hole B was a miss because the bullseye was falling, moving behind the door. Bullet holes C and D where direct hits near the center of the bullseye, one to Reeva's head and one to her upper center mass (her upper arm).

Perfect sense, thanks.

PatCee - those pics are where I lost all "reasonable doubt". No way was that random, panicked shooting.

 

[jay-jay]

Hi Alioop,
Nice to see you on the Thread. Captivating case IMO. Agreed the 'woman's blood-curdling screams' before the last 'bangshot' is the most outstanding piece of critical evidence in the murder Trial IMO. :seeya:

Yes, and I think the specific way in which Reeava would've been screaming (i.e. for her life) is something which could never, ever, be confused with OP either screaming at a perceived intruder or screaming when he thought it was Reeva or after finding Reeva or whenever .. OP was never actually confronted that night by someone threatening him face to face, threatening him with his life and therefore any screams, cries or shouts of his could never be anywhere near the screams of a woman who is about to be shot, and is in *real* fear of her life. It just isn't comparable, those witnesses know what they heard that night and it wasn't OP I'm 100% certain of that.

 

[Carmelita]

Maybe "grouping" refers to the pattern of holes around a stationary, circular target. But then why would both the DT and the PT use the term to refer to the door if it wasn't appropriate? If the term has connotations with target shooting it may have been intentionally used by the PT.

Grouping is a term for the location and proximity to each other where bullets impact. So a grouping can be measured on a door, a paper target, a human body or anything that has bullet holes in it.