Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Will the "other side" be given the results if the tests are not admitted as evidence by the "testers" due to unconvincing results?
Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Will the "other side" be given the results if the tests are not admitted as evidence by the "testers" due to unconvincing results?
But surely he would have specifically said that in his affidavit?, it's a very different story from what he actually said which was "I found the key on the floor".
Also judging by the size of the lock it must have been a fairly chunky key, it seems unlikely there would be a gap of that size at the bottom of the door in such a luxurious house.
If discovery works the same way in SA as in the US then yes.
I was wondering this. If, for example, the prosecution conducts the tests and they are not supportive of their case, are they obligated to give this to the defense as discovery even if they don't intend to present it? Interesting legal question. I'm sure the defense wouldn't be obligated to give any failed tests to the prosecution, but it's an interesting legal and ethical question whether the prosecution would have to.
sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
Thank you so much for making this drawing, Zwiebel!
This is the posture I envisioned Reeva would have been in for the bullet to penetrate her right arm and then enter the right side of her skull.
It's without a doubt a frightened, defensive posture that, IMO, illustrates that she was aware she was being shot at & also more than likely screaming in terror.
What's interesting about defensive postures in life-threatening situations is that they're automatic and happen in an instant, so even though the gunshots came in quick succession, it would have taken only a fraction of a second for her arm(s) to raise.
Great job on the drawing!
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Oscar has used the story to explain why the door was bashed in. That he had to do it because the door was locked when in fact he'd already bashed it while terrorizing Reeva. I too, have failed to see how he could reach the key on the ground from that distance but have been waiting for that evidence to come into trial, presumably while Oscar testifies.
Both sides would have to. The same laws of discovery apply to both sides. Prosecutors don't get a pass. They are held to the same, if not higher standards, then defense attorneys because their room for error is much smaller.
I don't think it would be a different story. In my theoretical scenario, he did find the key on the floor, and just didn't go into detail about how he ultimately got it from the floor to his hand. For a limited document like a bail application it's extraneous information anyway. The idea with the bail application was to give enough to get him out on bail, and no more. I think within a fairly narrow margin of variance an interior key is an interior key. Doors have a gap by design so that they don't catch on flooring, and I don't think the thickness of a key would exceed that gap, but I could be wrong.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
I happen to be one of those unfortunate souls who gets waves of nausea after I've gotten extremely bad news. Like news that someone has passed who is close to me. I call it the missing stage of Kubler-Ross ("the nausea stage"). That said, I would certainly never want to be nor could I sit in a courtroom feeling nauseous; to me it is one of the world's worst feelings.
That Oscar stayed and continued to provide quite the performance is confusing. Perhaps even more confusing is that Oscar didn't react with nausea right after he shot and killed Reeva.
That Oscar stayed and continued to provide quite the performance is confusing. Perhaps even more confusing is that Oscar didn't react with nausea right after he shot and killed Reeva.
I would be surprised if this was true. I wouldn't expect that defendants have to incriminate themselves or reveal their case beforehand. And I'm fairly certain prosecutors have to hand over any exculpatory evidence, but just wondered if a failed experiment would be included since there is room for argument that conditions couldn't be duplicated exactly etc.
EVERYTHING would make more sense in this case if the door was bashed in before the shots were fired. But unfortunately, it doesn't seem like that will be the theory of either side.
If either side has evidence that could or will help the other side, they have to present it. That's the law. For instance, if the defense uncovers a tape of their client committing the crime, they have to turn it over to the state. Now, I don't know how an experiment like this would work in terms of discovery. But I think that's reason enough for neither side to chance such an experiment.
What is the prosecution's theory then? How will they explain the first round of "shots" that were heard? I think their theories will become more clear in closings. Right now I don't know what they have.
Lyra500
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 12
I thought Nel had indicated that the State's case was that the cricket bat was used first.
I'm recalling now the Canadian case where Paul Bernardo's lawyer withheld video tape evidence of the crime and was ultimately censured for it, so you're right there is at least some obligation. But the experiment is an interesting gray area. The idea though that gunshots can sound just like battering sounds in quality and intensity is not intuitive. The defense is almost obligated to try and prove that, because I don't think it would simply be accepted unless supported by other facts, and it hasn't been yet I don't think.
They haven't yet explained them. I'm going on words earlier in the trial from Roux where he "put" to Stippe when Stippe questioned the order of events that the door was battered first because there were bullet holes in the knocked out panel and splinters in (some of? all?) Reeva's wounds. Roux indicated then that the state was not contesting that, and the state didn't raise any objection.
One thing i wonder about the the whole gunshots/batstrikes theory is wouldn't there be a noticeable difference between the sound of the bat first hitting the door but not breaking it and the sound made when the bat actually breaks through the door?, i would imagine a bat breaking through a door wouldn't make much of an echo?, more of just a crashing noise.
gajonka
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 491
- Reaction score
- 2
Inge Jones
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 69
I believe he was not excused from being present. The judge only offered a break of whatever length. So he turned down the offer of the break on the grounds that he'd be having to go through it anyway might as well get it over with.
- Status