Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8

[TorisMom003]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. Ps: nice to "meet" you James

I'm curious as to how many of those gunmen that have been treated with caution, etc have lied/changed their story as to what happened during the shooting. Did those gunmen also have a history of being reckless with guns like OP has?

 

[james83]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. Ps: nice to "meet" you James

Thank you Carol and nice to meet you to
I can't speak for the masses but my own opinion on why he is guilty is firstly i find it very very improbable that his first reaction upon hearing what he believed was an intruder wasn't to make girlfriend aware, and by aware i mean awake, personally i would consider this to be a natural reaction, it would have taken seconds to make her aware, it could even have been done when he was picking his gun up, would anyone really charge out of there bedroom with a gun without making there partner aware?, it just wouldn't happen.
Secondly instead of waking her up in a calm manor as i believe anyone would, in his story he decides to wait until he is on his way to the bathroom before shouting out to Reeva(in his own words he was to scared to turn the bedroom light on but happy to shout???).
Also would he really give no warning to whoever he thought was in the toilet?.
Why fire 4 bullets?, surely if you have to fire you would fire once and listen?.
Just my opinon but to me it is obvious this was murder.

But let me be clear i fully respect your opinion and anyone else who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think this is still under debate since the doctor heard gun shots BEFORE 3.15?? We know there were only 4 shots fired!

I thought the doctor said that he wasn't sure if he heard the gunshots first or the bat first, that to him they sounded the same? If so, then it is not definite that he heard gunshots at 3:15.

 

[graceholl]

One problem I have always had since the very beginning is that, even if you were blind and deaf, you would KNOW if there was someone in bed with you or not. Just by the weight of the bed.

Maybe i'm saying that as my other half and I have a bed that's too small but I could always feel if he was there or not without having to be particularly conscious. Hope that makes sense.

eta; Equally I think we would also always consult one another if we felt there were anything amiss before going to investigate. I do however appreciate the differences between Pretoria and the leafy village I live in in England, and that OP is probably a more insecure and finely-tuned individual than either me or my boyfriend!

 

[Cherwell]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise.

Part of it for me is his behaviour after the shooting, together with that comment from one of the Standers about keeping it out of the press. It smells of an attempted cover-up, although how that might have been achieved is unclear. I think it was very lucky that Dr Stipp had such presence of mind and acted so quickly.

Of course we have not yet heard from the next-door neighbours.

 

[BritsKate]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. Ps: nice to "meet" you James

Law of averages? Personal experience? Statistical probability? I've read your links and wholeheartedly admit this could be a horrific tragedy (the father shooting his daughter was heartbreaking. ) but at this point - if I believe she screamed - in turn, I (at this point) believe he is guilty at least of culpable homicide. There is still a lot of trial to go though too.

The rate of femicide is high in SA...the rate of domestic violence and IPH (or intimate femicide) astonishingly high. So, I'm seeing it through that lens - and him being a reckless, idiotic, egomaniacal cowboy fits what I can envisage. Doesn't make him guilty...but definitely colours my personal opinion. The defence CIC may well blow me away. We shall see.

 

[james83]

I don't believe that was established. Did you hear Roux say they had forensics with the prosthetic material enmeshed in the door at the marks that the Col did not test? He also demonstrated that the bat could hit the door from a standing position as well.

And if it is the case that Oscar was on his stumps while breaking the door, other that to be a variance with Oscar's statement? What does it suggest about premeditation or other issues?

It surely has to suggest something because if it's true that he was on his stumps when he used the bat there has to be a reason why he would lie about it on his affidavit.
Maybe he couldn't carry her on his stumps so had to go and put his prosthetic's on to carry her after breaking the door down?, possibility but seems strange that he would lie about it.
For me it adds slight weight to the perhaps unlikely theory that he was going to dump the body.

 

[minor4th]

It surely has to suggest something because if it's true that he was on his stumps when he used the bat there has to be a reason why he would lie about it on his affidavit.
Maybe he couldn't carry her on his stumps so had to go and put his prosthetic's on to carry her after breaking the door down?, possibility but seems strange that he would lie about it.
For me it adds slight weight to the perhaps unlikely theory that he was going to dump the body and little else.

Right, there would seem to be no reason to lie about that point. And if it were true that he was on his prosthetics when he hit the door with the bat - there seems to be nothing beneficial there for the state as far as proving their case. and nothing incriminating for the defense.

For that reason, I believe that he was not lying about that - shored up by the fact that Roux said they have forensics that show he kicked door with prosthetics, and Roux made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness.

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

Question - do we know "whose" phone had the blood spatter on it?? I would think it would be Reeva's, since I've read that she had it with her in the toilet room

Where did you read that?

 

[JuneBug67]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. Ps: nice to "meet" you James

I think that part of it is that this just feels like a domestic violence case at first blush. That was certainly my first sense of it. Oscar needs a very particular set of circumstances to come together that are not necessarily intuitive, where it is easy to make sense of a man murdering his girlfriend in a rage. It's a matter of psychology that once an impression is formed about anything people tend to begin to look for information that confirms their initial belief. It's interesting really. Being open minded is a very active and deliberate thing. You have to work at it with awareness of the traps that can affect thinking and perception. Not always an easy thing.

I think I have been moved off my initial sense of 'guilty' to 'no longer sure' and listening because of the ambiguous nature of the testimony, its sometimes unclear presentation and Roux's effectiveness at demonstrating the fallibility of recall and perception.

 

[sorrell skye]

I don't believe that was established. Did you hear Roux say they had forensics with the prosthetic material enmeshed in the door at the marks that the Col did not test? He also demonstrated that the bat could hit the door from a standing position as well.

And if it is the case that Oscar was on his stumps while breaking the door, other that to be a variance with Oscar's statement? What does it suggest about premeditation or other issues?

I agree. Whether or not OP was on his stumps (I don't believe he was - I believe he was wearing his prosthetics) when he bashed in the door doesn't advance the State's case of premeditated murder, IMO.

What it does show (to me) is that the State's witness made a complete mess of the State's case where the Col's particular role as materials examiner is concerned.

I wasn't impressed in the least with the Col's testimony. He rambled non-stop, he was inept at explaining how & why he came to his conclusion, he seemed to conclude that OP was on his stumps when he bashed in the door (which goes against the State's case), he failed to include an addendum to his report after he learned of additional information (was he just being lazy, or what?) and, last but not least, it turns out he's not a certified tool mark examiner.

When he admitted to not being credentialed in tool marks, I realized why he hadn't seemed to know what he was talking about - because he DIDN'T know what he was talking about (with regards to the cricket bat damage to the door)! My jaw hit the floor.

His testimony was a total fail for the State, IMO. I was very disappointed.

Forensic evidence can make or break a case.

Tomorrow should be interesting as Roux continues his cross of him.

 

[Carol70]

I thought the doctor said that he wasn't sure if he heard the gunshots first or the bat first, that to him they sounded the same? If so, then it is not definite that he heard gunshots at 3:15.

Well, there we go....He couldn't tell the difference and wasn't sure what was the bat and what was shots?? Michelle burger was absolutely adament that she woke at 3am to screams and then gunshots(not the bat because she knows the difference), no matter how much roux tried to get her to change her story or admit she was unsure, she stuck to that...already a contradiction between the states witnesses. Im pretty sure the blood curdling screams didn't go on for 17 minutes else the doctor would sure have mentioned that and the guards that were doing their rounds at just past 3.

 

[Carol70]

I'm curious as to how many of those gunmen that have been treated with caution, etc have lied/changed their story as to what happened during the shooting. Did those gunmen also have a history of being reckless with guns like OP has?

Lol..none of these gunmen had their lives dissected in the courts, family giving interviews, ex wives/girlfriends coming forward etc etc, nor had a trial by media. There was only sympathy

Ps: I will add that these men shot and killed their children, mistaking them for intruders so it is a little different I guess. What I'm trying to point out is that from the minute that this hit the news, OP was deemed guilty, before any of the facts even came to light. I guess celebrity does suck.

 

[Carol70]

Part of it for me is his behaviour after the shooting, together with that comment from one of the Standers about keeping it out of the press. It smells of an attempted cover-up, although how that might have been achieved is unclear. I think it was very lucky that Dr Stipp had such presence of mind and acted so quickly.

Of course we have not yet heard from the next-door neighbours.

I don't think Op should be held accountable for things his neighbours say. Lol, I can imagine them wanting to keep it out the press for OP sake but knowing full well that was never going to happen. I assume they were friends since OP called them!

 

[Cherwell]

Roux's effectiveness at demonstrating the fallibility of recall and perception.

Well, that's the thing. I don't expect witnesses to have heard everything, noticed everything, remembered everything or interpreted everything correctly. Nor do I expect their accounts to tally exactly. Life's not like that. So I don't need someone like Roux hammering it home. It's the big picture that counts,and we haven't got all the pieces yet.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Hello from Australia. I've been interested in this case since the beginning, but the coverage here of the court case is not informative. So, I've come here to get some insights. I look forward to reading all you have to say.

Bobbie

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Well, there we go....He couldn't tell the difference and wasn't sure what was the bat and what was shots?? Michelle burger was absolutely adament that she woke at 3am to screams and then gunshots(not the bat because she knows the difference), no matter how much roux tried to get her to change her story or admit she was unsure, she stuck to that...already a contradiction between the states witnesses. Im pretty sure the blood curdling screams didn't go on for 17 minutes else the doctor would sure have mentioned that and the guards that were doing their rounds at just past 3.

I you don't mind Carol what about the precise a woman screams heard by all of the ear witnesses who were high profiled and
creditable , well educated lecturerer , doctors etc Do you think like Roux that what they heard was in fact Oscar screaming ? :tantrum:

All of us have surely heard mens and womens screams from near or far distances ? Very simple. Just close yr eyes and think of a woman screaming for her life ?is it anything like a man screaming ? Or the contrary ? :facepalm:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I do not recall the testimony as the guards doing rounds at just after 3:00am.

I also do not recall Roux saying there was evidence from the prosthetic in the door. I recall him say evidence of a sock.

 

[Carol70]

Thank you Carol and nice to meet you to
I can't speak for the masses but my own opinion on why he is guilty is firstly i find it very very improbable that his first reaction upon hearing what he believed was an intruder wasn't to make girlfriend aware, and by aware i mean awake, personally i would consider this to be a natural reaction, it would have taken seconds to make her aware, it could even have been done when he was picking his gun up, would anyone really charge out of there bedroom with a gun without making there partner aware?, it just wouldn't happen.
Secondly instead of waking her up in a calm manor as i believe anyone would, in his story he decides to wait until he is on his way to the bathroom before shouting out to Reeva(in his own words he was to scared to turn the bedroom light on but happy to shout???).
Also would he really give no warning to whoever he thought was in the toilet?.
Why fire 4 bullets?, surely if you have to fire you would fire once and listen?.
Just my opinon but to me it is obvious this was murder.

But let me be clear i fully respect your opinion and anyone else who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks, and I hear you. It's quite unbelievable that anyone could be so stupid.
But I look at it like this, my family have been victim to a home invasion, I was asleep on the couch when the intruder/s more than likely stood over me, I cannot even begin to imagine what I would have done if I had woken at that moment, I like to think that I would have just pretended to carry on sleeping until they left but something tells me adrenalin would kick in and it would not be possible to control my actions. And I would have probably been left with a whole lot of "could have, would have, should have" kwim? I honesty don't know and in no hurry to test the theory anytime soon

 

[james83]

Well, there we go....He couldn't tell the difference and wasn't sure what was the bat and what was shots?? Michelle burger was absolutely adament that she woke at 3am to screams and then gunshots(not the bat because she knows the difference), no matter how much roux tried to get her to change her story or admit she was unsure, she stuck to that...already a contradiction between the states witnesses. Im pretty sure the blood curdling screams didn't go on for 17 minutes else the doctor would sure have mentioned that and the guards that were doing their rounds at just past 3.

But if i recall correctly, didn't the doctor say he was woken by 3 shots followed by a woman screaming 2 or 3 times, followed by 2 or 3 additional shots?(fit's perfectly with the door as seen today), it doesn't seem a stretch to say the doctor could have missed the first shot if he was woken by shots, that's perfectly understandable.
Burger woke up just after 3 to loud female screams followed by 4 in her words gunshots.
There accounts don't seem to be that different considering they were in different locations.
Was Burger pushed on how long after 3 she heard screams?, "just after 3" seems open to interpretation.