Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Val1]

Agree. That's one of the reasons I tend to give him benefit of doubt. It all happened too quickly for him to be able make up a plausible story. Well plausible to me at least.

Would it still be as plausible for you if you knew whether he had ever had the occasion to read about a case almost identical to the one he had presented initially?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407

 

[soozieqtips]

Either that or bribe Zwiebel with crumpets now through Shrien Dewani's trial.

I'm going to be following that one too. There was an excellent documentary about in on BBC's Panorama last year (or the year before). It was the first time I'd been able to really get a picture of what had happened. If you missed it, or want to see it, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZSc--n2PgQ&noredirect=1

 

[steveml]

Steve/ Rumpole

As part of the State's "argument" catalyst, what do you reckon they'll suggest the argument was about? They've zilch evidence so far presented.

It's anyone's guess.

Fan's probably, Nel should be well versed in fan's as we've spent days on them already.

I can only see him generalizing that a row occurred, as there's no evidence of any merit to suggest that there was an ongoing disagreement.
He could always go for the 'lack of evidence' tactic and suggest the lack of Valentine's present from OP was a catalyst for a fight.

He's got a bit of a hill to climb to make this one stick,

IMO

 

[Gryffindor]

BBM

Exonerate means to: absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, or to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime.

How do anyone's theories of guilt prove that OP is not guilty?

I said exonerate his interpretations (of events) .

Not his guilt or non guilt.

 

[Rumpole]

Steve/ Rumpole

As part of the State's "argument" catalyst, what do you reckon they'll suggest the argument was about? They've zilch evidence so far presented.

Good question

They can no just cobble together a lot of "What if" as posters at a forum have the luxury of doing.

They have to provide some reasonable hypothesis. When the argument started. What it was about. How did it progress? Was OP chasing Reeva around the house, up and down the stairs, smashing windows and doors and firing an air rifle all done while on his stumps, as some have suggested? What will they offer as PROOF beyond reasonable doubt for that lot!!

Nel can not just pull a "What if" out of his.......... ear

 

[Gryffindor]

It's anyone's guess.

Fan's probably, Nel should be well versed in fan's as we've spent days on them already.

I can only see him generalizing that a row occurred, as there's no evidence of any merit to suggest that there was an ongoing disagreement.
He could always go for the 'lack of evidence' tactic and suggest the lack of Valentine's present from OP was a catalyst for a fight.

He's got a bit of a hill to climb to make this one stick,

IMO

Seriously, if they come up with nothing, well . . . enough said, eh? Thanks Steve x

 

[Val1]

Because they were back around on the other side of the bed past two fans and extension cords in a pitch black room.

Where he claims he had just been and was still within arm's reach of his legs... if he could see the jeans you can be sure he could have seen his legs, besides knowing from habit exactly where they were. I would actually call it more strange that if he was indeed sleeping on the left side of the bed for his poor shoulder, that he hadn't taken off and laid his legs on that side with the fan blowing on them there, it would surely have prevented such a traffic jam by the balcony doors. I think he was just trying to make it seem like he had to choose between his legs and his gun and wasn't paying attention to the big picture.

 

[BritsKate]

I'm going to be following that one too. There was an excellent documentary about in on BBC's Panorama last year (or the year before). It was the first time I'd been able to really get a picture of what had happened. If you missed it, or want to see it, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZSc--n2PgQ&noredirect=1

Her family had a huge problem with that show. Yet another bright, beautiful young woman dead at the hands of someone who claimed to love her. (I don't do reasonable doubt well.) If you're interested, Soozie, but thank you for the link - I haven't seen it yet - just know of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ni-Dewani-familys-anger-at-BBCs-Panorama.html
http://panoramabusted.wordpress.com/

(Sorry for the O/T everybody!)

 

[sorrell skye]

I said exonerate his interpretations (of events) .

Not his guilt or non guilt.

How do anyone's theories of guilt absolve OP of his interpretations of events?

 

[Interested Bystander]

The part of the fairy tale where OP says that Reeva told him to come to the bathroom with her to brush his teeth, he says he went and did that on his stumps, on the tile. I think he put that part in to imply he casually moves around all over the place on his stumps without worry. But then he later says he can't move around freely on his stumps, too unstable and also too dangerous on tile. Those two statements conflict with each other. Just more OP bs. If you look at it the "brushing his teeth" fabrication seems to go to try to answer why he would go after an intruder in his bathroom on his stumps.

Yes, I remember that and then OP went on to say he couldn't leave the bedroom because there was a slate floor. Why didn't Nel come up with "what about putting your legs on Mr P?" Logic seems to have escaped both of them

 

[Gryffindor]

Good question

They can no just cobble together a lot of "What if" as posters at a forum have the luxury of doing.

They have to provide some reasonable hypothesis. When the argument started. What it was about. How did it progress? Was OP chasing Reeva around the house, up and down the stairs, smashing windows and doors and firing an air rifle all done while on his stumps, as some have suggested? What will they offer as PROOF beyond reasonable doubt for that lot!!

Nel can not just pull a "What if" out of his.......... ear

Thanks Rumpole

Indeed, nothing tech wise, witnesses, tangible evidence. They're snookered . . .

 

[Lyra500]

It seemed to coincide with the copying and pasting of abusive tweets towards Reeva (which were removed as they were against TOS). No abusive tweets of OP were posted, only Reeva.

Yep, it did didn't it.

BIB. OMG! I remember exactly which forum member did that. She seemed to be ghoulishly enjoying reading those horrible tweets and then posting about them here, claiming them as fact. Clearly blaming the victim that died a vicious, violent, and horrific death is fine with some prople. Way beyond weird. Disgusting.

Yes, i too think I remember which individual copied and pasted great swathes of vitriolic and abusive comments about Reeva. It seemed really odd since i thought the same individual joined WS and claimed that they thought OP was guilty for some time until the posting and removal of the anti-Reeva stuff. Maybe I am getting confused though.

 

[Jodi Bon Jovi]

*OP said (I don't remember w/Roux or Nel), "I can barely stand on my stumps, much less wield a bat."
...........................................................................................................
* Medical study about mobility of leg amputees:
http://jbjs.org/article.aspx?articleid=17545

"The results demonstrated that in amputees there is an increased dependence on vision for maintenance of the erect posture. Postural sway in patients with below-the-knee amputations was found to be significantly greater than that in those with above-the-knee amputations. Postural sway increased with age; but the visual dependence for the control of postural sway was independent of age."
...........................................................................................................
OP no doubt had balance issues on his stumps due to his below-the-knee-amputations, but maintaining his balance was dependent on "vision"... in other words being able to see where he was going. No way would OP willingly navigate in the dark without turning on a light, especially to reposition fans, etc. And the light was on in the bathroom, just as the Stipps said, when he took aim and fired his gun at the cubicle door.

those fans look pretty big too. A lot bigger than a cricket bat but he carried them in on his stumps.

 

[Rumpole]

Thanks Rumpole

Indeed, nothing tech wise, witnesses, tangible evidence. They're snookered . . .

To quote Nel's own words ( When he lapsed into his famous Judge Judy Impersonation) :genie:

"I doesn't make sense"

And of course the Judge Judy corollary to that is..

It's not true.


Nel is likely not as daft as he seems at the moment. he KNOWS he can not make such a case and prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or prove it at all) and so that is why he is spending so much time going over OP's "version" He knows that the Judges deliberations will be focused on accepting OP's version, and considering his actions having conceded that he did NOT fire at the door knowing that Reeva was behind it.

He fired at an intruder (in his mind) and in effect he "missed" the intruder and hit Reeva by accident. I imagine that that will still leave a lot for the judge to consider. I also imagine that Roux will be arguing that it should be regarded as an "accident".

 

[Viper]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

Yes, i too think I remember which individual copied and pasted great swathes of vitriolic and abusive comments about Reeva. It seemed really odd since i thought the same individual joined WS and claimed that they thought OP was guilty for some time until the posting and removal of the anti-Reeva stuff. Maybe I am getting confused though.

No, you are not confused. Your memory is correct. That is exactly what she did.

 

[sorrell skye]

But Nel has to prove it, alas. You've misinterpreted my post, vastly. My reference was in no way regarding Oscar, sorry to disappoint ;-) Dramatized fiction of that morning, even the Brothers Grimm would be proud of - in some posts.

Though they are highly entertaining

BBM

Why is a discussion involving theories about OP's guilt & OP's ever-changing statements regarding the brutal death of Reeva "entertaining"?

I don't consider the fact that Reeva died a horrific, unjustified death at the hands of OP entertaining at all. I find it reprehensible.

 

[TrueDetective]

Hello everyone, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I'd like to share with you a possibility of what actually happened and I'm afraid were it indeed the case, Prosecutor Nel might not be pushing Oscar in the right direction to get the confession he deserves.

Here's my "theory" of what actually happened. It's neither Oscar's version nor Prosecutor Nel's.
1. Oscar had a row with Reeva on the Valentine's night and they went to bed late (or maybe early next day since forensic studies suggested Reeva might have taken food around 1am). The couple did not reconcile at the time of the sleep and they acted indifferently.
2. Reeva woke up early next morning and went to use the toilet (forensics indicated an empty bladder). She locked herself inside and stayed for a while, thinking/sobbing, during which time Oscar was still asleep.
3. After a while, Reeva accidentally knocked something and the noise woke up Oscar. Out of fear and guilt, Reeva stayed still and silent. Oscar, on the other hand, took it for an intruder and out of fear and self-protection, grabbed the gun and hurried to the door of the toilet. (I guess he never thought about Reeva at that moment. He did not check whether Reeva was in bed or awake. All his actions were for the sole purpose of SELF-protection.)
4. Pointing his gun at the door, Oscar was struggling about what on earth was happening inside. He did not ask "Reeva is that you inside?" lest he should disturb and expose himself to the intruder. He might have thought "what if it's Reeva inside" but he dared not go back to check lest the intruder might come out in any minute.
5. Finally out of sheer fear and the strongest motivation to protect himself out of any possible hurt, Oscar made the irresponsible decision "All right I'll shoot anyway (whether it's Reeva inside, I don't give a damn)"
6. He didn't meant to kill but the aftermath of the first shoot (screaming and noise) prompted his subsequent shoots. I think he was paranoid at the time.

In any case, I think Prosecutor Nel was not asking the right questions during the cross-examination. His version of Oscar's intentional murder of Reeva is not sufficiently backed up by the evidences anyway (it's a pity that the investigators messed up the scene).

That said, I suggested him take a step back and focus on the following question instead:
"Did you ever do anything to MAKE SURE it was NOT Reeva inside before you pulled the trigger?"
Or
"Were you 100 percent sure it was not Reeva inside when you pulled the trigger? And if indeed so, how did you know that?"

Welcome.
Cannot really understand the reasons for your theory though, even though you are entitled to it just as much as anyone else. If OP was in bed and not handily distracted with fan duty, he would absolutely know RS was not in bed and so know it was her making the noise. The whole fan story exists purely to separate them and make his narrative possible (if highly improbable).
I think individually we probably have come up with various parts of it close to the reality but the exact truth of it will likely always remain a mystery - unless pigs fly and he does the right thing. However, I am now certain that none of the close-but-not-quite true scenarios will involve any intruder or intruders...

 

[DebinGA]

those fans look pretty big too. A lot bigger than a cricket bat but he carried them in on his stumps.

Repositioning the fans was a bail hearing fiction created to make it seem like all was well when they went to bed at 10 p.m., slept peacefully until the heat woke OP up at 3 a.m., and he got up to bring the fans in closer. Why closing the doors would make it cooler I don't know, but it's not important imo because that didn't happen either.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why is a discussion involving theories about OP's guilt & OP's ever-changing statements regarding the brutal death of Reeva "entertaining"?

I don't consider the fact that Reeva died a horrific, unjustified death at the hands of OP entertaining at all.
I find it reprehensible.

BBM - and I think you speak for the overwhelming majority of us.

 

[kaos]

To quote Nel's own words ( When he lapsed into his famous Judge Judy Impersonation) :genie:

"I doesn't make sense"

And of course the Judge Judy corollary to that is..

It's not true.


Nel is likely not as daft as he seems at the moment. he KNOWS he can not make such a case and prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or prove it at all) and so that is why he is spending so much time going over OP's "version" He knows that the Judges deliberations will be focused on accepting OP's version, and considering his actions having conceded that he did NOT fire at the door knowing that Reeva was behind it.

He fired at an intruder (in his mind) and in effect he "missed" the intruder and hit Reeva by accident. I imagine that that will still leave a lot for the judge to consider. I also imagine that Roux will be arguing that it should be regarded as an "accident".

He didn't miss as there was no intruder to fire upon. He made no attempt to even discover if there was an actual intruder either.