Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

BIB


If he didn't want a confrontation why on earth did he not leave the bedroom by its door and trigger the alarm to bring help (which few people really believed had been set because, had he set it, the outside beams would have triggered an intruder). We learned that the bedroom door did not lock properly because he used to jam his cricket bat against it to stop it being opened. Of course, even if it had been locked he could have used the key and left the property. He could have used his phone to call the guards, taking only seconds to do. I am afraid I think your comment of not wanting a confrontation is a non-starter. His disposition was all about wanting confrontation - think of the number of times he got involved in physical and verbal disputes. His problem with anger management failure is well documented.

I don't think any of this matters. In SA law, people in their own home are not expected to run away at the first sign of an intruder. So going towards the 'intruders' shouting for them to get out is not against the law and does not invalidate his defense.

 

[GR_Turner]

BIB - yes, they might have been armed. But OP was pointing a gun right at the closed toilet door. He had the advantage over the "intruder" - the "intruder" who would have have known he was going to get shot the second he came out. Who do you think had the advantage here? The intruder, shut in the toilet, or OP armed and screaming outside the door, knowing he could just blast away as soon as the intruder made an appearance? He didn't even wait for the person to do that! The door didn't even open. OP's account of how he thought he heard wood move or the door handle move, still didn't give him carte blanche to shoot and kill the person behind it when he was actually not under any threat at all. Plus the toilet door opened outwards, so there was practically zero chance in hell of the intruder being able to overcome the armed "guard" outside. You really think his actions were worthy of a medal? Killing someone who had absolutely no chance of escape? When he never even caught a glimpse of this alleged intruder?

I never said anything about his actions being worthy of a medal. Posters keep arguing about how the poor intruder would have stood no chance and how in control OP was but that's only because you are starting from the point that we know what happened imo and doesn't take the reality of the situation he thought he was in into account. Suppose you were in his position, it's dark so you can't see properly, it's the middle of the night, you think there's an intruder close by, intruders routinely attack, torture and kill in SA and you are a double amputee who can't physically defend himself against any able bodied attacker whether armed or not. I can see how he might have just panicked in that situation.

 

[GR_Turner]

..i agree with that....apart from that there was nothing "split second" about the whole affair....the way i see this is if we can show just how many elements don't make sense with the intruder version then that can only lead to a cover up story for having shot RS on purpose. ...he's already put his foot in it by not saying that he gave a warning..

I think this kind of thinking is at the heart of those wishing to see him convicted of DE of the intruder. All the arguments about him being in control, blasting at a helpless intruder etc seem ultimately to boil down to a lack of acceptance that that's what happened.

So once again we are back to the argument that he must have known it was Reeva. I see that no one from your side of the argument (except one poster some time back) replies about the phone times and the state putting the shots at 3.17. It's as though you have all forgotten how bad the state's heads of argument were at putting their evidence together (what were the first 'shots' on their account?) but just as one accept the state's case uncritically.

 

[Colin de France]

I never said anything about his actions being worthy of a medal. Posters keep arguing about how the poor intruder would have stood no chance and how in control OP was but that's only because you are starting from the point that we know what happened imo and doesn't take the reality of the situation he thought he was in into account. Suppose you were in his position, it's dark so you can't see properly, it's the middle of the night, you think there's an intruder close by, intruders routinely attack, torture and kill in SA and you are a double amputee who can't physically defend himself against any able bodied attacker whether armed or not. I can see how he might have just panicked in that situation.

No, i think it's pretty clear that he didn't panic at all.....he picked up his gun, followed the wall to the bathroom at the same time shouting get out, all this in the dark, didn't feel the need to set off the alarm, there was no panic there, fired at the door....the idea of him shouting out in that situation does seem a little too out of key though.......

 

[Colin de France]

I think this kind of thinking is at the heart of those wishing to see him convicted of DE of the intruder. All the arguments about him being in control, blasting at a helpless intruder etc seem ultimately to boil down to a lack of acceptance that that's what happened.

So once again we are back to the argument that he must have known it was Reeva. I see that no one from your side of the argument (except one poster some time back) replies about the phone times and the state putting the shots at 3.17. It's as though you have all forgotten how bad the state's heads of argument were at putting their evidence together (what were the first 'shots' on their account?) but just as one accept the state's case uncritically.

....i have a problem with the witnesses having woken up because they heard something, it's very difficult to pin down one way or the other simply because to have woken up because of a noise implies that part of the noise was heard whilst asleep thus making the total amount of noise "heard" difficult to precise ....having said that i am convinced that a womans scream was heard....as for times of the screams i have at least five clocks in my home and not one is of the same time ....

 

[GR_Turner]

I find I disagree with virtually everything you write. It is almost as though we "attended" two different trials.

I don't think it's as though people on different sides attended two different trials, it's about whether you can accept the possibility that OP basically told the truth or not and look at the evidence with an open mind. So many of the arguments in favour of the state's version boil down to 'I don't believe the witnesses who heard screaming can be wrong' despite their distance away, despite their phone calls on the state's own version proving that it couldn't be Reeva, despite Mrs VdM's evidence that she mistook his cries for those of a woman and despite the failure of the state to put their evidence together.

I didn't see 'FromGermany's message, now deleted, about the role of emotion in people's reaction to this trial, but I think there is altogether too much on the 'pro-state' side of the argument. On the other side, there are people who just think there are too many problems with the state's version to accept it - and I'm not talking about weird people on both sides who either want him dead or believe he can do no wrong, by the way.

 

[Colin de France]

I don't think it's as though people on different sides attended two different trials, it's about whether you can accept the possibility that OP basically told the truth or not and look at the evidence with an open mind. So many of the arguments in favour of the state's version boil down to 'I don't believe the witnesses who heard screaming can be wrong' despite their distance away, despite their phone calls on the state's own version proving that it couldn't be Reeva, despite Mrs VdM's evidence that she mistook his cries for those of a woman and despite the failure of the state to put their evidence together.

I didn't see 'FromGermany's message, now deleted, about the role of emotion in people's reaction to this trial, but I think there is altogether too much on the 'pro-state' side of the argument. On the other side, there are people who just think there are too many problems with the state's version to accept it - and I'm not talking about weird people on both sides who either want him dead or believe he can do no wrong, by the way.

...that's why all this is going to be looked at again.....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It was in his mind and no one proved otherwise.

Sorry, HIS mind is cowardly and devious and had been proven unsuccessful but very, very clear.

 

[Trotterly]

Sorry, HIS mind is cowardly and devious and had been proven unsuccessful but very, very clear.

This is what I mean. You have rubbished OP but have offered no evidence that his state of mind was different to that which he claims.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think it's as though people on different sides attended two different trials, it's about whether you can accept the possibility that OP basically told the truth or not and look at the evidence with an open mind. So many of the arguments in favour of the state's version boil down to 'I don't believe the witnesses who heard screaming can be wrong' despite their distance away, despite their phone calls on the state's own version proving that it couldn't be Reeva, despite Mrs VdM's evidence that she mistook his cries for those of a woman and despite the failure of the state to put their evidence together.

I didn't see 'FromGermany's message, now deleted, about the role of emotion in people's reaction to this trial, but I think there is altogether too much on the 'pro-state' side of the argument. On the other side, there are people who just think there are too many problems with the state's version to accept it - and I'm not talking about weird people on both sides who either want him dead or believe he can do no wrong, by the way.

I came to this trial right at the beginning, knowing nothing about the man, and thought it was almost certainly an accident. However, once I listened to the Bail Hearing and then him giving evidence the overall opinion I held was that he lied extensively under cross examination. Even the judge alluded to his dishonesty but seemed to forgive him. It was so obvious to me that he consistently tailored his evidence. I am sure he had great regret at killing Reeva but I am convinced there was an argument where Reeva was giving him an earful. She was definitely not the sort of girl to just take bad behaviour without comment. In fact she could be quite feisty. IMO VDM heard this.

I also believe the Johnsons heard Reeva screaming. There is an animal reserve in the same area as the Johnson's and it is known that the animals could be heard on OPs estate calling from that distance. I don't agree with your interpretation of the state's evidence but we have all been over this so many times.

I think the state clearly made their points in their Heads of Argument, repeated here for clarity. There was time for Reeva to scream.

Copied from the Prosecution Heads of Argument, Point 137, page 76

“Based on the evidence of Burgar, Johnson and Stipps we respectfully submit that the court will find that:

· There was no screaming before the first noises, described as gunshots but there was screaming before the shots in the region of 03.17

· A woman’s petrified and blood curdling screams were heard before the gunshots (second sounds on Stipp’s evidence). It was a woman screaming intermingled with a man screaming

· There were no screams after the gunshots (second series of sounds)

· The light in the bathroom was on at the time of the first sounds

· Mr Johnson made a call at 03.16 and the shots were fired shortly thereafter

· Mr Stipp made a call at O3.15

· The Johnson and Stipp couples heard the shots fired in the region of 03.17 and those were the shots that killed the deceased”

 

[GR_Turner]

No, i think it's pretty clear that he didn't panic at all.....he picked up his gun, followed the wall to the bathroom at the same time shouting get out, all this in the dark, didn't feel the need to set off the alarm, there was no panic there, fired at the door....the idea of him shouting out in that situation does seem a little too out of key though.......

Maybe he didn't set off an alarm because he thought the threat was imminent and that the guards wouldn't come quickly enough. Same as why he didn't put his legs on. I think you fall into the trap of seeing the whole event with hindsight and not second by second has he would have done.

 

[GR_Turner]

....i have a problem with the witnesses having woken up because they heard something, it's very difficult to pin down one way or the other simply because to have woken up because of a noise implies that part of the noise was heard whilst asleep thus making the total amount of noise "heard" difficult to precise ....having said that i am convinced that a womans scream was heard....as for times of the screams i have at least five clocks in my home and not one is of the same time ....

Me too - for the clocks. But you miss the point of the phone times evidence. We know that Mike and his wife heard male crying (not sobbing, more like high pitched wailing) before his call to security at 3.16. So OP was crying out before 3.16 and for some time. We know that Burger/Johnson heard approximately 5 minutes of female screaming and 'shots' after the phone call he made to a different security number at 3.16 that lasted 58 seconds. Many have pointed out that these may have been on different clocks and that's true but the key point is that the state who bear the burden of proving their case didn't produce the phone logs for Johnson that could have proved their case if in fact the times are wrong. Why not? It can only be because they wanted to lose (!), were unbelievably incompetent or because the phone logs don't prove their case - I can't see any other explanations for that failure. They put the time of the shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's evidence, the evidence so many posters want to ignore, it seems. So it's not about different time stamps or clocks, it's about the choice of the state to not produce evidence they could easily have obtained and put to the court if it helped them.

 

[GR_Turner]

I came to this trial right at the beginning, knowing nothing about the man, and thought it was almost certainly an accident. However, once I listened to the Bail Hearing and then him giving evidence the overall opinion I held was that he lied extensively under cross examination. Even the judge alluded to his dishonesty but seemed to forgive him. It was so obvious to me that he consistently tailored his evidence. I am sure he had great regret at killing Reeva but I am convinced there was an argument where Reeva was giving him an earful. She was definitely not the sort of girl to just take bad behaviour without comment. In fact she could be quite feisty. IMO VDM heard this.

I also believe the Johnsons heard Reeva screaming. There is an animal reserve in the same area as the Johnson's and it is known that the animals could be heard on OPs estate calling from that distance. I don't agree with your interpretation of the state's evidence but we have all been over this so many times.

I think the state clearly made their points in their Heads of Argument, repeated here for clarity. There was time for Reeva to scream.

Copied from the Prosecution Heads of Argument, Point 137, page 76

“Based on the evidence of Burgar, Johnson and Stipps we respectfully submit that the court will find that:

· There was no screaming before the first noises, described as gunshots but there was screaming before the shots in the region of 03.17

· A woman’s petrified and blood curdling screams were heard before the gunshots (second sounds on Stipp’s evidence). It was a woman screaming intermingled with a man screaming

· There were no screams after the gunshots (second series of sounds)

· The light in the bathroom was on at the time of the first sounds

· Mr Johnson made a call at 03.16 and the shots were fired shortly thereafter

· Mr Stipp made a call at O3.15

· The Johnson and Stipp couples heard the shots fired in the region of 03.17 and those were the shots that killed the deceased”

Quoting the state's HoA doesn't make your point. Where do they address the evidence of the close neighbours and the phone times? They even contradict themselves or rather they would if they had acknowledged properly the limitations of their evidence - Dr Stipp made a phone call at 3.15 a while after the shots they put at 3.17. He then made a phone call to 10111 at 3.17 just before hearing the same shots which agrees with the estimate of 3.17 based on Johnson's phone call.

You say that Reeva was feisty and wouldn't have put up with nonsense but this sort of argument is fanciful imo. Posters think that he was behaving badly towards her and yet she continued to date him, and more, wrote a card to say she loved him, suggesting further commitment. So either she actually was happy to put up with nonsense or the relationship wasn't really that bad. Incidentally, her previous boyfriend said she was never the kind of person for fights or arguments - yet you have no problem with the idea that she was shouting at him for around an hour without his voice being heard at all. Isn't this just being selective in the evidence you choose to believe?

I also knew nothing of him before the trial but was struck by his unnecessarily detailed explanation of what happened given just a few days after the event and reckoned that he was either totally sure the evidence would back him up or he was a total fool. As it turns out, the ear witness evidence, much of which was unavailable to OP or his defense team at the time the affidavit was written, does back him up. If the state are right about what happened, then he got incredibly lucky that the Stipps heard 2 sets of shots when only one occurred and that the phone times make the state's case impossible, don't you think. Or maybe the evidence backs him up because it's what happened.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This is what I mean. You have rubbished OP but have offered no evidence that his state of mind was different to that which he claims.

No one can offer evidence to that; it's simply a matter of belief.

 

[Colin de France]

....oh for a good jury..... he would have gone down for twenty years...

 

[Trotterly]

No one can offer evidence to that; it's simply a matter of belief.

This is a common misunderstanding. Intent must be proved by the state and this can obviously only be in the mind of the accused. Evidence is from the testimony of the accused and/or by his actions.

 

[Colin de France]

This is a common misunderstanding. Intent must be proved by the state and this can obviously only be in the mind of the accused. Evidence is from the testimony of the accused and/or by his actions.

......another hallucinogenic reply.....what do mean exactly by "the state" ! Are you referring to the police enquiry or the judge or the jury or what ?

 

[Trotterly]

......another hallucinogenic reply.....what do mean exactly by "the state" ! Are you referring to the police enquiry or the judge or the jury or what ?

You appear to have accepted that the state has to prove the intent in the mind of the accused but for some strange reason are now questioning the definition of the state which has been manifestly obvious to all the participants on this thread until now

 

[Sherbert]

Me too - for the clocks. But you miss the point of the phone times evidence. We know that Mike and his wife heard male crying (not sobbing, more like high pitched wailing) before his call to security at 3.16. So OP was crying out before 3.16 and for some time. We know that Burger/Johnson heard approximately 5 minutes of female screaming and 'shots' after the phone call he made to a different security number at 3.16 that lasted 58 seconds. Many have pointed out that these may have been on different clocks and that's true but the key point is that the state who bear the burden of proving their case didn't produce the phone logs for Johnson that could have proved their case if in fact the times are wrong. Why not? It can only be because they wanted to lose (!), were unbelievably incompetent or because the phone logs don't prove their case - I can't see any other explanations for that failure. They put the time of the shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's evidence, the evidence so many posters want to ignore, it seems. So it's not about different time stamps or clocks, it's about the choice of the state to not produce evidence they could easily have obtained and put to the court if it helped them.

BBM

No, we don't know this. This is the Nglengethwas' interpretation of what they heard and you have chosen to accept it.

I don't see how you can simply gloss over the fact that, apart from one loud bang, followed by a man wailing, the Nglengethwas didn't hear most of the loud noises that, on OP's own version, must have occurred that night; noises, which, moreover, were detected by the State's witnesses, lending credence to the accuracy of their version.

As a matter of logic, if such close neighbours as the Nglengethwas somehow managed to miss the gunfire and the cricket bat strikes, there is no reason why they may not also have missed Reeva's screams. And yet, we are repeatedly informed that, had Reeva screamed, they would have heard her, due to their advantageous proximity.

On your version, how can it be that the Nglengethwas, wide awake, close by, and listening intently, heard Oscar wailing after the last shot but failed to hear the bat strikes?

You seem to set great store by the fact that a non-witness heard OP crying after the event and proceeded to correct his wife's assumption that it was a lady crying; yet, you blithely ignore the fact that a Defence witness stated on oath that she was wondering 'what happened to the lady'.

It goes without saying that it is enormously disappointing that Nel didn't pick up on this slip. But, my question is, why have you also chosen to gloss over it?

It isn't clear to me whether you are trying to establish the truth of what happened that night or whether you are merely discussing whether or not the State proved its case.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This is a common misunderstanding. Intent must be proved by the state and this can obviously only be in the mind of the accused. Evidence is from the testimony of the accused and/or by his actions.

bbm

Only IF nobody at the crime scene except OP, police and medical staff (instead: countless "helpers"), IF testimony thruthful (changed minute for minute, untruthful), IF actions not faked (at least partially faked), IF content cellphones with original content (partially deleted from brother), IF judge on law side and objective and without regret "to possibly punch the poor boy twice".