I have revised and corrected the schematic showing the Bat/Gun/Kick scenario and added Oscar's Gun/Kick/Bat version for comparison. It's called GKB vs BGK and can be accessed via this
link. Let me know if you spot any errors.
I'll add a proper key to the various symbols later but most are self-explanatory. Lighter shaded symbols mean the person didn't undertake the action but reported that they observed it.
You are the reason I keep checking back to this thread. Fantastic work!
I like your question - "where does OP's version come from?" - as you touch on the legal theatre that counsel are engaged in.
It's of interest that the iteration of OPs version to finally reach "The Timeline" leaves interesting artefacts.
The first point to note is that if the Timeline were real - then since the night of the shooting, OP has been in a position to give the exact sequence of events.
Yet notably for a man relying on self defence there is no police statement. Americans will not find this strange but for example in England, one might say there are key matters that, if OP wishes to later rely on, he ought to have explained contemporaneously. Sadly law reform in RSA is behind the UK on that.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested;
So I don't find it particularly important he claimed she was an intruder immediately to witnesses, given the existence of such cases in the RSA media previously. Especially what he did not do was offer a contemporaneous explanation of how the "mistake" occurred. Especially what he did not do was ring the police.
The second point is that the guilt of OP on charges of murder turns either on there being no mistake, or him not acting within the rules of self defence.
As such (and hats off to Nel) it's the minutes leading up to the shooting that are most relevant, not what happens after.
Here is where you notice the genesis of OPs version from the bail version which correctly focusses on those moments.
During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains.
Notice the lack of detail in the statement as to number of bat strikes, and timings for events.
This is because the "timeline" won't be reverse engineered until after the witnesses make their statements and present in court (no trial by ambush!).
The curious thing about Roux's timeline is it conspicuously has nothing to do with the single issue at trial. Indeed based on his own timings, Roux will become super focussed on what happened after the shooting, and steer well clear of the freaking train wreck of OPs Cross examination on those moments leading up to the shooting.
How could Reeva have got in the toilet without OP knowing?
On this key fact - the defence significantly changes the version from being on the balcony to the fans business - all disproven by the crime scene photos. But the defence will simply get down in the weeds and not focus on this stuff.
I believe the genuine mistake of the witnesses (bats vs guns) simply opened a door for Roux at trial - as that mistake was revealed during discovery.
However Roux cannot create his timeline at this point - nor plead "but the timeline shows my client to be innocent!"
All along Roux faces a significant issue and that is how long should his timeline be, in order to match everything the witnesses heard.
Ideally Roux always needs the timeline to be quite short.
The buildup to the shooting obviously needs to be quick. And Reeva can't be left in the toilet too long.
But wait a minute.
The defence has always known (since discovery) what the actual timeline is.
So how come they were unsure whether Reeva was in the toilet for a couple of minutes, or five?
And how come Roux didn't know some of the key actions OP performed during this time?
Then we find further weirdness - why can't the defence identify when OP unlocked the bedroom door and deactivated the alarm?
After all - they did a complete re-enactment so those actions need to have occurred somewhere - and in a way which leaves no bloody prints.
So I tend to agree with your analysis.
The OPs first version - at the bail hearing - is from necessity.
The version at the opening of the trial is scarcely better - because Nel elects not to tell Roux what the State timeline is
So the final Official Timeline is essentially a big exercise in deflection combined with the need to deal with the screams.
However in his EIC - OP can't actually tell us correctly what the timeline is :thinking:
. How gullible the courts were. For me that marked Uncle A as being far from honest. Possibly a family trait? Oscar is known for getting drunk and causing aggravation. I think there were times when he was in serious training he had to lay off it a bit but drink and OP are synonymous.
