Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[james83]

Gunshots that killed Reeva

But isn't that way to early in either's sides version of events?.

 

[minor4th]

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.

I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?

Even if the judge does not entirely believe Oscar's version, he will still not be convicted of premeditated murder if the State has not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, maybe she went to the bathroom to text and Oscar became enraged and attacked her (doesn't make much sense though) - but there is no evidence presented to prove that scenario. It's purely speculation about what "might" have happened - there are infinite scenarios that we could come up with to fit the evidence, but a possibility is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[steveml]

I agree with this. There has only been speculation about an argument between them, and that is not enough IMO

Thanks. I've made comment regarding conspiracy theories in previous posts, but these are purely my opinions - all input is great and useful as far as I'm concerned.

I simply respond as the case progresses, and try to keep unemotional about the accused, bereaved and their families. My opinion could well change again as the case progresses, as there's a lot more to hear yet.

As much as I may feel that OP is guilty of a specific crime, in the interest of justice I still need to be convinced. Somebody having a temper means very little unless this can fit in with your reconstruction of the events surrounding the crime. Similarly, if a piece of potential evidence doesn't show merit, even if it was a big part of the perceived story, you have to let it go. If we don't do this we have a fixed idea in our head of how the crime unfolded and refuse to be swayed from it.

I'm waiting for some big revelation, as I really though the state would have more up it's sleeve regarding this case. Without anything else, it's possible that the state won't achieve a conviction for premeditated murder. Purely my opinion tho.

 

[james83]

What reason could he possibly have for lying about putting his prostheses on before attempting to kick down the door and then breaking it through with a cricket bat?

I don't think your conclusion flows from the "no evidence of footprints" - his prosthetics had socks on them and it's probably that Reeva's body being dragged would obstruct any clear sock prints.

Only reason i can think of is perhaps he thought it would look bad to say thing's in his affidavit like "As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable".
And then a few lines later admit to smashing a door down with a cricket bat whilst on his stumps.
Just a theory.

 

[minor4th]

But isn't that way to early in either's sides version of events?.

I don't think so - we don't know what time Stipp heard the initial shots. We only know that he then heard screaming/crying or whatever and another set of bangs and called security at 3:16:51.

There's really no context for the timing of the initial shots because the only one who heard them was Stipp and he didn't give a time ..but I believe he estimated 10 minutes between the first bangs and the second set of bangs.

 

[minor4th]

Only reason i can think of is perhaps he thought it would look bad to say thing's in his affidavit like "As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable".
And then a few lines later admit to smashing a door down with a cricket bat whilst on his stumps.
Just a theory.

That does not really explain why he would lie about something like that - especially considering either 1) he was telling the truth, or 2) he would have been trying to construct a believable lie to fit the crime scene, so unlikely he would lie about such a thing.

I really don't think he would be able to forcefully swing a cricket bat and break through a door on his stumps -- don't know for sure but just don't see any reason he would lie about that. I also don't see how it helps the state's case at all if he was on his stumps and not his legs when he broke the door.

 

[james83]

That does not really explain why he would lie about something like that - especially considering either 1) he was telling the truth, or 2) he would have been trying to construct a believable lie to fit the crime scene, so unlikely he would lie about such a thing.

I really don't think he would be able to forcefully swing a cricket bat and break through a door on his stumps -- don't know for sure but just don't see any reason he would lie about that. I also don't see how it helps the state's case at all if he was on his stumps and not his legs when he broke the door.

Yeah the whole episode with the bat stumps/prosthesis felt a bit pointless, just added more confusion imo.

 

[james83]

I don't think so - we don't know what time Stipp heard the initial shots. We only know that he then heard screaming/crying or whatever and another set of bangs and called security at 3:16:51.

There's really no context for the timing of the initial shots because the only one who heard them was Stipp and he didn't give a time ..but I believe he estimated 10 minutes between the first bangs and the second set of bangs.

But for Oscar's story to be true, how can he explain the lets say for arguments sake 8-10 minute gap between the 3.08(gun shoots) and 3.16(Bat sounds)?.
I'm more lost than ever, lol.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks. I've made comment regarding conspiracy theories in previous posts, but these are purely my opinions - all input is great and useful as far as I'm concerned.

I simply respond as the case progresses, and try to keep unemotional about the accused, bereaved and their families. My opinion could well change again as the case progresses, as there's a lot more to hear yet.

As much as I may feel that OP is guilty of a specific crime, in the interest of justice I still need to be convinced. Somebody having a temper means very little unless this can fit in with your reconstruction of the events surrounding the crime. Similarly, if a piece of potential evidence doesn't show merit, even if it was a big part of the perceived story, you have to let it go. If we don't do this we have a fixed idea in our head of how the crime unfolded and refuse to be swayed from it.

I'm waiting for some big revelation, as I really though the state would have more up it's sleeve regarding this case. Without anything else, it's possible that the state won't achieve a conviction for premeditated murder. Purely my opinion tho.

Exactly so. My mind has changed on different aspects many times throughout the trial. I'm neither convinced of OP's innocence or his guilt at this point. All I can say is that I do not believe the state has made its case for premeditated murder, and the mere suggestion that they might have had an argument is evidence of nothing.

 

[minor4th]

But for Oscar's story to be true, how can he explain the lets say for arguments sake 8-10 minute gap between the 3.08(gun shoots) and 3.16(Bat sounds)?.
I'm more lost than ever, lol.

I don't know because we have not heard his testimony, but even if there's time for which he cannot sufficiently detail his every movement, that does not mean his version is untrue.

And even if the judge doesn't entirely believe his account, that is not proof of premeditated murder or even culpable homicide.

 

[steveml]

Yeah the whole episode with the bat stumps/prosthesis felt a bit pointless, just added more confusion imo.

I could be wrong, but I feel that Nel was playing a bit of a guessing game with Roux regarding the prosthesis. There was initially a great deal of speculation that there was going to be a bit of a 'false limb shootoff' between Nel and Roux, as both were claiming opposing theories. Nel left it very late in court to tell Roux 'actually the state is claiming he wasn't on his prosthesis'. This was the total opposite of what had been leaked to the media, and it's likely a big chunk lot of Roux's case time was spent on this. A typical slam-dunk on the defense.

 

[james83]

I don't know because we have not heard his testimony, but even if there's time for which he cannot sufficiently detail his every movement, that does not mean his version is untrue.

And even if the judge doesn't entirely believe his account, that is not proof of premeditated murder or even culpable homicide.

No i acknowledge that it doesn't on it's own prove anything, just seems like a long gap in such a confined area, i would imagine putting on the prosthesis may take 60-90 seconds, can't see where the rest of the time went.

Something else i've just realised from today, Nel was talking to Mangena about the bullet holes and he asked him if the pattern of the bullets could corresponded with the sounds a witness heard which was bang pause bang bang bang, this is the pattern Michelle Burger heard, but i believe i am right in saying this was the pattern she heard for the first set of sounds, therefore i believe i'm right in saying that Nel at that moment contradicted his own version of events as the state claims the second set of sounds were the gunshots?.

 

[minor4th]

No i acknowledge that it doesn't on it's own prove anything, just seems like a long gap in such a confined area, i would imagine putting on the prosthesis may take 60-90 seconds, can't see where the rest of the time went.

Something else i've just realised from today, Nel was talking to Mangena about the bullet holes and he asked him if the pattern of the bullets could corresponded with the sounds a witness heard which was bang pause bang bang bang, this is the pattern Michelle Burger heard, but i believe i am right in saying this was the pattern she heard for the first set of sounds, therefore i believe i'm right in saying that Nel at that moment contradicted his own version of events as the state claims the second set of sounds were the gunshots?.

I don't know - there was some screaming like a woman and yelling for help in there, opening blinds and sliding doors, trying to kick down door, retrieving cricket bat and whatnot - we'll have to see what Oscar says in his testimony. Based on his court behavior, I could also imagine him running around in a state of frenzy and panic and doing nothing constructive for some period of time before he collected himself enough to break into the toilet.

 

[katydid23]

Even if the judge does not entirely believe Oscar's version, he will still not be convicted of premeditated murder if the State has not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, maybe she went to the bathroom to text and Oscar became enraged and attacked her (doesn't make much sense though) - but there is no evidence presented to prove that scenario. It's purely speculation about what "might" have happened - there are infinite scenarios that we could come up with to fit the evidence, but a possibility is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If she does not believe Oscar's version, then he is in big trouble. Because his version rests upon the assumption that he believed it was intruders in the toilet. If she does not believe that, then it is in fact premeditated murder, once he goes for the gun. JMO

 

[minor4th]

No i acknowledge that it doesn't on it's own prove anything, just seems like a long gap in such a confined area, i would imagine putting on the prosthesis may take 60-90 seconds, can't see where the rest of the time went.

Something else i've just realised from today, Nel was talking to Mangena about the bullet holes and he asked him if the pattern of the bullets could corresponded with the sounds a witness heard which was bang pause bang bang bang, this is the pattern Michelle Burger heard, but i believe i am right in saying this was the pattern she heard for the first set of sounds, therefore i believe i'm right in saying that Nel at that moment contradicted his own version of events as the state claims the second set of sounds were the gunshots?.

Yes, exactly - the state's case and presentation of witness testimony does not hold together internally.

 

[minor4th]

If she does not believe Oscar's version, then he is in big trouble. Because his version rests upon the assumption that he believed it was intruders in the toilet. If she does not believe that, then it is in fact premeditated murder, once he goes for the gun. JMO

Well, there is no way to prove or disprove that Oscar thought it was an intruder, so I think she kind of has to accept his version on that - unless there's going to be some evidence that conclusively proves he knew it was Reeva.

Her decision will then be to determine whether, believing it was an intruder in the toilet, Oscar's fear of imminent harm was reasonable under the circumstances so as to justify the shooting. On this, Oscar has a harder row to hoe.

 

[steveml]

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.

I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?

It really isn't good enough just to believe someone is lying. I hope I don't do something wrong and you're on the jury - I just have one of those guilty faces :wink:

Seriously though, in the UK a judge will always tell the jury that their verdict must be based upon their common experience of the evidence and the discussion that they may have about that evidence in the deliberation at the conclusion of the case.

If you couldn't pursue justice this way, you wouldn't be allowed on a jury.

 

[katydid23]

Well, there is no way to prove or disprove that Oscar thought it was an intruder, so I think she kind of has to accept his version on that - unless there's going to be some evidence that conclusively proves he knew it was Reeva.

Her decision will then be to determine whether, believing it was an intruder in the toilet, Oscar's fear of imminent hard was reasonable under the circumstances so as to justify the shooting.

I think she has the duty to decide whether it was reasonable to assume it was an intruder in the bathroom, when he had not yet looked to see if his girlfriend was in bed. I think it is unreasonable to assume there is an intruder in your home, if you have not yet checked on the other occupants whereabouts.

I do not believe that she has to accept his version, that he believed it to be an intruder, if there were no other corroborating facts to support that. The dogs were not barking, the ladder was not tall enough, it was a gated community, the bathroom window was very small, etc etc. And he had not checked to see if it was his girlfriend that was using the toilet.

 

[SMK]

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.

I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?

Right, his story just doesn't ring true.
1. If you hear a noise and suspect intruders, wouldn't you say to your partner sleeping beside you, "Stay here, I have to go get my gun and check this out." ? And when she didn't answer, you would realize she wasn't there, and it might be her.
2. If a woman gets up to pee in the night, why would she lock the door to the toilet area? It sounds more like she was fleeing him and locking him out.

 

[LemonMousse]

The lawyers talking in Minor4th's link a page back summed it up: a trial isn't about what's true, it's about what can be proven. Everyone, even the judge, could be certain that he knew it was Reeva, but if there's any doubt, then it hasn't been proven. Frustrating, but I know that if I'm ever on trial for a very serious offence, I want to make damn sure they prove their case against me. OP has the same right.

I don't believe him, and I do think the first witnesses were very credible and I believe that it's more likely than not that they heard Reeva screaming. Even one scream from her is enough to prove that his story is a fairytale.

But, if I was the judge and the trial stopped today, I would have no option but to find him not guilty of premeditation, because Roux has done his job well and raised a fair amount of doubt.

But he is still a murderer. He shot to kill someone very recklessly - and SA law seems clear that the danger has to be evident (you have to see that someone is armed, or very likely to be). Someone simply being in your house is not enough on it's own. I hope he earns a long sentence.

Another interesting thing those lawyers said - that it was odd that Roux didn't advise OP to just plead guilty to the two gun/shooting offences. If he had, the sentences would probably be fines or minimal jail terms, and he would have been spared the very damaging testimony from Fresco and ST about what a hot headed, reckless young man he clearly is. I wonder if Roux did recommend that, but OP refused: "I always win"?

Minor4th - don't suppose you have a link to today's discussion on that programme, do you? I couldn't find one.