Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[katydid23]

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.

It is evidence that makes me believe he is lying. He grabbed the gun underneath the bed, and never noticed that Reeva was not there? That seems impossible, imo. That is not a feeling or an emotion on my part. That is basic evidence that his version of events does not seem possible.

My common experience tells me that when I hear noises in the middle of the night, I do not shoot without KNOWING where my husband is. That is a common experience we would all share. We don't blindly shoot into a dark room without knowing who we are killing.

That is what makes me think he is not telling the truth. And the fact that he swears she did not scream. Who doesn't scream when they are being shot at by their lover, through a bathroom door?

I think I would make a great juror. I rely upon common sense and common experience to decipher the evidence given.

 

[Trooper]

When Col. Sales was testifying in regard to Ipad 2 and Ipad 3.. he didn't say he couldn't retrieve deleted history and information. . he said it was deleted... he then went on to say he retrieved ALL the info of both Ipads, . handed a copy of the info retrieved, and the Ipads ,1 and 2 over to the defence..

There is a further IPAD man up for testifying when court resumes.....

I go along with the testimony so far that there was a loud argument before the gunshots... does this follow that Oscar shot her because of an argument?? not necessarily.. the State has been at great pains to table evidence that Oscar is inclined to shoot his guns off in many moods.. for the hell of it in the restaurant.. out of spite and irritation on the Vaal River drive with Fresco and Samantha.. with annoyance he pulled a gun on the driver of a car that was behind him at the entrance gate to the estate..

Somebody further back in the posts..said they saw a game changing moment coming up very soon, I agree with that.. there was something extraordinary and totally out of the previous pace of the trial yesterday, Nel was zooming thru tabling the gorgeous Captain Mungheena's evidence then out of nowhere, Roux gave up after 10 mins of X-examine, then the Blood Spatter man.. racing thru getting it all tabled as evidence, then Roux , all at sea, 5 mins x-examine .... there is something afoot..

I wont go so far as to expect a plea change and plea bargain, but...... something has changed....

Its a public service holiday on Friday in SA.. so Nel has actually only asked for 1 days adjournment.. although it adds up to 4 days in total, taking account of the weekend.. his reason was.. he wants to 'reconsider the case'...


Last week, Nel asked for an extension of 3 weeks , and I think this was granted.. which would take it thru April... but suddenly, he expects to have his prosecutorial witnesses finished by next week.. this gives a hell of a lot of time to the defence witnesses. . I like it..

 

[minor4th]

In the roundtable discussion linked below, one of the lawyers said

"The Courts don't convict on the truth; they convict on the proven truth."

I think that is a great and accurate statement about burden of proof and the outcome of trials. If the State doesn't prove premeditated murder with actual evidence, then Oscar cannot be convicted -- irrespective of whether he is factually innocent or not.

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Also, the fact remains that he wasn't in any immediate danger. No one was coming towards him, he hadn't identified his 'target' and he knew someone else (Reeva) was in the house. He wasn't alone. I can't see the judge believing that someone as 'paranoid and fearful' as OP would sleep with his balcony doors open, and then, believing there was an intruder, march directly towards the noise.

And of course, how will he explain why he assumed there was only one intruder? He couldn't have known there was only one, yet as soon as he shot through the door, he wasn't in the least bothered about any other lurkers. His whole defence is based on his 'terror', and there he is sleeping with his balcony doors wide open, despite him saying he had a grave fear of intruders. The judge will have to decide if he's telling a pack of lies (which I believe he is, and has been from the start) or whether he's just a stupidly reckless trigger-happy idiot. Either way, Reeva is dead because of him.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Yes, I agree - but if you've gotten to the point of determining whether it was reasonable to believe there was an intruder, you've already assumed that is what he actually believed.

I actually think we are saying the same thing. Since there's no way to prove or disprove what Oscar actually believed (other than his own statements), then the inquiry is whether that was a reasonable belief.

 

[katydid23]

I am not sure that the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was premeditated murder, yet. But they have shown that he was reckless and irresponsible and his actions resulted in her untimely death. So I think he is doing some time, in the end.

 

[steveml]

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.

This is where the evidence comes into play. If we accept a fleeing scenario, we have to ask the questions - what from? why?. The law doesn't have leeway for us just to make a story up to fit the crime. It's designed so each side has a fair crack of the whip to prove their case, beyond all reasonable doubt. So the ultimate aim is to to remove all reasonable doubt. The problem is, if we make up a story to fit the crime without relevant evidence, we have added reasonable doubt.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Funny you mention that because I was just listening to it again and noticed the exact same point you did.

Here's the link:

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0

If you go to the home page and then to the "VIDEO" tab, there are many more discussions and recaps that are interesting.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Funny, because Sam Taylor said that on two occasions when OP thought there were intruders, he woke her up before setting off with his gun. Yet for some reason, he decided not to wake Reeva, or check where she was. He killed her instead.

 

[Trooper]

The judge is entitled to believe Oscar 'thought ' he heard an intruder.... and she probably will, its 50/50... what she will have trouble believing is that once he fired the first shot into Reeva's hip, added to the testimony of Reeva screaming, and the testimony by Dr Saayman that she possibly could have lived after that first shot.. now he knows its Reeva.. he then fires another 3 bullets.. this is where Oscar is a pre meditated murderer..

its not about one bullet. its about 4.. 3 of which hit the target, the 4th fragmenting and causing injury..

its about 1 bullet that alerted Oscar as to who exactly was behind that door, standing up , facing it

all shots after that 1st bullet are the pointers to Oscar not shooting at a perceived intruder.. it is just as credible to infer that he knew before the first shot, but nothing nothing nothing is going to boost Oscar's claim that he continued firing after the 1st shot thinking it was an unknown intruder.

 

[minor4th]

Funny, because Sam Taylor said that on two occasions when OP thought there were intruders, he woke her up before setting off with his gun. Yet for some reason, he decided not to wake Reeva, or check where she was. He killed her instead.

So you accept that he believed there was an intruder and that he did not intentionally and with premeditation chase Reeva down and shoot her in the toilet?

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I agree - but if you've gotten to the point of determining whether it was reasonable to believe there was an intruder, you've already assumed that is what he actually believed.

I actually think we are saying the same thing. Since there's no way to prove or disprove what Oscar actually believed (other than his own statements), then the inquiry is whether that was a reasonable belief.

RIGHT. And I think that is where OP runs into trouble. He made an unreasonable assumption. He did not rule out the other main possibility before firing a deadly weapon into the toilet.

I would have to assume that he had other girlfriends sleep over and they routinely used the toilet in the middle of the night. Why wouldn't he check the obvious before assuming it was intruders? Especially when she was supposedly laying 3 feet away from him.

I might 'believe' that the devil had control of my husband, so I needed to shoot him in his sleep. Even if I believed this, it does not make it a reasonable belief and give me the legal right to do so.

OP's belief that it was an intruder was erroneous and he did not do even basic diligence to verify the belief. All he had to do was look closely at the bed while he grabbed the gun. Not doing so was highly irresponsible and questionable.

 

[steveml]

It is evidence that makes me believe he is lying. He grabbed the gun underneath the bed, and never noticed that Reeva was not there? That seems impossible, imo. That is not a feeling or an emotion on my part. That is basic evidence that his version of events does not seem possible.

My common experience tells me that when I hear noises in the middle of the night, I do not shoot without KNOWING where my husband is. That is a common experience we would all share. We don't blindly shoot into a dark room without knowing who we are killing.

That is what makes me think he is not telling the truth. And the fact that he swears she did not scream. Who doesn't scream when they are being shot at by their lover, through a bathroom door?

I think I would make a great juror. I rely upon common sense and common experience to decipher the evidence given.

I'm afraid it's not impossible. Implausible? Yes. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible cannot be proven. In fact, the opposite can be proven. Somebody can show you how they can walk in the dark around a bed, and pick up a gun etc etc without even looking at the bed. I'm not defending OP, I'm trying to explain how law works. We can't substitute feelings or common experience for evidence. As much as they might be great attributes to have they can only be used in accordance with law.

 

[Harmony 2]

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.

Hi SMK! Good to see you over here taking part in this discussion... Barry Roux has suggested the crime scene was contaminated and I keep thinking about the Kercher crime scene where he would have a field day.

I agree with you that OP's story does not ring true.

 

[Trooper]

Bang... first shot, hits Reeva's hip.. she screams.... a minute pause at this point.. he knows its Reeva behind that door.. she slumps with her hip bone completely broken, is caught by the magazine rack.. then.. bangbangbang..

those last 3 shots were fired by an infuriated man who knew exactly who was behind the toilet door..

 

[delilah]

I've just watched the Sky summary of today's evidence.

Mangena's evidence was compelling. If you accept it, ie that the first bullet hit RS on the hip, second missed, third/fourth hit her arm/head (order of last two not certain) then it must have been premeditated murder; RS would surely have screamed after her hip bone had been shattered. Roux's attempt to say the bullets were fired as two double taps, ie in quick succession, could not, in Mangena's view, have caused the injuries - there had to be a pause that allowed RS to move and adopt the defensive position before third and fourth shots. Roux didn't seem to have any place to go once Mangena disagreed with his double tap point. He tried using Stipp's recollection of three shots in quick succession as backing up OP's version, but Mangena said that could only apply to the second, third and fourth shots, not the first; there had to be a pause between first and third/fourth.

If you accept Mangena, nothing else really matters - the argument, the cricket bat, the silent pit bull, the sequence of calls, police mishandling of the crime scene, sites viewed on iPads, etc. It will be interesting to see how Roux tries to deal with this in his case next week, with his own ballistics experts.

 

[steveml]

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.

Good post! It indicates exactly the point that it isn't good enough in law just to think that someone committed a crime, or even to be almost convinced. Burden of proof is paramount.

 

[SMK]

I'm afraid it's not impossible. Implausible? Yes. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible cannot be proven. In fact, the opposite can be proven. Somebody can show you how they can walk in the dark around a bed, and pick up a gun etc etc without even looking at the bed. I'm not defending OP, I'm trying to explain how law works. We can't substitute feelings or common experience for evidence. As much as they might be great attributes to have they can only be used in accordance with law.

All true, as far as it goes. But remember why he is on trial for premeditated murder at all: Police did not buy his story.

 

[steveml]

I've just watched the Sky summary of today's evidence.

Mangena's evidence was compelling. If you accept it, ie that the first bullet hit RS on the hip, second missed, third/fourth hit her arm/head (order of last two not certain) then it must have been premeditated murder; RS would surely have screamed after her hip bone had been shattered. Roux's attempt to say the bullets were fired as two double taps, ie in quick succession, could not, in Mangena's view, have caused the injuries - there had to be a pause that allowed RS to move and adopt the defensive position before third and fourth shots. Roux didn't seem to have any place to go once Mangena disagreed with his double tap point. He tried using Stipp's recollection of three shots in quick succession as backing up OP's version, but Mangena said that could only apply to the second, third and fourth shots, not the first; there had to be a pause between first and third/fourth.

If you accept Mangena, nothing else really matters - the argument, the cricket bat, the silent pit bull, the sequence of calls, police mishandling of the crime scene, sites viewed on iPads, etc. It will be interesting to see how Roux tries to deal with this in his case next week, with his own ballistics experts.

How the 4 shots are perceived is certainly the major swinging point within this case so far. 1 shot - claim can be made that intention was to disable intruder. 4 shots, (independently or double-taps) you are shooting to kill.

 

[Trooper]

I very much doubt that Judge Masipa will not go along with Oscar's story, or at least will place those elements of it that are in the realm of speculation.. was Reeva in the toilet to relieve her bladder , or some other reason?? no one will ever know for certain, only Oscar knows that..

She will credit him with running on his stumps to the bathroom, she may even credit him with grabbing his gun and not noticing Reeva 's absence in the bed.. she may even go along with him bringing in the fans .....

But if she takes on the ballistic prosecution witness. which I think she will, she will depart from Oscar's version from that first shot fired thru the door, with Reeva , standing up, her shorts pulled up, facing the closed toilet door. .

He pulls the trigger... she screams.. .. this is the part where Oscar traverses the great divide from being a gun happy dip chasing down someone he thinks has scrabbled thru his bathroom window to being a murderous lying ex-gun happy dip. He fires a further three Black Talon bullets at Reeva.