Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[weeeva]

If he felt so deeply vulnerable, why didn't he retreat to safety? And why on earth would a vulnerable double amputee go charging toward what he believed was an armed intruder intending on killing him and his girlfriend? :facepalm:

He has done it before on several occasions, so why wouldn't he do it again?

 

[Trooper]

He has done it before on several occasions, so why wouldn't he do it again?

he has ???? I didn't know. who saw it ?? ( and did that person or those persons who saw this or these events live to tell the tale??)

 

[shane13]

Is there any consensus here on what caused the blood spatter on the wall above OP's bed in the master bedroom? And what about the blood on the duvet?

 

[Trooper]

oh I agree totally , Sorrel.. if he could have picked up 2 guns he would have fired them , one in each hand.

if he was clever enough, he would have practiced firing with his prosthetic foot ,too, ready for the big day. Or night. Just because he could.

 

[soozieqtips]

Have you seen the video of the man comparing the sound of gunshots to the sound of a bat on the door? And the door he used was the exact same make and kind as the one Oscar has in his bathroom. He hit it loud enough to produce a noise that sounded an awful lot like a gunshot from a distance and the door was not in smithereens.

This is why we cannot use our own speculation as evidence. We can maybe and perhaps all we want. It means nothing regarding facts.

The video of the man using the bat and then the gun was taken in completely different circumstances, completely different. It was taken in broad daylight in an open field!! How can that possibly replicate an enclosed building in the dead of night? It can't. You say we can't use our own speculation as evidence, but you're using a video that doesn't recreate the scene at all.

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks for agreeing... :tyou:

...... that does not happen a lot around here :floorlaugh:

It is NOT a re-enactment at all. The door was not inside a small bathroom and a house... so clearly quite big differences. But as we both see... at least bat on door CAN produce a gunshot-esque noise.
I don't see that is in dispute given that Stipp heard two sets of noises that sounded like gunshots... even if you argue about which was which... ONE of the sets of noises was cricket bat.. that sounded exactly like gunshots (to Stipp with his experienced hearing)

It hasn't yet been proved that the cricket bat sound could have travelled as far as the gun shot sounds. Until they recreate the same scenario at the same time of day etc, then the idea that Stipp heard a cricket bat is just speculation and not evidence. I don't know why the scene hasn't been reconstructed to show exactly how far a cricket bat sound would travel compared with the gun shots.

 

[weeeva]

Actually you are leaving out what Nel is putting forth. The bat strikes were first - used scare/threaten Reeva. The gun shots came next. Insert Reeva's screaming bloody murder before OP opened fire and during subsequent shots. Then insert OP pathetically yelling from his balcony as a cover for his crime.

Respectfully, if you post something as "the only possible way it could have happened" and that is not fact but instead just your take on things it would be most courteous to state that that is only your opinion so that people, me, won't get confused.

Are you sure that Nel said that the bat sounds game first? I can't remember this being said by anyone. Mind you it is all too confusing for me now, my brain has shutdown.

 

[Rumpole]

Is there any consensus here on what caused the blood spatter on the wall above OP's bed in the master bedroom? And what about the blood on the duvet?

The State's blood spatter expert Colonel Ian van der Nest did not mention spots on the wall near bed, nor on duvet. So either they were not considered as even worth looking at, or else he looked and there was nothing worth reporting. In my view if he looked he should have said WHY they were not considered as relevant.That seems strange to me. Since the State has seen fit to enter the photos into evidence they should say why they now find them not relevant. Were they even blood spots??
We have photos showing spots... not confirmed as blood even. Certainly not confirmed whose blood. Not confirmed how old the spots are.

Similarly we have photos of bedroom door with a hole in it and some damage. Many ASSUMED that a hole was a bullet hole, but was it? The State ballistics expert did not report inspecting that door hole. Was it a bullet hole? Seems that if it was then the ballistics expert would have inspected it? How old was it? Not relevant apparently. It also seems the damage to that door not considered relevant either?

 

[shane13]

The video of the man using the bat and then the gun was taken in completely different circumstances, completely different. It was taken in broad daylight in an open field!! How can that possibly replicate an enclosed building in the dead of night? It can't. You say we can't use our own speculation as evidence, but you're using a video that doesn't recreate the scene at all.

That video is of little relevance to the issue of gunshots vs “batshots.”

To have relevance, it would have to come from inside a room that duplicates OP’s bathroom. Then it would have to duplicate all the structures in between the bathroom and the house where the sounds were heard. (The time of day may not be too significant, unless it relates to temperature and humidity variations, which could possibly have some minor influences.)

But, an additional aspect is the microphone and/or sound wave processing software.

It is quite possible to either use a microphone or software that, for example, could truncate sound pulses to make them sound far more similar than they actually are.

The fact that Roux brought up this youtube video may possibly be telling...
And I don't think I heard Nel object to this nonsense.
Did anyone?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is there any consensus here on what caused the blood spatter on the wall above OP's bed in the master bedroom? And what about the blood on the duvet?

Doesn't seem so. It hasn't been discussed much. I personally think it was splash from his bloodied hands/arms when he was moving things about to match his alibi.

 

[Dr Mattus]

But is it culpable homicide? I thought culpable homicide was where you acted negligently and involuntarily caused a death (like drinking and driving, or hunting with Dick Cheney - I kid).

But if you unload 4 hollow tips into a person who poses no rationale threat to you beyond being in your toilet, is that not murder? Would it not be murder if it was not Reeva behind the door?

Well it's a bit quiet in here so I thought I would see if I can answer my own questions.

According to this website that seems to know what it's talking about, even if you accept that OP didn't know who he was shooting, he was still guilty of murder.

Culpable homicide, like murderI is a form of unlawful killing. The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide.

Previously, South African case law took the view that a person who kills intentionally, but in mitigating circumstances, is guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. For example, where a man uses excessive force to defend himself from attack and kills his assailant, this would be culpable homicide. However, later decisions by the Appellate Division strongly support the trend towards excluding a verdict of culpable homicide where intent to kill is proved.

BBM.

So, all this arguing about bat shots and screams seems beside the point. If you go about firing 4 hollow tip bullets at someone without having ascertained whether the pose any threat, you are a murderer. You are a murderer whether they turn out to be your girlfriend or not. The prosecution does not need to prove this was done in anger in order to get a murder conviction. Though I imagine it will influence the sentence greatly if they do.

 

[shane13]

The State's blood spatter expert Colonel Ian van der Nest did not mention spots on the wall near bed, nor on duvet. So either they were not considered as even worth looking at, or else he looked and there was nothing worth reporting. In my view if he looked he should have said WHY they were not considered as relevant.That seems strange to me. Since the State has seen fit to enter the photos into evidence they should say why they now find them not relevant. Were they even blood spots??
We have photos showing spots... not confirmed as blood even. Certainly not confirmed whose blood. Not confirmed how old the spots are.

Thanks.

As you indicate, it is curious that the photos were clearly shown, and then no mention in the forensics experts' testimonies. It would almost seem --given those 2 aspects--that the Pros. appears to be weakening or warping its own case.

 

[james83]

That video is of little relevance to the issue of gunshots vs “batshots.”

To have relevance, it would have to come from inside a room that duplicates OP’s bathroom. Then it would have to duplicate all the structures in between the bathroom and the house where the sounds were heard. (The time of day may not be too significant, unless it relates to temperature and humidity variations, which could possibly have some minor influences.)

But, an additional aspect is the microphone and/or sound wave processing software.

It is quite possible to either use a microphone or software that, for example, could truncate sound pulses to make them sound far more similar than they actually are.

The fact that Roux brought up this youtube video may possibly be telling...
And I don't think I heard Nel object to this nonsense.
Did anyone?

My first thought on that video were it's just a guy trying to make a name for himself by getting shed load's of youtube view's and i am still of that opinion, it's a nonsense comparison.
Funny how Roux wasn't as quick to mention that the guy in that video's stance backs up Vermeulen's natural position claims.

 

[james83]

As soon as i saw that smashed in metal panel in the bathroom my immediate thought was there's the state's explanation for the first set of sounds, makes perfect sense.
This is surely the biggest issue for the state, what was the first set of bangs if as they say it wasn't gunshot's?.

 

[shane13]

Doesn't seem so. It hasn't been discussed much. I personally think it was splash from his bloodied hands/arms when he was moving things about to match his alibi.

Thanks.
Seems plausible.
But then you would think forensics people would have done much testng on these...

 

[Rumpole]

The video of the man using the bat and then the gun was taken in completely different circumstances, completely different. It was taken in broad daylight in an open field!! How can that possibly replicate an enclosed building in the dead of night? It can't. You say we can't use our own speculation as evidence, but you're using a video that doesn't recreate the scene at all.

The person doing the video (and people posting it) made it as clear as they could that it was NOT a reconstruction. That was STRESSED. It was not meant to be, nor purported to be, a reconstruction. Just a comparison of noises.

It's value is simply to DEMONSTRATE that indeed a cricket bat hitting a door can produce a sound something like the sound of a gunshot. Nothing more than that was claimed.

It demonstrated that extremely clearly.

 

[soozieqtips]

From that link you posted

. For example, where a man uses excessive force to defend himself from attack and kills his assailant, this would be culpable homicide.

At least we know for a fact that OP wasn't defending himself from an attack... and an imaginary assailant (who just happened to be the g/friend he'd spoken to moments before) was no threat to him shut in the toilet. I'd like to see him on the stand to explain more thoroughly why he thought it was acceptable to intentionally kill the unknown assailant behind the door without bothering to check where Reeva was. At the very least he's a very dangerous human being who should never be allowed to own guns again, or indeed, have anyone stay over, unless they're armed with a catheter and rustle-free sheets.

 

[Trooper]

Nothing.. but absolutely nothing tabled as evidence is irrelevant . It may appear so.. but do not be 'fooled'...

there is a roomful of people in both the offices of the prosecutor and the defence who's sole and only job , law clerks, police civilian professionals, etc, paid big bucks to assess relevancy.

 

[weeeva]

BBM

But the problem with this scenario, is that he himself was also RIGHT THERE, at the bed, where he had last spoken to Reeva. So why not take an extra half a second to check that she was still there? He was within a couple of feet of her side of the bed when he grabbed the gun.

Also, he had many sleepovers with women before. Hadn't he ever experienced a woman going to the toilet in the middle of the night? That makes no sense to me. Why assume it is an intruder behind the toilet door, instead of the much more logical assumption?

IMO< there is no excuse for shooting through that door before checking on his girlfriend's whereabouts. NONE.

The only explanation I have for this is that the time span was so short between him getting out of bed, not seeing or hearing Reeva getting up, hearing the noise, getting into panic mode and the fact that he has went in to this panic mode previously. That is the only way I can rationalize it.
I am not trying to make excuses for OP, not at all. I have no reason to make excuses for him. I don't even like the man.

 

[Trooper]

One of the nice things about a judge only trial is one gets the details at the end..

She is obliged under her mandate to give a detailed and extensive report on each witness for both the prosecutor and the defence, and each article, photo, bat, gun, casings etc, submitted as evidence, she reports on the demeanor and evidence the accused gives , weighing up which parts she rejects and which parts she absorbs..and weaves this into the reasoning behind the verdict she then gives.. In all this she is assisted by the assessors, the man and the woman who sit up there on the bench with her..

It can sometimes take a whole day. Bring a packed lunch. Every poster will get to hear and see which witness was more credible , which article was more believable, which theory was supported with the most facts..she will read it out and then it will be posted online for further dissection. She will go into fine detail as to how and why she reached these conclusions based on the evidence presented to her. ( something a jury doesn't do )

most likely she will do the guns and ammo charges first, weighing up this and that, and probably, but not certainly, she will give a sentence on those charges at the same time as the verdict on those charges..

then she will move on to the premeditated murder charge. same procedure, except for the sentencing..(depending on the verdict) Oscar will probably have to wait a week or maybe a fortnight for that to come down..provision will be made for all sorts of submissions.. victims family, his family, psychiatrists, possibly orthopedists, maybe a padre or some such, ( I'm presuming he is affiliated with a pastor or a vicar or a padre because of his 'dedication to God if Reeva lives' remark ) perhaps a friend. The Judge will decide which submissions are to be entered. She will state what mitigating factors , if any , have been taken into account , and any aggravating factors. Then she will announce the sentence of this charge and the over all sentence adduced from the 4 charges..

I'm expecting a fair bit of vomiting on that day, too.. Bring your own bucket.