Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[minor4th]

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.

Yet, the prosecution has not proved it to be impossible or untrue.

 

[steveml]

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.

It may have little impact on the outcome of the case regarding the Black Talons, but it sickens me to think that a hand-gun used for supposed self defence was loaded with these. What on earth did he think he would need those things for? Bringing down intruding Rhino's?

 

[LemonMousse]

I really can't figure out where Roux's ballistic expert is going to go with his rebuttal.

Roux wants the head shot first because that would mean no screaming. But if that were the case, she'd have to be in a crouching position in front of the door and an injury like that would completely floor her. How then could the next shots, not aimed at the floor manage to hit her hip and arm?

I know Roux suggested he was leaning forward, but a fatal head wound is not going to see her straighten up to get hit through the hip.

Really odd and I can see why Mr Handsome....I mean....Capt. Mangena (sp?) was so confused by the idea. Because it's stupid.

 

[delilah]

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.

I agree on burden of proof etc. but a lot of what Roux has done is raise questions about issues that are relatively tangential to the case, a sign he really has nowhere else to go. That might have been enough to confuse and befuddle a jury of laypeople, but Masipa is smart enough and experienced enough to see through his bluster and grandstanding. (Perfect example was his cross examination of Burger and her husband).

The problem with OP pleading guilty to the other firearms offences would be that it would be an admission that he has a reckless and cavalier attitude towards guns - and a temper. Not sure how he's going to counter the convincing testimony against him on those counts.

 

[LemonMousse]

I really can't figure out where Roux's ballistic expert is going to go with his rebuttal.

Roux wants the head shot first because that would mean no screaming. But if that were the case, she'd have to be in a crouching position in front of the door and an injury like that would completely floor her. How then could the next shots, not aimed at the floor manage to hit her hip and arm?

I know Roux suggested he was leaning forward, but a fatal head wound is not going to see her straighten up to get hit through the hip.

Really odd and I can see why Mr Handsome....I mean....Capt. Mangena (sp?) was so confused by the idea. Because it's stupid.

 

[Trooper]

The judge will probably weigh up the cause and effect syndrome... was there an argument and was reeva's death the consequence of it?? its probable.. men and women all over the world argue the whole day long for years.. not all of these women get shot for it.. on the other hand. quite a fair number do ..


was reevas death the consequence of a terrible mistake on Oscar's part?? this is where Saaymans evidence is so compelling. . she was alive still, just, after the hip shot.. the first shot..

after that shot, it was no mistake.. It would be irrational for the judge to conclude that after the first shot, he is still mistaken in his original 'belief ' re an intruder..

its those last three shots in quick succession that destroys the concept that Oscar still thinks it is an intruder behind that door.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Ok, sure, one COULD walk around a bed in the dark w/out even looking at the bed, but WHY WOULD one do that, if they were about to confront deadly intruders? Wouldnt they want to verify that the noises were not being made by the girlfriend? THAT is the primary question that the judge is going to have to make, imo.

Is it reasonable to assume the noise in a bathroom is being made by armed intruders, when one has not yet cleared the girlfriend, who is supposedly only 3 feet away from the gun one is retrieving?

 

[Simply Caustic]

It may have little impact on the outcome of the case regarding the Black Talons, but it sickens me to think that a hand-gun used for supposed self defence was loaded with these. What on earth did he think he would need those things for? Bringing down intruding Rhino's?

Agree wholeheartedly about the ammunition. It's only purpose is to decimate, not wound, imo

Sent from my KFTHWI

 

[delilah]

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.

Has OP at any point claimed he was shooting to disable? I don't think he has. He has been charged with the premeditated murder of RS. If found not guilty, he can still be found guilty of premeditated murder, even if Masipa accepts he did not know it was RS he was shooting at. His defence is self defence, but even if it really had been an intruder in the toilet, he's still committed premeditated murder, has he not?

 

[Trooper]

It may have little impact on the outcome of the case regarding the Black Talons, but it sickens me to think that a hand-gun used for supposed self defence was loaded with these. What on earth did he think he would need those things for? Bringing down intruding Rhino's?

The Black Talon ammo component is part of the 4th charge against Oscar re illegal ammo ... all thru this trial, Nel has been running 3 other charges in conjunction with the premed murder.. all 4 charges will be adjudicated within this one trial.. Nel has got in some substantial licks in that respect in regard to those charges..

So it does have impact, indeed..

what did he need them for?? I dunno.. 2 individuals unconnected to each other both spoke in evidence, and oddly both used the same phrase.. that Oscar had a 'deep love' of guns.. now.. I don't pretend to understand a 'deep love' for a cold inanimate object.. I am presuming this 'deep love' had something to do with the emotion the object provoked in Oscar's breast, whatever... but I imagine that having secured, acquired these illegal Black Talon bullets, he was t.h.r.i.l.l.e.d... so thrilled he loaded up his personal and first choice d weapon with them.. the one he takes to bed with him..

make of that what you will !! Jungian or Freudian.. your choice!

 

[SMK]

Yet, the prosecution has not proved it to be impossible or untrue.

Well, it depends on how one perceives "reasonable doubt" (and this standard cause much confusion in the US). Is it reasonable to doubt that he knew it was she at some point? I don't think so. Many people in the US have been convicted when there is a margin for reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Italy found Amanda Knox guilty without proving her story was impossible or untrue.

 

[sorrell skye]

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..

Yes - and he only stopped shooting when her screams subsided, because he knew he had killed her.

I think if the 4th gunshot hadn't penetrated her skull, but some other part of her body that didn't cause total incapacitation, he would have kept firing until she was dead.

 

[Really?]

What about these facts aren't convincing?

• Four witnesses were awakened in the middle of the night and heard a man and woman arguing, terrified screaming followed by gunshots, ending in silence.
  
• OP admitted to firing four shots and killing a woman in his home at the exact time the witnesses heard the screaming and gunshots.
  
• OP's explanation is that witnesses did not hear the ACTUAL crime, but only heard him making noises that coincidentally replicated the sounds of the crime they didn't really hear.
  
• The security guard, Pieter Baba, called OP's house after it was reported shots came from the house. OP told Baba "everything's ok" and didn't tell Baba to call police or an ambulance.
  
• Neither OP or his friends who knew about the shooting called the police. They instructed Baba to call the police only after Baba showed up at OP's house in spite of OP telling him everything was ok.
  
• According to OP the shooting was caused by the ordinary event of RS getting up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.

State has prima facie case for premeditated murder. OP must now provide evidence and convince the judge that shooting RS was not a violation of SA criminal code.

Thank you for this.....I hope you never get tired of repeating the obvious...bringing it home so to speak.......thanks

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

This is why I don't believe his claim that he thought there was an intruder.

His historical pattern had been to consult with his bed partner.

I think if he believed there was an intruder, he would have consulted with Reeva, as he had done with S. Taylor.

I think he's using the intruder story to try to cover up a rage killing.

 

[LemonMousse]

I agree on burden of proof etc. but a lot of what Roux has done is raise questions about issues that are relatively tangential to the case, a sign he really has nowhere else to go. That might have been enough to confuse and befuddle a jury of laypeople, but Masipa is smart enough and experienced enough to see through his bluster and grandstanding. (Perfect example was his cross examination of Burger and her husband).

The problem with OP pleading guilty to the other firearms offences would be that it would be an admission that he has a reckless and cavalier attitude towards guns - and a temper. Not sure how he's going to counter the convincing testimony against him on those counts.

But the point is, these charges and him being found guilty of them would form no part in this particular trial - so the judge would not hear about them until after the trial is over. No one would be testifying in THIS trial about OP being stupid with guns.

Here in the UK it's very, very common for new details to be revealed after someone has been convicted. In the case if a man called Ian Huntley (convicted of the murders of two little girls), it turned out he had previous warnings regarding underage sex, but no one knew that until after the trial was over because it would have been regarded as prejudicial to reveal it to the jury.

According to those lawyers it would have been infinitely preferable for OP to admit to these charges and get them out of the way, but he didn't. And that is curious.

 

[lisasalinger]

Just going over all of my screen grabs from this week's testimony and letting my mind wander...

I don't believe it's coincidental that the blood spatter that is seen just above the headboard on the left side of the bed is right above where the gun holster is found.

I think it's very feasible that a fight had been brewing, possibly some chasing going on with this fight that may have involved locking the bedroom door (hence the damage there)... if they were smacking each other around a little bit, there could have been some bleeding generated... then Reeva runs and locks herself in the toilet room... Oscar is in the bedroom and grabs his gun, throws the holster down potentially spraying some blood off of him on to the wall at that point, and on to the duvet.

Just thinking out loud. I really have to believe that Nel is holding that additional spatter and explanation about the bedroom door close to his vest to reveal at a later time.

 

[Cherwell]

Yet, the prosecution has not proved it to be impossible or untrue.

The prosecution has not proved it to be impossible or untrue - yet.

 

[Trooper]

Yes - and he only stopped shooting when her screams subsided, because he knew he had killed her.

I think if the 4th gunshot hadn't penetrated her skull, but some other part of her body that didn't cause total incapacitation, he would have kept firing until she was dead.

aha. yes.. I'm convinced he shot her those last 3 times because she screamed..


re Freud.. I don't believe he said "Reeva , call the police.. '... my opinion only .. he wouldn't have trusted the police, he hated the police, they had the nerve to touch his gun!! ( Vaal River drive ) they touched his gun!!.

I think, when he made that statement, subconsciously he was thinking that SOME busybody called the police.. and wanted to make out that's what he would do. Strangely, when he was faced with a mangled and slaughtered body, ripped apart by his fave Black Talons, he doesn't call the police. His first instinct is to veer off from calling the police.. In fact, he never called the police at any time.

It just doesn't work out that he would instruct Reeva to call the police.. I doubt if that phrase is in his vocabulary.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Re; the jeans

I just looked at the jeans again. The bottom portions of both legs look like they are absolutely "flattened" and somehow don't look the same as the top portion of the jeans. Now we all know that nobody washed their jeans with a belt inside the loops. The only reason for a belt to be in the loops is they had been worn, then taken off.

This sounds crazy, but - if you wore a pair of jeans and the legs were all wrinkled at the backs of the knees, like they get, could you hold the jeans and dip the bottom portions of both legs into water - only up to above the knee area, then straighten them out nicely and hang or lay them outside to dry in the sun?

Another question I have: Do the windows in Praetoria not usually have screens? Did the bathroom window have a screen in place? Because with screens, no one could have thrown the jeans out of a window.

Also, just as an aside, if anyone knows, why had Oscar borrowed ladders from a neighbor? He does not strike me as the type to be doing household chores. (Someone links to a neighbor who will supposedly testify for the Defense saying that he loaned the ladders to Oscar. And also that at exactly 3:08am he heard three loud noises and thought it was thunder.)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42108&d=1395254059

 

[Really?]

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?

OK...this is an Excellent point.

Surely after the first shot Reeva would have cried/screamed out some type of noise.

Even a moan would most likely have a female sound.....any sound...a wounded sound.