Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[steveml]

Not true, i totally believe the part where he says he fired the gun 4 times.

:nevermind:

 

[Rumpole]

So it took Oscar 17 minutes to get into the toilet?.

TYPO!!! :doh:

I have edited... please edit the quote of my post... or delete it :blushing:

Thanks for deleting, James. :tyou:

I did type "around 3:00" when I mean "around 3:10"

7 minutes between gunshots and bat shots. That make sense to me, but it could be give or take a minute or even more.

The STATE version with gunshots at 3:17 makes zero sense.. it is IMO disproved (beyond reasonable doubt) by their own witnesses and phone records.

 

[lisasalinger]

That's great. It's a job and a half but it does force you to question things. Plenty more of the trial to go yet anyhow.

FWIW I'm really impressed at the lengths that many have gone to get fully clued up with the case. It's so time-consuming to keep up with everything. I think Nel manufactured the break purely for the benefit of the forum :wink:

It is enormously time consuming and I typically go on hiatus from WS after one of these big trials I have a ridiculous amount of notes & photos that I access to come up with my beliefs. My friends think I'm nuts, but I think it's fun.

I was one of those people that strongly believed (and still do) that Zimmerman was not guilty, which was hugely unpopular. But I was meticulous at how I reviewed the evidence and stand firm to my belief. Sadly, the guy has behaved disgustingly since his acquittal but I never claimed to like him.

Regardless of how it may seem at times, I leave my personal feelings about the defendant out of it. I'm just very passionate about my stance once I have a feel for it.

 

[sorrell skye]

There is only a problem with timings if we assume that OP is telling the truth. And I'd really like someone to explain to me why we should assume any such thing. Presumption of innocence is not the same as assumption of innocence.

Of course it's possible - I would even say probable given the circumstances - that OP called Stander and Netcare before he broke the door open.

He knew what he had done. He was probably petrified of having to see what he had done. His initial reaction could have been that he simply couldn't face the reality of what he'd done.

He irrationally calls for help from the balcony (to who?) when there's a panic alarm in the same room. He then calls Stander - probably saying something like "Something awful's happened". I very, very, very much doubt he told Stander that Reeva was lying in the toilet, barely breathing and covered in blood because what decent human being would not instantly hang up and call an ambulance after hearing that? And we know that Stander didn't call them until Stipp was there. The most rational explanation for this is that Stander didn't know exactly what the situation was - Oscar didn't say because Oscar didn't know yet.

Likewise the call to Netcare.

This also explains the "everything is fine" as he didn't want them involved before Stander arrived, who may have to told him to wait till he got there.

I think OP then broke the door on his stumps, pulled her out into the bathroom on his stumps - then went and got his legs, went downstairs and opened the door, came back and carried her down. No bloody footprints on the carpets, because his feet had not walked in any blood.

If we believe OP, nothing makes sense. If we disbelieve OP, everything does.

Odd that, huh?

BBM

Excellent post!

Last night as I was trying to fall asleep, I realized that if OP had never written his bail hearing affidavit and if he had never written his plea statement, we would only have the State's version of what happened, based on earwitness testimony, security guard Baba, and forensic evidence/testimony, and I realized that the State's case makes perfect sense.

It's only when OP's version is added to the mix that the confusion arises because his version doesn't fit the evidence.

So, we're faced with 2 choices (that I can see):

1. Accept OP's version and reject the evidence

2. Accept the evidence and reject OP's version

 

[LemonMousse]

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

That's not true.

He said he shot Reeva. He did.
He said he yelled "help, help, help" from the balcony. He did.
He said he called Stander. He did.
He said he called Netcare. He did.
He said he broke into the bathroom. He did.
He said he carried her downstairs. He did.

Etc.

In fact, leaving aside the description of the murder itself (the misidentification, which has it's own inconsistencies) all of the things OP says happened, did. He's told one lie - the order that things happened.

If we spot that lie and then look at the rest of the evidence in the light of this we see:

No need to believe that three people really confused bat sounds with gunshots
No need to believe that three people mistook a man screaming for a woman
No need to believe that this person was talking in two tones of voice
No need to wonder why Stander didn't call an ambulance as requested
No need to wonder why Netcare would give appallingly bad medical advice
No need to wonder how a cricket bat can make the same level of sound as a gunshot between 10 to 24 times louder
No need to wonder why a smashed in door had no dents in it
No need to wonder why OP told security everything was fine

It all fits if you consider that OP told one lie - the order of what he did after he shot Reeva. And the reason he could have told that lie is because if he admits that he called Stander before even trying to help Reeva then he may as well just plead guilty.

One lie. That's all. A long way from disbelieving everything he says, right?

 

[lisasalinger]

I'm watching that Shapiro video right now and have to say it is totally fascinating how defense lawyers think! Love them or hate them, the process of defending a case takes some serious skill and creativity.

 

[Viper]

I'll try, but in my experience it is VERY rare that anybody is convinced of anything at a forum like this. It can be fun trying, but also very frustrating and it often gets personal and so not fun at all.

I have stated over and over that I am sure the gunshots were around 3:10 and that the bangs at 3:17 were the sounds of cricket bat on door. I see so much evidence for this just in PROSECUTION witness testimony I don't consider that to be an issue at all any more.
The screams that burgers heard, after they woke up having MISSED hearing the gunshots, were wails of anguish from OP... he stopped around the time he was banging the door. After that he had a VERY full minute or so, dragging Reeva to bathroom and phoning for help.

I see people speculating about all sorts of variations on details of events.. they are all a huge stretch to fit the State contention that the shots were at 3:17

OP's version of events is at least supported by his own testimony. Speculation about a different version of those events is speculation with nothing to support it. It is infinitely variable to suit and so pointless. IF the State want to suggest a version of events at odds with details that OP has testified to, they need to put it before the Judge, with the evidence that supports it.. else she will not be considering it. The Judge will not just think... I have my doubts about OP's version, I think I will go for any old version other than OP's version. She will accept OP's version and give it as much weight as she feels is due to OP's testimony in general.
OP is the only witness to details of events around shooting and the minutes after. His version stands unless there is credible evidence to contradict it. Just speculating anything that fits a preferred hypothesis is not evidence, and besides it wont be considered unless it is put before the Judge.

Thank you.

Ok, so how do you place the shots fired at 3:10? I don't have any information to put the shots that far back. And if it is the bat at 3:10 then OP waited much longer than what I took away from his Affidavit; there it appears things moved quickly or at least much more quickly than 10 minutes before he "beat down" the door. One last thing, what is OP doing for 10 minutes before he goes outside and screams (very high pitch)?

 

[minor4th]

I thought he was asked to estimate how long it was between the two volley of sounds he heard and he said 10 minutes.

He did.

 

[minor4th]

Could it have been the tub panel being hit ?

:dunno:

Sure but there's no evidence of that and it appears the panel was hit only once.

Or it could have been gunshots like they reported :dunno:

 

[minor4th]

I'm watching that Shapiro video right now and have to say it is totally fascinating how defense lawyers think! Love them or hate them, the process of defending a case takes some serious skill and creativity.

Can you link this please? I have seen others reference this but have not been able to find it. Thanks!

 

[lisasalinger]

Can you link this please? I have seen others reference this but have not been able to find it. Thanks!

[video=youtube;e1DfpuTHGYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1DfpuTHGYg[/video]

 

[LemonMousse]

"OP's version of events is at least supported by his own testimony"?

Did I read that right?

 

[steveml]

That's not true.

He said he shot Reeva. He did.
He said he yelled "help, help, help" from the balcony. He did.
He said he called Stander. He did.
He said he called Netcare. He did.
He said he broke into the bathroom. He did.
He said he carried her downstairs. He did.

Etc.

In fact, leaving aside the description of the murder itself (the misidentification, which has it's own inconsistencies) all of the things OP says happened, did. He's told one lie - the order that things happened.

If we spot that lie and then look at the rest of the evidence in the light of this we see:

No need to believe that three people really confused bat sounds with gunshots
No need to believe that three people mistook a man screaming for a woman
No need to believe that this person was talking in two tones of voice
No need to wonder why Stander didn't call an ambulance as requested
No need to wonder why Netcare would give appallingly bad medical advice
No need to wonder how a cricket bat can make the same level of sound as a gunshot between 10 to 24 times louder
No need to wonder why a smashed in door had no dents in it
No need to wonder why OP told security everything was fine

It all fits if you consider that OP told one lie - the order of what he did after he shot Reeva. And the reason he could have told that lie is because if he admits that he called Stander before even trying to help Reeva then he may as well just plead guilty.

One lie. That's all. A long way from disbelieving everything he says, right?

We haven't finished witness testimonies yet, and have heard none of the defense testimony. We're not even half way through the case.

Listing the points above makes the case look flimsier than I first thought. Four of the points are regarding ear-witness reports, that are not all consistent. Which ever way you juggle them, they don't all fall in line. I can juggle them to make them nearly fit, but why is Roux going to bother doing that?

I can't speak for things that haven't been proven in your list yet, and neither can you. OP has stated his actions and he does not agree with the charge of murder with premeditation. He is not legally bound to do so. I'm not in the habit of thinking that where there's any doubt at all it should automatically fall on the accused because...oh wait, what's that line that appears in the SA Bill of Rights again...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat It's a Latin term that translates as: 'The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies.'
This is commonly referred to as 'innocent till proven guilty'.

 

[Rumpole]

"OP's version of events is at least supported by his own testimony"?

Did I read that right?

Yes?

Despite what people might think of OP... his testimony is in evidence.. and it stands unless it is refuted.

People my consider that not much... but it's a heck of a lot more than pure speculation "I think such and such happened" with no evidence to support it at all.

 

[Rumpole]

With the State case mostly in...

Lets assume there are NO huge bombshells to come, just for this question.

WHO would say that OP is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of firing into the door KNOWING that Reeva was behind it?

And the Defence has not even responded yet.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

With the State case mostly in...

Lets assume there are NO huge bombshells to come, just for this question.

WHO would say that OP is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of firing into the door KNOWING that Reeva was behind it?

And the Defence has not even responded yet.

:fence:

 

[Rumpole]

:fence:

:fence: = NOT GUILTY

 

[Gbtaketwo]

:fence: = NOT GUILTY

I do realise that !!
But we do have more evidence to come and also just because I have given the benefit of reasonable doubt at this stage does not necessarily mean I actually think he is innocent or guilty lol
Sorry should have said ,I am purely referring to the charge of pre meditation not murder or culpable homicide

 

[Rumpole]

Thank you.

Ok, so how do you place the shots fired at 3:00? I don't have any information to put the shots that far back. And if it is the bat at 3:17 then OP waited much longer than what I took away from his Affidavit; there it appears things moved quickly or at least much more quickly than 17 minutes before he "beat down" the door. One last thing, what is OP doing for 17 minutes before he goes outside and screams (very high pitch)?

I already owned up to a typo and edited that post.
(Se previous explanation)

Could you delete your quote of it please?

I meant shots around 3:10

 

[minor4th]

Not quite accurate. In her testimony she gave the phone to her husband who rang the number she had on it for security. She did not have the security number for Silver Wood and wanted her security people to contact Silver Woods security BUT she had unfortunately selected the security number from where she had previously lived.

I agree they perhaps could have done more but it is untrue that they did not try to contact someone. You can listen to her testimony here:-

Oscar Pistorius murder trial Michelle Burger's testimony - YouTube

So they heard blood curdling screams, called security - then heard "gunshots" and just went to bed wondering if the woman's husband was shot in front of her?

I don't see where they called security or anything when they heard gunshots?