Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[steveml]

That does not indicate guilt to me for 2 reasons: 1. He called Stander and asked Stander to call an ambulance, and 2. Immediately after his call to stander he called Netcare.

No indication that he was trying to hide the fact that he killed Reeva. How do you think it indicates guilt?

He could have just left it to the Stipps?..oh wait...

 

[minor4th]

Right so if you found your partner slumped over but alive you would phone someone else and ask them to phone an ambulance?.
Also if he asked Stander to phone an ambulance then how come Stander didn't phone an ambulance?.

Yes, I very well might do that if I had that person's number on speed dial and knew that I could rely on them to do as I requested. Sure.

 

[Viper]

Then why tell security, who was just outside his door, that things were 'fine?'

If he wanted things to go quickly, he could have told them to come and help him transport her to the hospital.

:goodpost: :loveyou:

 

[G.bng]

So it's not just that I'm trying to justify anything or convince anyone that he is definitely innocent - and I certainly do not think much of his character or personality from what I've heard. But it's the whole context that to me does not at all paint a picture of a guy who flew into a rage on Feb 13 and intentionally got his gun and killed his girlfriend.

At the risk of being blasted again by someone, in part I understand where you are coming from, however, I absolutely can paint a picture of a guy killing in a blind rage, for me it is the "intentionality" I can't tally it with albeit perhaps I use the word incorrectly. I believe OP could have shot at the door in a rage, a blind rage, a rage that gave him no time to reason or to think of the consequences which for me is constitutes without "intention". Otherwise what motive? What gain by killing her, to the contrary if OP is an abuser, as it appears he likely is, then by killing her he extinguishes the object of his control which as an abuser he needs to be able to thrive.

For the record, none of what I have written constitutes an excuse for OP, nor a mitigation if it is indeed what happened and imo murder would most certainly not be over charged as some opine. But that is just my opinion.

 

[steveml]

What says it all to me is OP shot through the solid wood door fired 4 times and hit RS 3 of that 4. (remarkable!) He didn't hear dogs barking (because some so called intruder ) didn't see an intruder because he was to frighten to open the light?????

Well to bad so sad you walk around with a big gun and use it on your invited guess. In my book that is murder no matter how you spell it. NO EXCUSES!!!!!JMO

We all agree it's murder...I think.

 

[kittychi]

I understand that OP is responsible...but the more I read it the more I think how crazy that none of those witnesses to his reckless actions saw them as serious enough to report at the time. Maybe he wouldn't of had any guns to shoot!!
Scary world we live in....

BBM: I think we underestimate OP's hero status in South Africa, how proud the entire country was of his achievements and how he brought such positive attention to SA. No surprise that friends would want to earn his favor so they could stay in his social circle.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Sam Taylor was used by prosecution to show personality traits of reckless gun use and also Oscars behaviour and reactions to his fear of intruders, documented now by Sam, reactions to that stimuli ie check with Sam if she was ok, against his so called reaction and behaviour on the night in question and reckless gun use without an eyed intruder.

 

[Gryffindor]

Curious about tomorrow's witness/witnesses after Moller resumes initially . . .

Plus, #jeansgate in garden, bashed bathroom metal plate and Reeva's phone with the backing case off . . dropped during 1st shot whilst trying to call for help?? Unanswered questions which are relevant , I think.

Conjecture imo

 

[Viper]

I'm still curious as to why Olwadge enquired about dogs barking when this hasn't even been mentioned by ANYONE, never mind Oscar. And certainly them definitely barking hasn't even been ascertained! Random . . .

Hence he moved on VERY swiftly haha!

Those dogs lived inside the home, they were not simply stationed in the backyard at night for security; they slept in OPs bed with him for heavens sake!

Poor things must have been scared to death seeing / hearing their master act like a mad man and Reeva screaming!

 

[katydid23]

I think Sam Taylor is a disgruntled ex who had an axe to grind - she was clearly still very upset about the breakup that was over a year ago, and she had tried to sell her big reveal to the newspapers before her lawyers could reign her in and retract her comments. Sam said he was a big meanie, basically, but it seems clear to me that she still wants to hurt him because he hurt her feelings by breaking up with her.

I don't think these texts corroborate anything about Sam's testimony. Sam was talking about him being shouty and yell-y and mean. Reeva describes passive aggressive behavior and immaturity.

Even if she is still upset by the breakup, that does not mean she was lying about his behavior. And in fact, her version of Darren taking the blame has now been corroborated by these texts.

And both of these women found OP to be jealous and petty and controlling. I don't agree that Reeva was only describing him as passive aggressive. She expressed fear of his anger and she had to leave that party. If he was being passively aggressive, she probably would have stayed. But she felt the need to leave because of his 'public tantrum.'

 

[Gryffindor]

Those dogs lived inside the home, they were not simply stationed in the backyard at night for security; they slept in OPs bed with him for heavens sake!

Poor things must have been scared to death seeing / hearing their master act like a mad man and Reeva screaming!

They weren't with him that night. I thought the impression WAS that they remained in garden???

 

[steveml]

Curious about tomorrow's witness/witnesses after Moller resumes initially . . .

Plus, #jeansgate in garden, bashed bathroom metal plate and Reeva's phone with the backing case off . . dropped during 1st shot whilst trying to call for help?? Unanswered questions which are relevant , I think.

Conjecture imo

Are those jeans still in the garden? If so, I'm going to remove them tonight and replace them with a red herring :smile:

To be honest, I got that confused with the jeans I was sort of hoping they'd just blown in off a neighbors washing line.

 

[james83]

That does not indicate guilt to me for 2 reasons: 1. He called Stander and asked Stander to call an ambulance, and 2. Immediately after his call to stander he called Netcare.

No indication that he was trying to hide the fact that he killed Reeva. How do you think it indicates guilt?

But stander didnt phone an ambulance.
It indicates guilt because it is simply not what an innocent person does, it is not natural.

 

[Gryffindor]

Are those jeans still in the garden? If so, I'm going to remove them tonight and replace them with a red herring :smile:

To be honest, I got that confused with the jeans I was sort of hoping they'd just blown in off a neighbors washing line.

Haha! Or return them to their rightful alien owners :scared:

 

[Lyra500]

Right so if you found your partner slumped over but alive you would phone someone else and ask them to phone an ambulance?.
Also if he asked Stander to phone an ambulance then how come Stander didn't phone an ambulance?.

Very good question. Whatever happened to the ambulance which OP claims he asked Stander to call?

 

[steveml]

Is it just me or has nobody in the forum ever shouted at their partner or stormed off in a huff, or left anyplace early, or sent a text if you've fell out?

Jeez, I must really live on the edge in this saintly world of ours.







* I don't really want you to tell me about your personal life

 

[crasshopper]

Edited to remove the first part of my post.

I look forward to seeing OP's call log and if it confirms he called a family member or Stander before security & if he called netcare at all.

I also find it odd that a world class athlete would MOVE THE VICTIM. When they injure themselves on the field, if they suspect it serious, they are instructed not to move, lest they compound the injury. I could understand placing a turniquet or pressure and towels, clearing the airway, CPR but moving her like that boggles my mind.

I am also very curious to find out if his or Reeva's car was really on/"running" outside, when Stander and security arrived or if that was simply a rumor.

Too much of his story doesn't pass the sniff test and thus far, in my opinion, the evidence has largely supported the prosecutions case.

I now have come to this conclusion although when the story first broke I thought it was an accidental shooting until the facts emerged. Cannot wait for the rest of the week. I'm developing a mild crush on Mr. Nel...

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Are those jeans still in the garden? If so, I'm going to remove them tonight and replace them with a red herring :smile:

To be honest, I got that confused with the jeans I was sort of hoping they'd just blown in off a neighbors washing line.

Mmmm red herring .... I think I prefer the alien option .

 

[G.bng]

I don't think the light was on before he shot the gun because there was gun powder residue on the lightswitch in the bathroom - and to me that indicates that he had already shot the gun when he turned the light on.

Not wanting to be contrary here but I would think the other way around, i.e. if there was still gun powder residue on the light-switch then he had put the light on prior to shooting as if he turned the light on after shooting it would have rubbed the residue off... well probably not all of it, but I still don't see the logic of, there was residue therefore he must have turned the light on afterwards!

 

[Viper]

At the risk of being blasted again by someone, in part I understand where you are coming from, however, I absolutely can paint a picture of a guy killing in a blind rage, for me it is the "intentionality" I can't tally it with albeit perhaps I use the word incorrectly. I believe OP could have shot at the door in a rage, a blind rage, a rage that gave him no time to reason or to think of the consequences which for me is constitutes without "intention". Otherwise what motive? What gain by killing her, to the contrary if OP is an abuser, as it appears he likely is, then by killing her he extinguishes the object of his control which as an abuser he needs to be able to thrive.

For the record, none of what I have written constitutes an excuse for OP, nor a mitigation if it is indeed what happened and imo murder would most certainly not be over charged as some opine. But that is just my opinion.

OP never said that he was trying to shoot the door, he said he was shooting at a person he believed was an armed intruder that intending to seriously injure or kill him and Reeva. So OP was shooting at a person, not just a door. The intention is to kill, not only did he fire a bullet at an unknown person hiding behind a door but he fired three more, that shows his intention was to kill because any reasonable person would not do that unless their intention was to kill. So if it is his intention to kill and he does kill then that is murder.

Hope that helps.