Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[james83]

But you are making the mistake of assuming his story is a lie and basing the case around that.

Oscar did not fire the shots at 3:17 and no one says he did, other than Nel.

No i disagree, i simply put forward an alternative scenario to what the poster i responded to did.

 

[Gavel Rash]

BBM:
Better call "Saul". Right ?

Probably more help than Tex! Lol!


http://youtu.be/L6PJ1B_wBWc

 

[G.bng]

If the state has a theory of what the earlier gunshots were, if not gunshots, they are obliged to disclose that theory and make it part of their case. Nel has not disclosed any theory or made any kind of suggestion that the two sets of "gunshots" were anything other than the gunshots and the cricket bat hitting the door.

It is just not logical or reasonable to hold out for the state to put forth an alternate theory that is suddenly going to explain everything and make it clear that Oscar's statements are false. It's not going to happen - one has to be willing to accept the possibility that the state has little proof of their claims and that they won't be able to clearly show you that Oscar intentional killed Reeva.

All of these doubts that people are experiencing, wondering where is the smoking gun we're waiting for - that doubt exists because the state's evidence is not compelling enough and you want more. That, my friends, is reasonable doubt.

The state did declare their theory at that point of the evidence, i.e. that the shots were those at 3:17am, during Roux's cross of Dr Stipp, so I am not sure what you mean because as far as I can recall, and IMBW, at least in the final charging doc the State has not specified that one volley were bats and the other shots.

 

[james83]

Thinking about it Stipp said the 2nd sounds were during his call to security which was at 3:15:51 and lasted 16 seconds, so the 2nd set of sounds were between 3:15:51-3:16.07 weren't they?.

 

[Interested Bystander]

LOL, I read "psycho" and laughed.........sorry :blushing:

:floorlaugh:

 

[sorrell skye]

Hmmm... I don't recall that. And in the crime scene photo the toilet room window does appear to be open.

How would it support OPs case if the window were closed? Maybe it would make it harder for the 5 witnesses to hear Reeva's horrifying screams, or harder to differentiate between a man's voice and a woman's voice?

I don't recall both sides agreeing that the toilet room window was closed, either. I only recall that both sides agreed to the existence of a toilet room window after Van Rensburg - in his gloriously astute skills of observation (not) - told Roux that there isn't a toilet room window. :facepalm:

The photo you posted upthread depicts a toilet window that appears to be open (to me).

Here it is again:

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

I can only surmise that it benefits the Defense for that window to be closed (the small window on the far left), for the reasons you posted.

 

[G.bng]

Read those documents I posted upthread ^ They lay out clearly what the state's case and what their theory is and why. We do know exactly what the state's theory is and what they're trying to build.

If you are referring to the bail and further particulars docs there has been a lot of water under the bridge since so imo is the the final charging doc read at court that is the one to go on. I mean, at the bail hearing when the others were written there was no statement from OP and his missing mobile showing the calls to security and an ambulance had still not been handed over by the defence... I think.

 

[G.bng]

Well, now that I seemed to have monopolized the forum and cleared the room ....

You could say...

 

[jay-jay]

Something I noticed has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread and I don't think was picked up on .. a poster asked about the meal Reeva was going to cook and did she get around to making it. In answer to that, no she wouldn't have done because the meal she offered to cook was going to be on the Thursday (Valentine's Day) .. it wasn't on the Wednesday (i.e. her last day before being killed in the early hours of the following morning) .. so she never got as far as cooking that meal she had messaged OP about on WhatsApp.

 

[Viper]

sure ok. But unlikely given it was a frenzied bashing to break open a door, so undeniably loud. and you then have to introduce some "other" source of noise that was much louder for some reason. As i say with a presumption of guilt you can keep twisting and turning and striving for alternative explanations. The point of "occam's razor" is that it is usually correct to just go with the simplest explanation.

There were two events that we know of that made loud noises, and two sets of loud noises were observed.

Even if the bat was not loud enough to be heard (not likely) i still go back to the fact that the time nel contends for the shots (3:17) does not allow for all that must have happened after the shots but before op phoned at 3:19

BIB. LOL. I don't recall OP describing it that way! But I like your your description nonetheless! :smile: Also, the two small marks don't really support a frenzied bashing of the door panels out.

 

[jay-jay]

If anyone is up for a little mock trial of Oscar's upcoming cross examination by Nel, throw out questions you think Nel should ask Oscar that will reveal something beneficial to the state's case - and we'll see if we can come up with hypothetical answers that either that either expose Oscar's version as false or that explain it in a plausible manner.

I want to know where OP went and what he did when he went back upstairs, just after having brought Reeva downstairs and her dying in his arms. I'm totally baffled by someone who has just lost the love of their life would suddenly just get up and leave them and disappear off upstairs .. that just doesn't make any sense to me because I would imagine that most people in that situation wouldn't want to leave their dearly loved one for one second, let alone trot off upstairs the minute they took their last breath.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

What is interesting with bat after the shots theory is that there appears about a 10-15minute gap between the two set of shots according to witness statements ..If it were me it wouldn't take me a minute to break that door and get my loved one out for her life..(i'm a female)It just doesn't add up.. Kicking +putting legs+ hitting with the bat you can add that yelling ..that makes max 1-2 minutes ( BTW the affi explains that back and forths between the batroom and bedroom at great length to fill that time gap but no way :facepalm just too long to get her out..

3:00 Burgers woke up to screams then heard the shots
3:02 First set of shots Stipp heard
3:16-3:17 Second set of shots

 

[G.bng]

The collective testimony of all 5 ear-witnesses was as follows:

• Man and woman arguing,
• Bangs
• Woman screaming,
• Woman's screaming climaxing in terror, followed immediately by
• Bangs
• Silence

The collective physical evidence is:

• 4 gunshots through toilet door,
• 3 shots hit Reeva,
• Cricket bat hit door,
• Wood panels were ripped out of door after shots.

Killer is asking judge to believe:

• All 5 witnesses who heard a woman scream/argue are wrong
• Witnesses heard killer screaming like a woman
• All 5 witnesses are wrong about hearing gunshots.

Killer is asking judge to believe that the killer shot and killed a woman in his bathroom, then replicated the exact sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death.

The reason the woman presiding over the case is called a Judge is because she gets to use her judgment and decide if a) a reasonable person would fear for his life when hearing his bed mate go pee, b) if a proportional response to hearing somebody pee in the next room is shooting them dead four times., and c) if the killer is lying about his story to keep from being convicted.

Evidence presented to suggest killer may be lying and will be asked to explain:

• blood on wall behind bed
• blood on duvet
• projectile hole in bedroom door
• broken bedroom door
• dent on tub
• blood on watches
• failing to tell security he shot Reeva
• failing at any time to call police
• failing to consider Reeva might have been using the bathroom
• claiming to be aggressor and move into the bathroom
• claiming to be aggressor and shoot at somebody in toilet stall
• cell phone internet access at 1:48 am
• Food ingested by Reeva an hour or so prior to shooting
• text messages contradicting killer's portrayal of relationship
• killer's history of irresponsible use of guns
• killer's history of disrespecting authorities
• killer's failure to use cell phone to call for help while killer claims to be screaming out the door for help
• killer's claim that he was trapped inside his own bedroom from which he left after killing
• killer's claim he felt vulnerable holding a loaded 9 mm gun
• killer's claim he didn't see Reeva missing from the bed until after he shot her
• killer's claim that he hit the toilet door with the cricket bat after he put on his prosthetics
• killer's claim that he called out to phantom intruder to leave his house when intruder was trapped in the bathrooom
• killer's claim he told Reeva to call police when in fact killer himself never called police after killing Reeva
• killer's claim he had to sleep on a particular side of the bed because of a shoulder injury
• killer's claim that he knew Reeva was in love with him and couldn't be happier
• killer's claim that he woke up at 3:00 am and moved two fans into his bedroom
• killer's claim he spoke to Reeva shortly before moving the fans into the bedroom
• killer's reason for calling property manager instead of police or ambulance service
• killer's reason for calling security but not speaking
• killer's reason for answering call from security and not telling security he shot Reeva
• killer's reason for going to open front door while leaving Reeva upstairs bleeding
• killer's claim that Reeva died in his arms 10-15 minutes after he shot her in the head
• killer's explanation for why this night was different from the dozens of other nights people who shared his bed got up to pee
• killer's explanation for why he felt trapped in his own bedroom when clearly he had the ability to leave the room
• killer's reason for why he had the tantrum Reeva referred to in her text message
• killer's explanation for why bedroom door was damaged
• killer's explanation for why his prosthetic leg was damaged
• killer's explanation for additional bruises found on Reeva's body
• killer's explanation for his order for a stockpile of additional weapons and ammo
• killer's explanation of event that Reeva referred to on the text message that she was trying to console him about
• killer's explanation for what Reeva was doing while he was watching on his iPad
• killer's explanation for why iPads were synced
• killer's explanation for what he told Netcare
• killer's explanation for why he shot the gun out of the sun roof of car
• killer's explanation for why he discharged gun in a restaurant and asked friend to take the blame
• killer's explanation for why he didn't check the bed to make sure it wasn't Reeva in the bathrrom
• killer's explanation for why he didn't ask the person in the toilet if it was Reeva instead of telling person in the toilet stall to leave his house
• killer's explanation for the moment he decided to kill the person in the toilet stall
• killer's explanation for report that he scored in a rugby match after his prosthetics were ripped off by a defender
• killer's reason for having possession of illegal ammo
• killer's explanation for broken window
• killer's explanation for jean on ground below bathroom window
• killer's explanation for why he slept with doors to the deck open if he feared intruders
• killer's explanation for why he saw ladders outside, knew ladders might be able to reach his deck, and yet did nothing to secure the ladders or secure his deck
• killer's explanation for the alleged times he was victimized by criminals and why he never reported these crimes
• killer's explanation for why his sister retrieved a watch from the bedroom the morning of the shooting

Yes, if killer can explain all these things and have the judge think he's being truthful, he may not get convicted of premeditated murder and only be convicted of murder.

Nice post except that under SA law for the killing of a human being there are only two possibilities, i.e. a)"murder (intentional)" and b) "culpable homicide". The first includes premeditation, presumably because it goes without saying that if it was "intentional" it follows that it was "premeditated" even if as Nel stated, "premeditation" could be simply arming oneself with a gun, and/or walking 6 metres down a passage to a bathroom. jmo

 

[steveml]

Something I noticed has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread and I don't think was picked up on .. a poster asked about the meal Reeva was going to cook and did she get around to making it. In answer to that, no she wouldn't have done because the meal she offered to cook was going to be on the Thursday (Valentine's Day) .. it wasn't on the Wednesday (i.e. her last day before being killed in the early hours of the following morning) .. so she never got as far as cooking that meal she had messaged OP about on WhatsApp.

Yep, that's correct - it was to be a Valentines Day meal.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Ok, but I can't really think of any questions I think would trip him up or lead to some big reveal.

But here are some questions I would like to know the answers to:

Describe the locking mechanism on your bedroom door and the process for unlocking it. Does it require a key, a thumb turn, a foot mechanism?

Depending on his answer I might ask why he chose to travel down a blind corridor of however many feet, as opposed to unlatching the bedroom door and fleeing. (But I can also come up with a plausible reason that Oscar would give).

Describe the exact process of bringing the two fans in - how much did they weigh? were they plugged in or out? How long did it take? Describe the location of the sounds you heard from the bathroom in relation to the balcony.

Was there any light in the bathroom when you approached - ambient or otherwise?

so you can see the substance of what I was getting at by asking
"How long did it take you to bring in the fans". ?
I put it in a lay persons terms ,I can't ask questions in barrister talk so may be better bowing out of this and leaving it to Nel lol
One last thing he didn't hear any noise from the bathroom whilst on the balcony only after he came in closed the doors ,curtains and blinds

 

[jay-jay]

Also, could someone please clarify for me .. do they know exactly at which point OP is said to have started calling out to Reeva to call the police (if we take his version of events) while moving towards the toilet door. OP must've been making quite a bit of noise himself, I would imagine .. so why, if Reeva was in the loo taking a pee, did she not call out to OP something like "what's going on out there"?

So much of this seems to have taken place in complete silence .. either Reeva being totally silent in the toilet cubicle, and therefore not alerting OP to it being her in there .. and then OP being totally silent when apprehending the 'intruder', and thus not alerting Reeva to OP moving about doing something a bit abnormal for that hour of the morning in the bathroom area. It just doesn't ring true that in the quiet of the night, neither of them appear to have heard the other (if you take it from Oscars version of events).

The only one sound that was ever heard by either of them (in his version of events) was 'the intruder'/Reeva sliding the bathroom window open .. and that is pretty much it.

How does that work then?

 

[Viper]

what is interesting with bat after the shots theory is that there appears about a 10-15minute gap between the two set of shots according to witness statements ..if it were me it wouldn't take me a minute to break that door and get my loved one out for her life..(i'm a female)it just doesn't add up.. Kicking +putting legs+ hitting with the bat you can add that yelling ..that makes max 1-2 minutes ( btw the affi explains that back and forths between the batroom and bedroom at great length to fill that time gap but no way :facepalm just too long to get her out..

3:00 burgers woke up to screams then heard the shots
3:02 first set of shots stipp heard
3:16-3:17 second set of shots

^^^^this^^^^

 

[Rumpole]

BIB. LOL. I don't recall OP describing it that way! But I like your your description nonetheless! :smile: Also, the two small marks don't really support a frenzied bashing of the door panels out.

At that point... OP having realized he had just shot though the door with Reeva inside.... I think "frenzied" is likely?

Certainly more than tap the door and cough discretely...."ahem"

Two (small) marks that "Rickey Gervais" bothered to include photos of and comment on.. but other marks also... and a solid wooden panel wrenched out completely... and splinters and large shards of wood (some lost by the cops)... so I'll stick with "frenzied"

It's not the point though. It is a FACT that bashing your way through a solid wooden door with a cricket bat will make some noise. We can debate if anybody heard that noise, but not that the noise happened.

As they say... "When a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" :scared:

 

[G.bng]

At first I thought this was desperation from DT. But perhaps itis more sinister. At BH, maybe Roux and Co. thoiught beating PM charge was the best they could hope for. But maybe now they are shooting for complete innocence on all possible carages incl. culpable homicide with this [sea] change?

They must have thought long and hard about this very significant alteration of OP's BH affidavit. Again to me points to things going on beneath the surfcae.

I agree. I thought about it long and hard too. My conclusion; to cover a weakness in OP's testimony, i.e. the unreasonableness of automatically concluding the noise in the bathroom was an intruder and not Reeva and therefore not making sure she was safe before rushing gun in hand to the loo to shoot the imagined intruder. IMO, by saying he had spoken with her a short time before he went to get the fans it makes his error in not considering her being the noise in the bathroom much more feasible as a "genuine" error. jmo

 

[jay-jay]

IMO, by saying he had spoken with her a short time before he went to get the fans it makes his error in not considering her being the noise in the bathroom much more feasible as a "genuine" error. jmo

I don't really see how that works though because if he had 'spoken with her a short time before he went to get the fans' then surely, seeing as she would've been awake (and he knew she was awake), it's fairly likely that she might take that opportunity to nip out of bed to go for a pee .. and he should've twigged that.

For me, that makes it the complete opposite of a genuine error .. having her in bed fast asleep, snoring (or sommat), when he went out onto the balcony to fetch the fans in would make it more of a genuine mistake (if she had suddenly woken, without his knowledge, and nipped to the loo).