Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Val1]

I think it could be Baba was mistaken or, as has happened to me a few times, it is also possible Baba was dialling OP at the same time and the line from OP connected while Baba was still dialling. Baba was so sure he phoned first and he seemed as honest as the day is long so that I am at least glad nobody appears to be calling him a liar as well, except Roux of course, because I just don't think he was.

I'm guessing any record of the calls from the buggy's mobile, where Baba had called from, have all poofed and we all know OP's 0020 cell disappeared for weeks into the defense's custody before it was made known to the prosecution and disclosed so you can be sure the defense had it "checked" it out by then. Hmm, perhaps evidence of that call is also in those recovered files from the 3rd cell phone that Nell made sure the Judge knew how to reference?

 

[Trooper]

we've all seen the last of Roux and Poor Kenny as Mr Savage ( but not making any home runs) until his closing address..


all the witnesses to come now are Oscar's.. Roux will be Mr Pussycat with them as he has to lead them gently but firmly without deviation along the path of the defence story.

Once he's done that, he has to pass them over to the silken soft hands of Mr Nel.. for x-examination. .

And Roux can do nothing , except non frivolous objections, and he certainly wont want to call the attention of the judge in matters that can be argued against successfully by Nel..

Nel has had many many magnificent cross examinations of a defendant and his/her witnesses throughout his long and distinguished career.. Oscar is small peanuts in comparison to quite a few other murderers Nel has taken on and won.. its worth looking up some of his past cases.. you'll be surprised..

 

[Val1]

It's a bit revealing that in the mark batchelor story, OP says he'll break the guy's legs, and calls another fellow adult male a 'boy', when he himself is boyishly good-looking. Other posters have probably commented on this already, that he seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, but maybe the obsession with guns is a Freudian thing.

I somehow doubt the "boy" comment was about looks, more likely a sneer aimed at someone for their "station" in life. ie. not an olympic athlete. As for an obsession with guns, I think that was a learned thing(his whole family is into guns from the articles I've read) that gained momentum as he discovered the power and adrenaline rush they provide.

 

[G.bng]

It's a bit revealing that in the mark batchelor story, OP says he'll break the guy's legs, and calls another fellow adult male a 'boy', when he himself is boyishly good-looking. Other posters have probably commented on this already, that he seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, but maybe the obsession with guns is a Freudian thing.

Freudian for mis... I was going for a bit of black humour here but I will resist as my better judgement just took over!

 

[Really?]

Well, we seem to be going round and round in circles about the meaning/relevance of the text messages .. some of us get it and it's ringing extremely loud alarm bells, but others aren't getting that and I doubt ever will, no matter which way you try to explain it .. so

.. can I go onto/back to the sliding window thing in the bathroom. Have any tests been carried out to see whether it is actually possible to hear the bathroom window slide, from just outside/inside the balcony doors, does anyone know? How noisy would a sliding window like that be and how likely is it that he would've been able to hear it from that distance, realistically?

good point about the sliding window........and exactly what noise does it make>

 

[Danta]

"A revolver is at his bedside. A machine gun by his window." From the following article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...nt-run-I-cheating-I-believe-purity-sport.html

 

[shane13]

I couldn't make out the name.

Thanks.

video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP04XYHGLuc

 

[Interested Bystander]

I put it to you that I am no more doggedly determined than any other poster here. We all have strong opinions and we all like to share them

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: You are right.

 

[Mango33]

I couldn't make out the name.

Thanks.

video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP04XYHGLuc

It was Colonel Motha, the same guy who was also taking photos, apparently with the same time stamps, as Van Staden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ius-murder-trial-March-18-as-it-happened.html

 

[LemonMousse]

Good grief.

A woman, in the course of a very traumatic event, is told by her husband that he can see a person moving. This forms part of her narrative and she relates it in her statement. Being an HONEST person, determined to give the best possible evidence she can she thinks, thinks, thinks long and hard and then VOLUNTARILY goes back to the police to explain that she has made a MISTAKE.

This shows immense integrity and reliability. A person who didn't care and who was intent on deceit would simply not bother, because who is to know to she didn't see a person moving?

Under no rational definition of the word can Mrs Stipp be called a liar, and I'm aghast at this flagrant misuse of the word.

To suggest that the judge will call her a liar and dismiss her testimony is stunningly naive. Whether certain people on this thread like it or not, Mrs Stipp's testimony is corroborated by three others.

And she forgot that she'd held a curtain back? So what? Human minds and memory are not concrete structures - anyone with any experience of the law and witness testimonies knows this.

This is real life, not an Agatha Christie novel to scratch through looking for clues. Four people heard a woman screaming for her life for the best part of 15 minutes. Know what's most likely? A woman screamed for her life for 15 minutes.

For those who have confused their need to be "right" with whether this man is guilty or not, try answering the following instead of wrapping yourselves up in fictions about lying witnesses:

If OP's affidavit is honest, where does it tell us that he did nothing but scream for 15 minutes before doing anything else? Before shouting from the balcony, calling anyone or breaking the door down? 15 minutes is a lot of screaming. Did he forget that? Oh wait - forgetting = lying, right? So OP lied about his screaming?

If OP shot Reeva around 3am, how come her heart was still beating 20 minutes later when he brought her down the stairs - which it must have been to account for the arterial spray? Saayman said she'd only have taken a few breaths. Hearts do keep beating for a little while after brain stem death, but 20 minutes? Unless, of course, Saayman is a liar and an incompetent fool, just like everyone else involved in this trial except the man who shot his girlfriend to death.

Perhaps you'd also like to explain the weird time warp that Dr Stipp found himself in. OP says he shouted "Help, help, help" from his balcony very shortly after he shot Reeva - it was the first thing he did, even before he broke down the door.

Dr Stipp heard a man shouting EXACTLY these words from EXACTLY the right place (the balcony is to the left of the bathroom, as Dr Stipp specified) but 15 minutes later than he should have done.

Any answers to these anomalies? Of course not - a woman forgetting she held back a curtain is of much more consequence, right?

It's also been pointed out several times that pre-meditation in this case simply means that OP knew who he was shooting behind the door. It does not suggest that OP "planned" a murder in the way it might mean in the UK or US. A red mist moment would still meet the pre-meditation criteria.

And, excuse me, but a man getting angry with a woman mentioning an ex or touching another man's arm all in the first few weeks of a relationship are very big red flags for emotional instability. I'd also point out that past behaviour only goes so far when predicting violence in a relationship - at some point every single abuser hit someone without ever having done so before. According to the "logic" on this thread, this is an impossibility. If you haven't done anything like that before, it's impossible to ever do it?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think you got given a compliment ;-)

'Another doing the rounds is of a man who reported his car stolen. After questioning by Roux, however, he was no longer sure he had ever owned a car.'

Like it. Good to see a little humour injected. :floorlaugh:

 

[Really?]

Stipp, Stipping, to Stipp, .. = to fabricate, to lie willfully, to deceive, to be deceptive, to muddy waters, to pretend to inform , to collaborate in a lie..

OMG...I have to walk away for a sec.....I can't stop laughing..:floorlaugh:

 

[steveml]

So the fact that OP actually killed RS doesn't count towards the tally of unhappy messages... I'm still wondering if he'd read or seen a preview or home video on RS's phone or ipad(if it was indeed hers) of the scene on Tropika Island where she kissed the guy that she was so worried he'd be angry about....

No, I don't think it does count.

I agree that it's far easier to give something more credibility than it deserves if we begin our thinking with a presumption of guilt though.

 

[Trooper]

No, I don't think it does count.

I agree that it's far easier to give something more credibility than it deserves if we begin our thinking with a presumption of guilt though.

kinda like the thinking when one starts out with a presumption of guilt of a witness??

that kinda thinking???

 

[Huna]

As for an obsession with guns, I think that was a learned thing(his whole family is into guns from the articles I've read) that gained momentum as he discovered the power and adrenaline rush they provide.

You're right, it may be learned behavior, but I'm wondering if it could still be a sexual thing. the way he declared in the police officer incident, I think - 'don't you ever touch another man's gun' as though he was talking about a living breathing thing, like a female that he 'owned'? I know legally he did own the gun, the gun was legally his and not the police officer's, but there was just something weird about his overreaction in that way. (Maybe it's just me interpreting non-sexual things sexually...Like when someone points out this or that is a phallic symbol, your brain starts seeing them everywhere!)

We know that despite his physical impairment, he's a very sexual person - uses even when his gf is theoretically available (I.e there by his side physically in his bedroom or his house) and that he found a new gf not long after his old gf had died horrifically by his own admitted 'mistake'.

I'm not a psychologist at all, but just speculating as an amateur, that his sexual identity could be tied up with this hyper-masculinized idea of guns and a dominance & control of women.

the gun as an extension of his appendage, huna??


the black talon bullets as his ... er.. his ... reproductive equipment ?

All jokes aside though, the way he killed her with those black talon bullets, shooting her 4 times into a narrow confined space like that, suggests horrible overkill, and we all know from following violent crime stories that that happens a lot in crimes between intimates or sexual partners - there is overkill that shows passion and anger.

 

[Trooper]

OMG...I have to walk away for a sec.....I can't stop laughing..:floorlaugh:

:drumroll::nuts:

 

[Really?]

Good grief.

A woman, in the course of a very traumatic event, is told by her husband that he can see a person moving. This forms part of her narrative and she relates it in her statement. Being an HONEST person, determined to give the best possible evidence she can she thinks, thinks, thinks long and hard and then VOLUNTARILY goes back to the police to explain that she has made a MISTAKE.

This shows immense integrity and reliability. A person who didn't care and who was intent on deceit would simply not bother, because who is to know to she didn't see a person moving?

Under no rational definition of the word can Mrs Stipp be called a liar, and I'm aghast at this flagrant misuse of the word.

To suggest that the judge will call her a liar and dismiss her testimony is stunningly naive. Whether certain people on this thread like it or not, Mrs Stipp's testimony is corroborated by three others.

And she forgot that she'd held a curtain back? So what? Human minds and memory are not concrete structures - anyone with any experience of the law and witness testimonies knows this.

This is real life, not an Agatha Christie novel to scratch through looking for clues. Four people heard a woman screaming for her life for the best part of 15 minutes. Know what's most likely? A woman screamed for her life for 15 minutes.

For those who have confused their need to be "right" with whether this man is guilty or not, try answering the following instead of wrapping yourselves up in fictions about lying witnesses:

If OP's affidavit is honest, where does it tell us that he did nothing but scream for 15 minutes before doing anything else? Before shouting from the balcony, calling anyone or breaking the door down? 15 minutes is a lot of screaming. Did he forget that? Oh wait - forgetting = lying, right? So OP lied about his screaming?

If OP shot Reeva around 3am, how come her heart was still beating 20 minutes later when he brought her down the stairs - which it must have been to account for the arterial spray? Saayman said she'd only have taken a few breaths. Hearts do keep beating for a little while after brain stem death, but 20 minutes? Unless, of course, Saayman is a liar and an incompetent fool, just like everyone else involved in this trial except the man who shot his girlfriend to death.

Perhaps you'd also like to explain the weird time warp that Dr Stipp found himself in. OP says he shouted "Help, help, help" from his balcony very shortly after he shot Reeva - it was the first thing he did, even before he broke down the door.

Dr Stipp heard a man shouting EXACTLY these words from EXACTLY the right place (the balcony is to the left of the bathroom, as Dr Stipp specified) but 15 minutes later than he should have done.

Any answers to these anomalies? Of course not - a woman forgetting she held back a curtain is of much more consequence, right?

It's also been pointed out several times that pre-meditation in this case simply means that OP knew who he was shooting behind the door. It does not suggest that OP "planned" a murder in the way it might mean in the UK or US. A red mist moment would still meet the pre-meditation criteria.

And, excuse me, but a man getting angry with a woman mentioning an ex or touching another man's arm all in the first few weeks of a relationship are very big red flags for emotional instability. I'd also point out that past behaviour only goes so far when predicting violence in a relationship - at some point every single abuser hit someone without ever having done so before. According to the "logic" on this thread, this is an impossibility. If you haven't done anything like that before, it's impossible to ever do it?

:clap: :gthanks: :welcomeback:

 

[Val1]

You're right, it may be learned behavior, but I'm wondering if it could still be a sexual thing. the way he declared in the police officer incident, I think - 'don't you ever touch another man's gun' as though he was talking about a living breathing thing, like a female that he 'owned'? I know legally he did own the gun, the gun was legally his and not the police officer's, but there was just something weird about his overreaction in that way. (Maybe it's just me interpreting non-sexual things sexually...Like when someone points out this or that is a phallic symbol, your brain starts seeing them everywhere!)

We know that despite his physical impairment, he's a very sexual person - uses even when his gf is theoretically available (I.e there by his side physically in his bedroom or his house) and that he found a new gf not long after his old gf had died horrifically by his own admitted 'mistake'.

I'm not a psychologist at all, but just speculating as an amateur, that his sexual identity could be tied up with this hyper-masculinized idea of guns and a dominance & control of women.



All jokes aside though, the way he killed her with those black talon bullets, shooting her 4 times into a narrow confined space like that, suggests horrible overkill, and we all know from following violent crime stories that that happens a lot in crimes between intimates or sexual partners - there is overkill that shows passion and anger.

Well, speaking from the position of being married to a pretty severely disabled man that has insecurities from the injuries he sustained and believe me they're much worse than what OP has to contend with, and having done much therapy to come to an understanding and acceptance of the situation, it's not at it's base a sexual issue, it's a control/power thing. ie. insecure because he feels inadequate due to his disability and therefore feels the need to be aggressive, winner take all, deathmatch kind of attitude about challenges. :moo:

 

[steveml]

kinda like the thinking when one starts out with a presumption of guilt of a witness??

that kinda thinking???

I agree. Neither would be beneficial.

 

[jay-jay]

I have also been thinking about what witnesses heard and why they heard. Oscars bedroom balcony faces same direction as bathroom, towards Stipps house....witness Stipp heard bangs and screams very distinctly. Witness Merwe heard argument voices hour prior to any bangs...she is opposite the house on street to the left of Oscars house from front view. direction wise the verandahs doors etc that face her property are closest to verandah area that looks like it lines up with area Reeva's yoga mat was found in the informal lounge area. this balcony area faces the Merwes place and also if we go downstairs...the kitchen area also is on same side of house. Merwe could hear the argument between them so it figures that they were either downstairs or on this side of house, where I think it started and where Oscar first grabbed air rifle from? garage? kitchen bench? fridge? he sees to guns in every room so....

I was actually quite surprised, when I was experiencing DA/DV myself, just how much the neighbours were able to hear .. on the last incidence of my abusive partner storming about the house shouting at me, I was surprised when some neighbours from across the road who had been out in their back garden having a barbeque, turned up on my doorstep telling my partner to 'calm down'. I was taken back with them, over the road, while the police dealt with him (this was the day before he broke in and trashed the house while I was out) and was astonished when they told me that they knew about what had been going on over the previous months because they had heard quite a number of those arguments, all of which were contained within the house and with all of my front windows closed (I very rarely opened those ones .. it was only the back windows I ever opened). So, you might be surprised at just exactly how much neighbours at a reasonable distance can hear in the dead of night, or even during the daytime with other distracting noises.