Trial Discussion Thread #17

[sorrell skye]

How about this:

The shots were reported to be in quick succession by all witnesses and according to OP and the ballistics guy.

The shots are grouped closely together that suggests he was generally aiming at a center of mass of the would-be intruder he believed to be behind the door.

He would have been temporarily deafened after the first shot or had severe ringing in his ears and would likely not hear any sounds coming from the cubicle in order to adjust his aim.

I agree that the acoustics of the bathroom may have caused an immediate, loud ringing in OP's ears and may have interfered with his ability to hear Reeva's terrified screams, which multiple ear-witnesses have testified they heard.

I don't necessarily need OP to have heard Reeva screaming in order to believe that he's guilty of the charge of unlawful, intentional murder, regardless of his claim of error in persona, which the State has asserted "will not affect the intention to kill a human being", per the indictment.

I find it interesting to explore the various facets and the various plausible scenarios of the case. But I think the distilled, known facts support the State's charge of unlawful, intentional murder of a human being.

 

[MeeBee]

It's not gingerbread men, but this is how I believe they were sleeping according to OP version:

Perhaps when the say left said they mean under the side they mean the side by the bathroom? The state is saying the gun was under reeva's side. The defense is saying they had switched sides for the night and the gun was under oscar's side.

 

[minor4th]

It should be made law that we can only refer to left or right side of the bed either facing headboard or facing away from headboard.

...or perhaps new words should be created. It always gets so confusing, when it should be so simple. And we all have the same problems when explaining it :smile:

It took me forever to figure this out and asking many times before I finally understood it.

So now that I think we understand the sleeping positions - Oscar supposedly retrieved the gun from under the left side of the bed where he was sleeping that night, correct?

 

[MeeBee]

It should be made law that we can only refer to left or right side of the bed either facing headboard or facing away from headboard.

...or perhaps new words should be created. It always gets so confusing, when it should be so simple. And we all have the same problems when explaining it :smile:

I usually say it as if I'm laying on the bed and only changed it this time because everyone here was saying they say it as if they're looking at the bed. :facepalm:

 

[minor4th]

I don't remember the state saying the gun was under Reeva's side unless they are also claiming Reeva was sleeping on the left, and not Oscar. (and actually that seems like what they are claiming)

 

[MeeBee]

I agree that the acoustics of the bathroom may have caused an immediate, loud ringing in OP's ears and may have interfered with his ability to hear Reeva's terrified screams, which multiple ear-witnesses have testified they heard.

I don't necessarily need OP to have heard Reeva screaming in order to believe that he's guilty of the charge of unlawful, intentional murder, regardless of his claim of error in persona, which the State has asserted "will not affect the intention to kill a human being", per the indictment.

I find it interesting to explore the various facets and the various plausible scenarios of the case. But I think the distilled, known facts support the State's charge of unlawful, intentional murder of a human being.

The state asserts it because it's a clever way of getting the conviction you want without having to prove your case. It doesn't mean that is how it will work. I believe it will be up to the judge to decide if Oscar acted as a reasonable person would if she believes his story.

 

[steveml]

OK Viper, I'll give your theory a go, if...

...you can find me one previous example where a guy has shot someone from behind a door, in total darkness, listening to the target's voice, purposely hitting a lower body part, then, as the body immediately collapses, purposely hitting the head.


I'll not suggest they have to be on stumps as well so that shouldn't narrow it down too much.




[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't remember the state saying the gun was under Reeva's side unless they are also claiming Reeva was sleeping on the left, and not Oscar. (and actually that seems like what they are claiming)

The holster was found on the left hand side of the bed on the side table

 

[minor4th]

I agree that the acoustics of the bathroom may have caused an immediate, loud ringing in OP's ears and may have interfered with his ability to hear Reeva's terrified screams, which multiple ear-witnesses have testified they heard.

I don't necessarily need OP to have heard Reeva screaming in order to believe that he's guilty of the charge of unlawful, intentional murder, regardless of his claim of error in persona, which the State has asserted "will not affect the intention to kill a human being", per the indictment.

I find it interesting to explore the various facets and the various plausible scenarios of the case. But I think the distilled, known facts support the State's charge of unlawful, intentional murder of a human being.

Yeah, I think the state's error in personae argument is bunk, as Roux points out in the bail hearing. The state has really made no arguments or produced any evidence at trial to suggest Oscar was trying to kill "a defenseless burglar." There would be no way to prove it anyway because Oscar is saying he was afraid of an armed intruder, not a defenseless burglar - and no one can give evidence that OP really thought the intruder was defenseless.

In fact, the trajectory of the shots does support his claim that he considered the intruder in the toilet to be armed - someone who could have shot him if he had been out in the open.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't remember the state saying the gun was under Reeva's side unless they are also claiming Reeva was sleeping on the left, and not Oscar. (and actually that seems like what they are claiming)

I thought the state was saying it was under Reeva's side therefore he should have seen she was not in bed when he went for the gun? And that's why the defense brought up the bum shoulder and him switching sides? Or am I mixing up the state's case with WS's case?

 

[soozieqtips]

Guess it depends also on whether you believe the shots were at 3-ish or at 3:15-ish.

There was only one witness who heard a single voice before any of the bangs.

In any event, even if one believes that Reeva was screaming during some of the shots, I don't think he would have necessarily heard it because the first gunshot in a small bathroom would have destroyed his hearing temporarily.

BBM - how long is 'temporarily'? He didn't mention in his affidavit any deafness or ear ringing after he killed Reeva. He did make a point though of saying it was 'pitch black' (which was his excuse for not seeing Reeva wasn't in bed) so I'd assume he'd definitely mention if he'd gone deaf as well as temporarily blind. And I don't think he or his DT have claimed deafness as part of his defence yet. Also, in the short space of time it took for him to run to the balcony and shout 'help help help' - he doesn't say he didn't hear any words come out, so his deafness must have occurred during the shooting, and for a short time afterwards, and then (coincidentally) come back within seconds as he ran to the balcony. Nope. Pretty sure if he'd gone temporarily deaf, he'd have said so. After all, it's a great excuse for not hearing Reeva screaming.

 

[minor4th]

The holster was found on the left hand side of the bed on the side table

Yes, and the implication being that the gun would have also been retrieved from that side.

 

[jay-jay]

But I disagree that it's the luck of the draw if someone enters into an abusive relationship. Awareness & perception of abuse is crucial, in order to avoid entering into an abusive relationship ...


...It's important to be able to recognize the warning signs of an abusive personality, so that one does not enter into a relationship with that person. All too often, nonphysical abuse is dismissed, ignored, minimized, excused, or justified.

But we are talking about right at the start of a relationship (during the first couple of weeks to a month) where the majority of 'clever' abusers will be perfectly normal, loving, people. That's why they are cunning and manipulate because they don't start displaying their hand until they've got you hooked, and then it's one heck of a job to get out again, because you keep on trying to get out and they keep hooking you back in again.

The main point that everyone is missing is the fact that people fall in love .. love isn't a logical emotion. It's easy to say that women (or indeed men) need to look out for the warning signs, but the reason they have entered into that relationship in the first place is because they have been attracted to them, both physically and mentally. If they haven't been physcially and mentally attracted to them then it's easy to get out, but if you have fallen for a person .. and again, love is not a logical/clinical process .. then it's very hard to stop loving the person you fell for, just weeks into a relationship when all the tiny little things begin to creep in. Because you love them, you tend to dismiss it at first .. and that will forever be the case because love is not a logical emotion. Yes, fine .. people can have relationships with another person and just go by the fact that the other person is respectful towards them, caring, etc,etc, but you also need that spark, too .. and you are drawn to another person by that spark, not because you know everything about them or whether they are going to be caring towards you in the long run, because you just never know whether they are or not .. you might get the impression at the beginning that they will be, but you won't know for certain .. and again, abusers are very good at hiding it in the beginning.

 

[steveml]

I don't remember the state saying the gun was under Reeva's side unless they are also claiming Reeva was sleeping on the left, and not Oscar. (and actually that seems like what they are claiming)

To be honest I haven't looked at this too much, but for some reason I'd presumed OP was nearer the balcony, and the gun was underneath the bed on Reeva's side.

 

[minor4th]

I thought the state was saying it was under Reeva's side therefore he should have seen she was not in bed when he went for the gun? And that's why the defense brought up the bum shoulder and him switching sides? Or am I mixing up the state's case with WS's case?

The state hasn't really come out and said it but I think they had Samantha testify that OP usually sleeps on the right side. So their argument is apparently that Reeva was sleeping on the left side and Oscar had to retrieve the gun from under the bed where Reeva was sleeping - therefore he must have known she wasn't in bed.

Defense case is that on that night OP was sleeping on the left because of his sore shoulder, which would make sense - his left shoulder was injured so he would sleep on the left side of the bed so that he could be facing Reeva without sleeping on his sore shoulder.

ETA: Actually that doesnt make sense if it was his left shoulder that was hurt. Now I've confused myself LOL. I'll have to go back and check which shoulder was sore.

 

[minor4th]

To be honest I haven't looked at this too much, but for some reason I'd presumed OP was nearer the balcony, and the gun was underneath the bed on Reeva's side.

Nope, I don't think so.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yeah, I think the state's error in personae argument is bunk, as Roux points out in the bail hearing. The state has really made no arguments or produced any evidence at trial to suggest Oscar was trying to kill "a defenseless burglar." There would be no way to prove it anyway because Oscar is saying he was afraid of an armed intruder, not a defenseless burglar - and no one can give evidence that OP really thought the intruder was defenseless.

In fact, the trajectory of the shots does support his claim that he considered the intruder in the toilet to be armed - someone who could have shot him if he had been out in the open.

Discussing this whole side of the bed scenario again has just made me wonder where exactly the panic alarm was .
Ours is my side of the bed some people have them at both .
If his was at just one side of the bed then he was close to it either before or after he retrieved his gun so it is surprising that he didn't bother to press it himself or ask Reeva to do that .
Security are on site so would have been able to assist much quicker than the police .
Are there any pictures showing exactly where the panic alarm was ?

 

[soozieqtips]

It should be made law that we can only refer to left or right side of the bed either facing headboard or facing away from headboard.

...or perhaps new words should be created. It always gets so confusing, when it should be so simple. And we all have the same problems when explaining it :smile:

Easier just to say balcony side or bathroom side.

 

[TorisMom003]

Yeah, I think the state's error in personae argument is bunk, as Roux points out in the bail hearing. The state has really made no arguments or produced any evidence at trial to suggest Oscar was trying to kill "a defenseless burglar." There would be no way to prove it anyway because Oscar is saying he was afraid of an armed intruder, not a defenseless burglar - and no one can give evidence that OP really thought the intruder was defenseless.

In fact, the trajectory of the shots does support his claim that he considered the intruder in the toilet to be armed - someone who could have shot him if he had been out in the open.

The defense can not prove that OP thought the "intruder" was armed. OP has not said that he heard the sound of a safety being clicked off on a gun, heard the hammer being pulled back on a gun, saw a gun, heard the "intruder" say something to the effect of I will kill you, nothing of the sort. There was a closed door between OP and the "intruder".

OP did not know at the time that he went into the bathroom that the "intruder" was in the toilet room. For all he knew the "intruder" could have been coming around the corner of the bathroom from the opposite direction than OP. By going down a dark corridor to the bathroom, OP negates the possibility that an "intruder" was at the ready to kill him on sight.

MOO

 

[Gryffindor]

I thought the state was saying it was under Reeva's side therefore he should have seen she was not in bed when he went for the gun? And that's why the defense brought up the bum shoulder and him switching sides? Or am I mixing up the state's case with WS's case?

No you're right. During the prosecution's case, Roux suddenly introduced the swapping of "normal" sides due to Oscar's shoulder injury.