Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Suthrnqt]

Ooh. Stick a fork in Oscar, he's done.

RT @barrybateman: #OscarTrial Nel: the first shot hit Reeva in the hip. She fell on the magazine rack. You changed your aim and shot at it. BB

^^^^^^
This

 

[Linda7NJ]

I must have missed it.

What did Oscar get her for valentines day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kittychi]

Hilarious!

I can just imagine him as a child...always whining, crying, blaming everyone around him, doing whatever it took to get his way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a nightmare for his siblings. I would love to know what they are thinking.

 

[BritsKate]

Here's something I just cannot get past and no one who believes that Reeva's death was just a tragic accident has explained that I've seen.

Let's roll with the defence's Reeva never screamed and it was Oscar screaming like a woman that witnesses heard. Why was he screaming for approximately 12 minutes before shots were fired? Giving the defence, and Oscar, every bit of reasonable doubt I still can't get past that - there was screaming before shooting.

So either ALL the witnesses are incorrect; Oscar was screaming at Reeva like a woman; Oscar was screaming at an intruder, like a woman, for a full 12 minutes he didn't have time to think all the thoughts he had; or there's some mystery woman out there who was screaming who has never come forward. Any of these possibilities just seem too far-fetched.

So I'm left with, and back to, it was Reeva screaming for 12 minutes before the shots were fired and Oscar had to have known it was her which is premeditated, intentional murder.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I must have missed it.

What did Oscar get her for valentines day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He says he had previously bought her a bracelet and was going to take her to get some trinkets/charms for it. Hmmmm. Did not see proof of purchase, though.

 

[aoibhinn]

I think we must all agree that his memory is going to be cloudy in some areas. Nel keeps saying this is impossible, that is impossible, everything is impossible according to him. I don't agree with him.

In fact, Nel is correct. OP's memory is selectively cloudy, backing up Nel's statement even further.

There is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in intense emotional states - terror, stress, trauma, etc. - which causes cognitive processing to be magnified. As time appears to slow down, the person affected becomes acutely aware of details.

For example, in the moments before a car accident, the individual involved might note they thought of 'a million things' before impact. Awareness is heightened. This effect is often portrayed by a slo-mo effect in movies. Every detail is magnified and richly processed.

There have been instances where individuals have been so traumatised, that they succeed in blocking events from memory. However, OP only fails to remember convenient portions from the night in question. His memory of the event is alternately acutely specific or completely non-existent. This calls the fallibility of his recall into doubt.

 

[shane13]

What a nightmare for his siblings. I would love to know what they are thinking.

Is he ...armed?

 

[kittychi]

that is a new to me. fired first shot [a], then as she fell, noise of the mag rack, reaimed for the other three shots.

how would he know to move his aim... all the noise,

did he see through the small split in the door...

Heard where her screams were coming from, she wasn't up against the door anymore.

ETA: Or saw her because of breaking the door first before he shot.

 

[jay-jay]

just rewatching x-exam as i missed the 1st hour. Wat im wondering about is this blue light on the amplifier. When Reeva isnt there what does he use to cover the blue light that bothers him so much.

Plus, im sorry, but you know what your equipment does. Whether the light will be on if the amp is on or off.

Exactly right, to both of those things :thumb:

 

[fox1lady]

Seriously, how is he supposed to remember how he held his hand a year ago?

And, why would we ask him to do something we couldn't do ourselves?

I can't remember what I did last week, never mind whether I shouted out something before or after an action I took.

That's the thing though, when I was listening to his version of events he was VERY specific on things that I wondered how the heck he would remember... wayyyyy too specific. However, when he is asked a question in cross, he can't remember... he didn't have time to think.

 

[Linda7NJ]

In fact, Nel is correct. OP's memory is selectively cloudy, backing up Nel's statement even further.



There is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in intense emotional states - terror, stress, trauma, etc. - which causes cognitive processing to be magnified. As time appears to slow down, the person affected becomes acutely aware of details.



For example, in the moments before a car accident, the individual involved might note they thought of 'a million things' before impact. Awareness is heightened. This effect is often portrayed by a slo-mo effect in movies. Every detail is magnified and richly processed.



There have been instances where individuals have been so traumatised, that they succeed in blocking events from memory. However, OP only fails to remember convenient portions from the night in question. His memory of the event is alternately acutely specific or completely non-existent. This calls the fallibility of his recall into doubt.

I would have never believed my perception could be altered that way until it happen to me.
I witnessed a horrific car accident. A truck had hit a car full of children. One died immediately from being ejected. I was the first person there with any sort of training which was limited to basic First Aide, Safety and CPR. I kept a young unconscious teens airway open, even while the fire department was sawing away parts of the car to extricate him. They just covered us up with a heavy padded thing.
I was deposed as a witness for a lawsuit. I swore that car, the one I witnessed getting into the accident, the one I ran up to, leaned into, and basically was a part of for a good 30 minutes ...was WHITE. It wasn't. It was green. They showed me the photos when I wouldn't budge. It shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gryffindor]

Hi Minor

For 1st shot to the hip, was Reeva standing square on, parallel with the door, between the door and toilet (sandwiched)? Judging by trajectory of 1st shot to hip.

Or more centrally parallel behind door? Trying to figure how she could have fallen onto magazine rack . . .

Looks like over near toilet roll holder from trajectory rods pic, though she'd have fallen back onto the toilet???

Help!

 

[BritsKate]

I had to follow here today (thanks so much transcribers!) so its likely I missed a fair bit but to me one of the most damning moments was when Oscar called the Stipps liars outright.

Dr. Stipps especially came across as extremely credible and in some ways even helped Oscar's case. That he's been so disparaging towards him doesn't do a lot to bolster Oscar's own credibility. JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Britlaws]

You are tall!!

I just tried some general actions, but I am not as tall, but just generally, it seems to me that if he was holding the gun with arms extended out and slightly down (on prosthetics), the point of firing would be roughly the same as if he was on his stumps and shooting by holding his arms out even with his shoulder.

With the prosthetics, I'm talking about just extending the arms, but not moving the shoulders. So kind of like if you start with your arms together at around the breast-bone area, and then just extend arms out and downward.

Yes, I am tall - for a woman anyway!

I have always thought he was on his prosthetics the whole time. If he was only a metre or so from the door, he hardly needs to take great aim now, does he? This is not like trying to hit a moving target at 100 metres! I have never fired a handgun but I reckon I could have killed someone behind that door with 4 rounds - I also believe he knew just where in the toilet she was as she was yelling/pleading with him. When she fell after the first shot she could only fall in one of two places. Given the pause, if she'd have fallen right over the toilet he'd have had time to hear a distinct noise of the sanitaryware. If she'd have fallen back on the magazine rack, the clatter of the magazine rack on the tile would have been distinct from this. So, he'd know where to aim.

Also, go review the watermelon video. You'll see when firing the handgun at 0.15 he dips when he fires, leaning forward and appearing to bend his knees. Again at 1.11 he is leaning forward - imagine his target is nearer and closer to the ground and I can easily see that he could have shot RS with his prosthetics on and produced the trajectory of the bullets, especially if his arms were slightly bent.

JMO obviously but I have viewed all the evidence in this case objectively and feel that he is guily of murder. Its all very well to say that the PT must put a case, but when the only witness at the scene is the defendent who had not co-operated with the police and the victim is dead, then their case is bound to emerge bit by bit, and circumstantial evidence is always going to play a big role. I think the case for murder was establishe by the PT some days ago, it's only the self defence aspect that's being established or refuted now.

 

[Cherwell]

He says he had previously bought her a bracelet and was going to take her to get some trinkets/charms for it. Hmmmm. Did not see proof of purchase, though.

Her family will presumably have the bracelet - if it ever existed.

 

[vansleuths]

If OP flips between punitive self defence and involuntary action, doesn't that really blow his entire defence out of the water?

I didn't think he'd be allowed to change half way through a trial? That would be something that was established on day one.

 

[jassy writer]

A good article here.

For those who have been writing about "reasonable doubt", I will paste the relevant paragraph from it below.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/08/the-perplexing-problem-of-proof/

So, if for instance, on a charge of murder, the accused claims to have been mistaken as to whether he was under attack – that he thought the person he shot and killed (who it transpires was his girlfriend) was imminently about to attack him, and the veracity of this claim would seem to be undermined by evidence that the girlfriend screamed loudly before she was shot. For our purposes let us assume that, given the context, it would entirely undermine the accused’s claim of mistake. The question of fact as to whether she screamed becomes so crucial as to represent an ultimate issue which would seem to properly attract the requirement that it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, evidence (of intermediate facts) from which it may be inferred that she screamed need not pass the ultimate standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If five witnesses claim to have heard a woman scream at about the relevant time on the night of the incident, each need not be true beyond a reasonable doubt before the court, considering this testimony together, and together with ballistic and pathology reports to the effect that she incurred a severe wound which would probably have caused her to scream before she was incapacitated, concludes that a woman screamed that night, before she was shot.

There is a substantial difference between raising some doubts, even reasonable doubts in respect of some of the evidence against an accused, and raising reasonable doubt in respect of the case against the accused.

 

[james83]

What a nightmare for his siblings. I would love to know what they are thinking.

First dibs on his watches?.

 

[atthelake]

A lot of FM have thought this and that this could be when and how her jeans ended up outside . The jeans outside haven't been discussed by Nel yet .....

I've heard these jeans outside have been discussed in threads, but never seen them mentioned in msm or photos as haven't followed as closely as many here. links please? TIA

 

[TipDog]

bbm

Why is Oscar backtracking on the "whispering"?? Why is he lying about it now and saying he didn't whisper? I don't understand why he continues to be stubborn over things that he doesn't really even need to lie about?

I imagine someone has already beat me to this, so please forgive any redundancy, but this is huge, IMO.

To whisper to someone is intimate. You simply cannot whisper without ascertaining the person's presence. The proximity needed for someone to hear a whisper is far, far closer than that of a softly spoken tone of voice. OP used the word whisper in error, knew it and immediately corrected himself.

If he'd whispered to Reeva, he'd have had to have known she was in the room just before heading off on his commando mission to put himself between her and the boogeyman intruder taking a pee in the toilet. That's logical sense and reasonable. Considering all the other lies he's told, this may seem like something he doesn't need to fib about (another slip of the tongue mistake?), but I believe (and hope) that the judge caught it. His saying he spoke to Reeva in the room after hearing a noise is another attempt of his to edit the narrative to fit "his version" of what happened and to not tell the truth of that evening, but he has to be careful. "Whisper" and "spoke softly" are entirely two different manners in which to relay information.