Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[TipDog]

So we agree that no conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a card from Oscar?

Oscar testified he loved Reeva. He is the only one who can say whether he did or did not.

Aside from Oscar saying he loved Reeva and Reeva writing a card saying "I love you", there are countless messages of a loving nature - kiss, kiss, kiss, I miss you more, baba, booboo, etc. Reeva was spending the night at Oscar's house and had spent the previous night with him as well. All of those things are evidence of a loving relationship.

Is there also evidence that there were times when this relationship was not so loving? Absolutely.

BIB

No. Sorry I wasn't clearer - evidence of nothing, as in no evidence of a loving relationship (nothing from OP shows no reciprocation from him). Cases are not won on physical evidence alone, as I am sure you are aware, nor are they won on written words alone. And in this specific case - it takes two to have a "loving relationship" and one person giving the other a little card saying she loves him does not bring me to believe she really did or that he loved her back.

ALL THE REST

As far as Oscar's testimony goes, I don't have to (and don't) believe pretty much any of it. Just because he says he loved her, doesn't mean he did. And in fact he referred to her as someone he cared for when breaking down on the stand. If he was so deeply in love with her, why not say "this was the woman I loved." But those are my feelings about it, I don't expect you to share them.

And yes, there was evidence, in words, long words, that he was judgmental, controlling and that she was scared of him "at times" and how he reacted to her - doesn't sound so loving to me. And what do you think "at times" means, Minor. It doesn't imply just once. It applies multiple times (in a very short amount of time - four months!), but we have no concrete evidence to back that except Reeva's own words. And if you are willing to believe her four sentence VD card, then surely you believe her WA message to OP...yes?

 

[aoibhinn]

BIB - Bit in Bold.

It means a poster 'bolded' something in someone else's post ... and is now replying to that bolded section. I've just done it with yours. It's just to highlight the part you're responding to.

P.S When you get fed up using logic and reason with people you feel don't use logic or reason... I can direct you to a link that shows you how to create an 'ignore' list. Then you don't have to read their posts, although you will still see them when someone else quotes one of their posts.

I might take you up on that Meanwhile, I'm just living for the repetition. I love the one trick pony.

 

[minor4th]

BIB

No. Sorry I wasn't clearer - evidence of nothing, as in no evidence of a loving relationship (nothing from OP shows no reciprocation from him). Cases are not won on physical evidence alone, as I am sure you are aware, nor are they won on written words alone. And in this specific case - it takes two to have a "loving relationship" and one person giving the other a little card saying she loves him does not bring me to believe she really did or that he loved her back.

ALL THE REST

As far as Oscar's testimony goes, I don't have to (and don't) believe pretty much any of it. Just because he says he loved her, doesn't mean he did. And in fact he referred to her as someone he cared for when breaking down on the stand. If he was so deeply in love with her, why not say "this was the woman I loved." But those are my feelings about it, I don't expect you to share them.

And yes, there was evidence, in words, long words, that he was judgmental, controlling and that she was scared of him "at times" and how he reacted to her - doesn't sound so loving to me. And what do you think "at times" means, Minor. It doesn't imply just once. It applies multiple times (in a very short amount of time - four months!), but we have no concrete evidence to back that except Reeva's own words. And if you are willing to believe her four sentence VD card, then surely you believe her WA message to OP...yes?

Yes, I already said I believed her texts as well. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[BritsKate]

It will be interesting to see just when the defence confirms which defence it is relying on, putative self defence or what we in the UK call automatism. Automatism is rarely used here as it's very difficult to establish but if successful, the accused gets acquitted and goes free!! The fact that OP pumped 4 bullets and then recalls minutiae of detail regarding the events preceding and subsequent to the shooting would seem to be at odds with claiming automatism, but one never knows!

I would think that Roux has had a long old chat to OP this evening!!

Roux already rehabilitated Oscar on redirect. It's back to officially being putative self-defence.

In South Africa, automatism is termed involuntary. It's very rarely used there too due to a high burden.

If convicted of culpable homicide, Oscar could still in effect go free. Sentencing under that charge is wholly at the judge's discretion.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

Thanks for that.

Charges, thus far, what do you consider? CH? SS? Or other?

I think he'll be found guilty on a couple of the gun and ammunition charges.

I'm not sure on the murder/culpable homicide charge yet. I don't think there's enough evidence to support murder. I think there is enough evidence to support culpable homicide, but that's going to come down to the discretion of the judge.

 

[fox1lady]

Exactly he should of just said "yes she could of gone down for some food, but I dont know as I was asleep". End of questioning about Reeva's midnight snack.

The problem with OP throughout x-exam is his over elaboration of the questions posed to him, for whatever reason. Simple questions turned into elaborate answers when a yes or no answer would of sufficed or even I dont know would of been better.

It proves he's trying to prove his innocence too much by giving extra info which keeps coming back to bite him in the arse.

Or it shows that he was never in fact asleep and that Reeva was in his vision all the time until she locked herself in the toilet.

 

[james83]

It will be interesting to see just when the defence confirms which defence it is relying on, putative self defence or what we in the UK call automatism. Automatism is rarely used here as it's very difficult to establish but if successful, the accused gets acquitted and goes free!! The fact that OP pumped 4 bullets and then recalls minutiae of detail regarding the events preceding and subsequent to the shooting would seem to be at odds with claiming automatism, but one never knows!

I would think that Roux has had a long old chat to OP this evening!!

For want of a better word i think he has got to greedy,by using words like accident/involuntary he seem's determined to avoid any prison sentence what so ever.
Whatever happened that night he is clearly unable to accept the consequences of his actions.

 

[clearskies1]

It will be interesting to see just when the defence confirms which defence it is relying on, putative self defence or what we in the UK call automatism. Automatism is rarely used here as it's very difficult to establish but if successful, the accused gets acquitted and goes free!! The fact that OP pumped 4 bullets and then recalls minutiae of detail regarding the events preceding and subsequent to the shooting would seem to be at odds with claiming automatism, but one never knows!

I would think that Roux has had a long old chat to OP this evening!!

This issue is really intriguing to me. I can't believe that Roux and OP did not work out their defense before the trial. I'm starting to think they were purposely vague about this for a long time -- as I mentioned upthread on direct Roux never asked OP why he shot the gun and OP's only explanation for it on direct was "before I knew it I had shot 4 times".

JMO

 

[minor4th]

I fully appreciate your contributions when you have used your professional knowledge to inform us correctly about the law and how it is applied. But you have also made subjective evaluations to which your professional status is irrelevant.
1.
The testimony of a man on trial for murder as to his own sentiments is not invariably veracious. Correct me if I err. And Oscar's actions are part of the evidence too. And one of those actions was to shoot a human being through a closed door at the very least without observing his elementary duty of care to check the person was not Reeva.

2.
Of all words known to man, the words "I love you" must be the words most susceptible not to correspond to reality, as you well know.
In any event, they declare her sentiments, not his.
And whether or not he loved her, he shot her, either deliberately or - at best - by a grossly indefensible error.

This trial is about whether there is just enough doubt about the more credible "deliberately" construction for him not to be certainly a murderer. It has nothing to do with a man deeply in love who made a tragic but understandable mistake.

Just so we're clear - being an attorney gives me no more legitimacy in my subjective opinions, and I'm not suggesting that it does or that any more weight should be given to my subjective opinions.

The rest of your post I essentially agree with.

 

[fox1lady]

I believe he just said no. But he did sleep 5 hours by his clock. He said he was hot to Nel. No other conversation. Unless he wants us to believe his statement, he asked Reeva why she is calling the police.

Did he?

 

[Britlaws]

Roux already rehabilitated Oscar on redirect. It's back to officially being putative self-defence.

In South Africa, automatism is termed involuntary. It's very rarely used there too due to a high burden.

If convicted of culpable homicide, Oscar could still in effect go free. Sentencing under that charge is wholly at the judge's discretion.

JMO

Thankyee kindly, missed most of todays events with work!

Yes I know about the judges discretion with CH but, you think?!

 

[nastasya]

Exactly he should of just said "yes she could of gone down for some food, but I dont know as I was asleep". End of questioning about Reeva's midnight snack.

The problem with OP throughout x-exam is his over elaboration of the questions posed to him, for whatever reason. Simple questions turned into elaborate answers when a yes or no answer would of sufficed or even I dont know would of been better.

It proves he's trying to prove his innocence too much by giving extra info which keeps coming back to bite him in the arse.

BIB -That's also called lying.

 

[G.bng]

You can use conjecture to formulate a hypothesis... but then you have to PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt.

rest of post respectfully snipped as not relative to my reply

IMO, and we are in the same position as I, i.e. neither of us is the judge on this case so either or both may be wrong, the State has proven culpable homicide BARD... I repeat, the State has proven culpable homicide BARD. For the prosecution, anything else, and imo it could still result in murder conviction by transferred intent, is bumph.

Therefore it is a mystery, to me at least, (and it would likely be to you too except that as a N. American you may think it normal for someone to shoot a teenager dead simply for asking the way to a Halloween party), why OP has not changed his plea to guilty of CH.

Think of the benefits; it would likely result in a lesser sentence for OP, probably even a suspended one; it would save OP further distress having to hear how his "beloved" Reeva was brutally shot to pieces by his own hand; it would save Reeva's family, his sister, brother and uncle, etc. having to continue to suffer the torture of the trial any longer giving everyone closure; it would save the SA tax payer further costs; and last but not least it would save OP any further costs on his defence which he alleges has forced him to have to sell his home.

So many benefits for accepting a lesser plea and throwing himself at the mercy of the judge (in three similar cases the accused was not given prison time) yet OP continues to deny any responsibility whatsoever !

Do you really find that is reasonable ?
Do you really expect an acquittal as OP appears to expect ?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

The female assessor was the one that asked OP the question. I feel sure that she listened carefully to his answer.

I think I must have missed this bit of today's testimony , what was the exact question that the assessor asked ?
TIA

 

[Viper]

Minor, do you reckon defense will call the Standers or any immediate neighbours? X

BIB. Yea I reckon they will call the immediate neighbors that heard only what happened after the murder. You know, OPs fake calls for help. If the closer neighbors heard more than that I believe that the State would have called them.

As far as the Standers, no I don't see the DT calling either of them. It would open up too many issues about Netcare, OPs phone, etc...

Just an FYI. There is private messaging provided by WS if you only want to discuss an issue with one forum member. It is in the top right hand corner of the screen.

 

[James50]

Sorry....I have to disagree here in that there was soooo much love...loving relationship, heck....they both were busy people..this was a lustful relationship.....loving in a sexual way...hey...that I'll agree with...maybe making love.....speeking of which.....I would have like Nel to have OP explain how it was that Reeva died "knowing she was loved".

No, I mean love. I'm not confused between the two. This wasn't a whim. She had been planning to say she loved him for some time. It was clearly something that mean more to her than mere sex. She spoke about "the right moment" etc. All the hallmarks are there that she had fallen in love with him. There's really no other way to read it, unless you're the coldest cynic in the world, or you've never fallen in love.

 

[BritsKate]

This issue is really intriguing to me. I can't believe that Roux and OP did not work out their defense before the trial. I'm starting to think they were purposely vague about this for a long time -- as I mentioned upthread on direct Roux never asked OP why he shot the gun and OP's only explanation for it on direct was "before I knew it I had shot 4 times".

JMO

Believe me they did! This was all Oscar and shouldn't be confused with a poor defence strategy. It was Oscar's sheer and utter refusal to accept any culpability that led to a mess Roux & Co. now have to try to clear up.

Personally, I think the damage was done the 3rd or 4th time he clearly stated 'I never intended to shoot' (not even intending to shoot is far more important that him saying he never intended to kill); coupled with he didn't have time to think before firing while cataloguing the thoughts he didn't have time to think and Nel very cautiously covering the ground of what his defence actually was, now makes it extremely difficult for Roux to bypass.

But we'll see. My limited legal knowledge comes solely from a passionate interest and way too much trial watching.

 

[jay-jay]

\

Well, duh, of course he will claim that, since that is the position of the prosecution, but it's just a statement. It can read also as mere clarification and if one goes much beyond that we're splitting hairs.

Well, duh, I've been listening to all of the cross examination, every day, day in day out and I know that when Nel says OP is tailoring the evidence I have heard all of that tailoring for myself .. I haven't just taken that terminology from him and used it without foundation, I've heard it all with my own ears!

 

[supernovaNic]

What is the deal with Reeva's jeans being seen inside out... and then Roux just showed a photo of the jeans in the same area - not inside out. What the heck? (watching session 2 now)


If the light wasn't working in the toilet, how did Oscar see the key on the floor?

 

[BritsKate]

Thankyee kindly, missed most of todays events with work!

Yes I know about the judges discretion with CH but, you think?!

RBBM

I think they had him at murder yesterday. I believe he did it to himself too with changing his defence. I think they practically had CH before he'd even taken the stand.

And there's still my biggest sticking point - the screaming heard before Oscar himself states he fired.

MOO