Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[soozieqtips]

I can tell you haven't ever been in this situation.

It's really not a common thing to do. Woman goes to toilet to take a pee. Man doesn't murder woman in toilet.

 

[Emz73]

I can tell you haven't ever been in this situation.

Statistics probably say MOST women haven't!!!

 

[Elemar]

Sky News' 9.30pm recap is interesting watching. Commenting on the apparent unpreparedness of Roger Dixon in how some experiments were only carried out once OP took to the witness box and his lack of reports could be a sign of evidence tailoring of OP and the defence team as a while getting carrying out last min experiments to go along with OPs most recent version. Also commenting on how concentrated the bullet holes are and suggesting both hands were on the gun at time of shooting. It was suggested if only one hand was uses to shoot bullet holes would be more widespread.

 

[Really?]

Ok. Someone had to testify to the angle of shots, even if it was Roger Dixon.

This is a factor which points to OP's innocence.

He is standing off to the side, near the opening to the bathroom, shooting sideways into the water closet. Shows fear and a belief that danger is inside.

If he knew Reeva was there he would have just stood in front and shot.

um.......no......he knew Reeva was nearer to the toilet,......he heard he screaming.... hence the angles towards the toilet.

p.s.....I think he was closer to the door......more like near the shower. moo

 

[Val1]

Originally Posted by zwiebel View Post
D: In the pssg, I could see the outline of the bookrack...if you are standing at curtain end of the bedroom, you can see the passage...Mr V went and laid down on the bed. I could not see him. It was quite dark Milady.

I just wonder, as they do these reconstructions, if they're ever like, "oh s*** how are we gonna spin this around?"

Because surely Mr D and Mr V both know Oscar is lying, and that would be even more evident once they did their reconstructions.

I wish Nel had asked Dixon if he wore his glasses while performing these "light tests" and what kind of lenses he has. ie are they those transitions lenses?

 

[jay-jay]

If he's in a blind rage, how could he think of such things?

And, even if he's not, the same, who would think of this?

.. intruder/mistaken identity seems to be a fairly common thing for these types of people to think of. You'd be surprised what these types of people can think of in a blind rage, too, they can actually think quite clearly .. even more clearly and quickly than normal, ime .. razor sharp in fact.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

How do you think Roux did in all this? Are you familiar with his tactics at all? And have you any thoughts on what the verdict might be, based on the evidence so far? It's been stated by some here, that Nel hasn't proved anything 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and OP could perhaps walk free if he can prove 'putative self defence'. Any ideas on that?

As for the 'brutal then bored' description, that sounds like my cat. He'll spend half an hour terrorising a mouse, tossing it up in the air and stalking it round the garden for an hour, before abruptly giving up and chasing a leaf instead!

I find Gerrie to be more 'cat' than 'dog' - except for the moments when he locks on to a witnesses arm and tears their muscles - then he is pure working dog (Rottie, Malinois etc)

I'm going to give you a LONG reply in the morning, and I actually have some interesting info re" putative self defence within SA law - precedent etc, as well as a Ruling, that came out this Monday past funnily enough (it isn't even in the SA court reports yet) in terms of both self defence and putative self defence - but it will be a long 'write' . Roger freaking Dixon has given me the headache from hell this evening.

Two days of that has left me :scared: It's almost midnight here in Cape Town so I'm going to sleep and I promise to write you that post in the morning. Apologies< I would love to do it now - but my post would be awful - a combo of <modsnip> and Roger (yes, that bad):facepalm:

Thank you once more everyone for the wonderful and warm welcome, sleep tight, or have a good day, or have a good evening - depending on where you are in the world - chat tommorrow. :seeya:

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

LOL!

I still have more respect for Dixon than for most other expert witnesses b/c he is seemingly not trying too hard to tailor all his facts in favor or against the defendant.

Poor guy, he is just trying to do what he can do.

JMO.

Honest!!??? honest??!! You've got to be joking. Stupid or arrogant or insightless - yes! A person with no appropriate qualifications or scientific rigour paid as a scientific expert to present a layman's opinion.

I'm amazed that Roux or members of his team employed this man, let alone allowed him to take the stand and undermine their case.

 

[steveml]

True.....good point....perhaps OP is correct to where it usually is....however...after he riddled her body w.....sorry...got carried away there...humph...after she was shot the first time in her hip....she fell down and back onto the magazine rack...and sliding it along with her body weight more towards the toilet. moo

:jail:

I agree, It did look like the magazine rack could have been moved from the back wall at a slight angle nearer to the toilet when Reeva fell.

At the risk of some slight mockery, I thought the mark on the toilet floor highlighted by Mr Dixon as being produced by the magazine rack was quite convincing.

 

[molly333]

um.......no......he knew Reeva was nearer to the toilet,......he heard he screaming.... hence the angles towards the toilet.

p.s.....I think he was closer to the door......more like near the shower. moo

If he is standing right in front of the door, he can shoot in either direction.

As he is further from the door, the angle of shot becomes more and more limited.

If they can prove his angle is dependent on where he was standing rather than on where she was standing, and this spot happens to be close to the entrance of the bathroom, then I think this is a strong factor for innocence.

Did expert witness show where he was standing in the bathroom when he shot?

 

[soozieqtips]

I find Gerrie to be more 'cat' than 'dog' - except for the moments when he locks on to a witnesses arm and tears their muscles - then he is pure working dog (Rottie, Malinois etc)

I'm going to give you a LONG reply in the morning, and I actually have some interesting info re" putative self defence within SA law - precedent etc, as well as a Ruling, that came out this Monday past funnily enough (it isn't even in the SA court reports yet) in terms of both self defence and putative self defence - but it will be a long 'write' . Roger freaking Dixon has given me the headache from hell this evening.

Two days of that has left me :scared: It's almost midnight here in Cape Town so I'm going to sleep and I promise to write you that post in the morning. Apologies< I would love to do it now - but my post would be awful - a combo of <modsnip> and Roger (yes, that bad):facepalm:

Thank you once more everyone for the wonderful and warm welcome, sleep tight, or have a good day, or have a good evening - depending on where you are in the world - chat tommorrow. :seeya:

Look forward to that post tomorrow! Great that you've joined us :smile:

 

[aa9511]

What would happen if you took a client on, but whilst testing their version, every time the results showed they were lying and the evidence was following the states version? They would advise the client to plead guilty but what if they insisted they were telling the truth?
How would that work?

Good question - maybe Minor can help answer this? I have always been curious how the defense side of things work - in a probable "guilty" case, how do they "block out" if common sense and forensics is telling them the client's version is fabricated?

I think in this case it was prob. Oscar who was very insistent that he does not want to plead guilty. Seeing oscar's personality, I have no doubt of this. I think Roux probably gave him all facts and tried to be as honest and straight-forward with him as possible, and ultimate decision was Oscar's.

Jmo.

 

[TipDog]

Shooting at somebody behind a locked toilet door is not innocence of anything.

You beat me to it.

OP could have been hanging from ceiling for all I care - he shot through a closed door.

 

[asanque]

Re BBM

Oh no. Now I am absolutely worried. People in SA love him. There is definite bias to find him not guilty and the judge knows this.

There was a lady that cheered as OP entered court this morning.

I knew a lot of people liked him but in SA he is most likely their HERO.
This is very scary and I think it will influence the judges decision in this case.

I am leaning towards what Minor is thinking . That maybe just the gun charges or something may be the end result of his punishment.

I no longer have faith that we will get a just decision because of his popularity in SA.

Cheering and shooting could be a drinking game

Drink after each:

1. Contra dixon
2. Dixon helping prosecution case
3. Dixon using a body part for an instrument
4. Dixon saying he left evidence at home

You would have lots of drunk people

 

[Feynman]

I bet if we all made a Top 5 list of why we think OP is guilty or not guilty, no two lists would be the same. But #1 on my list would be OP's lying about shooting Reeva in a pitch black bathroom to support his lie about feeling terrified enough to shoot unthinkingly into that small cubicle.

It's not pitch black in the bathroom.

 

[shane13]

I'm impressed! :fireworks:



Reeva's parents will send to him a letter full of Thanks.

Dr Perumal will make a great witness for Reeva's parents' civil suit aginst OP. Will he then be allowed to state his interactions with Roux--as well as the physical evidence?

 

[aa9511]

OMG - SKY tweets that Roger Dixon confirms to reporters during break that he has both facebook and twitter accounts and he's been getting hate mail

Aw ww....no need for that.

 

[molly333]

Dr Perumal will make a great witness for Reeva's apents civil suit aginst OP. Will he then be allowed to state his interactions with Roux--as well as the physical evidence?

That should all be privileged. It is in the States.

 

[steveml]

If he is standing right in front of the door, he can shoot in either direction.

As he is further from the door, the angle of shot becomes more and more limited.

If they can prove his angle is dependent on where he was standing rather than on where she was standing, and this spot happens to be close to the entrance of the bathroom, then I think this is a strong factor for innocence.

Did expert witness show where he was standing in the bathroom when he shot?

I think Nel mentioned today that the area where OP indicated he shot from was now common cause (what is agreed). I'd have to check but something rings a bell.

This is from inside the entrance to the bathroom, against the back wall, diagonally towards the toilet.

 

[jay-jay]

This was quite interesting .. last night's 'round up' on Sky News ..

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

.. from 17:50 .. Lobo das Neves (law enforcement expert and former detective) talking about how Reeva would've screamed out and how OP would've heard her scream, even through the ringing in his ears.