Trial Discussion Thread #29

[molly333]

No evidence a higher crime level affects him more than any other South African; no evidence his disability puts him at any more disadvantage than anyone else disabled - and it could be argued able-bodied; no mention and no evidence to prove brain damage; and his word alone he is paranoid enough to not fix a broken window; vulnerable enough to not secure ladders; and afraid enough to leave windows unlocked. Where are the dozens of calls to security over every noise he imagined to be an intruder over the years?

And all that aside, I still find it highly disturbing to compare a twenty seven year old man who had firearms training and lived independently for many years to a 10 year old boy.


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

I'm trying to take the male/female sexual dynamic out of the equation.

I was looking for it and didn't find it. I have no reason to believe that Oscar killed Reeva on purpose.

Everybody says these things happen, but I don't see any proof they happened here.

She went there that night having openly declared love for him in a card she gave him.

 

[Carmelita]

If people think premeditated murder is not even established, why do we even care about OP self defense argument then.

Premeditated murder was already established with circumstantial evidence (his character) and him shooting four times at the intruder. He was arguing self defense until changed it to accident.

Premeditated murder has not been established.

 

[TipDog]

No evidence a higher crime level affects him more than any other South African; no evidence his disability puts him at any more disadvantage than anyone else disabled - and it could be argued able-bodied; no mention and no evidence to prove brain damage; and his word alone he is paranoid enough to not fix a broken window; vulnerable enough to not secure ladders; and afraid enough to leave windows unlocked. Where are the dozens of calls to security over every noise he imagined to be an intruder over the years?

And all that aside, I still find it highly disturbing to compare a twenty seven year old man who had firearms training and lived independently for many years to a 10 year old boy.


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

BIB

No calls to security, because his pattern had been to turn to the woman in the bed next to him to ask her if she'd heard the same noise he'd heard when imagining an intruder, according to his ex's testimony. The only time he's broken that pattern was the night he murdered RS. I really enjoyed it when Nel questioned him about that break in pattern.

 

[Val1]

Not sure about SA, but here age would have something to do with it. A 10 year old will not be tried as an adult.

You're right, a 10 yr old probably not but a 12 yr has iirc. Either way, if they're guilty they're guilty, age usually only comes into play for the penalty/mitigation phase.

 

[Really?]

Because we may have those elements now:

1) high crime rate in SA
2) disabled celebrity
3) possible brain damage from head wound [yet to see]
4) propensity towards feeling vulnerable, paranoid, and afraid

#4.........thats what he(OP) says....he is a liar.

he testified to not even locking up what was most likely a prized possession ......his car.... nope......he leaves it in the driveway all night, usually if not all the time.

He had no fear.....no worries.....except that Reeva was going to call the police.

.....on him.

 

[molly333]

I don't understand why you think she would only be screaming because of the bats? How do you know OP wasn't threatening her with a gun long before he shot her? Heck, maybe he was faffing around firing his air rifle(with the silencer as shown in the pic) off and glanced one off her back and that's what started it all and when she wouldn't calm down and went running into the toilet room with her cell phone he freaked out thinking she was going to call the cops on him. There was an argument heard before the screams, bats and guns that was testified to.

Because you have two sets of gunshots with screaming in between.

If she was shot first, it fits Oscar's story, no screaming leading up to the shooting, and the screaming afterwards is Oscar.

That means the witnesses heard Oscar screaming, not Reeva.

If that is not the case, the prosecutor has to prove it.

Did he prove it? Not to my mind.

 

[molly333]

#4.........thats what he(OP) says....he is a liar.

he testified to not even locking up what was most likely a prized possession ......his car.... nope......he leaves it in the driveway all night, usually if not all the time.

He had no fear.....no worries.....except that Reeva was going to call the police.

.....on him.

You may be right and that may be what happened, but did the prosecutor prove that?

 

[Clutchbag]

Because you have two sets of gunshots with screaming in between.

If she was shot first, it fits Oscar's story, no screaming leading up to the shooting, and the screaming afterwards is Oscar.

That means the witnesses heard Oscar screaming, not Reeva.

If that is not the case, the prosecutor has to prove it.

Did he prove it? Not to my mind.

Why doesnt the defence prove it? After all they have him screaming on tape, simple matter to play it to the ear witnesses. Something OP was asked by Nel and he gave a stupid answer. Eta

Somethng like he didnt have a view if it would be a good idea or not

 

[TipDog]

Premeditated murder has not been established.

I don't think any one of us can say it has or hasn't been.

 

[Viper]

Agreed, Soozie.

Conversely, many of us who believe OP is guilty have provided reasonable explanations based on SA law, forensic evidence, testimony, logic, common sense, as well as citing excerpts (with links) from scientific sources in an effort to inform ourselves & others regarding various aspects of this case (e.g. ballistic sound waves, decibel acoustics, instantaneous rigor & hypoxic jaw clenching, memory formation, etc.).

Additionally, there is a big difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt, IMO. The State is not required to prove beyond an unreasonable doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Dead on Sorrell!

I must say that I find it very frustrating to discuss this case at times because those that disagree with me frequently rely on the misrepresentation of a single sentence spoken by a witness or likewise that the charging document did not correctly (their opinion not mine) identify the victim as Mr. Armed Intruder (a fictitious character). IMO that cheapens the discussion and assaults the intelligence. Rant over now. :smile:

 

[Lyra500]

Because you have two sets of gunshots with screaming in between.

If she was shot first, it fits Oscar's story, no screaming leading up to the shooting, and the screaming afterwards is Oscar.

That means the witnesses heard Oscar screaming, not Reeva.

If that is not the case, the prosecutor has to prove it.

Did he prove it? Not to my mind.

I think the ear witnesses heard a woman screaming for as much as 15 minutes (this is quite apart from the hour of raised voices heard by one of them).

I think the concept of OP screaming for that length of time is not only unlikely but is not accounted for by his own testimony. the 'screaming' he described does not tally with or explain the screams which the ear witnesses heard.

Finally, you mentioned that there was a 100% chance that the ear witnesses were all wrong about hearing Reeva scream. I thought that all pathologists (PT and DT) had now agreed that if the first shot hit Reeva in the hip then she would have screamed and had also agreed that the first shot DID hit her in the hip - so how can you say that none of the witnesses could have heard her scream?

 

[Carmelita]

The evidence doesn't fit OP's version and isn't favorable to his defense. And his only explanation for that has been the assertion that police moved evidence and contaminated the crime scene (which he'd already contaminated). At this point, I think it's safe to state that the defense is so far removed from the Occam's Razor principle that the judge's looking glass will be well beyond the evidence provided.

That is your opinion, one that is shared by most here but that doesn’t mean Oscar deliberately murdered Reeva. I have stated that Oscar version does not fit the evidence 100%, the prosecution has not offered a theory that fits the evidence and the scene 100% therefore the looking glass cannot lawfully be seen through Occam’s looking glass. There are simply too many possible variables.

As to the fan, IMO if one of the crime tech people or a first responder moved it to cool off a hot muggy room filled with the stench of human blood in it, (trust me this is an awful smell) there is no way that they will admit to it at this time. The judge knows crime scenes get contaminated, the judge knows that people are fallible, I just think she has a wider viewing point that many others seem to believe.

 

[liesbeth]

I can't help thinking that Nel has kept lots of stuff back to use in X-exam of the defense witnesses.
Bedroom door damage/blood on watch case etc etc.
I still feel as though he has some major things up his sleeve for the grand finale.
He quizzed OP on the duvet and blood spatter etc and got OP to say it must have been caused when he came back into the bedroom to get his phones...............after holding Reeva in the toilet after shooting her.
Well.............my eureka moment lol.................if that was the case then he would have been covered in blood so where are the bloody footprints coming back down the corridor and into the bedroom and back again?
Is Nel keeping this for the coup de grace or have I missed an explanation for this somewhere?

Good point. Also. The blood spatter expert, Van der Nest, testified that there were no footprints in the toilet. Or arterial spurting higher up on the walls of the toilet.

 

[canny]

I admit....hatfield is correct about the damage to ears and hearing...

does anyone think that b'strd put plugs in his ears before shooting Reeva?....my God,....that would be sick. But not improbable.

Plugs in his ears was a possibility. Since his affidavit and testimony in court were given under oath, one has to be false with regarding to this ringing in his ears. For more than a year the whole world was perplexed and debating the plausible reasons why OP never heard Reeva's blood curling screams, while neighbors living far away from his home heard them .All along none of the gun experts had come up with this possible reason that maybe his ears started ringing, until OP sprung this rabbit out of his bag one year later This to me indicates that he is lying and has committed perjury under oath.

 

[TipDog]

You're right, a 10 yr old probably not but a 12 yr has iirc. Either way, if they're guilty they're guilty, age usually only comes into play for the penalty/mitigation phase.

Not sure even that a 12 year old has. I think the youngest has been a 14 yr old - not that it matters.

As for they're guilty, they're guilty - not sure I agree. Children really do not understand the full consequences of their actions. This is why I vehemently argue that OP was not acting on the level of a child.

 

[Carmelita]

I don't think any one of us can say it has or hasn't been.

I am not talking about the court of popular public opinion, yours or unpopular opinion, mine. I was replying to a specific post which stated that it had been met.


It is the judges responsibility to not have made that decision at this point in the trial.

 

[Feynman]

That would be a good argument if he wasn't a liar. The fact that he is lying on the stand means he didn't make any assumptions nor was he fearful.

OP has certainly lied - the Tasha's incident being the most glaring example IMO. Why he would lie about that is a mystery. I'm sure Roux was against pleading not guilty to that charge, but OP overruled him. Why? I don't know. He's an incomprehensible, stupid, arrogant, lying moron at times. Lying, however, does not necessarily imply OP is guilty as charged by the PT. Innocent people sometimes lie on the stand.

 

[Val1]

Agreed, Soozie.

Conversely, many of us who believe OP is guilty have provided reasonable explanations based on SA law, forensic evidence, testimony, logic, common sense, as well as citing excerpts (with links) from scientific sources in an effort to inform ourselves & others regarding various aspects of this case (e.g. ballistic sound waves, decibel acoustics, instantaneous rigor & hypoxic jaw clenching, memory formation, etc.).

Additionally, there is a big difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt, IMO. The State is not required to prove beyond an unreasonable doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Agreed, my ignore list is growing as a result.:ignore: I'm getting too old to explain the same thing over and over, providing the actual parts of the case and/or links of background/legal articles that helped me reach those thoughts, to certain posters that are commonly called trolls on any other forum.ullhair:

 

[DebinGA]

Why doesnt the defence prove it? After all they have him screaming on tape, simple matter to play it to the ear witnesses. Something OP was asked by Nel and he gave a stupid answer. Eta

Somethng like he didnt have a view if it would be a good idea or not

I wish we had audio of the sound OP's sliding bathroom window made that sent him into terror mode. OP updated his version at trial to the window sliding and banging into the frame. Only one narrow section of the 3-section window was open when police arrived. Hilton Botha in a Vanity Fair article said that they'd tested whether Mr. Intruder could have gotten in through that window and found "It's impossible."

 

[sorrell skye]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

OP was/is not a ten year old boy.

He was 26 years old when he shot & killed Reeva.

I don't find it useful at all to imagine hypotheticals that contain less than zero resemblance to this case. If we were to compare a ten year old boy thinking he was protecting himself & his babysitter with this case, we may as well compare heffalumps and woozles and Winnie the Pooh protecting his pot of honey (I think Winnie the Pooh's case would be more relevant, between the two).

I'm all for discussing hypotheticals that may be similar, but the above scenario involving a ten year old boy has no similarity at all to this case.