Would love to be proven wrong because that's why we are here as websleuthers.
But right now, we have a lying OP, bad defense expert testimony, and credible witnesses against OP and also no idea what defense claim is being used by defense.
Trial Discussion Thread #29
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
-
CA CA - Timothy "Tim" Barnes, 25, Yosemite National Park, 5 July 1988- Latest: buyerninety
- Status
Would love to be proven wrong because that's why we are here as websleuthers.
But right now, we have a lying OP, bad defense expert testimony, and credible witnesses against OP and also no idea what defense claim is being used by defense.
TipDog
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
Goodness, me too. But I think it's human nature to use descriptive words to describe someone. I'm too lazy to go back to find the posts using the words "beautiful" and "gorgeous," so forgive me if I'm wrong about context, but I'm not sure that the members who used those words are necessarily basing their entire opinion about OP's guilt on how RS looked. She just happened to be incredibly beautiful, something I don't think anyone would deny.
And if the tables were turned and she were on trial for shooting OP, I'm sure some would say OP was so handsome, why would she shoot him?, etc. We're superficial beings.
OP's legal team has not raised any doubts about any or all the pictures taken in their possession of the door, and the door itself, and their opinion is paramount in their endeavor to see that he gets a fair trial.
Given no one cares about defense and people keep emphasizing state case, lets think about this as a websleuther. The charge is he intended to kill someone, namely RS. Putting the fear stuff aside as that is for self defense argument.
He intended to grab the gun.
He intended to walk into bathroom.
He knew there was someone in the toilet.
He heard a noise and intended to shoot four times at intruder until threated was gone. (lets ignore his change of accidental plea)
How is this not premeditated murder?
He intended to grab the gun.
He intended to walk into bathroom.
He knew there was someone in the toilet.
He heard a noise and intended to shoot four times at intruder until threated was gone. (lets ignore his change of accidental plea)
How is this not premeditated murder?
Oscar and Reeva have a late dinner and an argument breaks out starting sometime before 2am
The bedroom window is open from earlier in the evening
Estelle van der Merwe is woken at 1.56am by the noise of a fight.
It is hard to make out but she hears a woman's voice, but does not know where it is coming from
She tries and eventually gets back to sleep
At some time the bedroom door may have been damaged
At some point the arguing calmed down only to begin again later
Oscar picks up or threatens to pick up the cricket bat
Reeva starts to feel scared. She runs from the bedroom up the corridor to the bathroom
(Oscar may have argued with her in the bathroom and thrown her jeans out of the window)
She locks herself in the toilet.
The bathroom light is already on but the toilet is dark because the bulb in there is broken.
Oscar calms down, is apologetic and tries to talk her out.
Reeva will not unlock the door and Oscar becomes furious
Mrs Stipp has a bout of coughing which wakes her up
She looks at her clock which says 3.02. (Clock was fast - actual time about 2.58)
(She will look at her clock again at 3.17 actual time about 3.13)
The clock is now running and the defence must account for how OP used up this time an did not confirm to himself that he shot Reeva for another 15 minutes.
Oscar comes into the bathroom with the cricket bat. The light may already be on or he may now switch it on
He may or may no be on his prosthetics.
The damage shows the angle of the cricket bat in the door is consistent with being hit by a shorter person standing in a natural position
The damage is also consistent with a taller person leaning into the hit, putting their body weight into the blow to use maximum force.
After the defence case it is unlikely that this will be reliably decided.
Reeva sees the light go on, she may scream which is not heard due to the locked toilet or
does not scream so as not to escalate the situation.
Mr Stipp is woken by 3 loud bangs
Mrs Stipp is fully awake and hears 3 "gunshots" as OP hits the door with the cricket bat and moments after a woman screaming
Roux tries to make out that Mrs Stipp slept through the first "shot" by first lying to the court about her being "asleep" when cross examining Mr Stipp
She has line of sight to the bathroom window from her bed.
The "shots" are OP hitting the door breaking it. There are only 3 hits
Estelle van der Merwe does not hear these bangs, she is trying to sleep and may have a pillow over her head
The cricket bat has broken out a piece of the door along the weakest line of the joint at the right edge of the top inner panel
It runs almost the complete height of the panel and parts of it are the splinters lost from the door exhibit
Only the Stipps heard these "shots"
At this point OP may break away some other part of the panel. Now the panel is broken parts may be relatively easily lifted out
(Note: The toilet and bathroom windows are frosted. The toilet window is separate to and to the left of the bathroom window. The bathroom window has 3 sections, the left section was open. The Stipps could see straight in through the open section where the bathroom light appeared bright)
Mrs Stipp see's the bathroom light on and light in the toilet almost as bright as behind the closed part of the bathroom window.
She described it as a "light on in the toilet"
Mr Stipp said he also saw light in the toilet but it was not as bright as in the bathroom window - it would certainly not have been as bright as the light from the open part of the bathroom window.
He did at one point say he didn't see a "light on" in the toilet as he thought it was not bright enough for this.
The Stipps saw the bathroom light through the hole in the toilet door.
If both Stipps saw light in the toilet/bathroom straight after the first sounds which OP said were only gunshots then OP must have been lying.
Roux had already told the court that OP said the toilet light was broken.
Reeva's screams could now be heard clearly through the hole and out through the open bathroom window (Stipp said the screams were clear and unmuffled)
Roux argued Monday 4 March, Session 3 at 28.00min in support of MB hearing OP screams that should be easy to hear through same open window at the distance
The Stipps go quickly to their small balcony, they hear a woman/female screaming.
They say the screams were "moments" after the shots.
At about 3.03 (2.59 actual time) "just after 3" the Bergers are woken by Reevas screams. (They did not hear the door being hit)
Mr Berger very roughly estimates there is 2 minutes before the cries of "help"
After 3/4 min the Stipps move to their big balcony for a better view
Mr Stipp goes in and spends some time during the following events calling:
Silverwood Security No answer
Called 10111 - not in service
Its is now about 3.05/3.06 (3.01/3.02 actual time)
Reeva screams help help help
Oscar shouts help, help, help mocking her. He may have been in the bedroom at this point as Mr Stipp said the helps were muffled.
The Bergers call security
There is continued screaming some of which may not have been heard as the witnesses were busy getting dressed/phoning
Oscar goes to get his gun.
Reeva can see out through the hole in the door and she knows Oscar is coming with the gun
Her screams intensify. Mrs Berger says "to a climax"
Mr Berger is on his balcony and hears the same
Mrs Stipp hears this as screams coming closer as if along the road
Whilst on the phone Mr Stipp hears only "2 /3 loud bangs". Thinks it is shooting
The Bergers hear shot....shot shot shot taking
The shots lasted 3.5 seconds with a longer approx 1.5 second pause between shot 1 and 2
Mrs Stipp hears a man screaming just before the shots, she cannot make out words then hears 3 shots.
Mrs Stipp has just looked at he clock. It says 3.17 (actual time 3.13)
For a short time it was together with the woman screaming. There was differences in the pitches at the same time.
Estelle van der Merwe and her husband both hear bang bang bang bang, her husband says they are gunshots
OP now angry beyond control has come into the bathroom
He raises his gun and fires four shots, moving towards the door and to the right as if to try to see Reeva through the long narrow vertical hole in the door
He may be on his stumps and firing with the gun raised to his eye although as he is moving this would seem odd
He is probably his prosthetics firing from the hip. He had a trapped easy target so as he was moving at the time this would seem more likely
The bullet holes are not tightly grouped and not consistent with double tapped shots.
The light has been on all the time so he can see clearly
After the first shot shatters her hip Reeva has about 1.5 seconds to fall back onto the magazine rack where a ricochet hits her
The next two shots hit her in the arm and head, She screamed as long as she could but it died away after the last shot.
The screams dying away after the last shot were heard by the Bergers and Mrs Stipp
Estelle van der Merwe describes silence after the shooting
When Mr Stipp goes back on the balcony and hears a man shouting "help" "help" "help"
Estelle van der Merwe heard a womans voice crying for help. Her husband said it was Oscar
Closer neighbours heard a man crying out and crying in pain
Security arrive and talk to the Stipps on their balcony
Mr Stipp again went to the other balcony and watches Security leave
Mr Stipp sees a light coloured figure moving from right to left through the bathroom window
Mrs Stipp initially reported the same but retracted this when she realised it was her husbands recollection.
She also "remembered" the event before the final shots not after. This was to be challenged during the defence part.
Mr Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time
Mrs Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time
Oscar with prosthetics now on, probably realising the terrible truth of what he had done, pulled out the rest of the panel, got the key opened the door and dragged her out.
It was as he was breaking down the rest of the panel that the bullet hole that Col Vermeulen pointed out caused a crack in the wood to deviate.
It was only 1 hole that showed this effect.
Oscar horrified at what he has done picks up Reeva and carries her downstairs where he is met by Security and later Dr Stipp.
The bedroom window is open from earlier in the evening
Estelle van der Merwe is woken at 1.56am by the noise of a fight.
It is hard to make out but she hears a woman's voice, but does not know where it is coming from
She tries and eventually gets back to sleep
At some time the bedroom door may have been damaged
At some point the arguing calmed down only to begin again later
Oscar picks up or threatens to pick up the cricket bat
Reeva starts to feel scared. She runs from the bedroom up the corridor to the bathroom
(Oscar may have argued with her in the bathroom and thrown her jeans out of the window)
She locks herself in the toilet.
The bathroom light is already on but the toilet is dark because the bulb in there is broken.
Oscar calms down, is apologetic and tries to talk her out.
Reeva will not unlock the door and Oscar becomes furious
Mrs Stipp has a bout of coughing which wakes her up
She looks at her clock which says 3.02. (Clock was fast - actual time about 2.58)
(She will look at her clock again at 3.17 actual time about 3.13)
The clock is now running and the defence must account for how OP used up this time an did not confirm to himself that he shot Reeva for another 15 minutes.
Oscar comes into the bathroom with the cricket bat. The light may already be on or he may now switch it on
He may or may no be on his prosthetics.
The damage shows the angle of the cricket bat in the door is consistent with being hit by a shorter person standing in a natural position
The damage is also consistent with a taller person leaning into the hit, putting their body weight into the blow to use maximum force.
After the defence case it is unlikely that this will be reliably decided.
Reeva sees the light go on, she may scream which is not heard due to the locked toilet or
does not scream so as not to escalate the situation.
Mr Stipp is woken by 3 loud bangs
Mrs Stipp is fully awake and hears 3 "gunshots" as OP hits the door with the cricket bat and moments after a woman screaming
Roux tries to make out that Mrs Stipp slept through the first "shot" by first lying to the court about her being "asleep" when cross examining Mr Stipp
She has line of sight to the bathroom window from her bed.
The "shots" are OP hitting the door breaking it. There are only 3 hits
Estelle van der Merwe does not hear these bangs, she is trying to sleep and may have a pillow over her head
The cricket bat has broken out a piece of the door along the weakest line of the joint at the right edge of the top inner panel
It runs almost the complete height of the panel and parts of it are the splinters lost from the door exhibit
Only the Stipps heard these "shots"
At this point OP may break away some other part of the panel. Now the panel is broken parts may be relatively easily lifted out
(Note: The toilet and bathroom windows are frosted. The toilet window is separate to and to the left of the bathroom window. The bathroom window has 3 sections, the left section was open. The Stipps could see straight in through the open section where the bathroom light appeared bright)
Mrs Stipp see's the bathroom light on and light in the toilet almost as bright as behind the closed part of the bathroom window.
She described it as a "light on in the toilet"
Mr Stipp said he also saw light in the toilet but it was not as bright as in the bathroom window - it would certainly not have been as bright as the light from the open part of the bathroom window.
He did at one point say he didn't see a "light on" in the toilet as he thought it was not bright enough for this.
The Stipps saw the bathroom light through the hole in the toilet door.
If both Stipps saw light in the toilet/bathroom straight after the first sounds which OP said were only gunshots then OP must have been lying.
Roux had already told the court that OP said the toilet light was broken.
Reeva's screams could now be heard clearly through the hole and out through the open bathroom window (Stipp said the screams were clear and unmuffled)
Roux argued Monday 4 March, Session 3 at 28.00min in support of MB hearing OP screams that should be easy to hear through same open window at the distance
The Stipps go quickly to their small balcony, they hear a woman/female screaming.
They say the screams were "moments" after the shots.
At about 3.03 (2.59 actual time) "just after 3" the Bergers are woken by Reevas screams. (They did not hear the door being hit)
Mr Berger very roughly estimates there is 2 minutes before the cries of "help"
After 3/4 min the Stipps move to their big balcony for a better view
Mr Stipp goes in and spends some time during the following events calling:
Silverwood Security No answer
Called 10111 - not in service
Its is now about 3.05/3.06 (3.01/3.02 actual time)
Reeva screams help help help
Oscar shouts help, help, help mocking her. He may have been in the bedroom at this point as Mr Stipp said the helps were muffled.
The Bergers call security
There is continued screaming some of which may not have been heard as the witnesses were busy getting dressed/phoning
Oscar goes to get his gun.
Reeva can see out through the hole in the door and she knows Oscar is coming with the gun
Her screams intensify. Mrs Berger says "to a climax"
Mr Berger is on his balcony and hears the same
Mrs Stipp hears this as screams coming closer as if along the road
Whilst on the phone Mr Stipp hears only "2 /3 loud bangs". Thinks it is shooting
The Bergers hear shot....shot shot shot taking
The shots lasted 3.5 seconds with a longer approx 1.5 second pause between shot 1 and 2
Mrs Stipp hears a man screaming just before the shots, she cannot make out words then hears 3 shots.
Mrs Stipp has just looked at he clock. It says 3.17 (actual time 3.13)
For a short time it was together with the woman screaming. There was differences in the pitches at the same time.
Estelle van der Merwe and her husband both hear bang bang bang bang, her husband says they are gunshots
OP now angry beyond control has come into the bathroom
He raises his gun and fires four shots, moving towards the door and to the right as if to try to see Reeva through the long narrow vertical hole in the door
He may be on his stumps and firing with the gun raised to his eye although as he is moving this would seem odd
He is probably his prosthetics firing from the hip. He had a trapped easy target so as he was moving at the time this would seem more likely
The bullet holes are not tightly grouped and not consistent with double tapped shots.
The light has been on all the time so he can see clearly
After the first shot shatters her hip Reeva has about 1.5 seconds to fall back onto the magazine rack where a ricochet hits her
The next two shots hit her in the arm and head, She screamed as long as she could but it died away after the last shot.
The screams dying away after the last shot were heard by the Bergers and Mrs Stipp
Estelle van der Merwe describes silence after the shooting
When Mr Stipp goes back on the balcony and hears a man shouting "help" "help" "help"
Estelle van der Merwe heard a womans voice crying for help. Her husband said it was Oscar
Closer neighbours heard a man crying out and crying in pain
Security arrive and talk to the Stipps on their balcony
Mr Stipp again went to the other balcony and watches Security leave
Mr Stipp sees a light coloured figure moving from right to left through the bathroom window
Mrs Stipp initially reported the same but retracted this when she realised it was her husbands recollection.
She also "remembered" the event before the final shots not after. This was to be challenged during the defence part.
Mr Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time
Mrs Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time
Oscar with prosthetics now on, probably realising the terrible truth of what he had done, pulled out the rest of the panel, got the key opened the door and dragged her out.
It was as he was breaking down the rest of the panel that the bullet hole that Col Vermeulen pointed out caused a crack in the wood to deviate.
It was only 1 hole that showed this effect.
Oscar horrified at what he has done picks up Reeva and carries her downstairs where he is met by Security and later Dr Stipp.
Greater Than
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 76
Moot point. She was already dead and he knew it.
TipDog
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
BIB 1
Given your perception, let me state for the record, I'm not in that majority.
BIB 2
By semantics, I was referring to the sporting event analogy. And I was kidding.
BIB 3
I'm sorry you feel this way. I've been watching spirited discussions among members on both "sides," and honestly, I just don't see what you do.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
Yes you can transfer intent for premeditation but you can't transfer it from an innocent person to an armed burglar (if it's a genuine belief) - that's why it's putative self defense.
Ncl1968
welsh wizzard
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi just a newbie with a few things I may have missed
Nel was about to ask op why only 4 shots and not empty the gun? Good question I guess he hit the head shot reeva no longer screaming... but Nel said never mind we get back to that.... any ideas
2..the damage to the prosphetic legs how and why was that done?
3.. the jeans outside the bathroom... I missed all of that...
Thanks great reading on here.. just to throw my thoughts in the mix
I think he knows he acted rash and is torrmented by the reality of his actions
But what ever the reason he executed the poor woman..
Nel was about to ask op why only 4 shots and not empty the gun? Good question I guess he hit the head shot reeva no longer screaming... but Nel said never mind we get back to that.... any ideas
2..the damage to the prosphetic legs how and why was that done?
3.. the jeans outside the bathroom... I missed all of that...
Thanks great reading on here.. just to throw my thoughts in the mix
I think he knows he acted rash and is torrmented by the reality of his actions
But what ever the reason he executed the poor woman..
And what has happened to his next door neighbor and good friend who claimed he woke up at 3:00 am to what sounded like thunder and waited for the rain which never came and went back to sleep. He woke up the next morning and found Police cars and ambulances parked in OP front yard.He was supposed to give OP an good character certificate. Has he changed his name and migrated to another country?
Carmelita
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 2
I think it is unbearably obvious that Oscar is not an emotionally well person. I believe he presents traits of narcissism and that he is incapable of accepting his humanity. I have offered reasons for my opinions in many previous posts. If events happened similar to what Oscar has stated I can see him trying to keep his delicate psyche in balance by making himself sound less culpable to an accidental (though reckless)shooting.
I personally believe that Oscar is not very smart nor do I think he is emotionally sound, I dont think he would have lasted this long if he were not relaying the events of that morning to the best of his ability.
So do I think the entire integrity of his testimony is compromised by inconsistencies or outright untruths such as his finger was not on the trigger of a gun that went off? The short answer is nope.
steveml
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 31
Of course, but it's essential to determine what is positive evidence and what is speculation.
Speculation is fine on WS, but the more speculating Nel has to do, the less chance he has of securing a conviction.
TipDog
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think I've ever called anyone a supporter myself and will not use the word going forward. But I simply don't understand how using it or the word "sides" is turning on anyone.
Of course, I also don't see how calling someone a supporter of OP or the defense is in any way suggesting that he/she condones murder or supports a murderer no matter what our opinion is about the case.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
Welcome!
I believe that when Nel says "we'll get back to that" or "we'll deal with that" - many times he means that he will deal with it in his summation at the end. i.e. He's going to explain the connections of everything and provide a scenario and argue that the circumstantial evidence supports his conclusions to the exclusion of any other reasonable inferences and conclusions.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
IMO her post was not directed at you - but there are definitely posts referring to "OP supporters" in a derogatory manner and with the implication that those people want an obvious murderer to go free. There are only a couple of such posters that I can think of who fit that bill, but they are out there. IMO it's bullying and ridicule.
Oh yes, his dear friend the contractor, almost forgot about him:
http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd like to know how many men who've shot and killed their partners actually confess to deliberate murder. Most killers deny deny deny, even when faced with irrefutable evidence that they're guilty. OP is just doing what almost every other murderer does when caught, lie and try to wriggle out of it. Since he's the only one alive from that night, it's perfectly right that Nel tests his credibility, because if OP is trying to convince the Judge to believe a gun he was holding at Tasha's went off without him pulling the trigger, it shows how detached from reality he is, and the Judge has that as evidence he has no problem lying under oath.
Not sure what you mean. I'm saying sometimes people who are innocent of the crime they are charged with will lie on the stand, and in other ways act detrimentally to their case. You disagree?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 64
- Guests online
- 2,642
- Total visitors
- 2,706