Trial Discussion Thread #30

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #721
I would like to say I find the mocking and guffawing about Oscar doing harm to his attorney or others given the horrific tragedy of Reeva’s death extremely distasteful.

I understand that most of you find me a bit repulsive as you believe I am making excuses for a killer and apparently no amount of explaining my position seems to bridge that communication gap. I can live with that. But I will give it one more go.

I am not defending Oscar's actions I am looking at them soberly through the lens of quantifiable evidence and by my rubric there is still reasonable doubt as to whether or not Oscar willfully with premeditation killed Reeva
.

JMO
I at first thought it may be possible he really did mistaken an intruder in house but when I saw the location of where she was and realized he had to pursue the person to that little area and then realized he took aim and knew where the person was located I pretty much could no longer believe him.

The trajectory of the bullets indicated to me he must have peeked into the stall and knew who he was shooting at.
 
  • #722
Really? I can see that would be sensible but who leaves someone they are smitten and loved up with because they drove to fast?

To be fair, she was terrified and he wasn't listening to her or didn't care how scared she was. Knowing what I know now, it would be a deal breaker for me. However, it was a new relationship and the incident was probably minimised or justified.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
 
  • #723
Really? I can see that would be sensible but who leaves someone they are smitten and loved up with because they drove to fast?

Well this is just for me personally but if I was in a new relationship and a man was driving fast enough to instill fear in me and he would not stop doing so even though I asked him to and he could see how upset his driving was making me, that would have been my walking card.
 
  • #724
Really? I can see that would be sensible but who leaves someone they are smitten and loved up with because they drove to fast?

According to the Moms interview it was a big deal. Big enough to where the daughter thought her life would end if he did not slow down. She had to call her mom from the car because he would not listen to her. Her Mom finally convinced him to slow down.

That total ignoring the daughter and ignoring her pleas to slow down when he knew he was scaring the life out of her is plenty enough for me to leave someone if they didnt listen to my pleas and would only slow down when I called my mom from the car while it was happening.

It was a big deal.
 
  • #725
Great post.
You seem almost certainly to be a medical professional, so let us hear from you often please.

Do you BTW know how long alcohol would stay in the system?
Say somone had a glass or 2 of wine at 8 PM and does not get blood drawn for alcohol till noon the following day. Would it all or most be gone by then?
TIA

BIB. Be careful Shane. You are on the Internet. LOL!!!
 
  • #726
JMO
I at first thought it may be possible he really did mistaken an intruder in house but when I saw the location of where she was and realized he had to pursue the person to that little area and then realized he took aim and knew where the person was located I pretty much could no longer believe him.

The trajectory of the bullets indicated to me he must have peeked into the stall and knew who he was shooting at.


Hi Hatfield,

I don't agree that this statement;

The trajectory of the bullets indicated to me he must have peeked into the stall and knew who he was shooting at

is factual evidence just your opinion as are my posts, I do appreciate your opinion and your answer.

Sorry Hatfield I misread your post and see that you were very clear in stating it is your opinion. I will leave my post anyhow with my correction. Many points from which to view in this case but unfortunately it is a lot of speculation on everyone's part. Trying to make sense of the insensible is difficult at best.
 
  • #727
According to the Moms interview it was a big deal. Big enough to where the daughter thought her life would end if he did not slow down. She had to call her mom from the car because he would not listen to her. Her Mom finally convinced him to slow down.

That total ignoring the daughter and ignoring her pleas to slow down when he knew he was scaring the life out of her is plenty enough for me to leave someone if they didnt listen to my pleas and would only slow down when I called my mom from the car while it was happening.

It was a big deal.

Don't misunderstand me Im not saying hi speed is not a big deal and she got a fright for sure but she didn't leave him which kind of validates my point really
 
  • #728
Here is what I "remember," Dr. Saayman said Reeva died almost instantly, within 2-3 last breaths after being shot in the head. I remember too that you are coming along to say that Dr. Saayman meant something different when he said those things. You believe he meant that she stopped breathing after the gunshot to the head, but her heart continued beating for as many minutes as it took for OP to get her out if the WC and down the stairs. And you are basing that off of your personal life experiences. And you are refusing to consider the (lack of) blood pooling evidence. So I will reject your hypothesis and stick with Dr. Saayman's opinion that Reeva died almost instantly, and by "died" he meant she was Clinically Dead: no heart beat, no breathing, no brain function within seconds of receiving the bullet to her brain.

We're hindered here by transcription issues from the Prof's sensitive testimony but if you read the day 6 WS thread (page 14) from the day of his testimony it says, via an Alex Crawford tweet and posted by Trooper that "Pathologist said that Reeva's head wound would have been incapacitating but she would not have necessarily died straight away".

And remember, pale heart muscle = bled out. There should have been more blood, dunno where it went.
 
  • #729
Hi everyone, I've been lurking for a few weeks but promised myself I wouldn't get involved as i'm pretty busy. However, I was reading the extensive debate about time lines and then felt the need to add my two cents, like you do.

I'm very firmly in the gun shots last camp and I think Reeva's autopsy findings make Oscars "version" implausible. Prof Saayman testified that the head shot would have been fatal and this hasn't been disputed. It's also on record that Reeva would have been able, at the most, to breathe a few breaths following it. Reeva appeared healthy so it's conceivable that her heart would have beaten for some minutes following this respiratory arrest - based on the blood splatter analysis its been stated that she died (that is, her heart stopped beating as well) at the top of the stairs, at about 3:22 am IIRC. The PT has this time at about 5 minutes after the head shots at 3:17, the DT states that the first bangs were the gunshots , so around 3 am or maybe a bit later. Based on the ear witness testimonies the time after these first bangs to Reeva's death at the top of he stairs is about 15-20 minutes. To me, the latter time already seems implausible.

However, don't forget that on post mortem Reeva's heart muscle was pale, consistent with blood loss. Prof Saayman stated that there was about a 50% chance that her arm and hip wounds would also have been fatal, even if the head shot had not occurred. To survive the limb injuries Reeva would have needed major and prompt resuscitation - intubation/ventilation, copious fluids, volume expanders and blood products, trauma surgery and medication to support her cardiac function. And even with all of this she still had a good chance of dying.

If you consider the injuries separately it's possible that with just the limb injuries she could still have some cardiac activity after 20 minutes, given that she would have been able to breathe. However, hypovolaemic shock would have occured well before 20 minutes. Had the head injury been the only injury it's less likely but probably not impossible that there would still have been some weak cardiac activity after 20 minutes, bearing in mind though that she wouldn't have been able to breathe for this time. However, the combination of the two injuries - no oxygen and severe blood loss - means that the time from respiratory arrest (just after the shot to the head) and full cardiac arrest (top of the stairs) would have been shorter than with either of these injuries in isolation. To me, the idea that her heart beat for 20 minutes after a catastrophic head wound, after she stopped breathing and after she was haemorrhaging from severe limb wounds is highly, highly unlikely. I don't know why Dr Perumal is not testifying but I can only speculate that he's refused to go along with this nonsense.

Moreover, on cross exam, Oscar stated that when he entered the bathroom Reeva was "still breathing". As stated above, Prof Saayman said she would have, at the most, only breathed a few more breaths after the head shot. The shot would have severed her brainstem and respiratory control centre instantly. The most likely sequence of events was *headshot* - breathing stops, or *headshot* - a few reflexic breaths then breathing stops. NOT *headshot* followed by oscar sreaming up and down corridors, shouting off balconies and freshly breaking down the door in time to see Reeva breathe. If he's telling the truth abut this then he either prised open the damaged door within seconds or he could already see her through a crack in the door.

And for those who are skeptical of Prof Saayman's testimony because they know someone whose brain was blown from their skull by black talon bullets who breathed/talked/made a cup of tea/whatever afterwards then I suggest you give Mr Roux a call as the DT needs you. They seem to have a sudden vacancy in this area.

All IMO, although I'm comfortable with my physiology.

You know, I think this was my clever deduction (lol) and all anyone's doing is discussing respiratory vs cardiac death. Anyway, bed time.
 
  • #730
Gee again. Reeva goes to the loo and while there hears the frantic sound of OP running down the hallway on his stumps- which was odd, since he typically would have them on-- and he's screaming get the f out of my house.

If I heard my able bodied hubby yelling those words I would not need to hear the word Intruder to get that an intruder must be in the house. If I were in the loo I would lock it too and stay as quiet as I could.

BBM: Don't you think you would be able to tell that your husband was 3 meters away from you on the other side of the door? You could certainly say something to him at that time. You are behind the door, for all you know he is shooting at someone in the window, but he is close enough to you to hear you.
 
  • #731
According to the Moms interview it was a big deal. Big enough to where the daughter thought her life would end if he did not slow down. She had to call her mom from the car because he would not listen to her. Her Mom finally convinced him to slow down.



That total ignoring the daughter and ignoring her pleas to slow down when he knew he was scaring the life out of her is plenty enough for me to leave someone if they didnt listen to my pleas and would only slow down when I called my mom from the car while it was happening.



It was a big deal.

ITA. And for me its a big, waving red flag. Its just my opinion, and I know one not necessarily shared, but if he was abusive it's likely he would have minimised this and convinced her it was an isolated incident - complete with rational excuse (lack of sleep, bad day, lost race), profuse apologies and promises to never do it again. When we love someone its so easy, too easy, to want to believe the best of them.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
 
  • #732
A pent up dam being released would not give an arterial spurt pattern though, would it?

Once again a convenient combination of three different 'ifs' have to be employed to support OP's story. So her head wound was bleeding into the toilet but miraculously neither her hip or arm wound were bleeding. Then as she was being carried downstairs 15-20 minutes after she actually died somehow the un-kinking of a vessel resulted in something looking like arterial spurt?

I just do not think this is credible.

BIB. I don't see the "kinked" WS thing, but I do appreciate the attempt at an answer to the question of how, if Reeva was dead long ago, did she spurt blood over the headboard and over the staircase railing.

Sequential Compression Devices are used on the lower leg to move blood through the body when people are unable to ambulate, because they run the risk of having blood pooling and it clotting and causing an embolism. Here Reeva had five open wounds and OPs picking up her body and cradling it and gripping it and changing both of those as he moved her from the bathroom to the downstairs would cause compression and decompression at certain points along the way. IMO that is the only explanation that makes any sense out of the facts.
 
  • #733
Really? I can see that would be sensible but who leaves someone they are smitten and loved up with because they drove to fast?

First her friends and family said there was no "smitten' here, they had 1 or 2 dates per week in the approx 3 months. And the Myers say in the beginning he may have been smitten and she wanted to go slow.

Secondly, someone who wants to stay alive and realizes the other party has immense and dangerous flaws.
 
  • #734
I don't get it. She's the one that said he probably had frontal lobe injuries, which would be very relevant to this trial. So is that up for consideration or not since the DT hasn't brought it up?

That defense would have been broken down quickly. I.e. If he had a brain injury with sequelae, then he should never have guns, would not have been able to endure the intense training for the Olympics, etc.

It is way too late for that excuse.
 
  • #735
Really? I can see that would be sensible but who leaves someone they are smitten and loved up with because they drove to fast?

Because maybe they want to live longer. Seriously he didn't know Reeva long enough to scareherwiththat driving. He did not slow down when she asked him.
 
  • #736
Not trying to convince anyone. Just saying I'd be quiet in the toilet if I thought my husband, boyfriend, etc. was in the house dealing with an intruder that I could have no way of knowing where he was, etc.

Yes, but your husband/boyfriend on the other side of the door would also be checking to make sure it wasn't you he was just about to shoot, right?
 
  • #737
We're hindered here by transcription issues from the Prof's sensitive testimony but if you read the day 6 WS thread (page 14) from the day of his testimony it says, via an Alex Crawford tweet and posted by Trooper that "Pathologist said that Reeva's head wound would have been incapacitating but she would not have necessarily died straight away".

And remember, pale heart muscle = bled out. There should have been more blood, dunno where it went.

From the following link:
"The bullets shattered her right upper arm, and the shot to her head incapacitated her immediately. The hip wound, Saayman said, could have been fatal. With no blood found in her lungs, Saayman surmised that Steenkamp died after a few breaths."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...-autopsy-results/5291394463275/#ixzz2zWkeShcV
 
  • #738
Yes, I'm sure he is suffering from PTSD. He killed his girlfriend and destroyed her life and his life. Can't get much more traumatic than that.

But, you probably don't want to hear from me.

I agree about the PTSD even though he brought it on himself (though he would blame someone else [Reeva?] for it).

IMO his histrionics in court are related to HIS destroyed future rather than Reeva's destroyed future.
 
  • #739
That is speculation and I hardly think Oscar would have not shot the hell out of an intruder before the intruder realized that they had intruded into the wrong house.

I've no idea what you are replying to there, Carmelita, because it's nothing to do with what I posted .. I don't even understand what you are saying, to be honest.
 
  • #740
He did not verify that Reeva was in bed by what standard? His testimony is that he believed 100% that Reeva was in bed. He was 100% wrong, but in his version of that deadly morning Oscar in his own mind had verified that Reeva was in bed through faulty reasoning.


How did OP reasonably verify Reeva was in the bed with a 1- way conversation? IMO , he had no reason to reasonably believe that intruders were in the bathroom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
1,555
Total visitors
1,637

Forum statistics

Threads
632,330
Messages
18,624,791
Members
243,091
Latest member
ajf
Back
Top