Trial Discussion Thread #30

[minor4th]

"Plan" was put into quotes for a reason, I believe. If a person is innocent then there is no need to "plan" a defense as they would tell the truth on the stand followed by their supporting evidence that proves they are innocent. However, if someone is guilty then they do need to PLAN a defense, one that sounds plausible and that the judge/jury will accept as the truth.

Of course innocent people have been found guilty before just as guilty people have been found not guilty before. The difference between the two groups could be the defense that was "planned" instead of just defending themselves with the truth and/or the judge/jury believing or not believing their defense.

The way that OP has testified on the stand, and what has been pointed out by Nel, is that he has tailored his version to fit what he knows the evidence shows. OP admitted to reading all of the pre trial material that he could. OP has changed his version three times now, the latest version while on the stand. THAT is an example of a "planned" defense, IMO.

And I'm sure if I am wrong with my above statements that Greater Than will tell us. And please feel free to do so, Greater Than, if I am wrong!

MOO

Ok, then forget about the word "plan" - I'll clarify. If an accused is not allowed to speak to any potential witnesses, it would really impede his ability to prepare his defense.

 

[TorisMom003]

Ok, then forget about the word "plan" - I'll clarify. If an accused is not allowed to speak to any potential witnesses, it would really impede his ability to prepare his defense.

No it wouldn't. The accused has lawyers for a reason. There is no need for the accused to speak to the potential witnesses himself. Even if he did not intentionally intimidate a potential witness, said witness could still feel that they need to say what will help the accused instead of the truth.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

No it wouldn't. The accused has lawyers for a reason. There is no need for the accused to speak to the potential witnesses himself. Even if he did not intentionally intimidate a potential witness, said witness could still feel that they need to say what will help the accused instead of the truth.

MOO

Whatever you say ...

 

[TipDog]

Wow, that would really impede any effort to plan a defense.

How so, Minor? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts as an attorney.

And to be clear, I'm not saying the defense can't meet with witnesses, nor can the accused be at these meetings if allowed. Of course that is necessary I would imagine to any case.

What I'm talking about, is the accused walking up to his neighbor's house, ringing the doorbell and asking if he/she can come in for a cup of tea to discuss what the neighbor may or may not have heard on the evening in question. Especially, if the neighbor is aware that a woman was shot to death in the house of the accused and that the accused did, in fact, pull the trigger.

I see something just a wee bit wrong with that scenario. And, if I were a defense attorney, I would think I'd advise my client to not try and meet with witnesses without anyone else present (from the defense team).

Of course, I'm not an attorney (and I don't play one on TV either), so I could be very wrong. Maybe you can shed light on how Oscar being given the right to go have little chats with his neighbors all on his own without anyone present is well within his rights - contrarily, if not allowed to do so, it would impede his defense.

 

[TipDog]

Sorry TD I don't know why I thought you were of the female persuasion, maybe I was confusing you with TipDog (TD). I shan't make the mistake again kind sir :blushing:

Hey, I'm all man too! Don't just judge by a photo.



(just kidding)

 

[Fuskier]

This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. That is no secret. The only eyewitnesses are the accused and the deceased. You appear to accept OP's word on the events simply because no one else was present to claim his account is 100% false. In a case of circumstantial evidence, you must listen to the testimony of all the witnesses, look at the evidence, use common sense, and connect the dots.

Thank you for this post. So clear. Reminds us of what we need to take into account when speculating.

 

[Jake18]

I'm glad we agree, excellent earlier post btw. I also wanted to thank everyone for the interesting debate.

Sadly, the major limitation remains that Reeva's autopsy report was never made available and the pathologists testimony was not aired nor a transcript made available. We are left with reporters' summaries.

The brain areas directly damaged are critical to our understanding and conclusions and to my knowledge none of us know the details of her brain injury, just the report that it was incapacitating and (eventually?) fatal. Was it a shot through the cortex, midbrain or brain stem or some permutation. Makes a huge difference. She was also sumultaneously exsanguinating from her other wounds which should hasten death.

What is an accepted medical fact I personally heard this from Cyril Wecht, a noted medical examiner and found several references inluding in the journal 'Forensic Medicine,' no heart beat no arterial spurt.


Notes from 'Essential Forensic Biology' By Alan Gunn

It should be remembered that bleeding takes place both internally and externally so the amount of blood surrounding a body may not reflect the amount actually lost.

Wounds, after death do not bleed profusely because the heart
is no longer beating and blood pressure is not maintained. Blood from even a severed artery therefore trickles out as a consequence of gravity rather than spurting.

...I would conclude from the latter that squeezing or compressing an injured limb with said injured artery, would consequently not yield an arterial pattern, although it might 'eject' blood.


CORRECTION from an earlier post:
Unlike at the wound site, initially blood remains liquid within the circulatory system after death, rather than coagulating.

I have no idea what happened maybe the blood in the bedroom & below the stairs is the first case of some type of mimic of arterial spurt, but as is often said- If It Looks Like A Horse, Walks Like A Horse and Sounds Like A Horse, It's Probably Not A Zebra.

I hope, PlayItCloseToTheVest Gerrie Nel, will be able to tie it all together. He may be waiting for the pertinent defense experts to testify, if they have one.

I'm going to catch up on on the posts I've missed

That's a really good point. There could have been litres of blood in her pelvis.

 

[TipDog]

Here in the states there were different stories about young amputees being inspired by him. His prominence in the field of running and his fight to be allowed to compete with able-bodied athletes in the Olympics was very inspirational.

I'm sure there have been. He was an inspiration to those who don't know him personally (and perhaps even to some who do). But that means nothing now.

And where I am in the states, Los Angeles, pretty much anyone I mention this trial to shrugs and says, "isn't that the Olympic runner dude with no legs who shot his girlfriend to death? Has he been put away yet?" Seriously, they could care less. That means absolutely nothing with respect to the trial or the discussion on here, but I find it very curious.

Of course, America is mostly made of the worst ADD citizens in the world. You have to keep putting it in their faces to keep their attention. That's how Kim Kardashian keeps an audience. :banghead:

 

[crasshopper]

I am just fascinated by human nature and thought it was interesting how when a person or persons believe that someone is guilty that they tend to see many points of guilt.

Just observing.

Funny, I see the absolute contrary.


(I was a former OP admirer, what was not to like -> Cute, boyish charm, overcoming adversity to become an Olympic Champion. I gave his story the benefit of the doubt but the evidence, witnesseses and fact that she was shot with remarkable accuracy through a door have convinced me otherwise).

 

[TorisMom003]

Ok, there's a big difference between talking to a potential witness and witness tampering. No one is allowed to tamper with witnesses, but that is not what we're talking to.

For instance, Oscar can go to his neighbors and say "did you hear any sounds last night?" "What time did you hear that?" etc etc

Why would OP need to do this? What purpose would it serve? He was there when Reeva was killed, he pulled the trigger, so he should know what time his neighbors heard what. Or could he ask that so that he could tailor his testimony, his version, to fit what his neighbors heard at certain times?

 

[aa9511]

How so, Minor? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts as an attorney.

And to be clear, I'm not saying the defense can't meet with witnesses, nor can the accused be at these meetings if allowed. Of course that is necessary I would imagine to any case.

What I'm talking about, is the accused walking up to his neighbor's house, ringing the doorbell and asking if he/she can come in for a cup of tea to discuss what the neighbor may or may not have heard on the evening in question. Especially, if the neighbor is aware that a woman was shot to death in the house of the accused and that the accused did, in fact, pull the trigger.

I see something just a wee bit wrong with that scenario. And, if I were a defense attorney, I would think I'd advise my client to not try and meet with witnesses without anyone else present (from the defense team).

Of course, I'm not an attorney (and I don't play one on TV either), so I could be very wrong. Maybe you can shed light on how Oscar being given the right to go have little chats with his neighbors all on his own without anyone present is well within his rights - contrarily, if not allowed to do so, it would impede his defense.

Sorry, I have been off here for a few days so am confused....did Oscar do this with witnesses and if so, which ones??

 

[Viper]

I'm glad we agree, excellent earlier post btw. I also wanted to thank everyone for the interesting debate.

Sadly, the major limitation remains that Reeva's autopsy report was never made available and the pathologists testimony was not aired nor a transcript made available. We are left with reporters' summaries.

The brain areas directly damaged are critical to our understanding and conclusions and to my knowledge none of us know the details of her brain injury, just the report that it was incapacitating and (eventually?) fatal. Was it a shot through the cortex, midbrain or brain stem or some permutation. Makes a huge difference. She was also sumultaneously exsanguinating from her other wounds which should hasten death.

What is an accepted medical fact I personally heard this from Cyril Wecht, a noted medical examiner and found several references inluding in the journal 'Forensic Medicine,' no heart beat no arterial spurt.


Notes from 'Essential Forensic Biology' By Alan Gunn

It should be remembered that bleeding takes place both internally and externally so the amount of blood surrounding a body may not reflect the amount actually lost.

Wounds, after death do not bleed profusely because the heart
is no longer beating and blood pressure is not maintained. Blood from even a severed artery therefore trickles out as a consequence of gravity rather than spurting.

...I would conclude from the latter that squeezing or compressing an injured limb with said injured artery, would consequently not yield an arterial pattern, although it might 'eject' blood.


CORRECTION from an earlier post:
Unlike at the wound site, initially blood remains liquid within the circulatory system after death, rather than coagulating.

I have no idea what happened maybe the blood in the bedroom & below the stairs is the first case of some type of mimic of arterial spurt, but as is often said- If It Looks Like A Horse, Walks Like A Horse and Sounds Like A Horse, It's Probably Not A Zebra.

I hope, PlayItCloseToTheVest Gerrie Nel, will be able to tie it all together. He may be waiting for the pertinent defense experts to testify, if they have one.

I'm going to catch up on on the posts I've missed

Thank you!

As was the case with <modsnip> , van der Nest (can we just call him Dexter?) has drawn some wrong conclusions. Even though he was ordered to attend the autopsy by his superior, in my estimation that was a first for him and he did not interact by asking pertinent questions of Dr. Saymaan either during or after the autopsy. I say that because the autopsy report concluded that Reeva died nearly instantaneously. So for Dexter to say in his report that there were arterial spurts some 6-20 minutes after Reeva sustained all of those injuries, that simply goes against the findings of Dr. Saymaan.

I remember complaining about Batman and Dexter several weeks ago. Each made blunders that caused substantial confusion for people, especially if those folks did not know the entire record of evidence to be able to sort out the blunders. The only PT forensic witness that did not fall short was the ballistics expert, Magena. He was very sharp!

Finally, Dexter said that the small pool of blood by Reeva's right hip was from the severed artery of her right arm, not the gunshot wound to her hip. So again, expert opinion that supports Dr. Saymaan's opinion that Reeva died a clinical death in just a few seconds.

 

[Greater Than]

"Plan" was put into quotes for a reason, I believe. If a person is innocent then there is no need to "plan" a defense as they would tell the truth on the stand followed by their supporting evidence that proves they are innocent. However, if someone is guilty then they do need to PLAN a defense, one that sounds plausible and that the judge/jury will accept as the truth.

Of course innocent people have been found guilty before just as guilty people have been found not guilty before. The difference between the two groups could be the defense that was "planned" instead of just defending themselves with the truth and/or the judge/jury believing or not believing their defense.

The way that OP has testified on the stand, and what has been pointed out by Nel, is that he has tailored his version to fit what he knows the evidence shows. OP admitted to reading all of the pre trial material that he could. OP has changed his version three times now, the latest version while on the stand. THAT is an example of a "planned" defense, IMO.

And I'm sure if I am wrong with my above statements that Greater Than will tell us. And please feel free to do so, Greater Than, if I am wrong!

MOO

You picked up exactly what I was putting down. Thank you.

 

[TipDog]

You have already made up your mind about him and not in a positive way.

I have yet to see the prosecution offer any evidence that he did what he is accused with doing.

I noticed in another post you say the prosecutor "intimated" that the earlier bangs were the bat. I never saw him intimate or state any such thing. I assume you used the word "intimate" because the prosecutor didn't state it outright. If you could direct me to where the prosecutor places the earlier bangs as bat strikes, I would be interested to see it.

<modsnip>

You compared OP to a soldier acting in circumstances that require bravery and possible sacrifice of life. What OP did (in his fantasy version) was not brave in the least (and if he were a soldier, he'd be facing court-martial at the very least).

No matter how much you feel compassion for OP, the fact that he shot through a closed door simply cannot be ignored. Forget whether it was premeditated. He shot through a closed door not knowing who was there (not hearing a gun or a verbal threat), without any weapon of any kind visible to him, four times (not once, not twice, not three times...four times).

Nothing at all courageous about that. It's cowardly and breaking all the rules of a responsible gun owner (add to that, running and jumping around on this stumps with a cocked pistol, per his own words).

Oh, and let's not forget...there was 29 year old woman, unarmed and defenseless, standing behind that door who's dead now.

 

[minor4th]

For all those questioning why an accused should be allowed to speak to witnesses and prepare a defense, I choose not to play this game - if there were legitimate questions about how the legal process works, I'd be glad to discuss. But on this issue, the comments I have made from a legal perspective are met with argument and questions about my credentials and essentially a variety of posts telling me I'm wrong. This is why it gets seriously intimidating to post here sometimes.

Any and all are more than welcome to disagree with me or think whatever they wish. But I'm not arguing the law, so please move on.

 

[Viper]

That's a really good point. There could have been litres of blood in her pelvis.

That was not reported by any reporters that heard his live testimony. Did Dr. Saymaan find that? Probably not. Something like that would catch a reporter's ear. If you respect this professor, why must his finding that Reeva died within 2-3 last breaths after she was shot in her head be so difficult to accept?

 

[aa9511]

Sorry, I have been off here for a few days so am confused....did Oscar do this with witnesses and if so, which ones??

Just bumping up my post.....

TIA.

 

[crasshopper]

... Even if he did not intentionally intimidate a potential witness, said witness could still feel that they need to say what will help the accused instead of the truth.

This is a case imo where witnesses could feel starstruck and/or potentally like the were trying to be manipulated or won over with charm. Valid point imo.

Personally, I would not in this casein particular, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Were I destitute with limited legal resources, he!! yeah would I talk to them.

 

[TipDog]

For all those questioning why an accused should be allowed to speak to witnesses and prepare a defense, I choose not to play this game - if there were legitimate questions about how the legal process works, I'd be glad to discuss. But on this issue, the comments I have made from a legal perspective are met with argument and questions about my credentials and essentially a variety of posts telling me I'm wrong. This is why it gets seriously intimidating to post here sometimes.

Any and all are more than welcome to disagree with me or think whatever they wish. But I'm not arguing the law, so please move on.

I've not questioned your credentials (the opposite; I've just accepted them as fact). Nor have I told you you are wrong. But if you are going to identify yourself as an attorney and insist something is true with respect to laws, then you shouldn't take offense to being questioned with respect to those laws and in particular to the case being discussed.

BIB

That's dismissive, as you were arguing the law. And, respectfully, it could also be construed that you can't argue it (with respect to this case and the questions being raised about interactions between accused killers and witnesses).

But I'll certainly respect your wishes and now move on...

 

[Carmelita]

Hey, I'm all man too! Don't just judge by a photo.



(just kidding)

I may stick with s/he