Trial Discussion Thread #30

[molly333]

Really??? You still honestly after everything you've read and people have linked to you, believe the prosecutor doesn't have anything?

Yes, I honestly think that.

But, I am a forensics person.

I could care less if the defendant trips up over 'whispered' versus 'low tone' a year after the fact.

 

[TorisMom003]

I was thinking of the case where the man shot and killed his pregnant wife coming out of the bathroom, thinking she was a burglar.

If ever a case looked suspicious, that was it.

And, it's very close to this one.

Not at the end of the thread yet and this has probably been brought up but.......OP shot FOUR times. The man you are talking about shot ONCE. The man also took made sure that his wife immediately got the help that could have possibly helped her. OP didn't.

 

[BritsKate]

It's better than knowing he was putting 4 bullets into Reeva.



All the Judge has to do is believe that he believed he was in imminent danger for his life.

A judge has to find he acted reasonably in such circumstances. 4 highly lethal bullets, no warning shot, going towards the threat, screaming at an intruder to get out and then immediately firing make that questionable in my opinion.


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

 

[Emz73]

I don't think Oscar says 3:12 for the shooting. The defense team specifically puts the gunshots first. The gunshots for the defense would be the ones you are referring to as '3am.'

No I've just read, Oscar said the gunshots the stipps heard at 3.12 was him shooting. He gives himself 5 minutes to shoot, flaff around, get bat, break it down. Then ring stander at 3.19.

 

[james83]

I don't think Oscar says 3:12 for the shooting. The defense team specifically puts the gunshots first. The gunshots for the defense would be the ones you are referring to as '3am.'

Oscar said on the stand around 5 minutes between gun and bat

 

[Emz73]

He testified to 5 minutes being the shooting time before he broke the door down. It makes it 3:12 which contradicts the defence assertion the first bangs were gunshots or means all the witnesses were wrong on time.

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

Thanks Kate. Quite pleased with myself for remembering stuff!

 

[molly333]

He testified to 5 minutes being the shooting time before he broke the door down. It makes it 3:12 which contradicts the defence assertion the first bangs were gunshots or means all the witnesses were wrong on time.

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

5 minutes, 7 minutes, 10 minutes--that agrees with Dr. Stipp.

Time is very subjective when you don't have a stop watch.

 

[soozieqtips]

Not at the end of the thread yet and this has probably been brought up but.......OP shot FOUR times. The man you are talking about shot ONCE. The man also took made sure that his wife immediately got the help that could have possibly helped her. OP didn't.

Agreed. This case is not remotely close to the other one! It's the opposite. OP hung around for God knows how long NOT getting help for Reeva and then when he had the chance to tell Baba to get help - he said "Everything's fine".

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

A great point Deb.
the lack of tests (or amateurish standard of some, so far) has even a surprise. I guess the problem the PT have had is that detail in OP's version has been added so recently.
The only way new tests could be done is a reopening of the case and as exhibits are all over the place I'm not sure it would be easy or even possible.
Without wishing to be rude to our SA friends.. Is this lack of high quality testing and general thoroughness a feature in SA cases? Is it a financial and/or resource issue?

No rudeness at all. It is the truth; our forensic services are not only 'cash strapped', but running on about 60% in terms of qualified staff etc (I might be wrong here, but the latest backlogs in terms of everything from fingerprints to DNA testing suggest the staff deficit could be even greater)
There are some incredibly dedicated officers, scientists etc: but their workload and the sever lack of funding does hamper them.

However, in this specific case, the initial investigation was a blind one - which means - you select the relevant forensic areas you FEEL will be most important, and you focus on those. (Oscar and his lack of detail in terms of story etc) This allows the police to at least direct their key personnel to areas they feel will be vital in terms of presenting a case and subsequent conviction.

In addition, the rather smart prosecutor (who has been around the block and then some) also knew that the accused in this specific case would spare no expense in hauling out every forensic test known to man in order to avoid conviction. Instead of doubling the workload, I believe the decision was to dovetail on whatever the defense presented, and either smash said tests on the cross OR: based on new evidence revealed by the defense, apply to re-open the state's case, in order to do the necessary to rebut.

In an ideal world the funding and facilities would be freely available. But with a president who has just done 'renovations' to the tune of 278 million Rand, and an election around the corner, money if tight. (Yet they found 3 million to fly Shrien in......)

Sad, but true.

In fact, most of the police experts sitting in court, probably have case loads of forensics that will seen them through to 2015 (and climbing)

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Cape Town Crim is our brand new shiny toy and we get to play with him until he gets bored and 'Nels' us.

Yep. I've invented a new verb :floorlaugh:

As long as I am not an Oscar replica doll.

This site is rather addictive though. :scared:

 

[shane13]

Thanks Kate. Quite pleased with myself for remembering stuff!

Why not.
You're not a geologist.

 

[TorisMom003]

Molly, have you watched OP testify on the stand? During direct from Roux and cross from Nel? All of it? If not, then please take the time to do so. The lies that OP has told on the stand are not just dealing with the "whisper" vs "spoke softly". There are many, many more lies that Nel got OP on.

 

[TrueDetective]

I feel exactly the same way as I do about OP's case, and I will wait for the court evidence before I make up my mind either way. I hope the evidence is more clear-cut in the Dewani case than it has been in the present case, cos I don't want this uncertainty to repeat itself. It is not good for the blood pressure.
And yes many will go straight into the Dewani case biased.
But we can argue the bit out when the trial starts.

This bias you speak of is just as relevant the other way. More so in my experience.

We are not jurors or judges. We don't have to be impartial in the same way and we certainly do not have any of the same responsibilities.

We are forum members interested in an ongoing crime and now trial over a year old - digesting new information, sharing ideas, speculating, learning and developing thoughts and opinions, based on the flow of evidence and information as we go.

We don't have the same restriction to delay our opinions and judgement until the very end.
It develops, it hardens, it softens, sometimes it may even change. Completely!
It's the nature of a forum like this and it's also human nature.
If we all had to be 'unbiased' and keep quiet until the verdict and then reveal our own final verdict, it would be a bit late and a very, very quiet and empty forum..
:facepalm:

 

[Suthrnqt]

No rudeness at all. It is the truth; our forensic services are not only 'cash strapped', but running on about 60% in terms of qualified staff etc (I might be wrong here, but the latest backlogs in terms of everything from fingerprints to DNA testing suggest the staff deficit could be even greater)
There are some incredibly dedicated officers, scientists etc: but their workload and the sever lack of funding does hamper them.

However, in this specific case, the initial investigation was a blind one - which means - you select the relevant forensic areas you FEEL will be most important, and you focus on those. (Oscar and his lack of detail in terms of story etc) This allows the police to at least direct their key personnel to areas they feel will be vital in terms of presenting a case and subsequent conviction.

In addition, the rather smart prosecutor (who has been around the block and then some) also knew that the accused in this specific case would spare no expense in hauling out every forensic test known to man in order to avoid conviction. Instead of doubling the workload, I believe the decision was to dovetail on whatever the defense presented, and either smash said tests on the cross OR: based on new evidence revealed by the defense, apply to re-open the state's case, in order to do the necessary to rebut.

In an ideal world the funding and facilities would be freely available. But with a president who has just done 'renovations' to the tune of 278 million Rand, and an election around the corner, money if tight. (Yet they found 3 million to fly Shrien in......)

Sad, but true.

In fact, most of the police experts sitting in court, probably have case loads of forensics that will seen them through to 2015 (and climbing)

Thanks for putting that in perspective for us 'non-SA's'. Just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

 

[Emz73]

Why not.
You're not a geologist.[/QUOTE

Rocks may be my thing. On the weekend.

 

[molly333]

Baking powder?
Pass the biscuits.

What does that mean?

 

[TrueDetective]

It's better than knowing he was putting 4 bullets into Reeva.

All the Judge has to do is believe that he believed he was in imminent danger for his life.

Wrong.
She also has to believe that his actions were reasonable.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

IMO!

 

[BritsKate]

5 minutes, 7 minutes, 10 minutes--that agrees with Dr. Stipp.



Time is very subjective when you don't have a stop watch.

I have a feeling even if he did, some would argue that the battery may have been dead, or it wasn't synchronised, or he was under too much duress to pay attention to it, or...


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

 

[DebinGA]

We've all seen that case I think. Differences: no one heard screaming for several minutes before he states he fired and he fired once.

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

And the deceased's family supported the plea deal which iirc came after the husband had spent 3 yrs. in jail awaiting trial.

 

[molly333]

Wrong.
She also has to believe that his actions were reasonable.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

IMO!

His actions being reasonable might have to do with culpable homicide.

I'm not sure he will get off that one, because it is still not clear to me the SA meaning of that.

But he could still get that and a suspended sentence, like the other guy.