Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[jay-jay]

If the judge finds he is guilty of the other firearms charges then surely that proves that he is capable of lying. By not admitting those offences he could have effectively given himself a bad character reference and proved he is capable of trying to cover up a crime ?

^^^this^^^

He would've been better off pleading guilty to those, then we wouldn't think of him as being such a liar.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

What I am saying is OP has/had a distinct habit of ALWAYS placing his firearm on the nightstand next to where he slept; which I find natural, normal. Placing it UNDER the bed is weird, and is a lie for the purpose of putting OPs eyes down under the bed so as not to see that Reeva was not in bed.

I keep mulling this over and over as to what difference it makes . As the room was supposed to be in total darkness it would mean he would need to feel around under the bed rather than look and see it in which case as he was on his stumps it would mean he would probably have needed to rest his arm on the bed to steady himself .
I totally believe he has this in for a reason but am just not 100% sure at the moment why although it maybe that what you say above is what OP believes is what people will think and therefore think it helps his statement

 

[Gbtaketwo]

^^^this^^^

He would've been better off pleading guilty to those, then we wouldn't think of him as being such a liar.

That was the viewpoint of the article and I definitely agree with it .
The ammunition was locked in his safe and there were countless witness's to the shooting in the bar .
Just not sure what it will mean from the judges point of view when she considers the murder charges

 

[Viper]

Does anyone even have a clue about what Reeva is referring to here "rabbit":


RS to OP: It's like I see rabbit things in your house and when we go places you take pics of them everywhere. For me I'm thinking who do you have that connection with? And the same things will play on your mind. At the end of the day this is now not then

Are they photos of his ex girlfriends or hot girls that he met and had a photo taken with that he keeps at home and takes with him everywhere?

Edit: If so that goes against the "she was the love of my life" garbage.

 

[steveml]

BIB. That is why, as many FM have said, Roux will question OP about any and all incriminating evidence first, to try to minimize the damage that will be following when Mr. Nel gets to hammer OP about that evidence.

I agree, that's how defense lawyers operate.

We have different views on the message evidence but that's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

If there's a big reveal you can tell me I was wrong (as long as there's not too many laughing smilies after it). No point in either of us getting bogged down in this. :smile:






...and if there isn't...I win.

 

[steveml]

That was the viewpoint of the article and I definitely agree with it .
The ammunition was locked in his safe and there were countless witness's to the shooting in the bar .
Just not sure what it will mean from the judges point of view when she considers the murder charges

That's something I just don't understand. Surely it would have been better to plead guilty to those charges, as it does sound fairly obvious that he did it.

Especially as it's a judge and not a jury - it's not something he can get off with because there wasn't a majority verdict.

 

[DebinGA]

For all we know the message trove may show OP was sending "My Angel" missives to many women, maybe spiking in February.

 

[steveml]

It would lead to more jealousy if it was the other way round me thinks.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't have time until later today but I will try to find the section on video. He almost said it as an aside but it was quite clear.

Back to this point. We hear that his neighbour is going to testify that OP cries like a woman. Neighbour does not necessarily mean next door neighbour. Christo M. lives on the estate but got in his car to go to OP's house on the night of the incident so he must have heard the "three claps of thunder" from some distance. I wonder how far? Maybe it is Christo M. that is going to testify. Or did the report say it was his immediate neighbour? Certainly one side did report gunshots to the guardhouse and I think the other side also were on Nel's witness list. So how can Roux say his neighbours heard nothing. Is this another dishonest comment by Roux?

I need to find the video and post a link.

 

[DebinGA]

That's something I just don't understand. Surely it would have been better to plead guilty to those charges, as it does sound fairly obvious that he did it.

Especially as it's a judge and not a jury - it's not something he can get off with because there wasn't a majority verdict.

Admitting to those charges would likely mean his gun license would be automatically revoked, which would be unbearable, as he's a gun addict.

 

[steveml]

Admitting to those charges would likely mean his gun license would be automatically revoked, which would be unbearable, as he's a gun addict.

Too right. I think we can safely presume that his gun-toting days are over, whatever the outcome.

:thumb:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Admitting to those charges would likely mean his gun license would be automatically revoked, which would be unbearable, as he's a gun addict.

Wow he still has access to a gun !!!
I thought he had already had his licence revoked as terms of bail

 

[DebinGA]

Wow he still has access to a gun !!!
I thought he had already had his licence revoked as terms of bail

You're right, surely he has. Next guess would be to offer the judge some additional things she could tack onto culpable murder in hopes she'd consider that punishment enough.

 

[jay-jay]

You've nailed it!

One of the things that's been bugging me is why the gun holster was found on the nightstand on the left-hand side of the bed if the gun had been on the floor.

I don't think the gun was on the floor at all. I think it was on the nightstand, but OP claimed it was on the floor for the exact reason you described. The location of the holster makes sense to me now. Thank You!

I'm not convinced it was under the bed, either .. he has one of those really low Japanese style beds .. and I can just imagine how difficult it would be trying to get your hand underneath that, and then try groping around for your gun in the dark. It's much more likely, for both that reason, and for the reason that it appeared to be his normal habit, that it was on the nightstand .. and that seems like a good excuse, doesn't it, in OP's story, to have it placed under the bed so as not to have noticed whether Reeva was there or not.

 

[Rumpole]

LOL, yes!

And a thank you from me to MeeBee, Minor4th, Rumpole and Steveml for keeping it interesting and thought provoking against some pretty heavy odds. (IMO)

:gthanks:

Thanks :tyou:

I for one am in part playing "devils advocate", but I am also interested in seeing the judicial process work as it should for all out sakes. The "Presumption of Innocence" is the "Golden Thread that runs through British Justice" as my namesake Rumpole of the Bailey opines

I do appreciate that forum discussion does not always have to adhere to that. People are often interested in discussing "what if......." regardless of any basis in fact, but in a court of law it should be about "What is", or at the the very least "What might well be" with evidence and an argument to prove it.

I REALLY do think that if you CAN manage to look at things with a presumption of innocence, and require proof before believing, then you would see this case (and other cases) very differently.

I am not "on Oscar's side".... I don't know the guy at all. I am not certain he is telling the truth, but I am certain that the State has not proved he is lying.....yet.

I am not uncaring about Reeva's death, although I didn't know her either. I can though imagine the sadness that any death causes for friends and family.
My guess (FWIW) is that her family would want to know (with some certainty) if OP shot her intentionally, and see him punished for it. But if he didn't do that, then they would NOT want to see a man punished in error for that aspect. Especially a man who was (perhaps) somebody who Reeva loved, and who loved Reeva in return.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

That's something I just don't understand. Surely it would have been better to plead guilty to those charges, as it does sound fairly obvious that he did it.

Especially as it's a judge and not a jury - it's not something he can get off with because there wasn't a majority verdict.

Yes can't decide whether it is arrogance and a feeling of invincibility ,stupidity or bad advice . Which ever I think it could be bad for him .

 

[james83]

Admitting to those charges would likely mean his gun license would be automatically revoked, which would be unbearable, as he's a gun addict.

Your probably right, but it really is a ridiculous error of judgement to plead not guilty to those charges, he is bang to right's on those charges and has now shown the judge that he is a liar who is not prepared to take responsibility for his action's, it's just the most unbelievably arrogant thing he could have done.

 

[james83]

Yes can't decide whether it is arrogance and a feeling of invincibility ,stupidity or bad advice . Which ever I think it could be bad for him .

I would imagine his legal team pleaded with him to plead guilty to those charges.

 

[james83]

I'm not convinced it was under the bed, either .. he has one of those really low Japanese style beds .. and I can just imagine how difficult it would be trying to get your hand underneath that, and then try groping around for your gun in the dark. It's much more likely, for both that reason, and for the reason that it appeared to be his normal habit, that it was on the nightstand .. and that seems like a good excuse, doesn't it, in OP's story, to have it placed under the bed so as not to have noticed whether Reeva was there or not.

Personally i don't believe for a second it was under the bed, imagine he woke up to someone in his room or in the hallway, he would have no chance of getting the gun from under his bed to react, it makes no sense.

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks :tyou:

I for one am in part playing "devils advocate", but I am also interested in seeing the judicial process work as it should for all out sakes. The "Presumption of Innocence" is the "Golden Thread that runs through British Justice" as my namesake Rumpole of the Bailey opines

I do appreciate that forum discussion does not always have to adhere to that. People are often interested in discussing "what if......." regardless of any basis in fact, but in a court of law it should be about "What is", or at the the very least "What might well be" with evidence and an argument to prove it.

I REALLY do think that if you CAN manage to look at things with a presumption of innocence, and require proof before believing, then you would see this case (and other cases) very differently.

I am not "on Oscar's side".... I don't know the guy at all. I am not certain he is telling the truth, but I am certain that the State has not proved he is lying.....yet.

I am not uncaring about Reeva's death, although I didn't know her either. I can though imagine the sadness that any death causes for friends and family.
My guess (FWIW) is that her family would want to know if OP shot her intentionally, and see him punished for it. But if he didn't do that, then they would NOT want to see a man punished in error for that aspect. Especially a man who was (perhaps) somebody who Reeva loved, and who loved Reeva in return.

In an earlier post, you said something about starting off feeling 50/50 about his innocence, and now about 75/25. May I ask what comprises the 25% guilt feeling?