Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[jay-jay]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

I'm really interested to know what changed your mind about OP's guilt? Was there one specific thing that has made you now believe him .. and if so, it would be interesting for the rest of us to hear what that is because based on all the evidence I have seen, and all the testimonies given (including OP's), I'm failing to see anything that supports his version of events, I'm afraid.

Please share with us, it would be interesting to know what specific things lead you to believe he is telling the truth.

 

[jay-jay]

Awww You are always very reasoned and measured in your responses. No drama queen antics. :loveyou:

Have their been any drama queen antics on here? I've not seen any

 

[BritsKate]

Why does it take Dr. Stipp to call an ambulance? :banghead:

Stander and the security guards are just standing there like bumps on a log?

What am I missing?

Didn't have time to think?

I don't know that it means anything at all but by Oscar's own admission Johan Stander was (perhaps still is) a friend.

 

[truantotter]

Hi, and welcome to WS.

BBM - The problem with your theory is that OP is still in bed while Reeva is locked in the toilet. If OP is still in bed when he hears a noise, then he would have seen Reeva wasn't in bed because the balcony doors would have still been open and there would have been light. I think Nel knows exactly what he's doing and he's already tripped OP up several times so far, and there's still a long way to go.

Wow, thanks for the reply!
I might miss several points in my story and plz pardon me for that
Actually I come up with the story only to express my worry that -
Should OP kill Reeva in this kind of setting, say, neither intentional premeditated murder (as by GN) nor unfortunate mistaking self-protection (as by OP) but rather an intricate meld of the two, would GN be pushing too hard in his current fashion?

 

[kaos]

Have their been any drama queen antics on here? I've not seen any

Lots of passive aggressiveness though

 

[Val1]

I agree with that, but I'm thinking in terms of this specific incident.

If we recap, until OP gets that door open he doesn't know what's happened. He doesn't know if Reeva's dead, alive or fell to the floor unconscious. He doesn't know where the bullets have gone inside that toilet or how many may have hit. He has no information to tell the emergency services at that stage. This is why my primary concern would be to get the door open, see where the bullets have gone and and try to stem any immediate bleeding.

This only applies if OP didn't hear Reeva screaming, which is his claim.

If he had heard Reeva screaming, then he'd notice that the screaming had stopped, and would presume he had killed, or at the very least seriously wounded Reeva. In that scenario it wouldn't matter when he made the call.

bbm - This is why I think the gun was still primed and ready to fire, just in case he had to fire it one more time. He was already past the point of no return.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm really interested to know what changed your mind about OP's guilt? Was there one specific thing that has made you now believe him .. and if so, it would be interesting for the rest of us to hear what that is because based on all the evidence I have seen, and all the testimonies given (including OP's), I'm failing to see anything that supports his version of events, I'm afraid.

Please share with us, it would be interesting to know what specific things lead you to believe he is telling the truth.

It seemed to coincide with the copying and pasting of abusive tweets towards Reeva (which were removed as they were against TOS). No abusive tweets of OP were posted, only Reeva.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am not "using reasonable doubt"??

Reasonable doubt is what it is.

The State DO have a burden to propose a version of events and PROVE that it is true BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

That is the rule in our common system of Jurisprudence. It is a VERY tough standard to achieve. A HUGE burden placed on the State... intentionally hard to achieve.

I didn't write the rules.

ETA
I agree

It is way beyond reasonable to assume that OP shot knowing that Reeva was behind the door.

Is that what you meant to say?

It is totally UNREASONABLE to think that.


I would say that the whole notion of rational normal (ish) young man chasing his girlfriend into the toilet and shooting her is so daft as to be totally unbelievable, unless there is some STRONG evidence to prove that such an unbelievable event occurred. On the other hand, and on the face of things, I find it easier to believe that somebody might be spooked by a noise and fire at an imagined intruder.

The crux of this case is that OP did that, but unfortunately he "missed" the intruder and shot Reeva by accident.

That I find easily believable.

You are wrong.
It's not beyond ALL doubt. It's beyond a reasonable one. Huge difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jay-jay]

It seemed to coincide with the copying and pasting of abusive tweets towards Reeva (which were removed as they were against TOS). No abusive tweets of OP were posted, only Reeva.

Yep, it did didn't it.

 

[shane13]

Until now, I've never seen a trial where the State has defended the Defense counsel regarding the defendant's own testimony.

It truly boggles the mind, doesn't it?

OP has gone so off the rails with his lies that the prosecutor is standing up for OP's attorney!

The camera showed glimpses of Roux during some of OP's outlandish claims, and I saw Roux's brow furrowed, I saw him rubbing his temples, I saw him looking as deflated as a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon the day after Thanksgiving.

The good thing is that the Defense team are prohibited from communicating with OP until after he's dismissed from the witness box.

I hope Mr. Nel keeps him there for several more days and lets him talk and talk and talk. I've noticed that Nel gives OP quite a bit of free rein to ramble endlessly. OP is every prosecutor's dream. Meanwhile, OP is every defense attorney's nightmare.

Thanks.
I have not followed many trials till lately.
So I wondered if long time trial followers had found that unique--a Prosecutor defending a defense atty from latter's own client. I presume you've followed many trials? So it is quite unique.

Roux did seem very subdued after Oscar tried to blame him.

Many absurdities in this case. Roux--I am sure from OP--was insistent on the 2X double-tap. Then all of a sudden: "Never mind, 2Xdouble-tap. We go now with rapid succesion." Or words to that effect.

Yes, it would be comical, if it weren't about snuffing out a young life in a most horrible way.

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm getting rather obsessed with this netcare call!! There's always a recording of a call. Unless he didn't leave his name?? But can't they trace calls?

Maybe he said "I'm asking for a friend....

I'm still catching up with the thread, so apologies if this has already been answered.

Land lines can be traced when a call is placed to 911 (or its equivalent).

OP called from a mobile phone. As far as I know, calls to 911 from cell phones can't be traced. IME, when I've called 911 from my landline, the dispatcher always knew my address, but when I've had to call from my cell phone, the dispatcher asked for my location.

 

[BritsKate]

Defense and Pros could have agreed to this but, maybe it's not what really happened. I missed the analysis of the bullet angles through the door. Was some blood was shed in bedroom.

IIRC (and I expect to be thwumped if I'm wrong) there's still unexplained blood on the wall to the left of the bed, the headboard, and droplets on either side of the duvet. In addition to what appears to be at least one smear on the watch case.

My theory is something happened in the bedroom before shots were ever fired but I don't know that it will or can ever be proven. We'll see...

 

[vansleuths]

What was the significance of Reeva's jeans on the duvet? Nel really hammered this point for a while.

Thank you

 

[jay-jay]

But Nel has to prove it, alas. You've misinterpreted my post, vastly. My reference was in no way regarding Oscar, sorry to disappoint ;-) Dramatized fiction of that morning, even the Brothers Grimm would be proud of - in some posts.

Though they are highly entertaining

Not sure it's meant to be entertaining? .. people are just trying to work out what really happened (as in the forum title 'webslueths'), because OP's version of events sure as hell isn't the truth. Unless you can explain otherwise, and shed some light on what specific thing/s make you believe OP's version to actually be the truth ..

 

[kittychi]

Is it reasonable to think

1. That Reeva would put up with all the junk on her side of the bed
2. That he would walk through all that junk in the dark twice to move fans
3. That they even went to bed that night

Um....:lookingitup:


No

 

[soozieqtips]

What was the significance of Reeva's jeans on the duvet? Nel really hammered this point for a while.

Thank you

OP had said before that the duvet was covering the lower part of Reeva's legs while she was in bed, so the duvet should have still been on the bed. He was the one who used the jeans to cover the LED, so if the jeans slid off onto the duvet, then the duvet was on the floor at the time, not on the bed like it should have been, according to whichever version he's going with at any given time. That the duvet was on the floor contradicts his version that it was on the bed covering Reeva's legs when he got up to bring in the fans. Someone will point out if I've got that wrong, but that's how I understood it, and the duvet was something that had confused me too!

 

[BritsKate]

Thanks.
I have not followed many trials till lately.
So I wondered if long time trial followers had found that unique--a Prosecutor defending a defense atty from latter's own client. I presume you've followed many trials? So it is quite unique.

Roux did seem very subdued after Oscar tried to blame him.

Many absurdities in this case. Roux--I am sure from OP--was insistent on the 2X double-tap. Then all of a sudden: "Never mind, 2Xdouble-tap. We go now with rapid succesion." Or words to that effect.

Yes, it would be comical, if it weren't about snuffing out a young life in a most horrible way.

My first trial was in 1992. I was 15 and living in Milwaukee. One of my friends had been friends with Jeffrey Dahmer's youngest victim. Have been an avid trial junkie since and it's something I've never seen either.

 

[Viper]

LOL - It was in his Bail Hearing Statement but no mention of the door in his Trial Statement.

I wonder why he didn't think of putting his prostheses on before leaving the bedroom with Reeva. No need for him to walk on his stumps. Whatever was he thinking of by saying that. It takes him seconds to don his legs! I am finding it increasingly difficult even to listen to his dissembling.

The part of the fairy tale where OP says that Reeva told him to come to the bathroom with her to brush his teeth, he says he went and did that on his stumps, on the tile. I think he put that part in to imply he casually moves around all over the place on his stumps without worry. But then he later says he can't move around freely on his stumps, too unstable and also too dangerous on tile. Those two statements conflict with each other. Just more OP bs. If you look at it the "brushing his teeth" fabrication seems to go to try to answer why he would go after an intruder in his bathroom on his stumps.

 

[Lyra500]

Wait a second now. OP is talking with Mr. Nel about the highway gun shot incident. Mr. Nel calls OP out on making the story up or otherwise he would remember who he called, who came and got him, etc. OP says that he would gladly tell who he called if he could remember it because it would collaborate his story.

Full Definition of COLLABORATE


1: to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor


2: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force


3: to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected

I suppose it could just be a slip of the tongue, but there are too many occasions when linguistic analysis of what OP is saying raise concerns about veracity or possibly gives things away.

That whole section about the fans and the windows and the duvet was delivered as hypotheticals " if I was......then I would have. The use of the word IF is used when referring to something which has not actually happened.

Then there was the slip about " I don't think anyone can say where Reeva would have been standing if she thought I was (quickly corrects himself) if she was scared"

 

[steveml]

bbm - This is why I think the gun was still primed and ready to fire, just in case he had to fire it one more time. He was already past the point of no return.

It would be really nice if just one thing in this case was simple, and it could have been until Van Resburg gave his testimony.

When Roux questioned Van Resburg's statement about the gun being found with the hammer cocked and safety off, as in the submitted evidence photo, it sounded nice and clear-cut. That was until Van Resburg then conceded that when on the phone he heard the firearm being cocked by the ballistics expert. This was the same guy who handled the gun without gloves.

The SAPS have really made a rod for their own back with the handling of evidence at the scene.