Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[liesbeth]

I transcribed that curious exchange of "shots" and shots myself so I recall it well. I should have said Nel said "shots at 3:17 were the ones that killed Reeva, was my assumption that meant the bats came first. OK

I agree with you. (edit: about the curious exchange, I mean. My sincere apologies to all. English is not my first language either.)

In Afrikaans the word "slae" can mean 'loud sounds' or 'gunshots.' I think the shots/"shots" exchange may be another case of lost in translation since both Mr. Roux and Mr. Nel are Afrikaans.

 

[molly333]

I don't think he meant to kill her, so I guess I mean an accident. But I do believe he knew she was behind the door. Serial killers are a whole different kettle of fish.

But if he knew she was behind the door, then he did mean to kill her.

I think we've maybe underestimated the myriad of problems Oscar has, not the least of which seems to be feeling completely vulnerable and inadequate all the time.

He goes out into the world and he is this big macho hero, but comes home to a person that is the size of a child. I just get the feeling that he is emotionally very young.

 

[Viper]

Mr. Nel is often referred to a "Pitbull." Mr. Dixon should have at least noticed the warning sign that the Court had posted by the door! Here:

http://s28.postimg.org/43398ejnh/Roger_Dixon.jpg

 

[katydid23]

So they heard exactly what Dr. Stipp heard, minus the first 'gunshots.'

well, I'm afraid I'm settling into it was an accident, unless something new comes out. Hard to believe, I know, but Oscar is just a strange character who can go from zero to sixty if he thinks he is in danger, I guess.

Otherwise, he is a budding serial killer, because he hardly knew this girl, and she clearly was all starry eyed about him.

I'm not sure how that timeline proves that OP didn't know that was RS Behind the door. Even if we accept their timeline, OP could have been angry at her and shot because she threatened to call the cops or something along those lines.

Or the bats might have come second.

 

[TipDog]

An epiphany about OP, and what is at the root of everybody's sense that he murdered Reeva...

OP's own story is one of irrational, emotion based reactions triggered by the most insignificant event. The sound of a woman using the bathroom resulted in him grabbing his gun and shoot her four times through the toilet door.

That's OP's own version.

So knowing that in OP's own version he thinks it reasonable to kill his girlfriend because she got up to use the bathroom without telling him, it's not a far stretch to believe he could have done the same thing if Reeva would have triggered him in some inconsequential way.

Maybe she touched his neck. Maybe she wasn't giving him enough sympathy that he wanted or needed from whatever event happened that day.

Maybe she told him to man the *advertiser censored** up and stop feeling sorry for himself.

Who knows?

The point is if OP thinks his version is even close to reasonable, he's describing himself as somebody who would take an emotion based, irrational action - like intentionally killing Reeva because of some inconsequential thing she said or did that set him off.

I get where you are going, but OP's argument isn't that he heard a woman using the bathroom. It's that he heard a window open and thought an intruder or intruders had entered his bathroom and then when he began his "putting himself between danger and the love of his life" on his stumps on tiles with the gun out in front of him screaming, he heard the magazine rack opening the toilet door, so he assumed the intruder or intruders had ducked into the toilet closet (as intruders are apt to do). This is his explanation for his "mistake."

Apologies for the over the top cheeky sarcasm, but aside from the emotion based actions that he claimed he did in fear/panic/etc., he did them in an entirely illogical fashion with entirely illogical thought processes...up until he didn't think at all and the gun fired on its own four times into the door with enough precision aim to actually hit a human three times and kill her.

Really, if you think his version through enough times, it will literally twist you in to ball of confused madness. And it's exhausting.

 

[aoibhinn]

An article by SA author, Margie Orford, a renowned crime writer. She discusses the SA white male psyche in the context of SA's history of apartheid.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/oscar-pistorius-trial-black-stranger-defence

Cheers for link, excellent article with lots of food for thought.

 

[soozieqtips]

Sorry but we do say sn*gger in the UK. Sn#ggered, sn*ggering...to supress laughter. Its very common. Its even in my android spelling. Unless I took your message wrong.

Is the word 'sn1ggering' just a UK expression? I'm in the UK and I use it!
Funny, but snicker is listed as one of the synonyms.

Sn1gger:

a half-suppressed, typically scornful laugh.

"we heard the sn1ggers caused by their little jokes" (have removed the "I" as it wouldn't appear otherwise).

synonyms: suppressed laugh, snicker, sneer, smirk, simper;

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BAhPU-2NA5DR8gfq4YDgDQ

 

[TrueDetective]

BIB. This: KISS. Keep it simple stupid! It seems to be Mr. Nels position. All he cared about was the argument (witnesses), the murder (OP), and what OPs version of events was. Those were the three things that he had and he stayed focused on them.

Photos of a lot of stuff that we did not hear about are in the photo books that was put in to evidence. So he may have considered needing them at the start of the trial and later decided he did not. JMO. I do believe that after the verdict is read many fascinating revelations will come out from Mr. Nel and the NPA.

You might be right.
Do you think they could still be mentioned during closing argument as the photos are in evidence?
Can/will the judge use them in her own thought process or as the PT haven't pursued them will she disregard?

 

[Hatfield]

I don't think he meant to kill her, so I guess I mean an accident. But I do believe he knew she was behind the door. Serial killers are a whole different kettle of fish.

Can you explain how you think it was an accident?

There were 4 shots all fired in quick succession because of the location which proves very fast shots. I cant see him doing this by accident at all. The shots seem purposeful so curious how you or others think it was accidental.

 

[molly333]

Something happened with a note being passed to Nel just before the abrupt ending of the cross examination. He asked the judge for a minute to discuss that note with his team and then very quickly it was all over. I dont have a link to the timing but it did happen.

Oh, yeah, I remember that.

hmmm...


Because the day before he was all gungho about discussing the final piece of OP's story, --I was sure he would deal with the key and breaking in of the door, and holding her for five minutes---he could have really worked him over, but he didn't. Just sort of fizzled...

 

[TrueDetective]

I do believe Mr. Dixon has relevant experience but today, he purported to be an expert in a wide range of disciplines. Having 'experience' does not make one an 'expert'.

I started compiling a list of all the areas that he was willing to testify as an expert. I gave up half an hour into Nel's x-exam so it's not exhaustive:

Not an acoustic expert (Hit a door with a bat)
Not a lighting expert (Used eyes as a measurement tool)
Not a fibres expert (comparison by looking but didn't have the actual socks, just a photo - more eyes, a microscope)
Not a blood spatter expert (nope, no training)
Not a physical match expert (I'm hearing some confusing analogies with map training but nope)
Not a ballistics expert (extracted info from Simon's/Mangena's affidavit)
Not a pathology expert (extracted info from DT/PT pathologist's reports)

But more importantly 'Jack' Dixon was
A) cheap
B) available

 

[Val1]

I don't think he meant to kill her, so I guess I mean an accident. But I do believe he knew she was behind the door. Serial killers are a whole different kettle of fish.

Agreed, but they all started somewhere.

 

[molly333]

I'm not sure how that timeline proves that OP didn't know that was RS Behind the door. Even if we accept their timeline, OP could have been angry at her and shot because she threatened to call the cops or something along those lines.

Or the bats might have come second.

If you could prove she screamed and then he shot her, you have your case.

Prosecutor doesn't seem to be able to prove this.

If that was Oscar screaming instead of her, no case.

I keep thinking of the ear witnesses who thought a woman was watching her husband get shot, not shot herself, because the screaming went on throughout the 'gunshots' [which in defense case would be the bat striking the door].

When people are shot 4 times in rapid succession, not much screaming going on, if any. More than one witness said the screaming went on through the 'gunshots' and then stopped.

I think it must have been Oscar, screaming while he's beating down the door.

 

[aoibhinn]

Originally Posted by G.bng
I transcribed that curious exchange of "shots" and shots myself so I recall it well. I should have said Nel said "shots at 3:17 were the ones that killed Reeva, was my assumption that meant the bats came first. OK .

I agree with you.

In Afrikaans the word "slae" can mean 'loud sounds' or 'gunshots.' I think the shots/"shots" exchange may be another case of lost in translation since both Mr. Roux and Mr. Nel are Afrikaans.

Interesting fact. Cheers...

 

[G.bng]

I edited my post with a clarification:

"Edit: to clarify, I would object to such a sound test if it went against my client. But if I were the judge it would be meaningful as a demonstration of how loud a cricket bat hitting a door can be and how it compares to the sound of a gunshot"

I am not sure DT even needed the test because presuming there are two sets of noises and one must be bats and one shots there are two witnesses that clearly confused the two anyway.

 

[Emz73]

But if he knew she was behind the door, then he did mean to kill her.

I think we've maybe underestimated the myriad of problems Oscar has, not the least of which seems to be feeling completely vulnerable and inadequate all the time.

He goes out into the world and he is this big macho hero, but comes home to a person that is the size of a child. I just get the feeling that he is emotionally very young.

I think he lost his temper. How that happens with a gun I don't know. I'm lost past my thoughts that he knew she was behind the door.....he tried to scare her? He thought *advertiser censored* it I'm gonna shoot without thinking of the repercussions? Maybe he's telling the truth when he says "I didn't think"? He was so angry he just didn't care?
Its possible I've been strangled before. 0-60 over nothing can happen and with no warning or history of it. (With me anyway)

 

[Hatfield]

If you could prove she screamed and then he shot her, you have your case.

Prosecutor doesn't seem to be able to prove this.

If that was Oscar screaming instead of her, no case.

I keep thinking of the ear witnesses who thought a woman was watching her husband get shot, not shot herself, because the screaming went on throughout the 'gunshots' [which in defense case would be the bat striking the door].

When people are shot 4 times in rapid succession, not much screaming going on, if any. More than one witness said the screaming went on through the 'gunshots' and then stopped.

I think it must have been Oscar, screaming while he's beating down the door.

Good points although I think it could have been her screaming while he was banging on the door and she was screaming out of fear.

Like you said if there was a way to prove she screamed before being shot then that proves he would know it was not intruder.

Not sure how to prove it though.

I dont think she screamed after being shot either because of the extent of the wounds and fast shots. The head shot prevented her from screaming and the other shots were within 2 seconds IMO.

 

[liesbeth]

But the validity of the test also depends on whether the sound "expert" manipulated it to sound the same

Indeed. The microphone and sound equipment used can also make a difference. That is why the recording should be done by a sound expert.

I find it significant that Nel told Dixon he (Nel) wasn't questioning him on the fact that the bat sounded different from gunshots but on integrity.

(Not verbatim.) Another interesting moment happened today when Nel asked Dixon if he had ear muffs on at the time he was testing the cricket bat "shots." Dixon answered no, because he wanted to hear the sound of the bat. Dixon then said it wasn't necessary to wear muffs anyway because the cricket bat didn't make the same loud crack as a gunshot. Nel: 'So your ears weren't ringing?'

 

[TipDog]

If you could prove she screamed and then he shot her, you have your case.

Prosecutor doesn't seem to be able to prove this.

If that was Oscar screaming instead of her, no case.

I keep thinking of the ear witnesses who thought a woman was watching her husband get shot, not shot herself, because the screaming went on throughout the 'gunshots' [which in defense case would be the bat striking the door].

When people are shot 4 times in rapid succession, not much screaming going on, if any. More than one witness said the screaming went on through the 'gunshots' and then stopped.

I think it must have been Oscar, screaming while he's beating down the door.

Didn't more than one earwitness state that there was a pause between the first shot and the other three? I don't believe RS wouldn't have screamed in utter pain, shock and terror (probably like any animal would as we are, after all, animals) after being shot in the hip (which shattered her hip bone).

It's far more unrealistic to me that she'd not have made a peep while being shot than OP screaming while shooting. Personally, I think that was laughable coming from him. This is not a man unfamiliar with shooting a gun. There was no reason for him to scream blood curdling screams that escalated while shooting at a intruder locked behind a door.

M2¢

 

[steveml]

Hyper sensitive, insecure and also quite intelligent in my opinion. Not brain surgeon or philosopher clever - clearly, but still intelligent. Anybody who can be manipulative, persuasive and charming is to a certain degree intelligent.

I entirely agree that amongst his flawed personality traits there is a degree of intelligence. Despite his labored demeanor in court, he was almost razor sharp when it came to avoiding using a particular phrase or set of words that he knew could be used against him.

He got caught out a couple of times, but I'd hazard a guess Nel doesn't often find it that hard to get a defendant where he wants them.

I don't say this from a stance of admiration for OP as I think this 'attention to detail' is probably yet another flaw in OP's personality. If he carries this through to everyday life I would expect him to be extremely hard work to live with. There were times in the trial where he would simply not give an inch if there was any doubt that a guess or an answer could lead to further incrimination, and it was clear he had taken more than a passing interest in the mechanics of the legal system, and the use of evidence.

It was fascinating to watch, but not necessarily in a comfortable or pleasant way.