Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Jake18]

Hello everyone

I've been reading this thread since the beginning, pretty much - thank you all for your interesting and insightful comments.

However, I have specifically signed up to weigh in on the heart beating issue.

Viper, you are not correct.

Saayman only ever said that Reeva took a few breaths after the head shot - Botha said the same. He also said she would have died fairly soon after that.

Not breathing does not necessarily equal dead. I think that you have assumed it means the same thing when it does not.

Her skull fractured after the last shot meaning that the brain stem was destroyed. This is the area of the brain responsible for breathing, so she stopped.

Hearts are autonomous organs with their own electrical system. They can continue to beat for up to 6 minutes after breathing stops (depending on many factors, of course). It is highly likely that Reeva's managed to keep beating for a few minutes at least - this would not be unusual.

Blood spatter analysis is more than some man looking at spots of blood and deciding they are arterial. There is a a specific type of pattern than can only be formed by blood being pulsed out because of ventricular movement. If Van Der Nest said the spots were arterial, then they were. No amount of jiggling a body about will form the exact same pattern as arterial spurts.

What you seem to be suggesting is that two very important state witnesses are in direct contradiction - Van der Nest says her heart was beating as she was brought down the stairs while Saayman says this stopped in the toilet?! This isn't very likely.

Also, a thread or two back, someone was confusing Reeva's clenched teeth with rigor mortis. Obviously, this wasn't rigor mortis (impossible), but there is a thing called caderivic spasm where muscles stiffen at the moment of death - usually when a death has been particularly violent and emotional.

This explains Reeva clenching her teeth as witnessed by Dr Stipp - further evidence that she died at the bottom of the stairs.

For what it's worth, Jake18 and Crasshopper clearly are medical professionals and know what they are talking about - and they are right.

Reeva's head injury stopped her breathing. OP brought her out of the toilet very soon after this, and her heart was managing to beat weakly as she was brought downstairs. This stopped and she went into spasm either halfway down or at the bottom of the stairs.

The cast off spatter that Roux mentioned would be in relation to the spatters on the headboard & wall - OP mentioned that himself on the stand. At no time did Roux query the arterial spurting evidence, which he would have done if there was dispute about this.

For me, this is the evidence that will convict OP. It is impossible for him to have shot Reeva at around 3am given that her heart was still beating 20 minutes later. It's totally possible for him to have been standing on the stairs with her 5 or so minutes later with her heart feebly managing a few dying beats, though.

To reiterate, the confusion has come about because of your assumption that Saayman saying she took a few breaths meant this was when she died. It would not mean that, and this does not necessarily follow - death is often a process not a single event.

Great first post!

 

[jay-jay]

And incredibly insensitive given how traumatic that night of 13/14 Feb 2013 would have been for the Stipps and other neighbours. It comes across as nasty and that they couldn't care less about the neighbours.
AND pointing out that the Stipps' curtains were drawn shut that night and implying they lied about them being open on the night Oscar killed Reeva. :facepalm:

Yep, I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life :facepalm:

 

[liesbeth]

Helen75 made some excellent points.
As I covered in my reply to her, I accept what she presented, and it does cast doubts on the shots being as early as some witnesses seem to indicate. However I have NEVER been happy with that time being as early as 3:00.
Stipps was "on the ball" and after first bangs he was getting ready to assist and on phone when he heard second set of bangs. I do not think Stipps was hanging about for 17 minutes before phoning, and so with second bangs set at 3:17 I have always assumed that first ones were closer to 3:10, 3:12

I did ask Helen75 how that time would sit with blood pulse evidence.

I have to repeat what I have said before... Nel's Contention that shots were at 3:17 I see as leaving an IMPOSSIBLE sequence of events that must have occurred over the next 5 minutes... when OP met Stander at 3:22.

BBM: If you believe OP is telling the truth then yes, it is impossible. But if he is lying then it all fits.

 

[minor4th]

Re BIB (bolded by me)
Yes I agree with you. She heard a woman arguing. Nowhere in Oscar's version does he claim to be arguing in a female voice and nowhere does he state that Reeva was arguing so his version does not match this witness testimony.

But this witness did not say the loud talking was coming from Oscar's house - in fact, she specifically said she had no idea where it was coming from.

 

[Rumpole]

Re BIB (bolded by me)
Yes I agree with you. She heard a woman arguing. Nowhere in Oscar's version does he claim to be arguing in a female voice and nowhere does he state that Reeva was arguing so his version does not match this witness testimony.

It is possible that Van der Merwe heard some other person (woman) not person from OP's house at all. I think Roux was at least suggesting that possibility (reasonable doubt stuff)

Remember Baba checked in to security point near OP's house at 2:20 and reports all was quiet then.

 

[minor4th]

BBM: If you believe OP is telling the truth then yes, it is impossible. But if he is lying then it all fits.

But even if he's lying and totally made the whole story up, the state's case does not make sense re: the gunshots being at 3:17. That's why I'm having so much trouble - because I can't really make much sense of the state's case OR Oscar's version.

 

[Rumpole]

BBM: If you believe OP is telling the truth then yes, it is impossible. But if he is lying then it all fits.

As I have said before.... independent of OP's "version".Put that to one side totally.

After the shots there was stuff that HAD to have happened. I have outlined some of it (many times) There is simply no time.

I am reluctant to repeat it all. It just gets countered with never ending "What ifs" that STILL do not explain all that had to have happened in just a few minutes.

 

[jay-jay]

It is possible that Van der Merwe heard some other person (woman) not person from OP's house at all. I think Roux was at least suggesting that possibility (reasonable doubt stuff)

Remember Baba checked in to security point near OP's house at 2:20 and reports all was quiet then.

BB1 .. that sounds like clutching at straws to me .. seriously, you could actually give an alternative answer for absolutely everything (and which is what OP and the DT have been doing). That's ok when the answers are viable ones, but not when it's really stretching it.

BB2 .. arguments such as the one I believe OP and Reeva had, flare up and then die down for a bit, then they flare up again, then die down only to flare up again .. it's not just one long continuous bout of shouting at each other (although sometimes it can be, but generally it isn't).

 

[jilly]

BIB. Indeed it does! Mine is a Glock 17 but essentially the same as OPs Taurus when it comes to recoil. I would never consider trying to fire quick multiple rounds with a single handed grip on the gun! Mainly because I wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn doing that! He had to have held the gun with both hands. He can stand there in the bathroom and brush his teeth on his stumps, so he can stand there in the bathroom and shoot his gun on his stumps too, without holding on to something for a few seconds: bang...bang bang bang, yup, he held the gun with both hands.

I agree, keeping in mind, he was shooting to kill. What would be the weight of Oscar's gun?

 

[soozieqtips]

It is possible that Van der Merwe heard some other person (woman) not person from OP's house at all. I think Roux was at least suggesting that possibility (reasonable doubt stuff)

Remember Baba checked in to security point near OP's house at 2:20 and reports all was quiet then.

BBM - But she didn't say the arguing went on continuously for an hour. It's possible that it was on and off arguing like most arguments, and would explain why Baba didn't hear anything at the security point.

ETA - jay-jay, just saw you posted the same thing!

 

[Cherwell]

I'd just like to thank crasshopper, Jake18 and Helen75 for their posts in regard to the effect of the injuries inflicted on Reeva, and the process of her death. As others have mentioned, it's difficult to be precise about all this since regrettably we haven't got access to Prof. Saayman's full testimony, just selective soundbites and paraphrasing. But it's good to have the input of three clearly knowledgeable people. I, at least, have read your posts with my full attention. Thank you all.

 

[liesbeth]

But even if he's lying and totally made the whole story up, the state's case does not make sense re: the gunshots being at 3:17. That's why I'm having so much trouble - because I can't really make much sense of the state's case OR Oscar's version.

minor4th, I understand what you're saying. We are in the phase of the trial where evidence is being presented and tested. To date we have heard snippets of what the two cases may be, but never the whole enchilada. This will come during the next phase of the trial. Argument based on the evidence presented.

 

[Bazinga]

But this witness did not say the loud talking was coming from Oscar's house - in fact, she specifically said she had no idea where it was coming from.

You must admit that the arguing she heard almost certainly came from Oscar's house.
I am sure the DT would have tried to find a female neighbour who was arguing (and screaming :wink: ) that night in a nearby house but couldn't find one.

 

[Rumpole]

BB1 .. that sounds like clutching at straws to me .. seriously, you could actually give an alternative answer for absolutely everything (and which is what OP and the DT have been doing). That's ok when the answers are viable ones, but not when it's really stretching it.

BB2 .. arguments such as the one I believe OP and Reeva had, flare up and then die down for a bit, then they flare up again, then die down only to flare up again .. it's not just one long continuous bout of shouting at each other (although sometimes it can be, but generally it isn't).

"Beyond Reasonable doubt".. means that often, in many cases that it is the defense's job to offer reasonable alternative explanations to what the State contends? That is partially what the Judicial system requires.
Not any old alternative of course... Roux can not simply propose that an alien space craft was passing by playing a recording of a woman's voice, but it is reasonable to propose that a woman was raising her voice in some other house. Roux raised the point and Van Der Merwe could not say for certain that the voice came from OP's house. Standard cross examination.

You can state anecdotally YOUR experience of domestic arguments.. but that aint evidence of anything that happened in this case. That is not the sort of thing that would be considered as evidence at a trial. If Nel wanted to go there he would need perhaps people who work as counselors, marriage guidance etc to put before the court evidence of how an argument might play out.... and that IMO would still be a bit iffy as evidence of what happened in this case.

 

[minor4th]

minor4th, I understand what you're saying. We are in the phase of the trial where evidence is being presented and tested. To date we have heard snippets of what the two cases may be, but never the whole enchilada. This will come during the next phase of the trial. Argument based on the evidence presented.

It better!

 

[jay-jay]

"Beyond Reasonable doubt".. means that often, in many cases that it is the defense's job to offer reasonable alternative explanations to what the State contends? That is partially what the Judicial system requires.
Not any old alternative of course... Roux can not simply propose that an alien space craft was passing by playing a recording of a woman's voice, but it is reasonable to propose that a woman was raising her voice in some other house. Roux raised the point and Van Der Merwe could not say for certain that the voice came from OP's house. Standard cross examination.

You can state anecdotally YOUR experience of domestic arguments.. but that aint evidence of anything that happened in this case. That is not the sort of thing that would be considered as evidence at a trial. If Nel wanted to go there he would need perhaps people who work as counselors, marriage guidance etc to put before the court evidence of how an argument might play out.... and that IMO would still be a bit iffy as evidence of what happened in this case.

I didn't say it was .. I said it was the most likely scenario. Oh, and so did another poster, too.

 

[liesbeth]

As I have said before.... independent of OP's "version".Put that to one side totally.

After the shots there was stuff that HAD to have happened. I have outlined some of it (many times) There is simply no time.

I am reluctant to repeat it all. It just gets countered with never ending "What ifs" that STILL do not explain all that had to have happened in just a few minutes.

The only things that had to have happened after the gunshots at about 03:16 to 03:17 are:

a) OP breaks open the door (if it's already damaged by the bat this takes a few seconds);
b) He drags Reeva out of the toilet (again this takes seconds not minutes, remember no prints of him sitting or standing in the blood only lifting-and-dragging marks into the bathroom)
c) He gets his phone (the one he smuggled out of the crime scene?) and this is what we find:
03:18:45 – GPRS – 75 seconds
03:19:03 – Outgoing call to 2251 (Johan Stander) – 24 seconds
03:20:02 – GPRS – 79 seconds
03:20:05 – Outgoing call to 082911 (ambulance service) – 66 seconds
03:21:22 – GPRS – 61 seconds
03:21:33 – Outgoing call to 6797 (Baba, security) – 9 seconds (a misdial?)
03:21:47 – Outgoing call to 121 (voicemail) – 7 seconds (a misdial?)
03:22:05 – Incoming call from 6797 (Baba, security)

d) He picks her up and carries her down the stairs.

I have a question for you.

If he shot her at shortly after 03:00 why did the frantic texting and calling only start at 03:18:45? Because before that the only other phone activity was at 01:48:48 – GPRS – 309 seconds – tower closest to Oscar’s house.

 

[Rumpole]

I didn't say it was .. I said it was the most likely scenario. Oh, and so did another poster, too.

"Likely scenarios" are ok for defence... not so good for prosecution.
Prosecution have this "Burden" to prove their case "Beyond reasonable doubt"

It is the defense who have the luxury of just raising REASONABLE doubt... that's the rules

 

[BritsKate]

I remember at the very beginning when Burger and Johnson were testifying to hearing screaming during the "shots" and for a moment after the "shots" - Roux made the point that it could not have been Reeva screaming because she would have been incapacitated by the gunshots. I really don't think he said the first gunshot was to the head - and logically he wouldn't say that when he knew his expert was going to testify that the first shot was not to the head.

ETA: I also remember him giving the double tap scenario - which did turn out to be a mistake, as Nel doggedly pointed out

That's exactly it. I finally found the root of it all. Roux implied Reeva's injuries precluded her from screaming - specifically citing brain damage - and Nel objected, strongly. He asked that a quote from the ballistics report be read. He contended that the 4th shot was the shot to the head, allowing Reeva to have time to scream during the shots.

So the implication that she couldn't scream during the gunshots or Burger couldn't have heard Reeva's final scream was certainly there by most accounts, to include WSers and reporters alike. You, however, argued it that same day. Such a lawyer!

If anyone's curious it was Michelle Burger, under cross, March 4th. I'd link but it took me about 372 to put together the particulars. I knew I remembered it but could not recall the details.

 

[jay-jay]

"Beyond Reasonable doubt".. means that often, in many cases that it is the defense's job to offer reasonable alternative explanations to what the State contends? That is partially what the Judicial system requires.
Not any old alternative of course... Roux can not simply propose that an alien space craft was passing by playing a recording of a woman's voice, but it is reasonable to propose that a woman was raising her voice in some other house. Roux raised the point and Van Der Merwe could not say for certain that the voice came from OP's house. Standard cross examination.

You can state anecdotally YOUR experience of domestic arguments.. but that aint evidence of anything that happened in this case. That is not the sort of thing that would be considered as evidence at a trial. If Nel wanted to go there he would need perhaps people who work as counselors, marriage guidance etc to put before the court evidence of how an argument might play out.... and that IMO would still be a bit iffy as evidence of what happened in this case.

Now, you see, you think that's reasonable .. I don't. What are the chances that there is going to be another woman raising her voice at that exact time of the morning on the exact same date as the goings on in OP's house? Answer: a million to one .. and probably not that far off your alien spacecraft going past with a recording.