Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Greater Than]

Personally... I cant see why he stopped at 4.

I am NOT from a gun ownership place

But I imagine that if you are going to fire in fear for your life (self defense) it would make sense to give it your "best shot" (pun intended) and empty the magazine.
I do recall cases of Cops firing "in error" and hitting some poor guy multiple times... often multiple Cops at the same time.

ETA
Thinking about it. I guess hypothetically a really smart person would keep some shots in reserve, just in case there were more intruders coming in the window?

Sure, more intruders are going to hear four gunshots and continue to make their way up a ladder to the 2nd story window.

 

[Apollo]

Sure, more intruders are going to hear four gunshots and continue to make their way up a ladder to the 2nd story window.

Oh sure---that makes sense. :floorlaugh:

 

[liesbeth]

Thank you

I am understanding your post better now, there is not an extra part of the trial, but the state will make it's case in its closing argument? The state will also be allowed to call possibly new witnesses/experts to rebut the defense before summation?

I read some of Crim's posts but I don't recall one about the state not having made it's case yet (and/or) that being normal. Which doesn't mean I didn't miss it altogether as I am reading backwards and forwards.

BBM. I only meant that Crim had said that the state could reopen.

The rest of the information is normal courtroom procedure.

• The trial will begin by the prosecutor reading out the charges to the accused who will be required to plead to them.
• The accused is entitled at this stage to tell the court what the basis of his defence will be.
• After that the prosecution will present its case by calling its witnesses.
• Every witness called by the prosecutor is entitled to be cross-examined by the accused or his legal representative.
• Once the prosecutor has closed his case the accused can decide to give evidence himself, call witnesses in his defence or remain silent.
• Any witness called by the defence is also open to be cross-examined by the prosecutor.
• Once the defence has closed its case, then both the prosecutor and defence are entitled to present argument as to why the accused should, or shouldn’t, be convicted.

Found on page 25 of The Criminal Justice System and You
http://www.ipt.co.za/pdf/Criminal_justice_book.pdf

 

[Viper]

<RSBM>

Arterial spurting doesn't have to be robust jets of blood. Before a heart stops there is a progression from a normal range heart beat to bradycardia to arrest. A weakly and very slowly beating heart would still produce a spurt pattern but wouldn't result in as much blood loss. I am assuming (i.e. again speculating) that the change in the spurt pattern is how the computer ascertains the time of death.

I don't think we'll ever know the time line but I agree that a shorter time for the heart beating is most likely.

Well that seems to not address the issue of time. It seems that too much time had passed for Reeva's heart to still be capable of beating, pumping blood so as to produce an arterial spurt at the staircase.

Did Nest say that he used a computer to analyze and determine what was arterial spatter and what was not? I don't remember that. And it goes against his conceding to Mr. Roux that the blood on the wall over the bed could have actually not been arterial spatter after all, he said it could have been blood cast-off from OPs hands.

BTW, I appreciate your use of medical terminology, but for the sake of effectively communicating with all of the forum members I intentionally do not use it here. I personally have 30 years of experience working as a healthcare professional.

 

[Carmelita]

Ok so I know here that the defense and the prosecution may under some circumstances bring about a rebuttal witness after one or the other rests to give testimony against a very specific portion of one or the others case. But they are not allowed to further present their case, because they have rested, whatever issue it is should have been addressed before they rested. It seems that it is being suggested that in SA the state can continue to make its case after it rests but before it gives summation.


What is to keep the state from running a trial in perpetuity if the accused is in jail and they just want to keep him there? And conversely what is there to stop the accused if they are wealthy from keeping the trial phase going on and on while they are out on bail.

I&#8217;ll have to read about this being specific to SA. Thanks for the link Liesbeth.

 

[liesbeth]

I've been meaning to ask about the picture Viper posted of the lady who bled out and the blood found at the scene of this crime. Honest question. No snark. Just curious.

If we add the blood found in Oscar's toilet bowl, the blood on the toilet floor, the blood on the bathroom floor, the blood on the towels in the bathroom, the blood on Oscar's shorts and socks as well as the blood he washed off, the blood on the floor at the bottom of the steps and the blood on the towels at the bottom of the steps, the blood in Reeva's hair and shorts.... How would it compare to the picture Viper posted where there is one pool of blood?

 

[Carmelita]

Ok I am just batting this about in my head under the &#8220;reasonableness of law&#8221; section. The state as we all know had to turn all its evidence over to the defense so that the defense could be as prepared as possible, it seems that allowing the state to make its case (or another case) after both the defense and state rest is highly prejudicial against the defense so much so it would almost be a second trial but without the defense having the benefit of discovery. Maybe Crim was simply referring to summation?

 

[liesbeth]

Ok so I know here that the defense and the prosecution may under some circumstances bring about a rebuttal witness after one or the other rests to give testimony against a very specific portion of one or the others case. But they are not allowed to further present their case, because they have rested, whatever issue it is should have been addressed before they rested. It seems that it is being suggested that in SA the state can continue to make its case after it rests but before it gives summation.


What is to keep the state from running a trial in perpetuity if the accused is in jail and they just want to keep him there? And conversely what is there to stop the accused if they are wealthy from keeping the trial phase going on and on while they are out on bail.

I’ll have to read about this being specific to SA. Thanks for the link Liesbeth.

BBM 1. No, Carmelita. That is not what I said. I said that once all the evidence has been presented and examined by both sides, that phase (the evidential part) of the case will be closed. The state will then stipulate/explain/lay out its case (to convict the criminal) to the judge supported by arguments based on the evidence presented.

BBM 2. The judge.

 

[Viper]

I've been meaning to ask about the picture Viper posted of the lady who bled out and the blood found at the scene of this crime. Honest question. No snark. Just curious.

If we add the blood found in Oscar's toilet bowl, the blood on the toilet floor, the blood on the bathroom floor, the blood on the towels in the bathroom, the blood on Oscar's shorts and socks as well as the blood he washed off, the blood on the floor at the bottom of the steps and the blood on the towels at the bottom of the steps, the blood in Reeva's hair and shorts.... How would it compare to the picture Viper posted where there is one pool of blood?

That's a really good question! LOL!!!

Others will answer differently, but I would focus on the blood pool in the WC. Reeva was there for some time and that is the largest, really the only, blood pool. What is on the bathroom floor and the entryway floor appear to me as blood that settled from Reeva's blood soaked / saturated clothes and hair, they are not blood pools IMO.

 

[Bazinga]

I can not say I think it "likely" it was Reeva heard arguing. It is possible.
And even if it WAS likely... that is still nowhere close to proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is possible that OP's version is made up. I was 50/50 on believing him when the trial started.

I can at least see that evidence could put OP's version in doubt. But I view the evidence with a presumption that OP is not guilty.. and so far nothing is a strain to reconcile with OP's version. If something did then I would still need several of those somethings to be convinced Beyond reasonable doubt.

I find the whole notion of a guy in a Romantic relationship deciding to shoot his girlfriend at 3:00 AM... the entire PT case... makes no sense to me.
I can though (at a pinch) imagine a paranoid, double amputee, in SA, shooting at an imagined intruder. I think there SHOULD be consequences for doing that... of course.

I came to this believing OP accidentally shot Reeva mistaking her for an intruder. The first news report I heard put that as what happened and it seemed possible to me. I filled out the story in my mind with Reeva sneaking in on Valentine's day (during the night) to surprise him and he shot her.
The more I've heard of the evidence, together with evidence of his past behaviour, together with his testimony on the stand I've come to a view that his version cannot reasonably be true.
I need no more to convince me. The timing is all possible allowing for some small errors in what time witnesses reported. The other set of bangs can be explained by damage to the bath tub, the bedroom door and other areas of damage in the bathroom.
Most likely from my point of view,
Argument (on/off), escalating, Reeva locked in toilet room, Oscar yelling (get the f out of my house), 1st set of bangs - cricket bat to bathtub and toilet door frame, Reeva screaming, 2nd set of bangs - gun shots. the rest follows.
This makes the most sense to me. I don't know how the Standers got there so quickly or why and why did an ambulance take so long to get there.
I don't think the budding relationship sounds all that romantic or in a great place and I think an argument led to Oscar losing control in the moment. That it was 3am is irrelevant as I think they had probably not slept. I think he must have been horrified by what he did almost instantly after he killed her. I'm sure he wishes constantly that he could just turn back time.

That is what I think but I don't know if the state has proven what they need to to get a verdict of guilty to murder. It can be that way with a case where most of the evidence is circumstantial. If not guilty to murder (beyond reasonable doubt) I think he will be found guilty of CH and I'd think he should be given a jail sentence.

 

[liesbeth]

Ok I am just batting this about in my head under the “reasonableness of law” section. The state as we all know had to turn all its evidence over to the defense so that the defense could be as prepared as possible, it seems that allowing the state to make its case (or another case) after both the defense and state rest is highly prejudicial against the defense so much so it would almost be a second trial but without the defense having the benefit of discovery. Maybe Crim was simply referring to summation?

I highly doubt if the state will be allowed to "make another case." AFAIK it will only be allowed to re-examine new evidence introduced by the defense. But we will have wait for Crim. to explain that part, hmm?

 

[Jake18]

Well that seems to not address the issue of time. It seems that too much time had passed for Reeva's heart to still be capable of beating, pumping blood so as to produce an arterial spurt at the staircase.

Did Nest say that he used a computer to analyze and determine what was arterial spatter and what was not? I don't remember that. And it goes against his conceding to Mr. Roux that the blood on the wall over the bed could have actually not been arterial spatter after all, he said it could have been blood cast-off from OPs hands.

BTW, I appreciate your use of medical terminology, but for the sake of effectively communicating with all of the forum members I intentionally do not use it here. I personally have 30 years of experience working as a healthcare professional.

BIB 1) I'm pretty this was mentioned in the last thread? It seems like the exact kind of thing that would involve computer analysis, in much the same way that ECGs are analysed for rate, voltage size etc. I don't have time to hunt it down now though.

BIB 2) My answer to that is the same as a few pages back. IIRC it was the blood over the bed that was being questioned, not every single arterial spurt elsewhere. And I maintain that OP wouldn't have been capable of producing the characteristic shape and spread of arterial spurt with every cast off. And both the PT and DT aren't disputing that the blood on the stairs/landing isn't arterial so it's sort of a moot point.

BIB3 3) You're right, that's not very respectful. If a case ever comes up where someone is killed by a falling bridge or something I'd be annoyed if engineers used their jargon. I'd edit and then I've got to go, can't see myself back on the computer for another 24 hours.

Re whether or not the heart was capable of producing an arterial spurt on the stair case maybe we should agree to disagree and talk about the door or the gunshots or something? (Lol).

 

[Laf]

I've been meaning to ask about the picture Viper posted of the lady who bled out and the blood found at the scene of this crime. Honest question. No snark. Just curious.

If we add the blood found in Oscar's toilet bowl, the blood on the toilet floor, the blood on the bathroom floor, the blood on the towels in the bathroom, the blood on Oscar's shorts and socks as well as the blood he washed off, the blood on the floor at the bottom of the steps and the blood on the towels at the bottom of the steps, the blood in Reeva's hair and shorts.... How would it compare to the picture Viper posted where there is one pool of blood?

Hello Everyone! I have been watching and listening with interest to all the various educated guesses with regard to this trial.

Just a thought .... Suppose there was quite a lot of blood that happened to fill up the toilet (under 2 gallons) Is there not then a type of siphon effect that lowers the water in the toilet?
See below
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/toilet/toilet.html

Example of A Simple Siphon
Siphoning is used in transporting a fluid from a reservoir of higher elevation to one of lower elevation. Bernoulli’s equation (shown below) can help explain this type of fluid transport.
The siphon for a toilet is an upside down "U" shaped tube that connects the bowl (higher reservoir) to the sewer/cespool (lower reservoir).
If fluid (anything under approximately 2 gallons) is added to the toilet bowl itself, notice that the water level does not change. The extra fluid will cause the water level in the bowl to rise slightly for a moment, but then that extra water overflows into the siphon tube, passes through the tube, and out of the system (but this does not cause the toilet to flush).
When the toilet is flushed, 2 gallons of water rush quickly through the bowl, causing the siphon tube to fill up completely, resulting in a change in pressure (lower pressure inside the tube ahead of the flowing water, and higher pressure in the water (at the inlet of the siphon) in the bowl. Once all the water has passed through the tube, air enters and interrupts the siphoning process (causing the gurgle you hear after you flush). Then water in the bowl is replenished when the inlet valve in the tank allows more water to come in through the supply line.

BBM

 

[Carmelita]

BBM 1. No, Carmelita. That is not what I said. I said that once all the evidence has been presented and examined by both sides, that phase (the evidential part) of the case will be closed. The state will then stipulate/explain/lay out its case (to convict the criminal) to the judge supported by arguments based on the evidence presented.

BBM 2. The judge.

Ok I am sorry I misread what you posted. So the state has made its case and has its closing argument to tie it all up.

 

[Carmelita]

I did notice in the picture of Oscar with his bloodied prosthetics on that his stump/knee covering looked saturated in blood, I know someone commented that there should be more blood on his legs (I guess between the knee and the bloodied part of his prosthetic, since he is pretty bloodied) but I think that is looking at Oscar&#8217;s prosthetic leg as if it were the same as a real human leg. The prosthetic itself may not give the same "flush" with the knee that a natural shin would thereby making the absence of blood right below Oscars knees not incongruent with his story.

 

[Karmady]

I just don't understand why people think someone can replicate their response or behavior, that occurred during an extreme situation, on demand.

I don't know what the rules of evidence in SA are but, as I mentioned, in the US it would not, and specifically has not been allowed in a very recent high profile case. Attempting to recreate the defendants screams is not good evidence and recreating the circumstances of the scream would, obviously, be unethical.

jmo

 

[Greater Than]

Well there are a load of posts for me to catch up on and maybe this has already been addressed.

Am I the only person that thinks Oscar’s whining and emotional voice is often very feminine in nature? The more emotional he gets the higher his voice gets IMO. If I did not know it was a man and just heard a recording of his crying voice I would not wager either way if the voice was coming from a man or woman. I can’t imagine what he would sound like running about his home, gun in hand, thinking there was an intruder in his house.

He had to use a whiny, emotional voice during his testimony to support his "I didn't know it was Reeva, it was an accident" claim. Who would get on the stand and make such a claim without speaking in a higher octave, emotional tone?

Running around, gun in hand, shouting at an intruder, however, I would imagine he used the most assertive, masculine voice possible. There is no way he would scream "get the F out of my house" to an intruder in the wimpy manner he demonstrated on the stand.

 

[liesbeth]

Ok I am sorry I misread what you posted. So the state has made its case and has its closing argument to tie it all up.

Please, no. My apologies. It was my mistake. I confused you because I used the word "case" too loosely. I used it to refer to the whole: all the proceedings instead of just the presentation of evidence. And I also used it to refer to the argument phase. I am truly sorry.

 

[Carmelita]

Well, I wouldn't worry about it too much anyway, because the PT have got much more damning evidence than this .. actual, hard evidence, from what I can make out.

Sorry Liesbeth, I have followed the trail of posts and this is the post that started me thinking Eh? What the heck did I miss? I see that you then were simply talking about rebuttal and closing arguments.

 

[liesbeth]

Hello Everyone! I have been watching and listening with interest to all the various educated guesses with regard to this trial.

Just a thought .... Suppose there was quite a lot of blood that happened to fill up the toilet (under 2 gallons) Is there not then a type of siphon effect that lowers the water in the toilet?
See below
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/toilet/toilet.html

Example of A Simple Siphon
Siphoning is used in transporting a fluid from a reservoir of higher elevation to one of lower elevation. Bernoulli’s equation (shown below) can help explain this type of fluid transport.
The siphon for a toilet is an upside down "U" shaped tube that connects the bowl (higher reservoir) to the sewer/cespool (lower reservoir).
If fluid (anything under approximately 2 gallons) is added to the toilet bowl itself, notice that the water level does not change. The extra fluid will cause the water level in the bowl to rise slightly for a moment, but then that extra water overflows into the siphon tube, passes through the tube, and out of the system (but this does not cause the toilet to flush).
When the toilet is flushed, 2 gallons of water rush quickly through the bowl, causing the siphon tube to fill up completely, resulting in a change in pressure (lower pressure inside the tube ahead of the flowing water, and higher pressure in the water (at the inlet of the siphon) in the bowl. Once all the water has passed through the tube, air enters and interrupts the siphoning process (causing the gurgle you hear after you flush). Then water in the bowl is replenished when the inlet valve in the tank allows more water to come in through the supply line.

BBM

I would also like to know this. Welcome to WS, Laf.