1330 users online (215 members and 1115 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

Voters
250. You may not vote on this poll
  • The case for murder was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt

    76 30.40%
  • Murder directus -OP fired shots knowing it was RS and intended to kill her

    143 57.20%
  • Murder eventualis- OP believed it was a burglar, foresaw he would kill by shooting

    19 7.60%
  • The case for culpable homicide was proven

    33 13.20%
  • There are many holes in the case Ė too many unanswered questions

    20 8.00%
  • Prosecutorís evidence and witness testimony verify OPís version

    3 1.20%
  • The firearm charges were substantiated

    38 15.20%
  • None of the above

    1 0.40%
Multiple Choice Poll.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 159
  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Carmelita View Post
    I don't know I am terrible with math
    Because you can vote on as many options as you like. You're not limited to one option.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Karmady View Post
    Why does the poll total well over 100%?
    I think it's because you can vote for more than one option. I did. I voted that 'the case hasn't been made yet' AND 'guilty of firearms charges' - I ticked both boxes...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by TorisMom003 View Post
    My five reasons for voting for Murder Directus have already been listed above in other posts. I also believe that the other weapons charges have been proven as well.
    Well I only want to give 1 reason and not 5 because this one thing really says it all for me and it leads to no other conclusion than Murder Directus.

    1). He changed the angle of the last 3 shots ...............he could see her of that there is no doubt in my mind...........he executed her.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    688
    1) OP had no realistic reason to believe there was an intruder, living on an estate with excellent security, and as demonstrated by lax security in his home that night.

    2) Credible witnesses heard a woman in distress.

    3) Made no realistic attempt to check the noise, nor to sound the alarm, nor to remove himself and RS, but went straight to bathroom with his gun.

    4) Fired 4 shots into the toilet that appear directly aimed.

    5) Made no attempt to ensure medical help came, instead phoned a friend.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by 44ALLAN View Post
    Well I only want to give 1 reason and not 5 because this one thing really says it all for me and it leads to no other conclusion than Murder Directus.

    1). He changed the angle of the last 3 shots ...............he could see her of that there is no doubt in my mind...........he executed her.
    The prosecution has not argued this perspective. Perhaps they will in the closing argument but I would think that would be considered new evidence as it has not been argued as of yet that the state believes that Oscar could see Reeva while he was shooting her. It is my understanding that the state must produce all of their evidence and then only summate what they have presented in the closing argument, not bring in a totally new theory.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,954
    Quote Originally Posted by fox1lady View Post
    I actually voted Murder eventualis because of the reasons you gave for it. However, I'm wondering why it can't be Murder directus using my theory.

    I believe that OP intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.

    He gave no warning shots, although he claimed that by shouting "Get the **** out of my house" and shouting to Reeva to phone the police was in his way a warning. However, he shot as soon as he heard another noise which he thought was wood moving. He claimed that the only ways out would be the window or the door. The fact that the door handle didn't move meaning the door wasn't opening would suggest that the "intruders" would have perhaps been trying to flee through the window as he had hoped. He shot four times at that point so didn't give them a chance.

    Also he claimed that he didn't check with Reeva whether she had heard anything because "he was sure of what he heard", this could suggest he was sure it was an intruder and so he reached for his gun, walked to the bathroom in order to deliberately confront the intruders and then fired the 4 shots using black talon ammo into the toilet door.

    It could be argued that he had planned the murder of an intruder by purchasing deadly ammunition which wasn't just going to harm, it was going to cause "maximum damage". He didn't use the gun in self defence, that is obvious. Shooting 4 times at a door of a room that size with those bullets would have to either kill or seriously injure whoever was in there as he is a trained shooter.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts. Could be either pre-meditated (dependant on which definition is used) or murder.
    This part really struck me to the core. Iirc - He broke down when he gave that testimony somewhat hollaring, "Get the **** out of my house!" That sealed it for me. I believe that he knew it was Reeva in there and that's what he was yelling at her. So half truth there, and when she wouldn't come out, he started blasting.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Carmelita View Post
    Ah! Thank you I am apparently not only bad at math I am also bad at poll interpretation
    You might like to add "I am bad at quoting" too! (I'm just kidding)

    I'm not sure whether you (I think it was you ?) received a response to a post you made where you mentioned you didn't know how to quote a post when copying and pasting from another thread so I'll try giving you directions here. Feel free to ignore if you received a response and I missed it.

    Type the characters, [ quote] at the start and [/ quote] at the end of the context/paragraph/word (whatever it is you're wanting to quote). NO spaces inbetween those characters. I've had to leave a space to show you what characters to type because if I didn't leave spaces it would be quoted like this

    at the start and
    Hope that helps. Also, the multi-quote feature, is right next to the quote feature and can be used to quote multi posts as you know. To do this, just click onto the multi-quote box, it changes colour (orange for me), then keep reading other posts--every post you would like to respond to, just click the multi-quote feature, it will change to orange too. When you're ready to respond to all the posts you've multi-quoted, you need to make sure you hit the QUOTE box only on the LAST post-- (just like when you normally quote a post you want to respond to.) A reply box will appear with all the posts you have multi-quoted. Insert the cursor under the first post AFTER the [/quote] and type your response. Then move your cursor to the next post AFTER the [/quote]--etc. Hope you find this post helpful and it's not too confusing to follow. (I'm not that great at giving directions but I try lol) Good luck!

  8. #38
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906

    Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

    The State has shown:

    Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

    Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

    Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

    Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

    The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

    Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

    Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

    Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

    Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

    There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

    That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.

    He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

    He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

    He has contempt for authority figures.

    Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

    Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

    Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

    At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

    It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

    Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

    'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

    Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

    Shot at a closed door without visual or verbal assessment.

    No one heard gunshots (or bangs) at the time Oscar estimates he fired.

    Oscar saw no point in screaming upon finding Reeva on the floor, after screaming and shouting while breaking down the door.

    No witness heard him scream 'Reeva' despite clearly hearing a man yell for help, and a screaming woman, before the gunshots at 3:17.

    Oscar has a history of jealousy.

    While his direct was fluid and uninterrupted, Oscar's cross was plagued by emotional breakdowns, memory lapses, and inconsistency within his account.

    Oscar had the absolute gall to disparage the doctor who left his own home in the middle of the night, to go into a possibly dangerous situation, to save the very woman Oscar is responsible for killing.

    Five articulate, intelligent witnesses heard some variation of an altercation which quickly escalated, until the bangs at 3:17, when the woman's final scream fades with the last bang. Then there is silence.

    The majority of those witnesses heard both a man yelling and a woman screaming. The man yelling is described as flat and monotone. According to Oscar, this is him, yelling for help after 'accidentally' shooting the girlfriend he loved dead.

    Oscar has a history of an extremely reckless, negligent attitude towards firearms.

    Oscar testified he never intended to shoot therefore his claim for putative self-defence, which requires intent, may be nullified.

    Oscar was extremely concerned with his image and the media's portrayal of him.

    Oscar had a financial meeting that left him troubled the morning of February 13th.

    Oscar is willing to lie under oath. After stating he would 'try' to tell the truth.


    Picked apart, anyone could invent reasonable excuses for everything I've listed. A circumstantial case (and most are) is based on building blocks of evidence. It requires reasoning, inference and considering the culmination of evidence. This is one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever seen.

    MOO


    Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
    Last edited by BritsKate; 04-28-2014 at 06:59 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    8,939
    Please do not veer away from the intent of the thread.. thanks

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Carmelita View Post

    ***Respectfully Snipped***

    I believe Nel is more interested in his own ego than getting to the facts.


    That Oscar has character issues and some histrionic traits does not make him a cold blooded killer. Nor IMO has the evidence proven him such so far. I think his remorse and emotion is for both Reeva and himself.
    At times I think Nel's tactics are more sizzle than steak. But I do feel, at the very least, Pastorius should be found guilty of culpable homicide. What's the prison sentence for that, generally? I would barf more than Oscar himself if he's given some sort of probation, or a candybar prison term.
    Last edited by mister happy; 04-28-2014 at 10:26 PM. Reason: Corrected the word "then" to "than"... thank you.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    3,865
    The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.

    For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.

    My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:

    Not Putative Self Defense
    1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
    2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
    3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
    4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
    5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.

    Premeditated
    Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

    Murder
    1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
    2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
    3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
    4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
    5. He called a friend first, not netcare.

    In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by BritsKate View Post
    The State has shown:

    Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

    Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

    Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

    Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

    The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

    Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

    Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

    Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

    Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

    There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

    That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.

    He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

    He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

    He has contempt for authority figures.

    Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

    Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

    Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

    At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

    It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

    Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

    'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

    Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

    Shot at a closed door without visual or verbal assessment.

    No one heard gunshots (or bangs) at the time Oscar estimates he fired.

    Oscar saw no point in screaming upon finding Reeva on the floor, after screaming and shouting while breaking down the door.

    No witness heard him scream 'Reeva' despite clearly hearing a man yell for help, and a screaming woman, before the gunshots at 3:17.

    Oscar has a history of jealousy.

    While his direct was fluid and uninterrupted, Oscar's cross was plagued by emotional breakdowns, memory lapses, and inconsistency within his account.

    Oscar had the absolute gall to disparage the doctor who left his own home in the middle of the night, to go into a possibly dangerous situation, to save the very woman Oscar is responsible for killing.

    Five articulate, intelligent witnesses heard some variation of an altercation which quickly escalated, until the bangs at 3:17, when the woman's final scream fades with the last bang. Then there is silence.

    The majority of those witnesses heard both a man yelling and a woman screaming. The man yelling is described as flat and monotone. According to Oscar, this is him, yelling for help after 'accidentally' shooting the girlfriend he loved dead.

    Oscar has a history of an extremely reckless, negligent attitude towards firearms.

    Oscar testified he never intended to shoot therefore his claim for putative self-defence, which requires intent, may be nullified.

    Oscar was extremely concerned with his image and the media's portrayal of him.

    Oscar had a financial meeting that left him troubled the morning of February 13th.

    Oscar is willing to lie under oath. After stating he would 'try' to tell the truth.


    Picked apart, anyone could invent reasonable excuses for everything I've listed. A circumstantial case (and most are) is based on building blocks of evidence. It requires reasoning, inference and considering the culmination of evidence. This is one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever seen.

    MOO


    Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
    BBM

    This part was interesting for me when Nel asked if he would tell the truth, and he said yes...and Nel rephrased and said something like, "So you won't lie?" but instead of OP saying "No, I won't lie," he repeated he would do his best to the tell the truth (sorry this isn't a quote but the general gist of what he said). Interesting...

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,238
    This part is the nail in the coffin for OP to me...

    “Mi’Lady as I said I wasn’t meaning to shoot anyone, I went to the bathroom so I could put myself between what I perceived was danger and Reeva, to approach in the time that I did, I didn’t have much time to think..” “Mi’Lady I shot because I at that point that split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me.”

    IMO,
    It is here where OP does himself in. Because if he went to the bathroom to put himself between danger and Reeva then he was grossly mistaken on 2 counts.

    1-There was no danger
    2-Reeva was not behind him back in bed

    OP is trying to claim he was justified in the killing based on what he perceived which was wrong on both counts. Not only that but it gets worse.

    He adds that he rushed... "to approach in the time I did I didnt have much time to think".
    So now we can add that he rushed so that means he made a rush to POOR judgement.

    A responsible gun owner should never make a poor rush to judgement when discharching a weapon. Sure you may have to make a quick decision but your decision had better be good and correct if you fire your weapon. If your are unsure then you never fire your weapon. NEVER.

    And the last part of his statement just shows he is trying to talk like his defense laywer coached him. "at the split moment" like in that split moment his life was being threatened. Well, no OP your life was not being threatened at all. And your use of terms during your testimony shows obvious defense laywer coaching of which I am sure the judge will pick up on. She may even conclude he is lying right here.

    I dont know SA rules but at a minimum this would be admitted testimony of "manslaughter" here in the US at a minimum.

    His own words prove here that he used a very careless and rushed poor judgement that directly resulted in someones death. This is by definition some form of crime similar to manslaughter.

    If it were not, then any one of us could start shooting people we hate and just claim "Whooops we made a simple mistake and thought they were out to get us". If the judge picks up and believes he has been lying during testimony, then the crime will be much more than manslaughter.
    Last edited by Hatfield; 04-28-2014 at 08:15 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.

    For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.

    My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:

    Not Putative Self Defense
    1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
    2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
    3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
    4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
    5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.

    Premeditated
    Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

    Murder
    1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
    2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
    3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
    4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
    5. He called a friend first, not netcare.

    In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.
    I totally agree. You made a good summary of the reasons why the case was proven.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by BritsKate View Post
    The State has shown:

    *Snipped by me in the interest of saving space*
    .


    The State has shown:


    Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.


    IMO the state has not proven this.




    Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.


    Not the core of his statement, Nel tried very hard to misconstrue Oscar’s words such as claiming Oscar said he heard the magazine rack move and that is why he shot into the bathroom.

    Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.



    Which also bolsters the claim that Oscar shot in a terror filled panic and the kick of the gun effected his normally steady hand.


    Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.


    Abnormal does not mean it didn’t happen, Reeva could have screamed and Oscar could have been screaming and he would have ringing ears after firing his 9mm in such closed quarters.

    The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.


    I am not sure if you mean the claimed pause in the gunshots or the gunshots and the bat bangs.


    Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.


    Oscar also has no history of being violent toward women that has been independently verified.


    Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

    One previous episode Oscar appeared with his 9mm in hand and asked his friend if everything was ok.


    Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.


    Because he was fearful for his own safety.


    Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

    All true.

    There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

    There is a saying when you need the police in seconds they are only minutes away. Not calling security over every little thing does not indicate that he was not security conscious.

    That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.
    Not sure what this has to do with anything.



    I’m not even sure that Reeva really felt loved by Oscar or that the prosecution proved this or why it would be germane to PM.


    He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.


    Yes but he had no verifiable history of violence against women. Screaming and ridiculing her was a terrible thing to do on that we agree.


    He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

    Reckless behavior is mot unusual in 26 year old men and even less unusual in world class athletes.

    He has contempt for authority figures.

    I think contempt is a loaded word and it is only your opinion not a factual statement.

    Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.


    An overreach IMO. He has repeatedly stated that his version of the night is true and that conflicting testimony is inaccurate.

    Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.


    True he acted according to his testimony in the way he thought was best due to the perceived threat to him and Reeva.

    Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.


    This is a loaded statement he put himself between the perceived intruder and Reeva he was on his stumps and in his panicked state felt he was taking the most reasonable action.


    At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

    This is true and from the outside looking in and is very damaging and goes toward culpable homicide.



    It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.



    Anything is possible.


    Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.


    Many people call a friend before they call for emergency help there is something about human nature that reaches out for the familiar.

    'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

    This IMO goes to Oscar’s credibility and does undercut it, but there can be psychological reasons for his response.

    Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

    Oscar claims to have been screaming for quite a bit at this point and believed that after he screamed for the intruder to get the – out that he heard a sound which he thought was the intruder coming out of the toilet and in that “split second” he shot with instinctual fear in an act of self-preservation.


    And I need to take a break I am impressed by your list and the wherewithal to write it all out and yor dedication to your beliefs.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. FL - Casey Anthony prosecutor Jeff Ashton to defend son in DUI case
    By Reality Orlando in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  2. IL - Prosecutor buys alcohol for underage girl at center of case
    By peeples in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 09:41 AM
  3. Fmr. Prosecutor Robin Sax on the Anthony Case
    By Levi in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 01:57 PM
  4. Judge throws out rape case after prosecutor late to court
    By Paladin in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-26-2006, 03:13 PM