Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legally, an accident is something unintentional. If Oscar knew Reeva was behind the door him, going to get his gun, coming back and firing four shots can't be accidental. It's murder. Rage or not - he knew she was there. Premeditated is the sticking point and the 'common' rule is that premeditation can be formed at the time or just moments before the crime itself. There doesn't have to be a manifesto in triplicate to prove premeditation.

Now...the complication is that even if you do believe the State has proven murder, premeditation in South Africa is still really hazy to many of us and we've all read and posted varying interpretations so that ball's still out there somewhere.
 
james83 said:
Something else that i thought was strange that Roger Dixon said today, he says they took off another door from Oscar's house to a shooting range to do there test's, why did they not just set the door up in Oscar's bathroom do the bat test at 3am and record the sound's from close to the state witness's house's?.
Click to expand...

You really think that neighborhood could deal with another 3am shooting?
 
steveml said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on Steve IMO. I cannot add anything to that. He is a complex and fascinating character study, as many high achievers / criminals are.
I wonder where he would rank on the psychopath scale?
 
TipDog said:
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.
Click to expand...


BIB Yes, that's exactly OP's argument. He went and got his gun, fired four times at the toilet door, all because he heard Reeva using the bathroom, but thought it wasn't Reeva.

The FACT is that OP's admitted story is he heard Reeva in the bathroom. The fact is something as inconsequential as a person using the bathroom caused him to fire four shots and kill her.

That's OP story, not mine. He has repeated it over and over. The actual sound of Reeva using the bathroom led him to shoot the door four times.

That's insane.

Extrapolate his logic. Using his logic, if he saw some black guy in front of his house, he'd be justified in gunning the guy down if he believed the guy was going to try to break into his house and kill him.

That's why they changed the murder laws in SA to begin with. So people like OP can't shoot first, and claim it was justified.

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the implied racism in OP's "intruder" story. It's disgusting, imo.
 
james83 said:
So can anyone offer a good reason why the defence would send this guy Dixon up to talk about such a wide range of topics that he is not an expert in?, because it comes across as if they couldn't get real experts to say the things that they wanted to here.
My personal favourite part was when he contradicted Saayman, now given the fact that Saayman has carried out somewhere in the region of 10000-15000 autopsies and Dixon has only ever been to 3, i tend to think Saayman has more credibility, just a hunch.
Click to expand...
I think there were a lot of points that Roux just wanted to have "put before the Judge". To a large extent the ensuing questioning by Nel only adds to that. The topics are put in the Judges mind over and over, it is not of ultimate importance which "version" wins the "debate".
As I mentioned, the main one was the recording of a cricket bat on door. Most of us have seen and heard the YT demonstrating cricket bat on door. I for one was very surprised that the cricket bat noise was even in the same "family" of noises as a gunshot, but it is. I was only convinced of that by hearing the YT. The Judge (I presume) has never heard that YT, nor would she have before deliberating. Now the Judge has heard similar (better), she even has a copy in evidence to play again when she deliberates. THAT was a hugely important thing to get put before the Judge. If Dixon's testimony achieves nothing else (and that not true) then he will have earned his fee.
 
steveml said:
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.
Click to expand...


BIB

Oscar's demeanor in court was a disaster. IMO, he showed how of lesser intelligence he is as well as how incredibly arrogant to think he knew better than a very seasoned prosecutor. To me, there was no razor sharp thinking going on at all, just a quick switch to not knowing, not recalling, being confused or being emotional. As I've mentioned already today, stoicism is a behavior that one exhibits when seeking to obtain or give facts, not emotion. OP wasn't there to give facts, he was there to recite lines and when he blew them, he switched to other tactics that did not help him or his DT at all.

As for Nel, with all do respect, he did his job. I'm always a little jarred whenever I see him blamed for OP not being able to keep his facts straight. OP is on trial for murder. It's his job, not the state's, to fully, honestly explain what happened that night - to tell the truth. The burden of proof may belong to the state, but that doesn't relieve the defendant of his duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under oath.
 
liesbeth said:
She explained that there were two set of photos taken on two different occasions. She was present one time and was under the impression that these particular photos were taken the time she wasn't there. When they showed her the zoomed photo she readily admitted that it was indeed her hand. What possible reason did she have to lie about this? The photos were taken in her home and not at the crime scene.
Click to expand...

I think she knew about both sets of photos and she didn't want to be declared a "nosy body". The proscution probably promised to not use the set where she was peeking out at them.
 
Emz73 said:
You do realise Oscar was screaming...a blood curdling terrified scream that went on for 10 minutes or so....because he shot into a door? A DOOR. After he found Reeva he didn't utter a word. Unless you count a "everything is fine"
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Hatfield said:
I see what you mean now although I dont think it would be considered an accident at that point. More like losing control and doing it on purpose.
But there is a vaild defense for that which I cant remember the term. Something like Lovers Rage. It doesnt make someone get off scott free but can reduce the sentence.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the one where, say the wife has an affair then he looses it? I think this is about him and his entitlement issues.
I don't want him to get off Scott free. Just imagine :-(
 
supernovaNic said:
Or could it be that they couldn't find an expert that would say the things Dixon did?
If they had consulted with other experts, and didn't like their theory because it didn't fit OP's story, would they have to disclose that to the court?
Click to expand...
BBM - Most likely! Dixon didn't even take a photograph of the door till last month, and I think the sound tests were only done last week - and they had a whole year to do that. I suspect that some actual experts refused to put their integrity and credibility on the line, and so had to refuse to be part of the 'team'. I dread to think how many experts were approached if Dixon was what they ended up with :eek:
 
I just can't help but be very very suspicious of the fact that these cricket bat tests are done outside, it doesn't make sense and i wonder if there would be such a dramatic echo if they were tested from inside a room like the actual incident itself.
 
steveml said:
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.
Click to expand...

Insightful analysis. Thanks for sharing.
 
Britlaws said:
Sorry, I was being a little facetious about the expert, who sounds like a tape recorded automaton. Now I have watched a bit of the cross examination, I feel more sorry for him.
Click to expand...

evidently he enjoyed it. " it was fun'. no need for sorrow.
 
soozieqtips said:
BBM - Most likely! Dixon didn't even take a photograph of the door till last month, and I think the sound tests were only done last week - and they had a whole year to do that. I suspect that some actual experts refused to put their integrity and credibility on the line, and so had to refuse to be part of the 'team'. I dread to think how many experts were approached if Dixon was what they ended up with :eek:
Click to expand...

I believe one of those 'reports' was dated 5th April of this year, if I'm not mistaken.
 
nastasya said:
BIB Yes, that's exactly OP's argument. He went and got his gun, fired four times at the toilet door, all because he heard Reeva using the bathroom, but thought it wasn't Reeva.

The FACT is that OP's admitted story is he heard Reeva in the bathroom. The fact is something as inconsequential as a person using the bathroom caused him to fire four shots and kill her.

That's OP story, not mine. He has repeated it over and over. The actual sound of Reeva using the bathroom led him to shoot the door four times.

That's insane.

Extrapolate his logic. Using his logic, if he saw some black guy in front of his house, he'd be justified in gunning the guy down if he believed the guy was going to try to break into his house and kill him.

That's why they changed the murder laws in SA to begin with. So people like OP can't shoot first, and claim it was justified.

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the implied racism in OP's "intruder" story. It's disgusting, imo.
Click to expand...

BIB

Sorry, Natasha, but I don't believe that is correct. His explanation for what he did had nothing to do with the sound of a woman peeing or pooping in the toilet and everything to do with hearing a sound in his bathroom and thinking an intruder had climbed through the window. The only reason that the toilet is in his version at all is because the toilet closet is where Reeva was shot and killed. So there is an assumption of her using that room for its purpose but no solid proof that she did or didn't. If she'd gotten up and walked to the kitchen (or ran there out of fear of OP), then his explanation for shooting her there would have been that he thought he heard an intruder in the kitchen, not that he heard a woman eating a snack in the middle of the night.

In fact, assuming you want to believe OP's version, had he actually heard her make a bodily noise or flush the toilet, perhaps he'd figured out it was her and not an intruder. But he's not mentioned any toilet flushing or toilet paper tearing as a reason for shooting through the door in terror in the middle of the night. And if he had, I think it's fair to say that he needs to be locked away in a mental ward stat!

Of course, all of this moot anyway, because didn't he change his reason for pulling the trigger and shooting into the door to involuntary actions while in a state of panic?
 
strydohj said:
What is the ballistic guy onto by stating the jacket of the bullet was still around the core? Bullets just don't shed their jackets even it was impacted. So I would expect lead and copper on the wall irrespective of what trajectory it followed. Don't think I get what he is trying to explain or conclude.
Click to expand...

you will never understand it unless you understand oscar-speak......there are courses that you can take to learn it I have heard.

moo
 
james83 said:
So can anyone offer a good reason why the defence would send this guy Dixon up to talk about such a wide range of topics that he is not an expert in?, because it comes across as if they couldn't get real experts to say the things that they wanted to here.
My personal favourite part was when he contradicted Saayman, now given the fact that Saayman has carried out somewhere in the region of 10000-15000 autopsies and Dixon has only ever been to 3, i tend to think Saayman has more credibility, just a hunch.
Click to expand...

A) cheap
B) available

Seriously! Cannot think of any other explanation, other than the fact they could not find anyone else able and willing to try and support the defence case. I find that hard to believe though as Defence experts are guns for hire and human nature dictates that if you offer the right price, there will be plenty of takers.

I suspect that the reality is that he was recommended, his previous role as Batman's boss was important and that the resulting charade of his testimony is more damning of the defence's case and lack of credible supporting evidence than it is of Dixon personally. Bless his cotton socks (white, never tested them)

Yes, the tests were useless but most experts would struggle to present anything credible and coherent when tied to such a narrow and improbable narrative. They will try but the lack of authenticity shows just how weak it actually is.

There is also the actual reality of life... You instruct someone to do a job and by the time you realise that it is not up to scratch, it's too late. You have to manage with what you've got! By all accounts Dixon was still scrabbling about 2 nights ago outside the front of the Stipps house, at a lower viewing angle and with a new property between. Farcical!
 
Gbtaketwo said:
I am still confused about this because I thought there was some possibility that the shots were before the panels were ripped out of the door but not necessarily before the bat strikes. It may have been during Nel's redirect ?
I keep meaning to go through all this testimony again to get it clear in my mind
Click to expand...

Here are the official videos from sabc.

Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.
Session 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ

Session 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6...id=P-14bhKWdfY

the witness clearly states that:
"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Iow's, the two previously identifed marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

I took that whole bit to mean that the panels having been broken out could only have come after the bullet holes, but the two initial bat strikes could have come before the bullet holes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 232 more.
Total: 2,244 (members: 233, guests: 2,011)

Online statistics

Members online
233
Guests online
2,011
Total visitors
2,244
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,665
Messages
17,972,710
Members
228,854
Latest member
ramada.williams.gc@gmail.
Back
Top