Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Val1]

Well, see that's the problem. I see a lot of people saying he is guilty of intentional murder regardless. That's a nice catch all but I don't think that's how it works or will work. The state's case is quite clearly that he intended to murder Reeva. If that is not then they probably should have taken a different tack.

The way I'm reading this though, the state is pretty clearly saying they believe Oscar intended to kill Reeva.

It is common, IMO, of prosecutors to say either way he's guilty of so and so, especially if they feel they cannot prove their main theory. It doesnt mean OP will found guilty of intentional homicide regardless. It means the judge will weigh her options.

I put it to you, that the state could not accuse OP of murder without naming the victim....

 

[steveml]

Without knowing all the evidence(much of it went directly to the evidence bin and the public wasn't privy to it) it's pretty hard to come up with a complete theory, n'est pas?

Oh, my bad, I thought many conclusions had already been reached.

 

[MeeBee]

I put it to you, that the state could not accuse OP of murder without naming the victim....

I don't understand what you're saying...

 

[Trooper]

what does it matter to anyone as to whom has one opinion and whom has another??


I simply do not see the problem. I mean. .. its not as if this is actually the real court in Pretoria, is it??

people can think he is guilty , people can think he is innocent, what does it matter?

 

[MeeBee]

what does it matter to anyone as to whom has one opinion and whom has another??


I simply do not see the problem. I mean. .. its not as if this is actually the real court in Pretoria, is it??

people can think he is guilty , people can think he is innocent, what does it matter?

My thoughts exactly.............

 

[delilah]

I've just started to follow the OP case and am finding it quite interesting. I had a couple of questions regarding the toilet door.

The door to the toilet was locked. Oscar says he broke the door with the cricket bat and found the key on the floor.

My questions are:

1. Was the key on the floor in the toilet room where Reeva was?
2. If the key was on Reeva's side of the toilet room and OP didn't have his legs, how was he able to reach through the crack in the door to reach the floor and pick up the key?

Thank you

According to OP, he had his prosthetics on when he broke the toilet door panels and found the key, which was presumably inside the cubicle, although that is not specified explicitly in his affidavit.

 

[Trooper]

do 'dum dum bullets kill and mutilate??? even though they are called by some with such a fuzzy wuzzy name??


or the converse.. because they are called a supposed less threatening name, do they then cause less damage and savagery?



they could be named Sweet Lollipops, but the photos of a body riddled with them still looks horrific.

 

[Trooper]

It's not even that he has one imo, it's that she's actually come to court....

lets hope she is a very quiet little girl, val. or.....

 

[Trooper]

and that she has a titanium bladder.. that might help.

 

[delilah]

For me' the big questions OP has to answer is, if the bangs at 300-310 were the shots that killed RS, what exactly was he doing between then and 317, when the defence claims he broke the toilet door? It's a long time to faff around, not phoning anyone, and not really doing anything other than a bit of screaming off the balcony. And if the fatal shots happened between 300-310 how could RS possibly have died in his arms several mins after 317, after he'd carried her downstairs? Surely that is not medically possible after her head injury.

 

[MeeBee]

It's not uncommon for people to put hollow point bullets into a gun they intend to use for self defense. It's so they can make sure that if they need to use it, it would immediately severely incapacitate their target. Obviously, if he thought it was an intruder and he's shooting him with hollow point bullets he is intending to kill them. The state can say either way, it's still intentional murder. Well, the judge will obviously decide, if she rejects the state's theory, whether or not OP should be found guilty of intentional murder of an intruder. It won't just be, well he intended to kill him so guilty. Because of course he did. She will have factors to weigh, just as anyone deciding a self defense case does.

Now I already know what the response will be: but it wasn't an intruder behind the door it was Reeva. Yes, we know that. But it's possible at the time OP didn't.

 

[Trooper]

my completed theory is short . he shot her four times , he killed her, he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

I'm on the same page as the Govt. of the RSA., its Constitution. and the Dept. of Jurisprudence.

Good evening, Viper.

 

[Viper]

my completed theory is short . he shot her four times , he killed her, he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

I'm on the same page as the Govt. of the RSA., its Constitution. and the Dept. of Jurisprudence.

Good evening, Viper.

Good morning Trooper! It's 6:00am in Texas; working on my coffee and struggling to get my mind to wake up! Funny I just glanced at the tv and there was a question in the subtitles: Can you name a US Senator? During the day I can name a few dozen, but in my sleepy haze at the moment I am only able to name two Senators, and they are both deceased! :smile:

 

[Suthrnqt]

I thought OP was charged with 'unlawfully and willingly killing a person.' Well, he did shoot 4 times and kill a person. Right?

On day 11 of the trial, Shaun Reeves, gun dealer, read aloud to the court OP's answers for the competency exam/Firearms Control Act. Several scenarios were discussed, and in SA, it is unlawful to shoot unless your life is being threatened by someone who is armed.

Hmmm.

 

[Viper]

I suppose getting OP to sit on the stand and scream in both a woman's and a man's voice for 15 minutes is out if the question, correct?

 

[Trooper]

I suppose getting OP to sit on the stand and scream in both a woman's and a man's voice for 15 minutes is out if the question, correct?

unfortunately.. I cant see it happening.... his double throat singing screaming would only have significance to the ear witnesses who heard the original horrifying sound.. its no point him being able to scream like any woman. it has to be that woman they heard.


but even so. he didn't hear her scream, so he would have no context in which to replicate the sound, correct??


even in Texas vipes. would they allow an accused to give a screaming demo?? heh.

I am disappointed though.. the thought of that event kept me in a state of calm for quite some time.

 

[delilah]

This may seem a naive question but what does a defence barrister do if s/he becomes aware that the accused is guilty? I don't mean suspects, but knows, because the accused has said "yes, I did it, I'm guilty". What happens then? I think under British law the barrister has to withdraw from the case, but I'm really not certain.

 

[Val1]

I suppose getting OP to sit on the stand and scream in both a woman's and a man's voice for 15 minutes is out if the question, correct?

I'm a woman and someone would have to be trying to kill me before I'd even be able to scream longer than a second or two .... so unless he's been taking screaming lessons I really doubt it's even a possibility... :moo:

Anyway, night all, it's just past 4am for me, ttyal. :seeya:

 

[Trooper]

This may seem a naive question but what does a defence barrister do if s/he becomes aware that the accused is guilty? I don't mean suspects, but knows, because the accused has said "yes, I did it, I'm guilty". What happens then? I think under British law the barrister has to withdraw from the case, but I'm really not certain.

Same in South Africa, delilah...

 

[Viper]

It will also be interesting to me to see how OP explains that he has been a victim of numerous crimes before that night, none were reported to the authorities. And Nel went a step further by putting on the record that even a mispelling of OPs name would still be in the database. This should be good!