Trial Discussion Thread #29

[TipDog]

I'm still dumbfounded that OP testified about his "version" of what happened instead of just saying, "This is what happened."

That, and he testified that his defense team "re-worked" his version.

WTF? He sounds more like a screenwriter who submitted a script than a witness testifying about the facts of what actually happened.

THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS!!!!

American gal here! - I totally agree. In the states, if he'd said "in my version," he'd be behind bars already.

There are versions and then there is truthfully what happened. Anything else is made-up bulldung or mistaken.

But I'm an Amercian...so, there you go! :truce:

 

[steveml]

I can't see OP being convicted of anything so far. Nel has so far failed to make the case as far as I'm concerned. All I see are a lot of people (Nel among them) who take an invidious position and come up with speculative scenarios of what happened, whereas the only version that rings true to me is the one OP has elaborated all along.

Taking into account his highly strung persona and tendency to make hasty judgements, it all fits in very well for me. A lot of people are angry with him for having killed Reeva but I feel they need to be careful not to allow that anger to colour their view of what actually happened. Others just assume that he's lying because they find it hard to put themselves in his shoes. Many South Africans believe him because they KNOW what it's like to be worried about intruders, whereas Americans and others don't understand this very well as house break ins in America and Europe etc. are rare by comparison.

There may be details here and there that don't sound right, but they don't alter the core narrative. He's telling the truth at least about not knowing that realising until it was too late that it was Reeva in there.

No, they don't. And if you disagree, please provide statistics proving otherwise. I'd really appreciate that information given that I am American.

Thank you.

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime says South Africa’s homicide rate has dropped by a third over the past decade,
but it’s still 6.5 times as high as the U.S. rate and 30 times that of major European nations.

Link

 

[wb180]

THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS!!!!

American gal here! - I totally agree. In the states, if he'd said "in my version," he'd be behind bars already.

There are versions and then there is truthfully what happened. Anything else is made-up bulldung or mistaken.

But I'm an Amercian...so, there you go! :truce:

I agree. I don't even know why we websleuthers need to dissect the defense arguments anymore. There is nothing to support their version (self defense, accidental, whatever). Their accused and own experts are bad and lack credibility.

 

[wb180]

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime says South Africa’s homicide rate has dropped by a third over the past decade,
but it’s still 6.5 times as high as the U.S. rate and 30 times that of major European nations.

Link

And you know who contributed to these statistics? People like OP who should have never received a gun licence.

 

[steveml]

Not a semantical issue at all. The entire case hinged on his plea of putative self-defense (the defense was built around this) and during his cross examination, OP made it very clear that he had not acted in putative self-defense. He was simply unwilling to admit he had knowingly fired the gun at all.

Also, regarding your comments:

Firstly, he is NOT innocent - he pulled the trigger! All that is to be decided is how guilty he is, and of what.

Secondly, I find it interesting that you are prepared to defend so vigorously somebody who has now been caught out on at least two blatant lies during his cross examination. The Tasha's incident alone has made it clear to everyone including the judge that OP is not a credible witness, as he claimed his finger was not on the trigger of a gun that can only fire if there is trigger pull.

You need to go and do more research, and perhaps read up on more educated opinions from those who have analysed this trial.

I listen to everyone's opinion, including yours and the above poster. <modsnip>

 

[TipDog]

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime says South Africa’s homicide rate has dropped by a third over the past decade,
but it’s still 6.5 times as high as the U.S. rate and 30 times that of major European nations.

Link

Dreadful statistics, I'll concur. But not the statistics I was alluding to when I was commenting to James50.

So...not related to the topic.

 

[James50]

If even after his testimony, you still regard his evidence as credible, I doubt there will be anything that can be convinced. I think even a confession from OP will not be enough.

Don't be sure about that. I can turn on a dime, but so far all I see is more and more confirmation that OP is telling the truth, more or less.

What I believe people do is to put themselves in OP's situation without regard to the context and say "this is what I'd do." That doesn't work for me. It's a non-starter AFAIC. The only to get OP is to imagine what it must be like to be HIM, not US in HIS position.

<modsnip>

 

[shane13]

I think OP's entire story was concocted. He needed the stumps/no stumps part of the story so he could make up the LAME excuse that he felt vulnerable and helpless on his stumps.

He actually testified that while holding the fully loaded 9 mm he felt vulnerable because he was on his stumps. In the time it took him to wonder down to the bathroom with the gun he could have put on his prosthetics if he felt so vulnerable without them.

But of course that wouldn't have fit the "I shot because I was terrified on my stumps" version that OP and his lawyers worked out and re-worked.

Yes, most of us agree on this.

But i've also tried to point out so much strangemess on the PT's actions.
A year ago, Pros. said the matter deserves a PM charge because OP was wearing hs Prosthetics. Now they say he was on his stumps. This appears to weaken thieir case or show them waffling.

It appears that no one on PT read his autobio for clues. Both sides had people saying they hardly read OP's BH affidavit. (So did OP himself, but that's another matter, and I guess a part of his "if all else fails, blame Roux.")

RE your issue about being fearful whenever he is on his stumps. Again his mother raised him not to feel different when on his stumps. So again his own book and much else indicates that is false too.


What does the future hold? Now we also learned that Pros. is done with safeguarding the door?! What about appeals?

 

[wb180]

Don't be sure about that. I can turn on a dime, but so far all I see is more and more confirmation that OP is telling the truth, more or less.

What I believe people do is to put themselves in OP's situation without regard to the context and say "this is what I'd do." That doesn't work for me. It's a non-starter AFAIC. The only to get OP is to imagine what it must be like to be HIM, not US in HIS position.

<modsnip>

The guy lied on the stand. We don't need any context.

 

[supernovaNic]

Anyone willing to give a brief summary of what happened in court yesterday after Dixon left the stand? Thanks.

 

[James50]

Dreadful statistics, I'll concur. But not the statistics I was alluding to when I was commenting to James50.

So...not related to the topic.

\


They seemed pretty relevant to me.

 

[strydohj]

I can't see OP being convicted of anything so far. Nel has so far failed to make the case as far as I'm concerned. All I see are a lot of people (Nel among them) who take an invidious position and come up with speculative scenarios of what happened, whereas the only version that rings true to me is the one OP has elaborated all along.

Taking into account his highly strung persona and tendency to make hasty judgements, it all fits in very well for me. A lot of people are angry with him for having killed Reeva but I feel they need to be careful not to allow that anger to colour their view of what actually happened. Others just assume that he's lying because they find it hard to put themselves in his shoes. Many South Africans believe him because they KNOW what it's like to be worried about intruders, whereas Americans and others don't understand this very well as house break ins in America and Europe etc. are rare by comparison.

There may be details here and there that don't sound right, but they don't alter the core narrative. He's telling the truth at least about not knowing that realising until it was too late that it was Reeva in there.

I am a South African and yet have to come in contact with a South African that thinks he did not know it was Reeva. He has contradicted himself several times, his own witnesses has not really confirmed his version and he got himself in the position that he explained he intended to defend himself and then when he discovered the door was closed he involuntarily discharged his gun. Cannot have you bread buttered on both sides. He cannot stick to a single defence because on its own it will be picked apart. And while a good deal of time as lapsed since we heard from the first circumstantial evidence witnesses, it seems we have forgot about several people who have heard a woman screaming that night.

 

[supernovaNic]

Many South Africans believe him because they KNOW what it's like to be worried about intruders, whereas Americans and others don't understand this very well as house break ins in America and Europe etc. are rare by comparison.

Mornin James50

I don't understand why then would Oscar have his sliding glass doors open at night even if he is awake, or just his girlfriend is awake. I, myself, would love to have my sliding glass door open and let the wind blow in in the evening but it wouldn't be safe and I don't live in South Africa.

 

[shane13]

THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS!!!!

American gal here! - I totally agree. In the states, if he'd said "in my version," he'd be behind bars already.

There are versions and then there is truthfully what happened. Anything else is made-up bulldung or mistaken.

But I'm an Amercian...so, there you go! :truce:

In all fairness PT has used the "version" word aplenty too.

Sometimes taken me aback.
At the outset Nel said, it's the State's version that the final shooting occurred at 3:17 AM.

I thought he should have said 'what happened" instead of "version". But also IIRC Dr Stipp called police at 3:15 about hearing the final set of shots.
So WTH?

 

[Apollo]

The guy lied on the stand. We don't need any context.

:floorlaugh:

 

[steveml]

Of course it's my opinion, since I'm the one stating it.

If I say I believe OP is innocent, that is an opinion. It's just another way of putting it and you need to consider the whole context, not keep bolding bits and pieces and then thinking you've understood me. With all due respect.

Don't worry about it, your opinion is valid and welcome, as they all are.

<modsnip>

 

[shane13]

Anyone willing to give a brief summary of what happened in court yesterday after Dixon left the stand? Thanks.

Adjourned till May 5 I think.

 

[James50]

I am a South African and yet have to come in contact with a South African that thinks he did not know it was Reeva. He has contradicted himself several times, his own witnesses has not really confirmed his version and he got himself in the position that he explained he intended to defend himself and then when he discovered the door was closed he involuntarily discharged his gun. Cannot have you bread buttered on both sides. He cannot stick to a single defence because on its own it will be picked apart. And while a good deal of time as lapsed since we heard from the first circumstantial evidence witnesses, it seems we have forgot about several people who have heard a woman screaming that night.

Last week I read statements from two South Africans who once were sure he was guilty and have now completely changed their minds, having heard him give his testimony in court. They explained the reasons they changed their minds. . There was a media article last week with the headline: "Why many South Africans think OP is innocent." <modsnip>

 

[TipDog]

\


They seemed pretty relevant to me.

How so?

 

[TipDog]

I am a South African and yet have to come in contact with a South African that thinks he did not know it was Reeva. He has contradicted himself several times, his own witnesses has not really confirmed his version and he got himself in the position that he explained he intended to defend himself and then when he discovered the door was closed he involuntarily discharged his gun. Cannot have you bread buttered on both sides. He cannot stick to a single defence because on its own it will be picked apart. And while a good deal of time as lapsed since we heard from the first circumstantial evidence witnesses, it seems we have forgot about several people who have heard a woman screaming that night.

I concur with all of this.