Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8

[Lyra500]

"Originally Posted by Carol70 View Post
Baba testifies that he got back to the guard house at 2.55 when a few minutes later,(just past 3)his colleague arrived to tell him he had heard gunshots. I'm sure that's what he said but will confirm if I can"

Does ANYONE remember this being Mr. Baba's testimony?? Because I sure don't! No "colleague arrived to tell him he had heard gunshots" that I know of.

Gee, there sure seems to be a whole lot of misquoted testimony being posted in these threads.

No I don't recall this although I only catch up on the summaries as I am at work.

However, I understood that Baba's testimony corroborated Stipp's. That is he got a call from Stipp saying he had heard gunfire and went round to Stipp's and then on to OP's house.

 

[foxbluff]

oh well... best made plans, etc.

Caveat: Having been offline for (6) months (yeah, that should tell you something abt me...) And, having all my info on OP (egads, even considering the familiar site I came to, I was scratching my head trying to remember what "OP" meant in ws lingo...lol) having come from People Mag, and now having only read two pages here, I'm hearing for the first time abt the (3) BB's: bat, balcony, and broken door.

Sooo, for what it's worth, the moment I read the first acct of this case in ppl mag, my verdict was Guilty.

Thought #1: if you heard a noise coming from the bathroom, wouldn't your first thought be that your bedmate was in there? Wouldn't you feel around in bed to see if your bedmate was there before shooting through the bathroom door?

AND, wouldn't it enter the mind of a resonable person the unlikelyhood that a burglar would be making noise in the bathroom of all places??? I mean really. How many intruders spend time in the bathroom? Stealing what??? Razor blades??? Wet towels???

Yes, I'm three-sheets-in-the-wind or I would have been smart enough to say nothing...

 

[Really?]

Very quiet here this afternoon

ha......sorry......I had to pick up my medicine.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The burglar story is (literally) a load of b.s.

What was available to steal in the toilet? Rolls of paper? Who on earth would jump to that conclusion?

Also, can they tell if the bat was used on the door before the gun?

We still haven't heard Reevas final phone log? Or have we?

 

[sorrell skye]

Pitch black bedroom yet has no trouble finding his gun under the bed, laughable.

I'm not defending OP, but I'm able to find things in my house in the pitch darkness because I'm familiar with where the things in my house are located.

Having said that, Roux stated during OP's bail hearing last year that OP switched which side of the bed he typically slept on (usually slept on right, switched to the left due to an alleged shoulder injury). The curious thing is - his gun holster was found (during the investigation) on the floor of the left side of the bed.

Did he also move his gun to the left side of the bed when he allegedly switched sides? It's possible.

If so, how was he able to find it so quickly in the 'pitch dark' if it wasn't in its usual place? Experience has taught me that if one usually keeps an item in a particular place, then one can find it easily. However, if that same item is then moved, until one becomes accustomed to its new location, one will automatically look for it in the previous, familiar place and will not look for it in the new place.

We are all creatures of habit. Based on ST's testimony, OP is no exception to that rule.

So, the question that you posed remains: how did OP find his gun under the bed (the left side - not the usual side he slept, nor the usual side he kept his gun) in the 'pitch dark bedroom' - especially in an alleged state of heightened anxiety due to fearing a dangerous intruder had broken into his home?

Under extreme stress, humans are hardwired to follow force of habit, as the 'fight or flight' response suppresses higher cognitive functions - including brain functions associated with short term memory formation.

I think that if OP had truly believed an intruder had entered his home through the bathroom window, and if he had truly switched the side of the bed he typically slept on, he would have had difficulty locating his gun in the 'pitch dark'.

 

[lonetraveler]

The door we saw in court was assembled - at the scene panels were loose [had been removed, lay on bathroom floor] and only two pieces on right still intact....




I stand by my opinion :

- first OP used the bat....

- panels loosed and he pressed them to the side so he was able to look into the toilet room....

- then he shot through the door....

- later he ripped the loosed panels with hands

And all the time OP was on his stumps....

Before he pulled out Reeva into the bathroom he put his prosthetics on - for a better balance - that's when he stumbled over the plank on the floor (like Vermeulen said).... that's the *mark made by prosthesis* Roux stated....

Just bouncing off your post here but first item bolded by me is a clear indication that OP could not have thought that Reeva was in bed asleep when he shot through the door. How could he possibly think she was sleeping through all the slamming of the bat on the door? Just for heck of it let's pretend that she was in bed asleep, don't you think that she would have awakened to the loud noise of the bat hitting the door and would wonder what the H was going on? His story is so weak and contrived it is just ridiculous and insulting that he would think that people would actually believe it. JMO

 

[AlwaysShocked]

See my post above as edited.

I re-listened to Mr. Baba's testimony. He did indeed testify that another guard came in and told him about hearing gunshots and that "moments later" the phone rang and it was a resident reporting hearing gunshots. He said it was "after 3:00".

Newspaper articles seem to be reporting it was neighbors who sounded the alarm about hearing gunshots.

Wonder why the guard who heard the actual shots has not testified?

 

[james83]

I really don't think the neighbours accounts are that different to be honest, we have to remember that as these events were happening no one was taking notes and constantly looking at the time, they are human beings reacting as human beings do and recalling things the best they can.
I witnessed a burglary in the house opposite me a few years back and when the police officer asked me what time the incident occurred for my statement i literally said something like 1.15-1.45, it also turned out i got the colour of his trousers and jumper mixed up.
To his credit Roux is making the most of everything, he is scraping hard.

 

[MeeBee]

I wonder if, for purposes of clarity, we could agree on some language.

Door handle - the metal lever-type part of the door that the hand touches to open the door

Key hole - the plate and hole where a key is inserted

Stumps - as in walking on stumps, the bottom portion of the accused legs which he is well known to be able to both walk and even run on when not wearing his prostheses. As a child he participated in races while only on his stumps.

Prosthetics, prostheses - artificial legs

**There is no "door knob" on the door in evidence**
--------------------

For reference:

Liter = measures liquid
1 liter (L or l.) = 1,000 milliliters (ml or ml.)

30 ml. = 1 oz. of U.S. liquid - If you remember this, you will be able to convert


Meter = measures length (or height)
1 meter (M or m.) = 100 centimeters (cm or cm.)

2.5 cm. = 1 inch

1 meter = 3.28 feet (slightly longer than a yard stick) - if you remember this, you will be able to convert

I was talking about a lock knob! I didn't know what else to call it! :facepalm:

 

[Lyra500]

See my post above as edited.

I re-listened to Mr. Baba's testimony. He did indeed testify that another guard came in and told him about hearing gunshots and that "moments later" the phone rang and it was a resident reporting hearing gunshots. He said it was "after 3:00".

Newspaper articles seem to be reporting it was neighbors who sounded the alarm about hearing gunshots.

Wonder why the guard who heard the actual shots has not testified?

Good question. Where are they? Mind you, that witness list was ever so long and I seem to recall several people listed as employees of Silver ****. Sorry, i can never remember what the second part of the name is. They might be called later, although this would seem a little odd. I am not sure i get how they choose the order in which the witnesses appear in any case.

 

[soozieqtips]

The burglar story is (literally) a load of b.s.

What was available to steal in the toilet? Rolls of paper? Who on earth would jump to that conclusion?

Also, can they tell if the bat was used on the door before the gun?

We still haven't heard Reevas final phone log? Or have we?

BBM - I tend to agree. It's just too implausible that everything happened the way he claims it did. And I wonder if people who believe in his innocence are being influenced by his celebrity status. We've had some high-profile actors and DJs in court recently over sexual abuse claims (in the UK), and so many people didn't think they could have been guilty simply because of who they were. One of them was acquitted, but a regular nobody down the street would never have got the same support and loyalty.

 

[zwiebel]

A lot of toilets I've been in have the switch outside the door for safety. Including my own. Just shut myself in there in the dark and had to come right back out again. Anyone know where the toilet light switch was at OP's house?

 

[james83]

I'm not defending OP, but I'm able to find things in my house in the pitch darkness because I'm familiar with where the things in my house are located.

Having said that, Roux stated during OP's bail hearing last year that OP switched which side of the bed he typically slept on (usually slept on right, switched to the left due to an alleged shoulder injury). The curious thing is - his gun holster was found (during the investigation) on the floor of the left side of the bed.

Did he also move his gun to the left side of the bed when he allegedly switched sides? It's possible.

If so, how was he able to find it so quickly in the 'pitch dark' if it wasn't in its usual place? Experience has taught me that if one usually keeps an item in a particular place, then one can find it easily. However, if that same item is then moved, until one becomes accustomed to its new location, one will automatically look for it in the previous, familiar place and will not look for it in the new place.

We are all creatures of habit. Based on ST's testimony, OP is no exception to that rule.

So, the question that you posed remains: how did OP find his gun under the bed (the left side - not the usual side he slept, nor the usual side he kept his gun) in the 'pitch dark bedroom' - especially in an alleged state of heightened anxiety due to fearing a dangerous intruder had broken into his home?

Under extreme stress, humans are hardwired to follow force of habit, as the 'fight or flight' response suppresses higher cognitive functions - including brain functions associated with short term memory formation.

I think that if OP had truly believed an intruder had entered his home through the bathroom window, and if he had truly switched the side of the bed he typically slept on, he would have had difficulty locating his gun in the 'pitch dark'.

But even if the gun was on the usual side of the bed how often would he have had to pick that gun up in the dark?.

 

[MeeBee]

True, yes. Likely, though? I doubt it. While the sentence is indeed at the judge's discretion, as many factors are taken into account as an American manslaughter conviction. A guilty verdict in a culpable homicide case where shooting is the means of death as opposed to a vehicle could, in theory, be very different animals.

Nel would certainly not be the first prosecutor in history to overcharge if your assertions are true. I can think of a whole lot of American cases in which the prosecutor sought seemingly impossible to prove charges - usually not for drama though, imo, but to at least secure a conviction on 'lessers' while obviously hoping for a maximum penalty on the highest charge.

MOO

ETA: Drama...when I think drama in court I can't help but think of Kelly Siegler in the Susan Wright case. Anyone remember that? Ah, but she was an awesome prosecutor! She does the show 'Cold Justice' now.

Wright was convicted of 1st degree but her sentence was reduced to twenty years on appeal.

I thought wright was convicted of second degree?

 

[zwiebel]

Can a person actually climb in through those bathroom windows of his? They look like they are top opening to me.

 

[MeeBee]

Did not some witnesses say they heard "bang-pause-bang-bang-bang"?

If first shot was the "wild shot" that did not hit her but went into upper left area of bathroom, then second, third, and fourth shots would have hit her. Would force of the bullet hitting her not move, twist or spin her body? And then, what about her body dropping down from a standing position?

Thus, shot #2 hits hip, which causes her body to begin to drop, and either shot #3 or shot#4 hits her head as she is dropping to the floor inside the toilet area.

Re: That metal plate that was bashed in
I believe this is a significant piece of evidence and hope it is not overlooked with all the attention paid to the door. These cover plates to access the plumbing system on a large tub are NOT flimsy. They are a chromed covered metal, held in place by screws. You would not cave one in like that just by bumping it.

Here in the U.S. the brand of tub and plate could be determined and testing conducted to determine how much force from a cricket bat it would take to smash the plate in like that.
Also, was any material from the bat left on the plate? Don't know if such testing would have been done in SA.

How did that plate get bashed in? Why would the cricket-bat swinging OP smash in the plate on the tub? My answer is to intimidate the person in the toilet area.

Poor Reeva. So sad to realize the last minutes of her life were likely terror filled.

Here's my problem though: how can a witness remember exactly how many sounds they heard? I know if I heard such a thing I wouldn't be able to remember how many shots I heard. Just give a rough estimate. That's what most witnesses recounting multiple gunshots do, anyway. One will say around 5, the other, roughly 5-8.

I don't know about the plate. It's suspicious, yes. It could have been like that already. Don't know, Oscar hasn't offered any explanation for it. Maybe he will.

 

[YoureNicked]

Sorry to quote myself but I'm just starting to learn how this all works - see pic 4 in the slide show - can you see the door "knob" (more of a handle) and the lock under it RIGHT NEXT TO THE OPENING that's been bashed open?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...a-steenkamp-shot-dead-pictures_n_3364095.html

Hi guys

I'm new on here (another one from Australia). It's been good to read all your thoughts on this case and I hope Reeva gets justice.

Thanks Zhooter for posting the link to the leaked crime scene photos.

Yes, it's interesting to note that the bashed out door panel is right next to the door handle. Anyone outside could easily reach in and open the door if they had a key.

Hypothetically, if Reeva had been chased into the toilet because the bedroom door was locked and she couldn't escape that way, could not the injury between her fingers (sorry, I don't have a link to that but someone posted it earlier) have resulted from contact with the long, thin toilet door handle? For example, if someone outside was trying to force their way in and she was trying to keep them from turning the door handle?

Another alternative theory is that there was a struggle between her and Oscar for the metal key (another long, thin object, from the looks of that key hole). Injuries to the hands would certainly have ensued from such struggles, I think.

Just my opinion! Keep the great thoughts and info coming.

 

[minor4th]

BBM

Did you mean Nel made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness?

If, so, you are correct. But then, Nel seems to object to very little. Sometimes, as I watch Roux's cross, I wonder if Nel is still present in the courtroom lol. I know he is, but he seems to let Roux get away with things that I've never seen a US prosecutor allow a defense attorney to get away with without raising, at the very least, a foundational objection. Perhaps it has to do with the difference in the US jury trial procedure and the SA trial procedure (no jury).

One thing is clear to me: the State was negligent in not requesting the Col (a materials examiner) to analyze the door for any and all materials. If they had, he would have probably found the alleged sock fibers Roux was going on about.

Even so, if the Col had performed a thorough forensic exam of the door (I doubt he did a thorough examination, since he admitted to finding an additional mark on the door the morning of his testimony that he hadn't noticed before), he would have undoubtedly discovered the alleged sock fibers (after all, he's a materials technician). One would think he would have notified the investigators and/or the prosecutor's office of his discovery and would have sought further instruction. I've seen cases where this has happened - a forensic specialist found material other than what they were tasked to examine, and they contacted the investigators to relay that information and to seek guidance as to how to proceed.

The Col testified that he was only asked to examine the door with regard to cricket bat marks. Why the State asked an analyst who isn't certified in tool marks to examine a piece of evidence for tool marks is beyond me (especially since the Col stated during cross examination that there were analysts in the lab who are certified in tool marks).

At times, as I've watched this trial, I've wondered if the State is truly invested in securing a guilty verdict, or are they just going through the motions? IDK

Yes, I meant Nel made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness. It is my understanding that he is only allowed to put things to the witness that are commonly understood and accepted by both sides - or hypotheticals.

I do think a lot of the differences are due to the case being tried in front of a judge rather than jury.

 

[foxbluff]

BBM - I tend to agree. It's just too implausible that everything happened the way he claims it did. And I wonder if people who believe in his innocence are being influenced by his celebrity status. We've had some high-profile actors and DJs in court recently over sexual abuse claims (in the UK), and so many people didn't think they could have been guilty simply because of who they were. One of them was acquitted, but a regular nobody down the street would never have got the same support and loyalty.

BBM I agree. In the states I thought the same for O.J.Simpson and Michael Jackson...MOO

 

[whiterum]

Why on earth would anyone go shooting through their own toilet door before checking that the only other person occupying their space had been accounted for. Also as his story goes the bathroom window was open, so only a few more steps to look out the window before pumping killer bullets through the door. No ladder to window, no intruder in toilet.