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

[TorisMom003]

I just want to add quick that it's the STATES case that Reeva was killed by a shot to the head at 3.17 so just shows how much note they took of their own witnesses who reported gunshots before that time.

The State is also saying that the shot to the head was the LAST shot. So then that would mean that the other shots happened before then.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Recklessness?

 

[TorisMom003]

OT: James, thanks so much for posting those videos of men and women screaming. My 10 week old female puppy thanks you too! She enjoyed trying to figure out where the noise was coming from and I enjoyed watching her tilt her head back and forth.

 

[TorisMom003]

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.

Recklessness?

Or perhaps it went as planned. OP intended to kill Reeva and knew that she was the one in the small room with no way to keep from getting hit by the bullets.

MOO

 

[YoureNicked]

Hello newbie here. Thanks for letting me join!

I am wondering if anyone else is seeing this: if you look at the bathroom pic of the bashed in door, the opening where the panel fell out seems to be right next to the lock. In other words, all OP had to do was reach in and unlock the door - no need for any key. Why did he put in anything about a key?? Who keeps a key to the bathroom INSIDE the bathroom - unless, it was hanging outside the bathroom and RS took it out when going in to make sure that he couldn't come after her? It just seemed like an odd thing to mention that he saw the key on the floor...

Also, when Dr Stipp testified that he saw a person walking from right to left in the lit up bathroom (in between the 2 volleys for bangs and while the screams were going on), I could be wrong but it sounded to me like he meant that the windows were closed (frosted pane)? If closed, why did OP say that he heard them opening? They weren't talking about the toilet windows.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks Zhooter!

I'm sure you've all discussed this before but do you know if Stipp said in his testimony whether the bathroom window (that Oscar said was open when he entered the bathroom to check on 'the noise') was open or closed?

Thanks!

 

[MeeBee]

Or perhaps it went as planned. OP intended to kill Reeva and knew that she was the one in the small room with no way to keep from getting hit by the bullets.

MOO

Intentional or not, I don't think he planned on killing Reeva. I know that sounds counter intuitive. But that's what I think.

 

[TorisMom003]

Intentional or not, I don't think he planned on killing Reeva. I know that sounds counter intuitive. But that's what I think.

With the type of bullets that he had in his gun he was shooting to kill. If he did not intend to kill Reeva (or whoever else may have been in the bathroom) then he would not have used that gun with those bullets.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

With the type of bullets that he had in his gun he was shooting to kill. If he did not intend to kill Reeva (or whoever else may have been in the bathroom) then he would not have used that gun with those bullets.

MOO

I think he either a.) shot without thinking or b.) intended to kill an intruder. It's just too wild and out of the blue to think he had a plan in his mind that night to kill his girlfriend. And his guilt/remorse seems great. And sincere.

 

[Feynman]

Sorry, I didn't copy the link that was on Post# 806, which is:
http://gragrah.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/four-phones-found-in-house-of-pistorius.html

from article:
On the shower mat in the en-suite bathroom lay a firearm and an iPhone 4 and iPhone - there were blood spatters on one of the phones.

I was referring to your statement "I've read that she had it with her in the toilet room." Where did you read that?

 

[zqtpie]

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?

I think the whole darkness issue is a cover-up excuse so OP can "justify" shooting Reeva. I don't believe he was in the dark at all. If it was so dark he couldn't see whether Reeva was in the bed, it is doubtful that she would attempt to grope her way to the loo in the pitch black. I think the lights were on and they were arguing. She probably tried to get away from him in fear. I really can't imagine any scenario where someone sane would grab their gun and shoot - 4 times - before a quick check to make sure they weren't going to shoot their partner by mistake. We're not talking one accidental shot here...he has no credibility IMO.

 

[kittychi]

I don't really have an opinion on OP guilt, I'm interested in the evidence and what it tells us. I'm of the opinion that his story is a possibility but am open minded enough to know it can swing either way.

Truth be told,I've been surprised that everyone has been so adament of his guilt without giving him the benefit of the doubt, we have had similar shootings in SA (have posted the links) when the gunmen were treated with caution, sympathy and cases dismissed as tragic. I can't fathom what's so different in this case. Yes, he is an idiot, egomanic, reckless and thinks he is a cowboy but doesn't make him a cold blooded killer. In fact, most who have met him have said he is a "all round nice guy". And if there was indeed an intruder in his bathroom, he would have been hailed a hero.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the evidence proves otherwise. Ps: nice to "meet" you James

Carol, just my POV...

I have several reasons for my belief in OP's guilt. Several have been mentioned by others in answer to your post.

My big one is screams heard coming from the home described as "blood-curdling" from a woman, when in Oscar's BH Affidavit there was no mention of sound from anyone except an "intruder." In his affi, Reeva was totally mute.

To me, the discrepancies matter not about whether it was a bat or shots first, the timing of such matters not, if he was on his stumps or not, whether he brought in one fan or two. Those discrepancies do not change the fact that neighbors heard screams from a woman, then they heard gunshots and then no screaming.

I realize that screaming presents no forensic evidence or proof, so the facts need to be established to support the witness statements.

IMO what this is coming down to is a battle of wits and resources between Roux and Nel. The state has made many unbelievable mistakes from the start of LE investigation a year ago all the way to the awful bat/door guy today. It has to be very frustrating to South Africans if this is common there. Roux is doing well for his client which is his job.

IMO because of what needs to be proven in court and how well it is or is not presented, OP may get off. IMO he will still be guilty of murdering exactly who he knew he was shooting.

 

[sorrell skye]

I agree there is a danger of the state's case turning to farce, there's been some awful blunders.
I would also say much of this is down to Roux's undoubted brilliance at causing chaos and confusion.
I hope Nel comes to life when it's his turn to grill the defence witness's.

I would also say that Mr. Roux asked a pretty basic (not at all brilliant) question today, when he asked the Colonel if he was certified in tool mark examination, to which the Colonel replied "No".

There was no confusion there.

Here's the thing: the State (not the Defense) is tasked with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State's first forensic witness was a total fail for the State's case, IMO. They should have come out strong, because the first forensic testimony presented needs to be solid.

IMO, the State had no choice but to present this farcical presentation of 'evidence', because the Defense had access to it via Discovery, so the State couldn't exclude it in their CIC. The only hope the State had of salvaging it was to present it themselves and to try to pass it off as 'evidence' of premeditation via the bumbling Colonel. It was an embarrassing strike against the State's case of premeditated murder, what with the evidence contamination/tampering, etc. IMO.

If the State's ballistics expert doesn't deliver (I can't imagine what he/she might offer, since the State has already conceded that OP was on his stumps when he shot through the door and the bullet holes in the door appear to match OP's height without his prosthetics), then Roux may be home free in terms of his defense of his client.

In the US trials I've watched, the State's eye/ear witnesses are called prior to the State's forensic evidence. If the same procedure is followed in SA, then I think we've seen the last of the ear witnesses and I think the remaining evidence will be the State's forensic evidence. I don't think we'll be hearing from any more neighbors or ear witnesses from the State at this stage. I could be mistaken, as SA trial procedure seems to be a bit haphazard.

Let us hope the remaining forensic experts are certified, experienced experts in their fields, otherwise I'm doubtful of the State's ability to successfully prosecute this case.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think he either a.) shot without thinking or b.) intended to kill an intruder. It's just too wild and out of the blue to think he had a plan in his mind that night to kill his girlfriend. And his guilt/remorse seems great. And sincere.

How does one go and get their loaded gun, take it to a closed door that has someone behind it, and shoot 4 times "without thinking"? The idea to kill Reeva didn't have to be a long thought out plan. It could have come to him that he was going to kill her after they began to argue and she ran away from him into the bathroom. Premeditation doesn't have to be a plan that was thought of hours, days, weeks or months ago. The act of going to get the gun, bring it back to the door, fire one shot into the door and then after a second or more fire three more shots can also be premeditated.

I think his remorse is because he is on trial for murder instead of being patted on the back with people saying "oh you poor thing, you HAD to shoot what you thought was an intruder".

MOO

 

[zqtpie]

If Oscar was on his stumps, and has any balance issues at all, how on earth could he carry 2 fans back from the balcony. I find all his stories just too unlikely when you look at them as a whole...mistaking your girlfriend for a burglar, screaming like a girl, Oscar and Reeva in bed by 10, her having a meal after midnight, hhis paranoia, batshots, smacking the door, legs off, legs on, the guaranteed to kill bullets... that's a lot of bad luck for one golden boy.

 

[minor4th]

sorell skye you are making a lot of sense and excellent points. Nothing to add ..

 

[MeeBee]

How does one go and get their loaded gun, take it to a closed door that has someone behind it, and shoot 4 times "without thinking"? The idea to kill Reeva didn't have to be a long thought out plan. It could have come to him that he was going to kill her after they began to argue and she ran away from him into the bathroom. Premeditation doesn't have to be a plan that was thought of hours, days, weeks or months ago. The act of going to get the gun, bring it back to the door, fire one shot into the door and then after a second or more fire three more shots can also be premeditated.

I think his remorse is because he is on trial for murder instead of being patted on the back with people saying "oh you poor thing, you HAD to shoot what you thought was an intruder".

MOO

Yes, at this point, I am well aware at the amount of time needed for a crime to count as premeditated. But it doesn't always mean it is a premeditated crime. That's why we have crime of passion charges. Sometimes people do fire without thinking. They do it and realize they shouldn't have done it. I'm on the fence about this but I really doubt he thought, "I'm mad, I'm gonna kill this *****!" I think his remorse is genuine.

We've seen enough sociopaths on trial to know what it looks like when someone is trying to fake emotions and sincerity. It's always obvious because we are human and we know what human behaviors should look like. I find his sorrow genuine, accident or not, and sincere sincere. Either that, or he's just the best actor ever. One could argue that it's just him crying for himself and his career. I think it's easy to turn someone into an all out villain with evil and selfish intentions with zero though for thought for others. Maybe things aren't that black and white. I have no doubt his career and the end of admiration is weighing on him. I think that's only natural. But to think his thoughts aren't with his dead girlfriend in any capacity is too easy.

 

[Madeleine74]

At what point does "recklessness" turn to "murder?"

Picking up a gun and shooting it out the sunroof of a car, straight-up, is reckless.

Picking up a gun and shooting it at someone known to be in a tiny enclosed loo 4 times, through a door, hitting them 3 times, and fatally (and OP knew someone was in the loo), is more than reckless, IMO.

 

[MeeBee]

At what point does "recklessness" turn to "murder?"

Picking up a gun and shooting it out the sunroof of a car, straight-up, is reckless.

Picking up a gun and shooting it at someone known to be in a tiny enclosed loo 4 times, through a door, hitting them 3 times, and fatally (and OP knew someone was in the loo), is more than reckless, IMO.

Yes. That's why he'll probably be found guilty of culpable homicide. You just can't do that in SA when the better option would have been to grab his girlfriend and flee.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes. That's why he'll probably be found guilty of culpable homicide. You just can't do that in SA when the better option would have been to grab his girlfriend and flee.

Culpable Homicide should be a slam dunk here. But there is evidence that suggests (and yes, I realize it has to go far beyond merely suggesting to proven) that Oscar knew it was a female in his loo, and specifically Reeva. I don't know how the state will get there, but they seem to believe they have the necessary evidence to convince M'lady the judge. And we shall see.

While I personally believe he KNEW Reeva was in the loo, the state has not yet brought evidence before M'lady in court that proves that assertion. But, it's only the 2nd week and there's a long way to go yet.

 

[lisasalinger]

I would also say that Mr. Roux asked a pretty basic (not at all brilliant) question today, when he asked the Colonel if he was certified in tool mark examination, to which the Colonel replied "No".

There was no confusion there.

Here's the thing: the State (not the Defense) is tasked with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State's first forensic witness was a total fail for the State's case, IMO. They should have come out strong, because the first forensic testimony presented needs to be solid.

IMO, the State had no choice but to present this farcical presentation of 'evidence', because the Defense had access to it via Discovery, so the State couldn't exclude it in their CIC. The only hope the State had of salvaging it was to present it themselves and to try to pass it off as 'evidence' of premeditation via the bumbling Colonel. It was an embarrassing strike against the State's case of premeditated murder, what with the evidence contamination/tampering, etc. IMO.

If the State's ballistics expert doesn't deliver (I can't imagine what he/she might offer, since the State has already conceded that OP was on his stumps when he shot through the door and the bullet holes in the door appear to match OP's height without his prosthetics), then Roux may be home free in terms of his defense of his client.

In the US trials I've watched, the State's eye/ear witnesses are called prior to the State's forensic evidence. If the same procedure is followed in SA, then I think we've seen the last of the ear witnesses and I think the remaining evidence will be the State's forensic evidence. I don't think we'll be hearing from any more neighbors or ear witnesses from the State at this stage. I could be mistaken, as SA trial procedure seems to be a bit haphazard.

Let us hope the remaining forensic experts are certified, experienced experts in their fields, otherwise I'm doubtful of the State's ability to successfully prosecute this case.

I haven't seen today's testimony yet, have only read about it, but it doesn't sound good for the State.

In addition to ballistics, the cell data is huge. If there is nothing on those phones that even remotely gives a hint as to what they may/may not have been fighting about that night... then that's it. I don't know how they will prove premeditation. I know we all say that motive doesn't have to be proven in a case, but if ever it had to be... this is the one.