Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to know if anyone here would shoot to kill because they heard a disturbance coming from a room? Not an obvious disturbance like the sound of someone crashing to the floor after a failed attempt to exit a window but rather a gentle sound of wood scraping?

Is that even remotely possible out side of Oscar world? This IMO is where his version breaks down completey
 
I think it's more the want to stand up for, root for, the underdog.

Some people want to help the person everyone is "against."

Remember some years ago reading a book about a high-profile case in which defendant was suspected of battering his ex-GF to death. He was convicted, but of some lesser charge for which he served little time. The author explained, in citing several other like cases, that the jury was very moved by the terrible death of this young and promising woman, but since she was not present in court, they had no one else to "feel for" but the murderer. They transferred their sympathy to him. When polled ,they spoke of what a promising young man he was, how sorry they were he had felt driven to kill her, thus ruining his life. A character witness, a priest who knew both parties, acknowledged feeling sad about her death, but was very focused on the murderer's future. A not uncommon phenomenon claimed the author, the priest couldn't salvage the girlfriend's bright horizon.
 
Summary of defense case:

A woman who locked herself in the bathroom, was shot 3 times, and dragged out from behind a bashed in door, never screamed.

Man who shot her and bashed the door screamed like a woman for 10 minutes after shooting her, and while bashing at the door, but stopped screaming immediately after bashing in the door.

Right...
 
Dixon discussed the WC light in yesterday's testimony:

"I performed a scientific test using an instrument known in forensic geology as a 'finger'. I used this finger to press the light switch which then confirmed to me, to the best of my knowledge, that the light was not working milady.
I then used additional instruments called eyes to confirm the above and then allowed my brain and physical existence to bring all the evidence together milady.
I then made some notes on a napkin to accurately record all these findings.
No I did not check if there had been any previous fault reported to confirm the employer's, sorry i meant the accused's story milady.. quite honestly I couldn't be bothered milady.
I also did not check that the bulb had been accidentally smashed by a cricket bat.
I did not do this because I was satisfied that my initial test was sufficient to reach the conclusion I had been asked to reach.
I also could not do this milady because by then it was nighttime and it was dark and the lights weren't working for some reason... and so I tried to use both my eyes and my finger to make my notes but then I didn't have a pen because it was stuck up my arse milady.
No its true that I am not a qualified electrician milady but I once changed the batteries in my portable gas spectrometer so I am an expert to the very best of my recollection, but I don't actually know how the thing works milady. I think you blow through it or sing it a song. One of the three.
No there is no report milady, because the dog ate it on the way here"


This must have been when the feed went down.

haha... this is awesome!!! :floorlaugh:
 
No, you misunderstand. I mean 9/10 wouldn't scream out from inside the toilet in that situation.

I bet they'd be in there phoning or texting for help though! Why wouldn't Reeva have done something similar??? That is just confusing. At no point either did Oscar check to see if she had called them yet or if they were on their way. I keep wondering, the first time he supposedly whispered to her to call the police straight after hearing a noise he had simply said "get down and phone the police" what if she didn't hear the noise? He hadn't looked at her, touched her, even acknowledged that she had heard him (I can't believe that anyone would not do these things) so how was she supposed to reasonably know what to say when she had called the police?

I agree with Nel, it is just too improbable
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Val1 View Post
The only problem with that, is that it is the first set of bangs that would have primed them to hear gunshots on the second, correct?

I don't understand your question

I'm saying that once having heard "bangs" that sounded like gunshots, that the witnesses, after having their attention more attuned to the situation and then hearing a second set of "bangs" would be confirming to themselves that the first set must have been gunshots too.

So the first set of bangs primed them to recognize the second second set of bangs as definitely gunshots because by then they were listening more closely and could better identify just what the second set of sounds were.
 
This is an interesting piece exploring the thought process when using the presumption of innocence and beyond all reasonable doubt principles.

It's mentions trial by jury, however the fundamentals are essentially the same :-

Link
 
Dixon discussed the WC light in yesterday's testimony:

"I performed a scientific test using an instrument known in forensic geology as a 'finger'. I used this finger to press the light switch which then confirmed to me, to the best of my knowledge, that the light was not working milady.
I then used additional instruments called eyes to confirm the above and then allowed my brain and physical existence to bring all the evidence together milady.
I then made some notes on a napkin to accurately record all these findings.
No I did not check if there had been any previous fault reported to confirm the employer's, sorry i meant the accused's story milady.. quite honestly I couldn't be bothered milady.
I also did not check that the bulb had been accidentally smashed by a cricket bat.
I did not do this because I was satisfied that my initial test was sufficient to reach the conclusion I had been asked to reach.
I also could not do this milady because by then it was nighttime and it was dark and the lights weren't working for some reason... and so I tried to use both my eyes and my finger to make my notes but then I didn't have a pen because it was stuck up my arse milady.
No its true that I am not a qualified electrician milady but I once changed the batteries in my portable gas spectrometer so I am an expert to the very best of my recollection, but I don't actually know how the thing works milady. I think you blow through it or sing it a song. One of the three.
No there is no report milady, because the dog ate it on the way here"


This must have been when the feed went down.

I am considering you for honorary doctorate in Oscar-Speak.
May be a questionnare first.

ETA: Let me know when you are ready.
 
I would like to know if anyone here would shoot to kill because they heard a disturbance coming from a room? Not an obvious disturbance like the sound of someone crashing to the floor after a failed attempt to exit a window but rather a gentle sound of wood scraping?

Is that even remotely possible out side of Oscar world? This IMO is where his version breaks down completey

Answer is "NO" for any normal person following standard gun safety rules.

Gun Safety Rule #4 states:

4. Be Sure Of Your Target And What's Beyond It

http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/index.cfm?

Especially at home and even if suspecting an intruder the odds are way too great that it could be a family member rather than an intruder and most ALL normal firearm homeowners know this. You account for ALL your family whereabouts before you go parading around through your house with your gun. And if for some reason you cannot account for ALL of them (like 1 of your family is not home) you then especially always need to follow that rule and identify that it is truly an intruder before you would ever fire at them.

You would NEVER indescriminately fire at a door not knowing who is behind it. It could be your family member OR your neighbor's child who stumbled in drunk into the wrong house OR your elderly senile grandmother who came for an unannounced visit OR just the cat knocking over something OR a racoon got in and knocking over something OR ......

You get the idea. The answer is a resounding NO. Nobody does what OP did.
 
How about Oscar's accounting of the duvet.

A few days ago he insisted the duvet was always on the bed. The police put it on the ground, no question about it. They tampered with evidence. They moved it and put it on the ground. He remembers sitting on it on the bed when he put his prosthetic legs on. He even went so far as to admit to Nel that the duvet was a big problem for his "version." But he's not worried about that at all because he knows it was on the bed. He remembers.

Fast forward to later that day. Nel confronts him with the jeans on the edge of the duvet and the blood spatter on the duvet, jeans and carpet all in the same area and he says "I don't remember the duvet being on the floor."

Then he says, thinking he's all smart, it probably got on the duvet when I retrieved my phones from the left side nightstand. Nel says no. There is no other blood spatter on that bed. His argument falls flat.

And then fast forward another day or two, when Oscar is speaking about the moment that he was on the bed looking for Reeva and thinking that it may be her in the bathroom, Nel asks him if the duvet was on the bed. Screeeech.... Um, I don't remember. He says, I don't remember this part of the night. Nel tells him that's impossible. You are looking for Reeva in the bed, how do you not know if there is a duvet on the bed that you're looking in. I don't remember. He has no clue suddenly if the duvet is on the bed.

WTF

The only reason he needs to make up all of this ridiculousness is because his story is nothing else but a story.
 
\


Because calling for help would have alerted any would be intruder to her location. Assuming he was in the bathroom armed with gun, that would have spelled certain death.

The phone was on. It would have taken her a few moments to grab it and switch it on, and keep in mind that all of this was happeneing very fast. Perhaps she did dial a number but couldn't get a signal from inside the toilet. Perhaps she wasnted to try and assess what was going on first by straining to listen before she called, Any number of reasons. It's easy to talk about this in the light of day, but all of this was happening in the dead of night and she would have been ****ting herself with fear.

He was asked if she had answered him, and he said "I wish she had."
BBM - what other possible answer could he have given?
 
No, I didn't see that but it wouldn't surprise me.

I have noticed how his demeanour is totally different in the court room as opposed to when he's out of the confines of the court - I think he's been very carefully coached regarding how to behave when in court. Outside court he appears a very controlled person to me.

Haven't heard about what his teammates have said, but would be interesting.

Wel I think when he did his 2x "Get the fvck outta my house" I thought the judge seemed frightened for a mo. She quickly got up and walked away as she muttered about taking an adjournment.

She knows...
 
Except, OP murdered Reeva intentionally, he certainly has another big secret and it may have connection with Reeva/murder/night:

Which important things were taken out of the safe in the middle of the night?
What was not allowed to be found??
 
BBM - what other possible answer could he have given?

Mr. Triggerhappy didn't give her time to respond, in hindsight it probably would have been better if he'd blown off his friend's toe in the restaurant.
 
Wel I think when he did his 2x "Get the fvck outta my house" I thought the judge seemed frightened for a mo. She quickly got up and walked away as she muttered about taking an adjournment.

She knows...

Yes, that certainly cemented his guilt for me, I've heard that phrase before and it never ends well.
 
bbm - Yes, a couple of actors that come to mind that didn't heed that warning are Jon-Erik Hexum and Brandon Lee. That's why I never even bought toy guns for my kids, guns are not toys.

Hexum I agree.

Lee was shot by others.
And with him and his father highly likely, IMO, that things ran deep... [Not said lightly, but don't want to go into as it is OT]
 
How about Oscar's accounting of the duvet.

A few days ago he insisted the duvet was always on the bed. The police put it on the ground, no question about it. They tampered with evidence. They moved it and put it on the ground. He remembers sitting on it on the bed when he put his prosthetic legs on. He even went so far as to admit to Nel that the duvet was a big problem for his "version." But he's not worried about that at all because he knows it was on the bed. He remembers.

Fast forward to later that day. Nel confronts him with the jeans on the edge of the duvet and the blood spatter on the duvet, jeans and carpet all in the same area and he says "I don't remember the duvet being on the floor."

Then he says, thinking he's all smart, it probably got on the duvet when I retrieved my phones from the left side nightstand. Nel says no. There is no other blood spatter on that bed. His argument falls flat.

And then fast forward another day or two, when Oscar is speaking about the moment that he was on the bed looking for Reeva and thinking that it may be her in the bathroom, Nel asks him if the duvet was on the bed. Screeeech.... Um, I don't remember. He says, I don't remember this part of the night. Nel tells him that's impossible. You are looking for Reeva in the bed, how do you not know if there is a duvet on the bed that you're looking in. I don't remember. He has no clue suddenly if the duvet is on the bed.

WTF

The only reason he needs to make up all of this ridiculousness is because his story is nothing else but a story.

A really bad story...
That doesn't make any sense.
With way too many red herrings.
Lacking in logic and realistic action
No hero, just a villain and a victim.
And really, really limited dialogue...

The story that was supposed to be in the crime, mystery and thriller section.
But ended up on the fantasy and horror shelf.
 
I ask again, is it confirmed that Nel said that the door was cleaned and now is in the pblic domain--or words to that effect?
 
How about Oscar's accounting of the duvet.

A few days ago he insisted the duvet was always on the bed. The police put it on the ground, no question about it. They tampered with evidence. They moved it and put it on the ground. He remembers sitting on it on the bed when he put his prosthetic legs on. He even went so far as to admit to Nel that the duvet was a big problem for his "version." But he's not worried about that at all because he knows it was on the bed. He remembers.

Fast forward to later that day. Nel confronts him with the jeans on the edge of the duvet and the blood spatter on the duvet, jeans and carpet all in the same area and he says "I don't remember the duvet being on the floor."

Then he says, thinking he's all smart, it probably got on the duvet when I retrieved my phones from the left side nightstand. Nel says no. There is no other blood spatter on that bed. His argument falls flat.

And then fast forward another day or two, when Oscar is speaking about the moment that he was on the bed looking for Reeva and thinking that it may be her in the bathroom, Nel asks him if the duvet was on the bed. Screeeech.... Um, I don't remember. He says, I don't remember this part of the night. Nel tells him that's impossible. You are looking for Reeva in the bed, how do you not know if there is a duvet on the bed that you're looking in. I don't remember. He has no clue suddenly if the duvet is on the bed.

WTF

The only reason he needs to make up all of this ridiculousness is because his story is nothing else but a story.

As avid true crime followers we have read of many cases, on this board, where a deceased victim was found wrapped in a blanket, shower curtain, or afghan. I wondered if OP contemplated wrapping RS in the blanket to take her out of his home. Perhaps the call from security made him nix that idea. It might explain his changing story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
3,342
Total visitors
3,512

Forum statistics

Threads
592,164
Messages
17,964,468
Members
228,710
Latest member
SunshineSteph
Back
Top