Trial Discussion Thread #19 - 14.04.07, Day 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yooohooo ... Lisa, if you're still around, can you tell me exactly how you think this pathologist was so discredited as to make his whole testimony nonsense? I am about finished with his testimony, and I really do not see it yet. TIA

He waffled greatly on the sequence of shots/injuries. He started off with Roux telling the court he felt very comfortable with his assertions and then Nel made it hugely apparent on cross that he didn't have a clue about how the holes in the door related to the injuries. If he wasn't sure, he shouldn't have committed to his testimony.

The wood grain striations is a nonsensical conclusion to me as well. How does a flat pattern on wood leave a striation?? My impression of that was he pulled that opinion out of his butt.

Botha claimed there was no blood spatter on the wall so she wasn't on top of the rack, then Nel shows him pics that blood spatter was on the wall and toilet lid and he's like ok, her head was near the toilet.

In talking about the splinters, Botha tells the state they should probably do some testing of black talon bullets in the door. Um, they did! Clearly he didn't study Mangena's testimony very closely.

The moment towards the end where Nel informs him that Reeva was primed for danger was classic. He had to concede that she likely could have screamed in those conditions.

One of my favorite parts of the day... Roux pulled a big oops... Yea those double taps was a goof on his behalf. Are you kidding me? I think the manner in which the shooter shot his gun that night is a fairly huge point to understand. If Roux doesn't understand what happened that night, his client is screwed! Or maybe he just Stipped ;)
 
I am using the word "planned" to mean that he shot at Reeva knowing it was her and with the intention of killing her - whether that plan was formed a week in advance or a few minutes before he fired his gun

Read up - several are suggesting that he planned to kill Reeva - in advance.

"In advance" can be anytime from a year before to a minute before, IMO. And no, I am not suggesting that OP decided to kill Reeva a year before.

I do believe that OP decided sometime that night/early morning hours that he was going to kill Reeva. I believe that his reputation was on the line, as well as his sponsors and his career, if any more bad behavior on his part was revealed. OP enjoyed being the golden boy of SA. The one that overcame so much to become so famous, wealthy and adored by many. I believe that Reeva threatened all of that, by being able to tell the truth about their relationship and how OP really was behind closed doors.

MOO
 
Aww. Give poor Botha a break. He's not a ballistician after all. ;)

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
 
Yet some people don't entertain Valentine's Day through personal choice. i.e. it's merely Hallmark/Clinton's day commercialism :p

I definitely recall reading that RS had said at some point that Valentine's was important to OP. I'll try to find it..
 
He waffled greatly on the sequence of shots/injuries. He started off with Roux telling the court he felt very comfortable with his assertions and then Nel made it hugely apparent on cross that he didn't have a clue about how the holes in the door related to the injuries. If he wasn't sure, he shouldn't have committed to his testimony.

The wood grain striations is a nonsensical conclusion to me as well. How does a flat pattern on wood leave a striation?? My impression of that was he pulled that opinion out of his butt.

Botha claimed there was no blood spatter on the wall so she wasn't on top of the rack, then Nel shows him pics that blood spatter was on the wall and toilet lid and he's like ok, her head was near the toilet.

In talking about the splinters, Botha tells the state they should probably do some testing of black talon bullets in the door. Um, they did! Clearly he didn't study Mangena's testimony very closely.

The moment towards the end where Nel informs him that Reeva was primed for danger was classic. He had to concede that she likely could have screamed in those conditions.

One of my favorite parts of the day... Roux pulled a big oops... Yea those double taps was a goof on his behalf. Are you kidding me? I think the manner in which the shooter shot his gun that night is a fairly huge point to understand. If Roux doesn't understand what happened that night, his client is screwed! Or maybe he just Stipped ;)

But really does any of that matter?

Does it matter whether the marks on the back wounds were from cloth or magazine rack or whatever?

Does it matter that he agrees that there's no way one can conclusively determine the order of the shots?

Does it matter whether she landed on top of the magazine rack of in front of it?

And the scenario given about Reeva being primed to scream - well that scenario assumes that Oscar told the truth about thinking there was an intruder and yelled out to Reeva to call police. So how does that help the state's case for premeditated murder?

This is why I say this expert did not lend much to either side. He raised the possibility that Reeva would not scream if shot with 4 bullets in quick succession - and I think that is the only point the defense really needs to make with this witness.
 
Why would he want to/intend to kill her though?

Throw everything away he'd worked for, over a girl he'd dated for about 3 months? Wasn't his 1st girlfriend and wouldn't have been his last, I'm sure.

This is what I am wondering too - from those of you who thought he intended to kill Reeva. That just does not make any sense at all IMO
 
I just finished listening to OP testimony, and I know that most of you are going to strongly disagree with me - but I found his exhaustion and emotion to be genuine. I think he has been through hell since Reeva died.

Now, that does not really tell us whether he is guilty or innocent of premeditated murder, so no need to throw that one at me - his emotion could be for himself and what he's going through, as I'm sure some will argue. He could be feeling sorry for himself and grieving simply over the life he thought he would have. Yes, that's possible.

It's also possible that he is truly remorseful and wished that he had not killed Reeva and that it was grievous mistake that he can never rectify.

In any event, his emotion seemed genuine to me, and not rehearsed at all. He did not come across as so many defendants we've seen who are clearly faking emotion for the sake of gaining sympathy. I get the feeling that OP really kind of hates himself for what he has done...but that is just my opinion.

I respect your thoughts on this. I too felt emotional when he first took the stand.

It's what makes us human, to have empathy for other people.

I believe that he acted pretty horribly that night and I think it's a d@mn shame that he ruined everything he worked so hard for. I never want to see anybody's life turn out that way. But I can also separate out the responsibility I believe he needs to take because after all he CHOSE to use that gun. He has to live with that and pay for it.

I don't deny him his moment on the stand to give some backstory if it's relevant. Hard to know what's really relevant, I suspect much of it was not. But this is his day in court so I can look the other way.

I know many will say Reeva deserved her day in court and I don't disagree at all. Unfortunately, when you are on trial, trial is about you. So yea, we have to listen to his story.

I do tend to believe that he has great remorse over this probably for both selfish and unselfish reasons. I choose to believe that most humans are not all evil and not all good.

There are my thoughts about his start today. I wasn't pissed, I wasn't offended, I wasn't swayed, it just is what it is. Tragic.
 
But really does any of that matter?

Does it matter whether the marks on the back wounds were from cloth or magazine rack or whatever?

Does it matter that he agrees that there's no way one can conclusively determine the order of the shots?

Does it matter whether she landed on top of the magazine rack of in front of it?

And the scenario given about Reeva being primed to scream - well that scenario assumes that Oscar told the truth about thinking there was an intruder and yelled out to Reeva to call police. So how does that help the state's case for premeditated murder?

This is why I say this expert did not lend much to either side. He raised the possibility that Reeva would not scream if shot with 4 bullets in quick succession - and I think that is the only point the defense really needs to make with this witness.

Minor, if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion:

Take it as Reeva didn't scream or Oscar couldn't hear them (ballistics acoustics in confined space etc)

How would you account for the State witnesses hearing female screams?

Thanks :)
 
The "facts" of this case show that OP did not react in a reasonable manner if he truly felt that there was an intruder in the house. I also find it morally wrong to kill someone that is not in any way, shape or form posing a threat to me. Firing 4 bullets into the door of a toilet room when "not knowing" who was behind that door, what their intention was, if they had a weapon, etc is morally wrong to me.

MOO

Well, if you think he intended to kill Reeva, it's either he planned it and carried it out, OR he thought it was an intruder but then heard Reeva scream and thought, "what the hell, it's Reeva and not an intruder, I'll just kill her anyway."

I don't necessarily disagree that shooting into a door may be reckless and may indicate some culpability - but do not tell me that you consider it equally morally wrong to intend to shoot and kill your girlfriend compared to accidentally killing your girlfriend when you intended to kill an intruder.
 
Minor, if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion:

Take it as Reeva didn't scream or Oscar couldn't hear them (ballistics acoustics in confined space etc)

How would you account for the State witnesses hearing female screams?

Thanks :)

I don't know yet. There are two possibilities:

1. They all heard female screams and they weren't mistaken, and somehow this is going to be proven through Nel's cross examination of defense witnesses, or

2. They heard Oscar screaming and thought it was a female.

And there's another possibility:

Reeva screamed at some point after the first shot, and Oscar didn't hear her but some of the neighbors did.
 
So you believe that he never thought there was an intruder, but he chased Reeva into the bathroom with his gun and killed her deliberately?

Close. I think she ran in there in fear because she did or said something that angered him out of control. I think he could have had the gun then or grabbed it after she was already in there.

I don't think he wanted her dead, per se, but in the heat and anger of the moment, that's what happened. Temporary insanity.

I also think he had been drinking, but that point is moot because he spent most of the morning at the jailhouse before they took him to the hospital for toxicology tests. That is the only thing that explains his impulsive, extremely poor judgment IMO.
 
But really does any of that matter?

Does it matter whether the marks on the back wounds were from cloth or magazine rack or whatever?

Does it matter that he agrees that there's no way one can conclusively determine the order of the shots?

Does it matter whether she landed on top of the magazine rack of in front of it?

And the scenario given about Reeva being primed to scream - well that scenario assumes that Oscar told the truth about thinking there was an intruder and yelled out to Reeva to call police. So how does that help the state's case for premeditated murder?

This is why I say this expert did not lend much to either side. He raised the possibility that Reeva would not scream if shot with 4 bullets in quick succession - and I think that is the only point the defense really needs to make with this witness.

Yes it matters that witnesses be credible.
 
Possibly. However it is equally possible her instinct would be to hide and not draw attention to herself. I think that would certainly be mine.

This, to me, could justify his accidentally shooting her: if he was shouting at what he thought was an intruder, and Reeva had been going to pee once he got up to get the fans, maybe she also thought there was an intruder and hid in the toilet. He came in shooting, before he realized she wasn't answering him from the other room and had gone into the toilet. Negligent on his part to shoot before seeing the threat, sure, but situations like this happen in the blink of an eye.
 
Close. I think she ran in there in fear because she did or said something that angered him out of control. I think he could have had the gun then or grabbed it after she was already in there.

I don't think he wanted her dead, per se, but in the heat and anger of the moment, that's what happened. Temporary insanity.

I also think he had been drinking, but that point is moot because he spent most of the morning at the jailhouse before they took him to the hospital for toxicology tests. That is the only thing that explains his impulsive, extremely poor judgment IMO.

You don't think being jumpy and paranoid explains it?
 
This, to me, could justify his accidentally shooting her: if he was shouting at what he thought was an intruder, and Reeva had been going to pee once he got up to get the fans, maybe she also thought there was an intruder and hid in the toilet. He came in shooting, before he realized she wasn't answering him from the other room and had gone into the toilet. Negligent on his part to shoot before seeing the threat, sure, but situations like this happen in the blink of an eye.

Plausible and consistent with the evidence we have seen
 
Just a thought but OP tends to vomit and get undone when he sees the autopsy pictures.

Could Nel try and rattle him by showing him the autopsy pictures while he is in the witness stand and start by asking him questions on those pictures.
 
Yes it matters that witnesses be credible.

Of course it does. But there was nothing in this expert's testimony that really makes or breaks the case. If you don't believe anything he said, it really doesn't change anything.
 
Well, if you think he intended to kill Reeva, it's either he planned it and carried it out, OR he thought it was an intruder but then heard Reeva scream and thought, "what the hell, it's Reeva and not an intruder, I'll just kill her anyway."

I don't necessarily disagree that shooting into a door may be reckless and may indicate some culpability - but do not tell me that you consider it equally morally wrong to intend to shoot and kill your girlfriend compared to accidentally killing your girlfriend when you intended to kill an intruder.

What intruder? That's the point here. According to OP he thought that it was an intruder. Thought. He didn't know, according to him. He fired a gun 4 times at "someone", intending to kill them. I make a habit of not shooting at anyone unless I know who they are, why they are there and if they have a weapon that they are going to use against me. But that's just me.

MOO
 
But really does any of that matter?

Does it matter whether the marks on the back wounds were from cloth or magazine rack or whatever?

Does it matter that he agrees that there's no way one can conclusively determine the order of the shots?

Does it matter whether she landed on top of the magazine rack of in front of it?

And the scenario given about Reeva being primed to scream - well that scenario assumes that Oscar told the truth about thinking there was an intruder and yelled out to Reeva to call police. So how does that help the state's case for premeditated murder?

This is why I say this expert did not lend much to either side. He raised the possibility that Reeva would not scream if shot with 4 bullets in quick succession - and I think that is the only point the defense really needs to make with this witness.

It must have mattered to the defense, he was their witness after all.
 
What intruder? That's the point here. According to OP he thought that it was an intruder. Thought. He didn't know, according to him. He fired a gun 4 times at "someone", intending to kill them. I make a habit of not shooting at anyone unless I know who they are, why they are there and if they have a weapon that they are going to use against me. But that's just me.

MOO

Ok, and as reckless as you believe that to be - you think that is just as morally wrong as chasing your girlfriend down and shooting her dead?

I do not believe that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
324
Guests online
1,776
Total visitors
2,100

Forum statistics

Threads
597,430
Messages
18,064,116
Members
230,349
Latest member
Larkin22
Back
Top