Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Madeleine74]

Not if he believed he was shooting at an armed intruder

He didn't see an intruder, he didn't see a gun, and no one was coming after him. He can say he believed anything but that doesn't make him credible.

I guess it comes down to those who believe OP's story (or stories) and those who don't believe the evidence matches OP's story or don't believe OP.

Oscar said on the stand he did not intend to kill anyone. Oscar declared there was no self defense. He changed it to being an "accident" in which the gun (magically I suppose) fired itself into the loo, and not self defense from some attacker, as originally claimed.

 

[Val1]

I think he was crying when he read it

Since none of us were in the courtroom I can't deny or confirm that, but he did read it just after the exchange between him and Roux just before Roux called him back for his redirect, correct?

 

[minor4th]

There was never any arterial blood in the hallway. Who said there was arterial blood? The pathologist said she died instantly [maybe one or two breaths] after head wound.



"First, both experts said that the only thing that could be determined was the wood was ripped from the door after the shots. Both experts said it would be impossible to know whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots. "

So, they cannot tell whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots.

Is it possible he ripped out some part of the door before the shots so he could look inside?

None of the experts said it would be impossible to know whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots. That is wishful thinking.

 

[Viper]

No, that's incorrect. The State's forensic expert and the defense forensic expert explained that the gunshots must have happened before the cricket bat hitting the door. They explained this by reference to cracks through the bullet hole and through the panels that were torn out.

Nel is not disputing this.

That is a pipe dream! The state expert and the DT expert were talking about a tear that ran through a bullet hole; a tear from when OP ripped out the panels with his hands, as he testified to. They were not talking about a bat strike that landed on top of a bullet hole. Surely you have more than that!!!

 

[minor4th]

Exactly. He also just happens to stop shooting after the shot to her head. Coincidence? No way.

JMO

That is not known. Between the two experts they don't know if the headshot was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Neither of them could conclude that it was the final shot.

 

[Fuskier]

Not if he believed he was shooting at an armed intruder

Would the reasonable person believe in an 'armed' intruder in this situation?

What indicators could lead him to believe that the intruder was armed?

 

[molly333]

No, that's incorrect. The State's forensic expert and the defense forensic expert explained that the gunshots must have happened before the cricket bat hitting the door. They explained this by reference to cracks through the bullet hole and through the panels that were torn out.

Nel is not disputing this.

So it's impossible that he fired any one of the four shots after he hit the door with the bat?

 

[jassy writer]

Nel seems to have pulled this tiny scrap of a "State Case" out of his....... ear!


IF Nel is contending that this Mythical Meal (Last Supper) at 2:00AM which was an occasion for an argument then shooting.

WHERE are the damned dishes?

Did the Cops find dirty plates, bowls cutlery in the bedroom? Fast food cartons? Disposable plates etc? Food scraps spread around perhaps? Were the spots on the duvet tested for Gravy? lol
In turn was the kitchen searched for same signs of a recent meal? The remnants of that meal? Particularly food spilled or thrown around during an argument?

Nel's case does not make sense, and so is not true (Nel's Rule)

Rumpole, there would be evidence of food whether they had eaten at six, seven, or midnight. Food does not magically disappear when the clock strikes twelve, or turn into a pumpkin like Cinderella. Why would food be thrown around during an argument?

As another poster has said more eloquently than I could, your posts are coming across as extremely condescending and critical towards the prosecution, and perhaps you would do well to remember that the State is only pursuing this case because they sincerely believe there is enough evidence to convict OP for murder. An innocent woman lost her life in the most horrific way and her friends and family are still living with this loss.

<modsnip>

 

[Rumpole]

Would the reasonable person believe in an 'armed' intruder in this situation?

What indicators could lead him to believe that the intruder was armed?

Maybe a "reasonable" double amputee living in SA where home invasion is common, might believe an intruder was likely armed, and regardless, a threat in regards serious bodily injury or death to himself and his girlfriend.

 

[sleuth-d-]

All of the forensic experts have said the gunshots must have been before the cricket bat hit the door. Both sides agree that the gunshots happened all at once and were not separated by minutes.

so, in this version... 17 minutes between shooting someone 4 times and breaking down the door. what was he doing?

plenty of time to phone police and netcare. but no calls in this time.
this looks even worse for op.

imo

 

[Viper]

None of the experts said it would be impossible to know whether the bat hit the door before or after the shots. That is wishful thinking.

BIB. That is incorrect. You yourself transcribed the State forensic expert's testimony and I used that to reply to you. In it he said that it was scientifically impossible to determine which came first, the bat strikes to the door or the bullets to the door.

Honestly, this is just a waste of time and benefits no one. Why do this?

 

[molly333]

All of the forensic experts have said the gunshots must have been before the cricket bat hit the door. Both sides agree that the gunshots happened all at once and were not separated by minutes.

So how does the State explain Dr. Stipp's first set of 'gunshots' if those are not the gunshots?

What does the State say Stipp was hearing?

Just hoping we will forget about it? Doc was so sure they were gunshots, he called security.

You're right. State's case is fatally flawed.

 

[Fuskier]

Maybe a "reasonable" double amputee living in SA where home invasion is common, might believe an intruder was likely armed, and regardless, a threat in regards serious bodily injury or death to himself and his girlfriend.

Some might say it was nefarious. Belief? Assumption? Imagination? Is it sufficient cause to shoot not one, but 4 Black Talons through a closed door? Is it reasonable 'belief' in this situation? We'll see what the Court decides IMO.

 

[molly333]

so, in this version... 17 minutes between shooting someone 4 times and breaking down the door. what was he doing?

plenty of time to phone police and netcare. but no calls in this time.
this looks even worse for op.

imo

What was he doing? exactly.

Making his way back and forth through a darkened room.

 

[Apollo]

Would the reasonable person believe in an 'armed' intruder in this situation?

What indicators could lead him to believe that the intruder was armed?

How many reasons could there be for an armed intuder to be in the home? Either he was there to rob the home or there to do harm to Oscar. Why would a robber lock themselves into a small toilet room? The only thing to steal would be the magazine stand so I think we can rule that out. If this so called armed intruder was intent on doing harm to Oscar, how could he do that if he locked himself in the toilet room? Why didn't he come out, gun blazing, and try to shoot Oscar? There would be no reason for an armed intruder to lock himself in that toilet room that I can think of. If someone knows of a reason, please share.

 

[Viper]

Not if he believed he was shooting at an armed intruder

BIB. OP says that he fired the gun four times accidentally. He never intended to shoot anyone, not Reeva and not an imaginary intruder. That obscure legal argument left the building long ago.

 

[Rumpole]

so, in this version... 17 minutes between shooting someone 4 times and breaking down the door. what was he doing?

plenty of time to phone police and netcare. but no calls in this time.
this looks even worse for op.

imo

I do not think it was 17 minutes. The 3:17 time is set. The time of the shots has not been pinned down. 3:00 - 3:10 is the range mentioned.

Dr Stipps is the BEST witness, and his description of hearing first bangs.. his attention and quick response and second bangs at 3:17 would suggest shots were NOT 17 minutes before bangs.... More like 7 minutes.

 

[minor4th]

That is a pipe dream! The state expert and the DT expert were talking about a tear that ran through a bullet hole; a tear from when OP ripped out the panels with his hands, as he testified to. They were not talking about a bat strike that landed on top of a bullet hole. Surely you have more than that!!!

Roux: When we look at this door, it is consistent, and I think it's conclusive in fact - if you disagree we can go through it - that when the shots were fired, the door was intact. It was not broken.

Vermuelen: That is true, Mi'Lady

Roux: What is your view? When was the door hit with the bat - before or after the shots?

Vermuelen: M'Lady, I would say the door was hit after the shots. ...if you look at the crack down here, it enters this bullet hole on the one side and then exits on the other side... so what this tells me is there had to be a hole in the door before this piece broke off, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc&feature=share

 

[molly333]

I do not think it was 17 minutes. The 3:17 time is set. The time of the shots has not been pinned down. 3:00 - 3:10 is the range mentioned.

Dr Stipps is the BEST witness, and his description of heraing first bangs.. his attention and quick response and second bangs at 3:17 would suggest shots were NOT 17 minutes before bangs.... More like 7 minutes.

Oscar just won his case.

Stipp both thwarted and saved him.

 

[minor4th]

So it's impossible that he fired any one of the four shots after he hit the door with the bat?

Correct, according to the forensic experts.