Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[steveml]

JMO
I may not be totally convinced he was tracking her with each shot but I am definitely convinced he knew where she was in that bathroom and was aiming at her. The angle of the bullet trajectory and where she was when shot paints a very obvious picture that he knew where his target was.

And if he knew where his target was then he had to have known it was her too.

We need to be aware that the holes in the door are a mile away from where you'd fire if you were expecting to hit a standing person in the head.

If you choose to believe that OP knew where Reeva was behind the door, then surely you need to also presume that OP chose to shoot Reeva in the hip and not the head. If he chose to hit her in the hip, then you also have to accept that he shot her in the hip knowing that she would fall, knowing that he would then need to fire more times, knowing that one of the shots would hit Reeva elsewhere. and also knowing that one shot would eventually hit Reeva in the head.

In my view, the suggestion that this kind of shooting could be purposely achieved in approx. 4 seconds, in darkness, behind a solid wooden door is not even improbable, it's virtually impossible.

 

[Apollo]

He's immature, petty, and vindictive.

Might I add---self centered and arrogant with a nasty temper?

 

[ColonelMustard]

I'm wondering how many women she has asked pre op about their menstrual cycles. After all, if as she says, it can have that much affect on food digestion it would be a very important question so that the woman can be told to not eat anything more than the normally recommended 6 to 8 hours before a surgery.

I'd say, all of them. That question is a standard part of all medical histories taken for all women, especially pre-op. There are many reasons it's important to know details, not the least among them being able to determine whether a woman is pregnant who would not yet be aware of it herself.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Roger's been sat in his car all this time waiting in case any expert witnesses fail to arrive. Roux's got him on speed-dial.

Jack of all trades is our 'Rog'.

Jack of all trades - and to complete the expression - and master of none.

 

[Apollo]

We need to be aware that the holes in the door are a mile away from where you'd fire if you were expecting to hit a standing person in the head.

If you choose to believe that OP knew where Reeva was behind the door, then surely you need to also presume that OP chose to shoot Reeva in the hip and not the head. If he chose to hit her in the hip, then you also have to accept that he shot her in the hip knowing that she would fall, knowing that he would then need to fire more times, knowing that one of the shots would hit Reeva elsewhere. and also knowing that one shot would eventually hit Reeva in the head.

In my view, the suggestion that this kind of shooting could be purposely achieved in approx. 4 seconds, in darkness, behind a solid wooden door is not even improbable, it's virtually impossible.

I don't hink he was aiming for her head or hip. I think he was aiming for HER.. 1 shot from that gun that hit center mass would accomplish what he was trying to do.

 

[kaos]

We need to be aware that the holes in the door are a mile away from where you'd fire if you were expecting to hit a standing person in the head.

If you choose to believe that OP knew where Reeva was behind the door, then surely you need to also presume that OP chose to shoot Reeva in the hip and not the head. If he chose to hit her in the hip, then you also have to accept that he shot her in the hip knowing that she would fall, knowing that he would then need to fire more times, knowing that one of the shots would hit Reeva elsewhere. and also knowing that one shot would eventually hit Reeva in the head.

In my view, the suggestion that this kind of shooting could be purposely achieved in approx. 4 seconds, in darkness, behind a solid wooden door is not even improbable, it's virtually impossible.

What about if she was sitting on the toilet about to threaten to call the police and while he's continuing to scream at her he takes aim where he last heard her voice?

 

[steveml]

I live in Chinatown. MSG is in shakers on every table right next to the white pepper.

I think the standing joke refers more to take-away food. Certainly in the UK anyhow. Many people are now saying the same after they've eaten from the burger franchises.

 

[liesbeth]

 

[katydid23]

Is there video now of this?

I have been searching but cannot find it. there is just talk of one existing, but no links that I can find. Now all I can find is talk that they are looking for one.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...iend-in-court-How-can-you-sleep-at-night.html

Police were understood to be last night scanning video recordings of the trial proceedings in a bid to pinpoint the moment the alleged exchange might have taken place.

 

[lithgow1]

An accident is an unintended consequence, something not done on purpose. It is Oscars claim that he accidentally/mistakenly shot Reeva believing she was an intruder.


I agree 100% that there was great negligence on Oscar's part. I don't know that a defense attorney, an academic and Mi'Lady will agree.

He says he mistakenly shot Reeva but the other key question is did he accidentally shoot the intruder? Given that 'intent' is a key word in all of this and will be considered by the court, what do you think he intended to do when he got his gun, cocked it, and headed down that corridor towards the bathroom and the intruder/s that in his version had just entered it?

 

[steveml]

What about if she was sitting on the toilet about to threaten to call the police and while he's continuing to scream at her he takes aim where he last heard her voice?

It's certainly possible, but then we have to dismiss some of the ballistics evidence.

Many things are possible, but to make progression in the case there has to be a point where you believe that certain aspects are more probable, based on the available evidence and expert witness testimonies.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

That question is standard in all medical histories taken for all women, especially pre-op.

I've only ever had day surgery. I had to fast for these. But, no one has ever asked me about my menstrual cycle in relation to the surgery.

 

[sicknote]

We need to be aware that the holes in the door are a mile away from where you'd fire if you were expecting to hit a standing person in the head.

If you choose to believe that OP knew where Reeva was behind the door, then surely you need to also presume that OP chose to shoot Reeva in the hip and not the head. If he chose to hit her in the hip, then you also have to accept that he shot her in the hip knowing that she would fall, knowing that he would then need to fire more times, knowing that one of the shots would hit Reeva elsewhere. and also knowing that one shot would eventually hit Reeva in the head.

In my view, the suggestion that this kind of shooting could be purposely achieved in approx. 4 seconds, in darkness, behind a solid wooden door is not even improbable, it's virtually impossible.

The Dr said the light was on.

 

[steveml]

I don't hink he was aiming for her head or hip. I think he was aiming for HER.. 1 shot from that gun that hit center mass would accomplish what he was trying to do.

Then I presume you're in agreement that he couldn't see Reeva?

3 shots didn't hit Reeva's centre mass, and one shot missed Reeva completely.

 

[liesbeth]

Just to clarify exactly when Lundgren said "that's a lot of food". Nels quoted a figure from Simon's report which stated that after 4 hours, 10% of a meal may remain in the stomach.
He then said to Lundgren "So using the fact that 200 ml of food was found in her stomach, that would mean that Reeva ate a 2000 ml meal". And that is when Lundgren said "that's a lot of food".

Also, chicken stir fry is not considered to be a high fat meal. So I don't know where Lundgren is coming from saying that digestion could be delayed due to intake of a high fat meal.

I agree with this. Except in my notes the 4 hours/10% was from Lundgren's report. I'll check again, but I'm almost sure it was her own report.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I have just joined this forum and I was hesitant to make a contribution as the Mr Levines' of the world (Levine's) always in background.:banghead:

Welcome from us all. :welcome5:

 

[kaos]

I hope we get a full day today. I've just discovered my Virgin Tivo box can access youtube so can watch it on the tv instead of on my laptop.

 

[steveml]

The Dr said the light was on.

OK. We'll give that the benefit of the doubt, but I'm convinced it wouldn't make any difference to OP's potential vision through a solid wooden door.

 

[steveml]

Jack of all trades - and to complete the expression - and master of none.

I know I had a little joke about Roger, but I think he's the sort of guy that won't let things affect him. He sticks to his principles which is a quality in itself.

Some of his testimony was fairly useful and may have impressed Judge Masipa, particularly in the simplistic (granted, sometimes over-simplistic) ways he described things.

Testimonies aren't all or nothing based, therefore Judge Masipa can extract whatever parts she finds useful.

 

[kaos]

Does anybody know if it's a regular thing for the court to appoint a social worker to give 'emotional support' for every accused and do the victim's family get offered the same resources?