Maybe because there's nobody other than OP who can comment on the jeans, glass, hole in door etc. He's made sure the court is aware of them, and then he asks OP about them during cross examination.
Cross examination is going to be the key to all this.
Just to clarify ..is the defence saying its the toilet or bathroom light that's broken?
the light in the TOILET had broken - this as I said Oldwage told Mrs Stipp, because she testified that she saw that light was ON, but her husband Dr Stipp testified that the bathroom light was ON !!
As Reeva was shot in the toilet, my guess is, and not hard to work out, that the toilet light was broken during the incident, by Oscar in a rage, or by Reeva so she'd not be seen if Oscar started trying to break the door down before the shots , or was broken when the bullets ricoched, who knows. Oscar has money and probably a handyman on speed dial and if his bathroom light had broken prior to that night, he'd have had it fixed , he's a double amputee it wouldn't have been left. A lot more went on in that house than either side have said so far.
the light in the TOILET had broken - this as I said Oldwage told Mrs Stipp, because she testified that she saw that light was ON, but her husband Dr Stipp testified that the bathroom light was ON !!
As Reeva was shot in the toilet, my guess is, and not hard to work out, that the toilet light was broken during the incident, by Oscar in a rage, or by Reeva so she'd not be seen if Oscar started trying to break the door down before the shots , or was broken when the bullets ricoched, who knows. Oscar has money and probably a handyman on speed dial and if his bathroom light had broken prior to that night, he'd have had it fixed , he's a double amputee it wouldn't have been left. A lot more went on in that house than either side have said so far.
Couldn't it have been that the lightbulb had popped and he didn't have a spare?
There are two separate issues. The screams relate to before the shooting, and to whether or not he knew it was RS in the toilet before he shot. If the court decides that he knew it was her, before he shot, then I expect he will be found guilty of her murder. It's only if the court accepts that he thought it was an intruder that the concept of his state of mind could come into play.
What I was saying is that it would be easy for OP to go on the stand and portray a state of mind in which he was fearful, disabled, prone to panic.
So that article doesn't really sum it up, because if he goes on the stand he can also be asked about inconsistencies in his account.
Couldn't it have been that the lightbulb had popped and he didn't have a spare?
now that would be really convenient wouldn't it !!! he didn't have a spare bulb. - sounds bit of a coincidence that on the very night his girlfriend locks herself in his toilet to get away from Oscar with a gun that the bulbs gone !! By the same token, all too much of a coincidence that this murder happened on early hours of Valentines Day morning, she was going to cook for him in the evening too
- too many coincidences going on ! you couldn't make it up if you tried !
What I was saying is that it would be easy for OP to go on the stand and portray a state of mind in which he was fearful, disabled, prone to panic.
So that article doesn't really sum it up, because if he goes on the stand he can also be asked about inconsistencies in his account.
Not that Roux would not have him well prepared.
If we are to believe Oscar's story.....it could be argued that it's one thing feeling fearful and threatened in your head,,,,, but it's another reading the situation completely unreasonably and totally overreacting that he was under immediate threat.
If he isn't given the appropriate Charge and sentence and he gets a lessor charge .... then it's giving license to anyone who reacts the same way as Oscar did ....to shoot at someone,,,on the sole strength of having heard a noise somewhere in their house ,, and it sends a message out that it's within the law to go blast a gun in the direction of that noise .. on the basis that it 'could' be an intruder !!!
in which case....they'd be murders of so called, 'mistaken identity' going on in homes in SA left right and centre, and some of those murders may even be deliberate if they think they can get away with it !!!! Nagging hen-pecking wife goes to loo in middle of night ( I know intruder!!!) ............
one thing I also found odd was Oscar's words if he thought an Intruder/burglar was in his house and locked themselves in the toilet ,, he says in his Statement he said:
"get out of my house" -
--- if I heard a noise and was 'full of fear' , so much so that I took my gun , cautiously crept along a narrow corridor IN THE DARK not knowing what I could face as I turned into the DARK bathroom...... would I yell "get out of my house".? ...No.
I would shout : "I have a gun - and I have called Security....come out with your hands up or I will shoot" and I'd turn the light on - because if you can't see the intruder , they can't see you , so you could be shot at by someone just firing a gun at you randomly !!!
And seeing as Oscar goes into 'full combat' mode when he's up against a washing machine , you'd have thought he'd have used the corridor as his 'trench' and cover, put the light on and peeped round the corner of the bathroom so he had direct sight of the toilet door to see if the person turned the catch of the lock and came out......and if they did Oscar would be waiting with a gun ready to shoot if necessary wouldn't he - and if he'd already called Security and/or Police or got Reeva to call them, they'd be on their way to his house wouldn't they !
I definitely wouldn't say "get out of my house" ! ----..how the hell was the intruder going to get out of Oscar's house if he's locked himself in the loo anyway ?? it's hardly the right words to say when you know the person's in the toilet and locked themselves in, ---- those instructions are all wrong !!
And is Oscar going to say that he shot at the door while still in the dark ? and if it's that dark, he's saying Reeva made her way from the bedroom to the toilet in the dark and went to the toilet in the dark, feeling her way around to ensure she'd sat properly on the seat beforehand.....all very very implausible
- and now the neighbour Stipp has said the light was on in the bathroom......But whatd'yaknow......Oscar's statement kind of covers that bit, because in his Statement he says "I turned the light on at some point" - he thought of everything to cover any eventuality brought up by the Prosecution witnesses didn't he now..hmmm so so fishy and unbelievable
You are totally spot on in every word. And yes, it seem's like he thought his statement out well beforehand.
Nothing in his statement adds up at all and I think he is going to get away with murder either way, because of who he is. I hope to heck I am wrong and he is found guilty and spends the next 25 in jail for what he did to an innocent woman.
How Roux is going to explain away the indiscrepancies in OP statement is anyone's guess.
When Roux got to show it I was expecting some sort of amazing deal. All it showed was the pair of them buying some groceries and being a bit affectionate. It did NOT deter from the texts when Reeva said she was scared.
I think the judge is giving him lots of leeway so that they can say it was a fair trial (I hope).
It was Roux being desperate to prove they were a loving couple. It didn't prove anything. They could have been brother and sister in the CCTV.
Just to clarify ..is the defence saying its the toilet or bathroom light that's broken?
It's a bit confusing as Roux's question was phrased similar to that one about dogs barking, If I remember correctly Roux said something like, "Will you accept you would not have seen the light on if it was not working."
What was Roux asking Mrs Stipp to accept? That it was definitely broken or the proposition a broken light could not be switched on?
Mrs Stipp replied she could not accept the toilet light was not working.
I presumed that Oscar's sister /brother / someone sneaked it out and removed some messages or pix / vids and then returned it or handed it over .
Has the missing / returned mobile mystery been covered or explained yet ??
The Phone analyst had 4 phones, 2 blackberry 2 iphones - 2 blackberry's had sim swap changes to iphones in 2012.
Didn't the phone analyst say that he was given a 'wrong' number for one of the phones, but managed to find it when the phone company sent the contract/bill/statement, and it was then that they saw Oscar had another number , so he tried that and got into another of Oscar's phones ? - obviously then ..Oscar hadn't given the police all of his cellphone numbers ?
During that evening not one text, WhatsAPP was sent from Reeva's phone to anyone ?? when you hear that she was a texting mad all the time, you'd have thought she'd have sent at least one message to a friend about her evening with Oscar - I think something was tampered with, and the Phone Analyst said that Oscar never replied to one long anxious message sent to him by Reeva 2 days before that night, and he could have deleted it - so deleted messages can't be retrieved then ?
I don't think that the judge is strong enough to control Roux tbh
Really?
With everything that lady judge would have had to overcome in SA to get to her current position, I think she will be strong enough to control a pride of lions let alone a couple peacocking barristers.
The mobile phone bloke for the prosecution said that one of OP's phones was seized at the time (at 8am on the day of the incident) and the other was handed to the police on February 25th.
Roux never explained the 'rabbit' reference from the text like he said he would yesterday? Unless we have to wait to hear it from OP.
With reference to the rabbits, my understanding is that OP had a thing about rabbits with an ex girlfriend , he had them in his house and photographed images of them when he was out. Hence Reeva saying that was then, now is now or WTTE. She said he went on about his many exes often while she was not allowed to even repeat any anecdotal funny stories about hers. A lot of jealousy going on I think.
With everything that lady judge would have had to overcome in SA to get to her current position, I think she will be strong enough to control a pride of lions let alone a couple peacocking barristers.
With reference to the rabbits, my understanding is that OP had a thing about rabbits with an ex girlfriend , he had them in his house and photographed images of them when he was out. Hence Reeva saying that was then, now is now or WTTE. She said he went on about his many exes often while she was not allowed to even repeat any anecdotal funny stories about hers. A lot of jealousy going on I think.
yes - A friend of mine and her ex had a rabbit thing--they had stuffed rabbits, cards with rabbits on to eachother, it was really soppy stuff, it was a thing they had to. BUT when the new boyfriend / now husband came along, NO MORE RABBITS , - all the rabbit stuff stopped because she associated that with her ex ,and it would have been disrespectful to the new man
Reeva must have been very jealous if Oscar had the rabbit theme with an ex and it continued ..... as it means he didn't make her feel special by doing that, it's rather belittling actually !!! and it showed her that he hung on to his past --- I think he's a selfish and inconsiderate man for doing that , and who's to say he wasn't in contact still with an ex, he had enough of them....maybe he had a phone under a different name, but that wouldn't be trackable if it was taken out by someone for him to use would it- -I wouldn't put it past this guy
(maybe the new girlfriend of his should have a long hard think if he's bought her fluffy stuffed rabbits !!!)
The Phone analyst had 4 phones, 2 blackberry 2 iphones - 2 blackberry's had sim swap changes to iphones in 2012.
Didn't the phone analyst say that he was given a 'wrong' number for one of the phones, but managed to find it when the phone company sent the contract/bill/statement, and it was then that they saw Oscar had another number , so he tried that and got into another of Oscar's phones ? - obviously then ..Oscar hadn't given the police all of his cellphone numbers ?
During that evening not one text, WhatsAPP was sent from Reeva's phone to anyone ?? when you hear that she was a texting mad all the time, you'd have thought she'd have sent at least one message to a friend about her evening with Oscar - I think something was tampered with, and the Phone Analyst said that Oscar never replied to one long anxious message sent to him by Reeva 2 days before that night, and he could have deleted it - so deleted messages can't be retrieved then ?
just because she sent OP many texts doesnt mean she was a text freak.
I am with you though. His story is bull. Just doesnt make any sense at all. Nobody I have spoken to believe that he didnt know Reeva was in that bathroom. I think they had an argument, she ran and locked herself in the bathroom and he shot at her, the cold blooded p**k
what made me think he was lying was when he said he ''forgot his phone password''...i mean really. i find that impossible especially when it was said by his gf that he was always on his phone playing with it etc....
Comments
Cross examination is going to be the key to all this.
As Reeva was shot in the toilet, my guess is, and not hard to work out, that the toilet light was broken during the incident, by Oscar in a rage, or by Reeva so she'd not be seen if Oscar started trying to break the door down before the shots , or was broken when the bullets ricoched, who knows. Oscar has money and probably a handyman on speed dial and if his bathroom light had broken prior to that night, he'd have had it fixed , he's a double amputee it wouldn't have been left. A lot more went on in that house than either side have said so far.
Couldn't it have been that the lightbulb had popped and he didn't have a spare?
Nel seemed slower than normal yesterday, and bit deflated - hope he's rested and on the ball Friday - I think we may see Oscar take the Stand.
What I was saying is that it would be easy for OP to go on the stand and portray a state of mind in which he was fearful, disabled, prone to panic.
So that article doesn't really sum it up, because if he goes on the stand he can also be asked about inconsistencies in his account.
Not that Roux would not have him well prepared.
now that would be really convenient wouldn't it !!! he didn't have a spare bulb. - sounds bit of a coincidence that on the very night his girlfriend locks herself in his toilet to get away from Oscar with a gun that the bulbs gone !! By the same token, all too much of a coincidence that this murder happened on early hours of Valentines Day morning, she was going to cook for him in the evening too
- too many coincidences going on !
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reeva+steenkamp+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari
If he isn't given the appropriate Charge and sentence and he gets a lessor charge .... then it's giving license to anyone who reacts the same way as Oscar did ....to shoot at someone,,,on the sole strength of having heard a noise somewhere in their house ,, and it sends a message out that it's within the law to go blast a gun in the direction of that noise .. on the basis that it 'could' be an intruder !!!
in which case....they'd be murders of so called, 'mistaken identity' going on in homes in SA left right and centre, and some of those murders may even be deliberate if they think they can get away with it !!!! Nagging hen-pecking wife goes to loo in middle of night (
You are totally spot on in every word. And yes, it seem's like he thought his statement out well beforehand.
Nothing in his statement adds up at all and I think he is going to get away with murder either way, because of who he is. I hope to heck I am wrong and he is found guilty and spends the next 25 in jail for what he did to an innocent woman.
How Roux is going to explain away the indiscrepancies in OP statement is anyone's guess.
It was Roux being desperate to prove they were a loving couple. It didn't prove anything. They could have been brother and sister in the CCTV.
I don't think that the judge is strong enough to control Roux tbh
It's a bit confusing as Roux's question was phrased similar to that one about dogs barking, If I remember correctly Roux said something like, "Will you accept you would not have seen the light on if it was not working."
What was Roux asking Mrs Stipp to accept? That it was definitely broken or the proposition a broken light could not be switched on?
Mrs Stipp replied she could not accept the toilet light was not working.
I presumed that Oscar's sister /brother / someone sneaked it out and removed some messages or pix / vids and then returned it or handed it over .
Has the missing / returned mobile mystery been covered or explained yet ??
Didn't the phone analyst say that he was given a 'wrong' number for one of the phones, but managed to find it when the phone company sent the contract/bill/statement, and it was then that they saw Oscar had another number , so he tried that and got into another of Oscar's phones ? - obviously then ..Oscar hadn't given the police all of his cellphone numbers ?
During that evening not one text, WhatsAPP was sent from Reeva's phone to anyone ?? when you hear that she was a texting mad all the time, you'd have thought she'd have sent at least one message to a friend about her evening with Oscar - I think something was tampered with, and the Phone Analyst said that Oscar never replied to one long anxious message sent to him by Reeva 2 days before that night, and he could have deleted it - so deleted messages can't be retrieved then ?
Really?
With everything that lady judge would have had to overcome in SA to get to her current position, I think she will be strong enough to control a pride of lions let alone a couple peacocking barristers.
With reference to the rabbits, my understanding is that OP had a thing about rabbits with an ex girlfriend , he had them in his house and photographed images of them when he was out. Hence Reeva saying that was then, now is now or WTTE. She said he went on about his many exes often while she was not allowed to even repeat any anecdotal funny stories about hers. A lot of jealousy going on I think.
Absolutely.
Reeva must have been very jealous if Oscar had the rabbit theme with an ex and it continued ..... as it means he didn't make her feel special by doing that, it's rather belittling actually !!! and it showed her that he hung on to his past --- I think he's a selfish and inconsiderate man for doing that , and who's to say he wasn't in contact still with an ex, he had enough of them....maybe he had a phone under a different name, but that wouldn't be trackable if it was taken out by someone for him to use would it- -I wouldn't put it past this guy
(maybe the new girlfriend of his should have a long hard think if he's bought her fluffy stuffed rabbits !!!)
Yes , I think so as well .
just because she sent OP many texts doesnt mean she was a text freak.
I am with you though. His story is bull. Just doesnt make any sense at all. Nobody I have spoken to believe that he didnt know Reeva was in that bathroom. I think they had an argument, she ran and locked herself in the bathroom and he shot at her, the cold blooded p**k
he clearly had something to hide
It sounds much better than :-
" 10% weren't abusive , threatening and and demeaning "