I do think he is guilty but defense team obviously has to do their job to try as much as they can to free him.business is business,thay are paid for it by OP
16:05 I admit absolutely that i am not a forensics pathologist and i am not wound ballistics..I'm actually a painter and decorator from Stoke on Trent.
I have painfully watched the trial today. This expert reminds me of Mr. Magoo. He is bumbling, searches for answers and over talks them when he thinks of one. Some of the points he brought up were interesting but he had no scientific testing or empirical generalizations to base his conclusions on. He does not back up his findings with scientific data. Proof: a) he could see the fibers in the door matched the socks Oscar had on simply by looking at them. No fiber testing. No microscopic or photo enhanced comparison. He drew this conclusion by looking at a picture of the socks and said they looked like the fibers in the door, caused by Oscar kicking the door b) he hit a door with a cricket bat, recorded the sounds and compared them to a recording of shots fired by a gun and concluded both sounds were similar. He used his ears to determine they sounded similar. No decibel level testing, no pitch, acoustical, reverberation or resonance testing, etc. c) he attempted to persuade the judge that the bruises on Reeva's backside were NOT caused by the magazine rack in spite of evidence that reveals the intersecting lines of bruises. d) Blood clots which were most likely caused by ricocheting bullets that had lost energy but did not have enough energy to penetrate the skin were said to be from the magazine rack. They were two dots. He concluded this by looking at photos. e) he said there was concentric bruising around the bullet hole entry wounds. Well even an idiot would know that the surrounding skin would be traumatized by a bullet.f) he never attended the autopsy. Even Oscar plugged his ears while this guy testified.
Dear Reeva, we are hoping that the justice will prevail !!! but if for some reason it doesn't then i can promise u there is no way anyone can get away from GODS justice !!! ''RIP angel''
maggs mum I really hope so .., but i doubt any angel'' could convince a ''Devil'' the sad thing is that she was killed before her time she had so much going on.. i kind of think that disastrous toilet and house will be haunted ..
maggs mum OP will be haunted for life....He'll have many lovers in prison that will support him and love him. He'll be engaged by Next valentine's day and his lover will be a big rugby player that can protect him from other jealous inmates
maybe this geologist would be more suited to examining the rocks in his head... oscar 'death from below' pistorious's fairytale is descending into farce, no expert in the world can put the defence back on track, oscar done more damage to his fairytale himself as he was so arrogant he thought he could take the box and sob and weep and make everyone believe him, i dont think he anticipated mr nell being such a brilliant cross examiner, its been quite a masterclass for anyone interested in court proceedings
Oscar's defence team cocked it up. Bigtime. I don't understand, even if they were trying to get him off, that they'd call a dense expert to testify on things that he doesn't have any expertise in. I really wanted to see what Tom Wolmerans was going to say.
so right.....he looked and sounded like Coco the Clown...after his vigorous questioning at the start of the trial, he seems to have lost interest....certainly not playing as though he thinks he may win.
15:42 nel nails it!!! This guy is a joke… making suggestions in court about you finding additional pathological findings based on a photograph, that an expert pathologist did not find doing a post mortem examination is really over the top!!!! he should be prosecuted for trying to mislead court
teredaable Isn't it the truth that you didn't buy the eggs because you already HAD lots of eggs in the fridge at home? Isn't that the real reason?? Why don't you just admit it! You had plenty of eggs! This is troubling, that you will not even concede to the known facts.
Why would the bathroom door be locked? Oh because Reeva was scared of him, She had packed her things up and was ready to put her jeans on and he came at her, she then ran into the bathroom and locked the door, he told her to come out or I will break it down, he then got his gun and told her he was going to shoot the door if she didn't come out, She was too frightened to come out so he took a few shots at the door hitting her. End of story.
I've just realised... he's basically like the crappiest geography teacher you ever had, isn't he. He's the guy who could never get the projector to work and still didn't know anyone's name at the end of the year.
***** Lol totall true. For me it was my Religious Education teacher who also taught geography, wow if he could forget his shoes that what would have happened. In the school I attended, he would have cried and surrendered to the classroom lol. Intelligent for the wrong reasons lol.
Partly he's there cos the emminent pathologist pulled out i guess. But I have a new theory about Dixon. I think he's kind of a sacrificial lemming, with a strategic purpose, however. Roux has a couple of cards left to play as he's gonna get his cricket bats and (most) female-sounding screams=oscar i reckon. The guy is a falsetto, and it's not ever day you cack your pants over murdering someone and thinking if yer gonna be found out or not...so i imagine he was a tad stressed, lets say.. But these will be most effective towards the end of the trial, since the prosecution will have the least amount of time to react before summing up. So he wants them to get a bit too cosy laughing away at how desperate Roux's forensics is on the ballistics pathology etc (true) , enjoy their holidays, stop working on the details etc, and then he's gonna play that card - the sound recordings, done properly - right near the end, and try and chuck it into confusion...cos the sound reconstruction/order of shots and bangs etc will suddenly have to be amended and prosecution will have missed a lot of decent questions they might have asked had they known...
Daniel King - some excellent points. However don't you think the judge and her colleagues have a great understanding of what really happened, and like most of us have more or less made up their minds on OP already so it wont really make much difference on closing arguements for the prosecution. I really hope the correct and just outcome will be served here.
Chris Caine Honestly, I think so as well. But kinda hope they can show the screams were mainly Pistorius' becoming a murderer (aftermath) because, well, it means if it was 4 shots fairly quick then it was less of an awful ending, so give some kind of solace to Steenkamps' out of this thing. having looked at all the evidence so far, i think it was 1 shot and then 2-3-4 soon after (at which point the Stipps got straight out of bed and saw the lights on - key point for me) and most of what the witnesses heard was after that. With Berger/Johnson being mainly witnesses to later noises of door being broken in. There are other possibilities still, but i just think this makes the most sense. Screaming is more likely to wake people up than gunshots (just a "clack" sound from 70+ m) ...and Pistorius was running around the house with all the windows open whereas Reeva was in a cubicle with the door and window closed, and would have been bleeding profusely as well. Her screams would probably have been very weak, and she would probably have gone unconscious in 1-2 minutes from the hip wound. So i think mostly people witnesses the noise afterwards. I guess Pistorius' himself wouldn't have left the lights on/windows open etc if there was a lot of disturbance from her actually being injured. Bit too "obvious" then...?
Love Nel! at 13:35: "you'll be surprised!" ja, ja,ja!!!...then he goes on: "you opened the document and you said...what? I want to put that on record MyLady" ja, ja, ja,,,.he is fabulous, an excellent prosecutor with a great sense of humor!
A 'layman' expert witness - never heard of that before !!!!!!!! Mr Nel living up to his fierce reputation during cross examination of the inept and severely unqualified Mr Dixon - and OP looking as if he knows the game is up
It is not possible to distinguish a bruise sustained at the time of death from one which occurred some minutes earlier; such bruises are best described as having occurred at or about the time of death. Post Mortem Bruises Bruising is essentially a vital phenomenon in which the extravasation of blood into the tissues occurs under the pressure of the circulating blood. After death the rupture of blood vessels as a result of blunt force impact may lead to the extravasation of blood. For so long as fluid blood is present in the capillaries and veins, any injury that crushes these vessels will allow blood to extravasate into the surrounding tissues. However, the extent of blood spread is limited since the pressure of blood within the vessels is only physical. In practice it requires considerable violence to produce a bruise post mortem; the bruise is invariably disproportionately small relative to the degree of force used. Such post mortem bruises are most readily produced in areas of hypostasis (post mortem lividity, livor mortis) or where tissues can be forcibly compressed against bone, e.g. over the occiput. In practice post mortem bruising is unlikely to be confused with ante mortem injury except perhaps in the case of occipital bruises where a lesion an inch in diameter may be produced by careless handling of the body during removal from a scene of death or in the mortuary. In assessing the possibility that bruising may be post mortem, consideration must be given to the findings and circumstances as a whole; against this background quantitative differences between ante mortem and post mortem bruises are usually so great that confusion is unlikely. It is seldom difficult to distinguish between injuries with vital bruising resulting from a vehicle running over a live body, and the tearing and crushing of dead tissues. Post Mortem Lividity Post mortem lividity (synonyms: hypostasis, livor mortis) is the settling, after death, of blood within the blood vessels under the influence of gravity. This results in a purplish discolouration of dependent parts of the body with sparing of areas of pressure contact - contact pallor. The pattern and distribution of lividity distinguishes it from bruising. In doubtful cases incision of the skin will disclose blood oozing from the cut ends of vessels in instances of hypostasis, in contrast to extravasated blood within the tissues in bruises. Washing of the cut surface with running water will remove the blood from hypostasis but not the blood infiltrating the tissues in bruises. Confirmation of the distinction may be made by microscopic examination. Post mortem decomposition with its initial green discolouration of the anterior abdominal wall is readily distinguished from bruising. Putrefactive haemolysis of blood within the vessels and decompositional breakdown of the vessel walls results in extravasation and diffusion of haemolysed blood into the adjacent tissues; existing bruises are enlarged by this process; later, putrefactive haemolytic staining of tissue may mask ante mortem bruising, e.g. in the neck muscles in cases of throttling. Deep Bruises Bruises of the deep tissues, even when fatal, may not be evidenced by any injury to the skin surface. Fatal head injuries, e.g. subdural haemotoma, may be encountered without recognisable superficial bruising. Fatal strangulation with extensive bruising of the muscles of the neck may be accomplished without obvious bruising of the skin. Blows to the abdomen, although producing ruptures of internal organs, may not produce any external bruising. Bruising is more likely to be confined to deep structures and spare the skin surface when produced by blows with a wide and smooth object.
You probably work in a Lab. what you have to say is very interesting to us, at least me anyway. What do you think about that bruise on Reeva's back? It was a black purple colour. It was said it was not from the bullet. but from falling onto the wooden magazine holder. I think it looks like a Blister of sorts. LIke when you hit tissue, finger palm with a hammer or jam fingers in between the doors. It looks like it was crushes between two surfaces to form a blister. It dose not look like a burn and it must have been before she died because it looks raised.
Carmel Correale I concur with Dixon's findings. Falling onto the wooden magazine rack sounds like the most feasible, because of the angle at which the skin is scraped and the angle of the marks made on Reeva's back.
im sorry i have to say Dixon has done OP no favours....... he has been totally torn apart and shows what a weak argument Roux has to prove OP´s not guilty
Ahh...might be related to the fact Roux doesn't have such a strong background in homicide. Pistorius hired him because he's one of S.Africa's highest profile lawyers, and he enjoy controversial cases...but these have been around financial cases and class action damage suits, stuff like that; doesn't always pay to pick the big money lawyers unfamiliar with crime scene investigation.- still no excuse for such a pathetic expert though.
ezekielthemack If found guilty, Oscar could file an appeal on inadequate counsel , but his being granted an appeal on those grounds is likely a long shot.
it is not the courts fault,if any,that the defense team hasn't done their jobs well.It is just because the Prosecutor has a very good case ,it is difficult to defend it.
Okay. Here is the way I see it after watching all the evidence and testimony. First, they were together on Valentine's day. Reeva did see her ex boyfriend a day or two earlier. They had an argument which witnesses heard. She probably told him she was not happy with the way he was treating her, putting her down, and yelling at her. He began to get aggressive and told her, you better not see that guy again. She said you cannot tell me what to do. I am not a child. He said you better not or I will let that guy have it. Or I will let you have it. She said you are scaring me, back off or I will call the police. She ran into the bathroom with her phone which is what she had on her at the time or her death. She yelled, I am calling the police. He said you better not or I will kill you. He said" Get the fuck out of my house!" She said I am dialing and calling the police right now. He said you will not, grabbed his gun and he started firing. At first, two shots, She was still screaming, so he changed the aim which the evidence supports and finished her off. Then he probably said to himself. Oh shit, I killed her. How am I going to get away with this. Hopefully people will be too stupid to convict me and my crying act will get me sympathy so I can get away with murder. I hope people fall for it. The security called and asked what the problem was. He said everything is fine! That is what I believed really happened. Anyone else?
A huge failure on the defenses side to acquire the reports and information necessary for Mr Dixon to be a credible witness. Also coming in to a court room of one of the biggest trials in SA history with out having been asked to make a formal report is disgraceful and careless on the part of the defense. Im sure Mr Nel crossed all his T's and dotted all his I's before he even stepped into the court room.
Exactly, Gerrie Nel has been well prepared for most of the trial with all his witnesses especially on the key evidence. Between this Dixon fellow and Oscar Pistorius being on the stand they have been easily discredited by the Prosecution because he has come to court with not just the factual evidence but prepared with the hard questions which so far these witnesses have been extremely evasive and vague and often fumbling along. Oscar did himself more harm then good in taking the stand in his own defense as he came across as a liar. I feel too much of his story simply doesn't add up he's guilty for me...I was victim of a home invasion and one thing I know is my family and myself our only priority was ensuring all of us were safe from harm...and when the intruders realised we knew they were there they fled and it wasn't to lock themselves in a bathroom!
Am I the only one who likes Mr Dixon? Im reading all the negative comments. He is intelligent.. not stupid at all.. Its sad that he was put into this situation.. its cringe worthy watching him being pulled apart. Not enjoyable at all.
Agreed. The defense council have compromised him by placing him on the stand; Although he is an adult and professional and should be aware of his limitations. One cannot be everything to all men.
I agree he seems like a very nice man Does not have a mean bone in his body. It's not his fault he does not have all the info. MR Roux only asked him provide X, W,and Y. Mr Nell got cross with him making feel dopey. But when Mr Nell misplaced his photograph, Nice Mr Dixion had a spare to offer him. I think Mr Nell may have been amusingly surprised. Mr Nell is a pussy in real life. This toughness is just acting. L.0.L
he is actually quite comical...with his "based on my knowledge","to my unnderstanding" and "so on and so forth" which are vague statements to fill in for his lack of ability to properly explain things. basically a bunch of BS fill-ins
I love getting out my popcorn and watching these high media court cases. Best reality entertainment ever. Yet mankind must take in the lessons being learned.... like there are dangerous people out there like OP to watch out for. I think of my daughter growing up and how I wish she never encounters someone like OP.
I love these high profile cases too. It always interests me the diversity of opinion regarding one event. One scary thing I realize though. There is a lot of bona fide evil in this world.
***** I guess you can only televise a limited amount of cases, but I would be open to watching regular folk. I followed Jodi Arias and she is not famous.
If anyone is still reading this here, here's two things that stick in my craw in that Nel didn't nail him on: in the text message from Reeva to P, she states "Every 5 seconds I hear how you dated another chick." Nel: How can you say you in love with Reeva yet every 5 seconds you're talking about an old lover!? "Dated!?" And the jeans being inside out because obviously HE 'peeled' them off her as she was trying to get them on.
Everyone is thinking that op is guilty........ he's wreckless and negligent but not a murderer, he shot into a door not at a person, the bullets could have ended up missing poor Reeva completely, it was terrible bad luck.I think Dixon is doing a decent job.
The bullets were not intended to miss Reeva as the area she was in was so small which Oscar knew, he could have fired with his eyes closed and hit Reeva.
We still have jackasses making comments on youtube? I thought they no longer existed, but the comment made by this nincompoop Car1234oppinions prove me wrong.
OP did not choose the best defense legal team. I sense he as already lost this case. I just pray that the truth will prevail and justice is done for the right party.
I have no idea who in the defence team thought it was a good idea to hire Dixon, or whether they struggled to find people willing to do it, but it was a shocking error to ask him to give his opinion on matters in which he is neither qualified nor experienced. Especially the State Pathologist - that was a huge mistake. Imagine going to see your doctor who diagnoses you with a condition. It's one thing to seek a second opinion from another doctor, it's quite another to roll up a week later and tell him your hairdresser disagrees with his diagnosis
I wonder how many bona fide experts turned the defense down before they finally approached this quack. The more important question, though, fellow addicts: how are we going to function without our daily fix of Nel for two weeks??! We need a support group or something.
Hello Isla, I wondered that too. I think the defense are probably having a really difficult time with it. I admit I've become 'hooked' on this case. 'The more important question' for me is: I have a lot of work to catch up, so it'll give me time, plus I won't get nagged about the time I'm spending on the computer. Having said that, I'm open to lending a sympathetic ear to a selected few individuals who may in any kind of withdrawal crisis. Just e-mail me for my phone number.
I hear you on the work thing! The whole case is so absorbing it can be dangerously distracting... I caught myself in the middle of typing an email to a client that I'd already written and sent an hour before. My fingers were one place, my brain somewhere else entirely! Do you find yourself incorporating Nel-isms into your speech, too? I've found myself using "we'll get there" and "no-no-no, it's not that easy," quite frequently. I think I've even been known to screw my eyes up tight, massage my temples, and pull up the lapels of an imaginary robe when trying to make a point. At this rate I'll have developed a South African accent by the end of the trial. We've got it bad! You're right about the defense - Roux must be roux-ing his choice. ;) Can't imagine that Mr. Dixon will be getting much sleep tonight. Can you imagine how the rest of the defense's scheduled 'experts' and witnesses must feel?! I wonder if any of them decide to back out or suddenly come down with a mysterious illness...
Garry Williams The Phantom Flush... plumbing superhero extraordinaire?! I'm out of the loop on flushes... still not even clear on the lightbulb or the phone or that charger in the kitchen or the inside outy upside downy jeans... and now I'm being teased with new juicy tidbits that I didn't even know existed! It's too much. Sad thing... you know when the judge made her ruling on the break and instructed counsel to take the court record of 2000 pages with them to study? I WANTED A COPY. Hell, I deserve a copy. I've probably been paying more attention than that bunch of suits in the second row. Yes, I want 2000 pages of tedious legal guff to take to bed with me. Therapy. Stat. ((*group hug*))
If they made a movie about this OSCAR P. should be that guy that played in that new ROBOCOP movie. They look similar he and that actor. Mr. Roux is the guy on Silence of the lambs. Mr. Nel not sure yet. Mylady could be Will Smiths wife Jada. She's skinny is firm and a strong black women. She hasn't been in many movies that I can recall lately.
Those bruises indicate more than bullets and falling down in that toilet. I still feel he hit her several times with that cricket bat before she ran into that bathroom. The blood splatter on the wall behind the head board of the bed, on the duvet and carpet with her jeans on top near the bed indicates to me that she was trying to get out of there. He was hitting her with that cricket bat and she ran to the toilet, locked the door and screamed for help. The pathologist report revealed three fractures at the base of the skull. Just my observations.
Just as with the Arias case and the "expert" psychologists, this fellow uses little note papers instead of handing all parties in court a full summary, point by point of his findings. Of course, Nel is going to ridicule that over and over....:"Excuse me my lady...I can't seem to find....
It´s a shame that oscar has to pay a high price for these incopetent people. Oscar thought that these people could save his freedom, but they will bring him behind bars.
It has been quite a show. But the difficulty is on the defense, whoever it was going to be. So we really cannot blame Roux and his crew too much. They are doing all they can even if it appears to be grasping at straws. Surely he has to be proven guilty, but there is no doubt who shot her. My main concern is this. IF OP wasn't planning to shoot anyone or even considering it. Why have a gun in your hand? Why is it loaded with that type of ammo? He denied he intended to use it He didn't warn anyone that he had a gun. And, if the threat in the toilet was going to leave.They had only one exit and that was opening the door and leave. So if he yelled for them to get out he should have expected the door to open. IN HIS VERSION I have to call BS on this dude. And if he does get off,, just wait and see what he gets up to next. Give him a few months and he'll be laughing and giggling somewhere and Reeva won't even be a second thought. "oh her, she died in an accident, BTW do you chew gum?"
This guy is a geologist,he studies rocks...how the fuck can he give evidence in sooo many different "areas of expertise"? And mostly based on fotos or other peoples reports. I think this clown is getting fired from his work soon
whats the difference, if he lectures geology in a university wouldnt he have studied geolgy first? or is this a normal thing in south africa were "experts" teach,give testimony or lecture on things they have no clue about?
Dixon will need 'staff' to download and bring all the stuff Mr Nel is asking for, LOL. He will probably be up all night collecting and collating etc etc. LOL
Why the heck doesn't Nel's team check whether the amplifier actually had a really bright green on light compared to all the other lights on the hi fi system and also whether it could simply have been switched off rather than having to put Reeva's jeans over it, which to me sounds highly improbable. OP said that he thought the green light would have probably just turned to red if he had switched it off but I have never seen a stereo amp where it wasn't possible to simply switch it off on the front panel causing all the lights to go out. Nel check this out for goodness sake - it seems to have been missed and is a more important issue than most of the stuff dwelt on today. .
***** I guess you are right but wouldn't it have been better to have known the information about the amps lights at the time of OPs cross examination? It would have made more impact surely to have challenged him with that information then. Also when Dixon was cross examined about the lights in the room again it was missed. Why didn't Nell ask Dixon about the relative intensities of the amp and CD player's lights and whether any or all of them could have simply been switched off? Who on earth places a pair of their girlfriend's jeans over amp light - utter nonsense. In fact how could it even be done as the amp light is on the front of the unit and the CD player was on top of that unit anyhow. So the jeans which were'nt even visible due to th room being pitch black would have to be carefully placed somehow over the top of the CD player and then one of the legs draped over the front side side of the amp and then the other leg to the left hand side perhaps to avoid them simply falling off - and in the pitch dark - Oh for goodness sake!
Oscar could have hid in a box...or something as short as he is...Reeva on the other hand would have had to find a much larger area to hide in if there were an intruder in the house. Oscar keeps saying he wanted to get between Reeva and the intruder but without the prosthetic legs the intruder wouldn't have even seen him there. What was he afraid of a midget?
Why has Nel not asked about the toilet...you see if reevas bladder was empty as the autopsy says she must have been to the toilet...so OP should have heard the toilet flush and the system refill itself...(burglars dont generally borrow the loo do they ???) However should Reeva not have flushed there should have been urine present in the toilet bowl, however this does not seem to be the case by the photographic evidence...and therefore why was she is the Toilet!!!!!!!
Garry Williams I've followed the trial from the start and, although my memory can fail me at times, I don't recall it coming up. Perhaps it is because it is silent but I'd like to know if it has come into consideration. The problem with the defenses urine evacuation argument is that the bladder had partially refilled, so some time had passed since Reeva had urinated. I could have been thirty minutes or more before. So that doesn't help them either. What is pretty clear is, unless she was interrupted while urinating, she was not using the toilet urinate after the time OP claims she left the bed until the time he shot her - there would not be time for her bladder to refill to the level that it had.
Mr Dixon tel me really what the hell are you doing in this court room if you´r are a Geologist,? cause this trial has nothing to do with geology: OP that was´t as good investment
He may have kicked her before...as she had marks on her body from some bite or bruising before her death and was a fresh at that.....her jeans was inside out like someone had pulled them off her.....
Caramello98@ Mr Nell=Colombo Mr Roux Mr Bean and Oscar would be Mr Bean's teddy bear. Mr Dixon is trash, he left that witness stand with his tail coiled between his legs .he made a fool of himself by trying to be Mr know it all, have you ever seen an expect coming to court without a report for the court ,but with his untidy bits of paper and a very poor memory of events. Damn.....
It is bizarre that there was no report submitted to the court Dixon. It is usually lodged weeks in advance (well, at least in the UK it would be) and then all the oral expert testimony is based on interpreting and testing the report findings. I don't understand what's going on because the state experts have reports.
You DO know that court ran for about 3-1/2 to 4 hours today...right? The first portion lasted for 1-1/2 hours, then they broke for a tea break, then came back for another 1 hour and twenty minutes. That is when they then broke for lunch. What you are watching now is the session (that lasted for 30+ minutes) following the lunch break. This video is merely the third session of the day.
One has to blame the witnesses, as Nel said his books are getting clocked up. He has to march over and chew each witnesses garble, that eats paper and ink. The witnesses blabbing instead of Yes/No, open up new avenews closing old ones. What they don't realize is that Nel is getting to know the ins and outs of the case beter by the minute and better with each witness. So keep on feeding him witnesses.
I can't stop thinking about the 'kingpin' of OP's defense. "I wanted to put myself between Reeva and the danger". OP has said this over and over again. Whenever he's pointedly challenged he runs to this phrase. Time and time again. The way I read this is: 1) Making this claim places Reeva in the bedroom and the perceived threat in the toilet. 2) It makes OP appear to be exceedingly loving toward Reeva and a man this loving, who would face the threat of death for her, could never intentionally hurt her. 3) It maintains or reinforces the public's perception of OP as a hero. All other components of OP's account have to revolve around this central point. If you were to map the story in a graphic format, that is the logical starting point. Stand in the middle and account for the befores and afters. When challenged, run back to the mantra and start again from there.
Agree that the reason that he keeps saying this is that it is simply a rehearsed phrase and was never a real emotion/thought. It it had been a real emotion/thought he would keep expressing the same thing in many different ways. His whole defense is complete nonsense. I would like to know whether he has shown intense rage/jealosy before with other girlfriends. Will such people testify?
One of Nel's repeated challenges is: "Nobody would go towards the danger". OP replies "It's the way I am - I wanted to protect Reeva". When you look at it from the construction point of view OP's answer makes sense. Reinforcing - hero, I love Reeva so much I wouldn't hurt her and Reeva's in the bedroom and I have to have a reason to go into the toilet to start shooting. All wrapped up in "I wanted to protect Reeva". How convenient is that.
Olivia Westbrook ... he surely wanted to protect Reeva ... but he completely missed that she never ever said a word after the "Can't you sleep, Babaaa?" ... not even as she was dropping in the toilet with a broken hip ... how sweet.
I've just picked up a very good point from Ruby Tuesday - She says that if Reeva had emptied her bladder shortly before her death, then, OP would have heard her flush the toilet and refilling of system unless their is urine still in the bowl. If there's no urine in the bowl and it can't be proven that the system is inaudible, I'd call that game, set and match!
