Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[TorisMom003]

Concerning the I am not a stripper or a ho from Reeva to OP, the only reason Reeva would say something like this is if OP had made mention of her being one and/or the other to her before. Now, is it shown that OP said that to her in this set of text messages? No, however that does not mean that he did not say it. A woman is not going to offer that up out of the blue without being accused of it first. A woman that has used weed before is not going to equate that with being a stripper and/or ho. Drug use, occasional or regular, does not equate with being a stripper and/or ho.

MOO

 

[Viper]

This link was posted by another member, I apologize but I cannot recall their name to give them credit, but it really is worth opening the link. Many of the texts that were not spoken of in court today are there, and it looks very sad for Reeva:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-recap-3276636

 

[G.bng]

yes, this is possibly true ...but in this instance, this particular event, with these two particular people, this man DID move on to murder, and this woman is dead..

this entire case is about the exception to the rule. .

although, that isn't quite correct either, because 56 % of deaths of women in South Africa are the result of murder by their intimate partner..

so in fact.. in statistics,.. Oscar ISNT an exception to the rule. he is over the odds of probabilities.

and the US isn't far behind.. the highest cause of death of pregnant women in the usa, is murder by their intimate partner.

We can't forget about his 'itchy trigger finger' either. Shot one off in a full restaurant, shot off another after being pulled over by police and went into full combat mode when the washing machine came on in his own house. There may not be direct evidence of murder but there is circumstantial evidence of manslaughter. Still a couple of days to go too for a possible surprise witness.

IMBW but I don't think there is manslaughter in SA, just murder or culpable homicide for this case.

 

[Viper]

Concerning the I am not a stripper or a ho from Reeva to OP, the only reason Reeva would say something like this is if OP had made mention of her being one and/or the other to her before. Now, is it shown that OP said that to her in this set of text messages? No, however that does not mean that he did not say it. A woman is not going to offer that up out of the blue without being accused of it first. A woman that has used weed before is not going to equate that with being a stripper and/or ho. Drug use, occasional or regular, does not equate with being a stripper and/or ho.

MOO

The impression I am getting is that he picked on her often, that is why she sends these texts, she cannot express herself this way in front of him so texting is the safest way.

She said in one, "I consider myself a Lady, but I don't feel like one tonight." What did OP do to make her feel that way?

Chills down my leg reading the texts and thinking about daily verbal abuse that the lady in no way deserved.

 

[sorrell skye]

This has only happened once, I specifically remember what it was about and for him it was over the time but for a normal man it was pretty tame. He's the nicest man you'll ever meet. I'm not trying to justify it to myself. I don't need to. There's literally nothing to justify! But now I feel all uneasy because now I'm afraid it's In your head that I have an abusive husband or that he's an angry person when NOTHING could be farther from the truth. Truthfully.

ALL I was trying to say is we don't know exactly what Reeva meant when she said "you scare me." It can have a number of meanings. And that I understand what she might have meant due to my own experiences. That's it.

No worries, MeeBee. I believe you.

But here's the thing for me: Reeva told OP that his behavior scared her. I believe her. I will not minimize it. I will not dismiss it. I will not try to explain it away.

I accept her fear of OP's behavior at face value because Reeva is now dead. OP killed her. If I dismiss her fear and dismiss OP's jealous, controlling, angry behavior, then I'm dismissing a plausible motive for her death, IMO.

I won't do that.

 

[04009margaret]

This has only happened once, I specifically remember what it was about and for him it was over the time but for a normal man it was pretty tame. He's the nicest man you'll ever meet. I'm not trying to justify it to myself. I don't need to. There's literally nothing to justify! But now I feel all uneasy because now I'm afraid it's In your head that I have an abusive husband or that he's an angry person when NOTHING could be farther from the truth. Truthfully.

ALL I was trying to say is we don't know exactly what Reeva meant when she said "you scare me." It can have a number of meanings. And that I understand what she might have meant due to my own experiences. That's it.

Although I disagree with your view of OP not being an abuser, I clearly understood what you were saying about your husband & I'm sure most others do also. So rest assured your husband is not seen in a bad light, you say he is wonderful & your the best person to defend him. You are describing a relationship of many years, the difference here is that this relationship was a fairly new relationship & it's not normal to be controlling so quickly.

 

[MeeBee]

I know what you are saying but I am not sure it applies in this case because wouldn't a crime of passion have to be in the act of finding your partner with another ? In the UK infidelity can be used to show "provocation" as a mitigating circumstance to reduce murder to manslaughter, I think the equivalent of the US 1, 2 and 3 degrees.

But from my readings SA neither uses 1, 2 and 3 degree murder nor manslaughter, just murder and culpable homicide, but I read somewhere they do have provocation as a mitigating circumstance but not sure if that is only if you are attacked first or can be as in a case of infidelity etc.

Crime of passion in the US falls under murder two and it's a tricky thing. I'd think, usually, when a murder spawns from an argument or something similar like this one may have people are more apt to go with crime of passion since even though there were murderous actions involved, the intent was not to kill. It's sort of a lack of forethought, just acting without thinking. Crime of passion doesn't even have to involve a couple though people would probably call it something else. Rage killing, for instance.

Take the case of the Texas dentist who ran her husband down in a parking lot after finding him with her mistress. The jury found her guilty of murder two even though she obviously was trying to kill him because they felt that it was a sudden reaction without much thought behind it. She didn't really seem to have the intent to kill until right up until she pushed the gas pedal. I hope Im making sense because I am sleepy. Lol.

But you're right, SA law is different. I was just hypothesizing what a US jury might do given the same evidence. I think this one might also be found to be first degree, too, depending on how they see it.

 

[screecher]

the sad part is, Reeva wasn't scared enough..

Or, perhaps she was 'frozen' by her fear...feared OP would hurt her or worse (murder)...., feared for her family and friends....


Does OP presently have a girlfriend? Anyone have her name?

 

[MeeBee]

No worries, MeeBee. I believe you.

But here's the thing for me: Reeva told OP that his behavior scared her. I believe her. I will not minimize it. I will not dismiss it. I will not try to explain it away.

I accept her fear of OP's behavior at face value because Reeva is now dead. OP killed her. If I dismiss her fear and dismiss OP's jealous, controlling, angry behavior, then I'm dismissing a plausible motive for her death, IMO.

I won't do that.

I am not trying to dismiss or minimize her feelings in any way. I very much sympathized with her reading those texts. I don't want it to seem that way. I just want to consider all possibilities. It just seemed like when she said his behavior scared her that she was talking about his public tantrums and jealousy. I know that can still be abuse and I know that OP has some deep seeded issues. I was just thinking since I've used similar vernacular before.

 

[TorisMom003]

I am completely baffled how the words of the murder victim can be dismissed, played down or said to have meant something else than what the murder victim said. The same has happened to the ear witnesses. Why is it that the man on trial for murder is believed repeatedly when it is shown repeatedly that he has lied?

The text messages show how OP treated Reeva. OP claims that the two loved one another completely. The text messages show that Reeva did not always believe that OP loved her completely and protected her from others and the way he treated her.

The ear witnesses have testified to hearing a woman screaming. OP claims that no, Reeva never screamed but he did. The ballistics expert testified that Reeva screaming after the first shot would have been involuntary.

Yet it appears that OP is still believed. That to me is unbelievable.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

I am not trying to dismiss or minimize her feelings in any way. I very much sympathized with her reading those texts. I don't want it to seem that way. I just want to consider all possibilities. It just seemed like when she said his behavior scared her that she was talking about his public tantrums and jealousy. I know that can still be abuse and I know that OP has some deep seeded issues. I was just thinking since I've used similar vernacular before.

If a man will humiliate a woman that he "loves" loudly in public, throw tantrums and show that he is jealous then you can bet that things will be much worse for that woman behind closed doors when alone with that man.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

I am completely baffled how the words of the murder victim can be dismissed, played down or said to have meant something else than what the murder victim said. The same has happened to the ear witnesses. Why is it that the man on trial for murder is believed repeatedly when it is shown repeatedly that he has lied?

The text messages show how OP treated Reeva. OP claims that the two loved one another completely. The text messages show that Reeva did not always believe that OP loved her completely and protected her from others and the way he treated her.

The ear witnesses have testified to hearing a woman screaming. OP claims that no, Reeva never screamed but he did. The ballistics expert testified that Reeva screaming after the first shot would have been involuntary.

Yet it appears that OP is still believed. That to me is unbelievable.

MOO

I've said this so many times but I will say it one more time. It doesn't mean Oscar is believed. It means that there are doubts about his version being true or untrue. I truly have not formed an opinion either way. I really haven't. I'm as on the fence as they come. Objectively, I have reasonable doubt. That's just MOO.

 

[MeeBee]

If a man will humiliate a woman that he "loves" loudly in public, throw tantrums and show that he is jealous then you can bet that things will be much worse for that woman behind closed doors when alone with that man.

MOO

I disagree.

 

[wishIknewmore]

In all honesty, I would be defensive too. They're probably insanely nervous getting on that stand, and then have defense lawyers insinuating that you are either "confused, colluding, lying, etc" not in those words, but you get the drift... darn right I'd be defensive. Nobody wants to be told repeatedly that they are clearly mistaken. Not even us

Its also some in some people's nature to be defensive. Might be baggage from other situations. My husband will attest that I get defensive when he just asks a question.:blushing:

 

[TorisMom003]

I disagree.

Is there a reason why this is disagreed to? If one looks back at cases of women being killed by their significant other, isn't it true that there has been cases of the man doing those things in public and going even further behind closed doors?

 

[04009margaret]

Concerning the I am not a stripper or a ho from Reeva to OP, the only reason Reeva would say something like this is if OP had made mention of her being one and/or the other to her before. Now, is it shown that OP said that to her in this set of text messages? No, however that does not mean that he did not say it. A woman is not going to offer that up out of the blue without being accused of it first. A woman that has used weed before is not going to equate that with being a stripper and/or ho. Drug use, occasional or regular, does not equate with being a stripper and/or ho.

MOO

It is all part of the act of control........To bring a change to the way the woman dresses so that other men don't look at them or behavior, so they don't enjoy themselves when they go out

 

[MeeBee]

Is there a reason why this is disagreed to? If one looks back at cases of women being killed by their significant other, isn't it true that there has been cases of the man doing those things in public and going even further behind closed doors?

There is but I'm not going to get into it[modsnip]

 

[G.bng]

I did not know that was your belief until you posted that. My reply would simply be to consider that OP was proficient at shooting his gun, he practiced frequently and bragged about his accuracy at hitting the center of a target that was very far down-range at the shooting facility! In this case he was so close to the door when he was firing all four of the bullets, and yet not one of them hit the door mechanism. He was 100% accurate with three of the shots in hitting Reeva, which would lead me to believe that she was the target, not the door lock.

Good point about OP's good aim and not hitting the lock. It certainly appears to rule out OP shooting at the door just to open it. Maybe he just shot in uncontrollable anger without the intention of killing Reeva... I think it's called seeing the red mist! In the UK we have "provocation" which iirc can eliminate the element of premeditation (intention in SA) and reduce murder to manslaughter (culpable homicide in SA). I don't know under what circumstances you can use it other than infidelity, which I cannot imagine would work on this case, and for sure the excuse wouldn't work for any old rage.

 

[TorisMom003]

There is but I'm not going to get into it [modsnip].

Thanks for the reply. I was honestly wanting to know the reason for the disagreement. There might be a reason that I had not thought of. I meant nothing more by my request other than that.

Everyone brings a part of themselves and their past experiences to the cases that they follow. This can make one see something that others may not have thought of. It could also help to further the discussion of the case at hand and to look at things from a different view. However I can understand the need to step away at times as well.

Best wishes and please know that I didn't intend to make anyone feel ganged up on or the need to defend themselves.

 

[TorisMom003]

Good point about OP's good aim and not hitting the lock. It certainly appears to rule out OP shooting at the door just to open it. Maybe he just shot in uncontrollable anger without the intention of killing Reeva... I think it's called seeing the red mist! In the UK we have "provocation" which iirc can eliminate the element of premeditation (intention in SA) and reduce murder to manslaughter (culpable homicide in SA). I don't know under what circumstances you can use it other than infidelity, which I cannot imagine would work on this case, and for sure the excuse wouldn't work for any old rage.

For me, the type of bullets used ensure certain death. Especially when four of those bullets are aimed at the person behind the door of a very small room with no place to hide and get away from the bullets being fired at them.

MOO