Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[zwiebel]

Well, what have I learned so far?

1. If those messages are anything to go by I should have been murdered a long time ago. Some of my girlfriends messages to me have been more severe than that, and with language not nearly as polite.

2. A witness who I was led to believe was an upstanding decent member of the community may not only have a selective memory, but may also selectively lie when coerced by the state. Where would you like me to hold this curtain whilst I'm not meant to be here?

Amazing how that hardly got a sniff on here. The mind boggles.,

I must say that Ms. Stipp did really well though, as she did get a hard time. I don't see much purpose in pushing a witness that hard.

I sniffed really hard at the curtain thing, Lol!

From early on I thought that OW had got the wrong end of the stick and was presuming the curtains tied with a tieback to a HOOK on the wall - maybe he has that type at home? Therefore, if those ties were not hooked back on the hooks that night, Mrs Stipp would not be able to see.

All fair enough and logical, but they were not that kind of tie. To be very technical for a moment......they were a sort of rope thingy, operatable (?) from the pillow.

The faffing around bit - 'your hand is in the photo, therefore those curtains cannot be seen past without holding them out of the way' was just silly. It would be highly unusual to have curtains that can be drawn, but not enough for a person to see out of the window.....and it was blatantly obvious those curtains were not that kind. Nel amply demonstrated that with the shot from outside, where her bed was clearly visible (that would freak me out, knowing passers by could see me laying in bed...) and her bedside table. Or pedestal, as OW likes to call them.

He did succeed in showing she was in the room when she had very firmly stated she was not though. That seemed like another instance of minor4th's point about witnesses who absolutely refuse to concede there is any possibility they are remembering wrong, backing themselves needlessly into corners.

I think Mrs Stipp was finally recalling she was not in the room when the first photos were taken, but there were others where she was, and she was finally remembering once she saw her hand there. I do think she had just forgotten; unfortunately her insisting on being right at first ended up making her look a little dishonest.

Having said that, I don't know if it was worth the point OW scored, because he had to enter into a debate with the judge to do it, where she forcefully disagreed with some of his points. I'd think it's never a good idea to start debating with your trial judge, but I'm not a defence attorney.

I'll stop with the curtain talk now...

 

[Cherwell]

Oh no. I clicked the link. I can't believe I've got Daily Star history on my PC now. Any credibility I might have had has now gone in an instant.

Just off to reformat my PC
:runaway:

It's no good, the cops will have an expert who can retrieve it all :floorlaugh:

 

[zwiebel]

Men are terrible with curtains. I realize that's controversial. I will apologise as soon as a man who is great with them pops on and asks me to, promise.

 

[TorisMom003]

Still listening to the defense cross examine Mrs. Stipp and I am wanting to slap the carp out of him and his horrible tone he is using with her. The use of his Mrs. STIpp is ticking me off. While he is arguing with her about "lost time" the only thing that is going through my mind is how about the "lost time" that his client has between the "first shots" and when he finally decided to get help for Reeva.

MOO

 

[Viper]

Yes, I do believe that is a good thing in many ways, harsh though that may seem. ONE THING THAT CAN NEVER BE CHANGED IS THE TRUTH. OP will have no argument in the future to say the evidence wasn't properly tested or that he suffered a Miscarriage of Justice.[/QUOTE]

BIB. Oooh, he will find one.

 

[steveml]

I sniffed really hard at the curtain thing, Lol!

From early on I thought that OW had got the wrong end of the stick and was presuming the curtains tied with a tieback to a HOOK on the wall - maybe he has that type at home? Therefore, if those ties were not hooked back on the hooks that night, Mrs Stipp would not be able to see.

All fair enough and logical, but they were not that kind of tie. To be very technical for a moment......they were a sort of rope thingy, operatable (?) from the pillow.

The faffing around bit - 'your hand is in the photo, therefore those curtains cannot be seen past without holding them out of the way' was just silly. It would be highly unusual to have curtains that can be drawn, but not enough for a person to see out of the window.....and it was blatantly obvious those curtains were not that kind. Nel amply demonstrated that with the shot from outside, where her bed was clearly visible (that would freak me out, knowing passers by could see me laying in bed...) and her bedside table. Or pedestal, as OW likes to call them.

He did succeed in showing she was in the room when she had very firmly stated she was not though. That seemed like another instance of minor4th's point about witnesses who absolutely refuse to concede there is any possibility they are remembering wrong, backing themselves needlessly into corners.

I think Mrs Stipp was finally recalling she was not in the room when the first photos were taken, but there were others where she was, and she was finally remembering once she saw her hand there. I do think she had just forgotten; unfortunately her insisting on being right at first ended up making her look a little dishonest.

Having said that, I don't know if it was worth the point OW scored, because he had to enter into a debate with the judge to do it, where she forcefully disagreed with some of his points. I'd think it's never a good idea to start debating with your trial judge, but I'm not a defence attorney.

I'll stop with the curtain talk now...

Good post. Yep, that was really his only big moment but it did prove a point I guess. Ms Stipp handled herself very well I thought. I really don't like the method of questioning, whereby they seem to ask the same question in 10 different ways until you become that confused you trip yourself up. That's a bit naughty in my book.

 

[Cherwell]

He did succeed in showing she was in the room when she had very firmly stated she was not though. That seemed like another instance of minor4th's point about witnesses who absolutely refuse to concede there is any possibility they are remembering wrong, backing themselves needlessly into corners.

I think Mrs Stipp was finally recalling she was not in the room when the first photos were taken, but there were others where she was, and she was finally remembering once she saw her hand there. I do think she had just forgotten; unfortunately her insisting on being right at first ended up making her look a little dishonest.

But it was petty and meaningless.

If this had been an ordinary conversation outside a courtroom, when she said she wasn't there you would say, "Ah, but this was taken on the Friday (or whatever) and you were there then". It would just be a misunderstanding of no significance, clarified there and then.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well, what I got from court today was that the only person who was terrified and in fear for their life was Reeva. The abuse wasn't a one-off, it was a pattern of behaviour (which Sam Taylor also testified to in court). OP was jealous, possessive, controlling, demanding, short-tempered and insecure (no doubt why he preferred teenagers to more mature women). I feel extremely sad for Reeva, who was in a situation she thought she could make better, but any abused woman will tell you (and I was one of them) that nothing you do will make them feel better. They will just find other things to complain about until you're worn out from second-guessing what you might have done wrong (again).

I wonder if Reeva had told OP she was going to mention her own abuse (by him) at her talk the next day? We know he likes to keep his dark side private, so no way would he want anyone thinking he was less than 'perfect' The messages between them convince me that Reeva was in a classic textbook abusive relationship that millions of others have been in (and who have also ended up dead). Once we strip OP of his celebrity status, he's just another guy with serious anger and control issues who lost control and murdered someone.

 

[steveml]

Still listening to the defense cross examine Mrs. Stipp and I am wanting to slap the carp out of him and his horrible tone he is using with her. The use of his Mrs. STIpp is ticking me off. While he is arguing with her about "lost time" the only thing that is going through my mind is how about the "lost time" that his client has between the "first shots" and when he finally decided to get help for Reeva.

MOO

I think the times when he fills his lungs in exasperation is really condescending. Likewise when be breathes out and sighs. In fact, just when he breathes...

 

[zwiebel]

I watched a documentary about the Anni Derwani murder last night (hubby's trial coming to a court in SA soon!). In that Caoe Town trial of the men already convicted in her murder, SA investigators had got the destinations of msgs and times sent, but for some reason there was just a great big hole about the msg contents - they had not bothered or were not able, to retrieve the texts themselves.

I had nightmares all night the same thing would happen here. I was so relieved this morning, when that first text flashed up on screen.

ETA. Caoe?? I meant Cape Town....

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Well, what I got from court today was that the only person who was terrified and in fear for their life was Reeva. The abuse wasn't a one-off, it was a pattern of behaviour (which Sam Taylor also testified to in court). OP was jealous, possessive, controlling, demanding, short-tempered and insecure (no doubt why he preferred teenagers to more mature women). I feel extremely sad for Reeva, who was in a situation she thought she could make better, but any abused woman will tell you (and I was one of them) that nothing you do will make them feel better. They will just find other things to complain about until you're worn out from second-guessing what you might have done wrong (again).

I wonder if Reeva had told OP she was going to mention her own abuse (by him) at her talk the next day? We know he likes to keep his dark side private, so no way would he want anyone thinking he was less than 'perfect' The messages between them convince me that Reeva was in a classic textbook abusive relationship that millions of others have been in (and who have also ended up dead). Once we strip OP of his celebrity status, he's just another guy with serious anger and control issues who lost control and murdered someone.

Sorry for your own experience.
As Reeva was scared of his temper I doubt that she would have told him but maybe he read her speech somehow .
I think her speech must have been written somewhere and could shed further light on things .

 

[luvmygarden]

Yes after awhile the abuser gains so much control that all it takes is a look or expression you are familiar with to set off the warning that something is going to be bad. So sounds like she was aware enough of his moods that she knew where it was going. The mental abuse is quite harming in a relationship with this kind of person as OP no bruises or blood needs to be seen there is pain unseen toward the abused no one can see. I believe she probably was done with him. He did not accept it and killed her.

 

[zwiebel]

Can anyone remember the text where OP is asking her not to tell anyone because 'Darren has taken the blame', and Reeva texts back she doesn't 'know what you are talking about', and a smiley?

How did Reeva find out about that - she wasn't there in the restaurant that day of the shooting. Had OP told her earlier, and was regretting it? Or had he heard that someone else had told her about it? It's all a bit odd.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

But it was petty and meaningless.

If this had been an ordinary conversation outside a courtroom, when she said she wasn't there you would say, "Ah, but this was taken on the Friday (or whatever) and you were there then". It would just be a misunderstanding of no significance, clarified there and then.

I need to re. Read all the curtain testimony again . The position and how many pillows could account for what she saw that night .
When I have a cold I sleep with two or three pillows but normally only one.
Did the pictures actually show anybody laid on the bed ? I haven't seen any yet .
In any event curtains with tie backs can vary daily . My poor hubby always pulls them back too much whereas I arrange them neatly and a little more closed so as not to crease them too much .

 

[zwiebel]

That text is making me wonder about Darren - maybe he and Reeva were close? Two texts seem to refer to him.

 

[luvmygarden]

Scared of him snapping at her. That is a far cry from being scared that he would physically harm her.

And that was yet to come she didn't know the danger that lied ahead and she lost the last argument. RIP Reeva.

 

[luvmygarden]

We can now all clearly picture a furious OP on the night of the murder. Remember RS met up with her ex the day prior & OP txt her twice whilst she was with him. Are we going to see these txt messages?

With Africa not having a problem with hearsay maybe the Ex will be a witness and tell us what he and she talked about the day before.

 

[Viper]

Can anyone remember the text where OP is asking her not to tell anyone because 'Darren has taken the blame', and Reeva texts back she doesn't 'know what you are talking about', and a smiley?

How did Reeva find out about that - she wasn't there in the restaurant that day of the shooting. Had OP told her earlier, and was regretting it? Or had he heard that someone else had told her about it? It's all a bit odd.

She knew! They probably talked about it live or on the phone. Her reply was a cute way of saying, "Gotcha! I don't know anything about it! :smile:". Meaning your secret is safe with me, I won't discuss it with anyone.

 

[zwiebel]

There are a couple of interviews with Reeva's friends - one a young woman whose home she was living in, I believe? They were subtly suggesting not a relationship with ups and downs, but a relationship failing after just three months; growing progressively worse because of one person 'loving too much' or something like that. It suggested there might be powerful personal testimony there.

I wonder if such testimony would be hearsay and not admissable, as it is all likely to have been Reeva confiding only in words, to a friend?

 

[soozieqtips]

And it would appear that Mrs Steenkamp was not lying or embellishing when she said Reeva had told her she was unhappy and fighting with OP a LOT. The text messages prove it, and we're only up to Feb 7th.