Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[Insp.Dots]

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

Totally agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am similar in that I want to here the 'whole' case. [modsnip]
Ironic considering we are discussing abuse!!

 

[Fairynuff]

Really? From two sets of messages you can conclude all this about the relationship between Reeva and Oscar?

I heard her complaints that he wasn't attentive and acted moody and criticized her. Assuming those things are true, it is not proof of abuse.

I absolutely have no intention of dismissing abuse that women suffer, but to say that these two messages profile an abusive relationship -- so much so that one infers a murderous intent -- diminishes the experience of actual abuse victims.

Maybe it was an abusive relationship, but I do not believe that can be discerned from these messages. Not every jerk is an abuser, and not every pouty and moody guy is an abuser.

the mere fact that his ex girlfriend stood in the witness stand and testified against him for the exact same thing reeva said in her messages, is extremely telling to say the least. only reeva didn't survive to tell her side of the story now did she. and you want to say nothing points to abuse?

 

[Viper]

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.

Quote:
Oscar Pistorius' slain girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp told the Blade Runner in text messages that she was "scared" of him at times, going so far in one text that his temper has made her "scared out of my mind," according to testimony in Pistorius' murder trial today.


http://abcnews.go.com/International...end-scared-mind-text-claims/story?id=23032174

 

[steveml]

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.

 

[steveml]

Totally agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am similar in that I want to here the 'whole' case. There is an air of bullying on this thread and it is getting out of control.
Ironic considering we are discussing abuse!!

I agree entirely. I hope everyone's read the MOD note at the beginning of the thread, It has obviously been noted and it appears that bans are going to be handed out if it carries on. Whatever anyone's personal experiences or feelings towards the victim/accused they should certainly not be aimed towards individual posters.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Changing the subject here a little but Just trying to catch up on today's events and wonder from those who have listened to Mrs Stipp's full testimony about the toilet being lit up but dimly ? lends itself to it being lit up with some light from the bathroom by say a crack in the door which could have been damaged earlier in the evening ? The door could have been damaged but the panels still in place so as to be subsequently shot through and then pried out by hand after the final set of gun shots .

I am still trying to figure out if i believe there was indeed 2 sets of gun shots or whether we are still looking at one set of shots and one set cricket bat noises .
For those who believed it has been proved already that there were only one set of shots the first ones could you just summarise for me where that belief comes from with all the testimony that we have heard so far .
TIA

 

[Viper]

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.

I see lots of talk about culpable homicide. That charge relates to the unintentional killing of a human being; ex: a man gets drunk and drives, has an accident and another man dies, that is unintentional killing, that is culpable homicide. And I read a lot of opinions here about OP getting that charge and not murder, I strongly believe that those opinions are misled. That being said I really don't understand all of the debate about it, I mean either way he is going to prison for at least 15 years! Throw in the other charges and it just gets worse. And as I understand it they do not have a super luxurious prison dedicated for celebrity convicts.

I hope my message does not sound harsh to your ears, it is just the way I think and express those thoughts in a short message.

 

[Really?]

well well well.......finally finished todays testimony.

Poor Reeva......seems she ignored all the red flags in this relationship with OP

controlling ..... disrespectful of her in front of others....jealousy....etc etc etc....

 

[steveml]

well well well.......finally finished todays testimony.

Poor Reeva......seems she ignored all the red flags in this relationship with OP

controlling ..... disrespectful of her in front of others....jealousy....etc etc etc....

A few of my mates are really moody and get overly jealous regarding their girlfriends. It doesn't mean they'd intentionally kill them though.

disclaimer: I'm not suggesting they'd do it by accident either :no:

 

[TorisMom003]

A few of my mates are really moody and get overly jealous regarding their girlfriends. It doesn't mean they'd intentionally kill them though.

disclaimer: I'm not suggesting they'd do it by accident either :no:

I doubt that your mates have had issues of firing guns in a crowded restaurant, out the sunroof of a car while going down the road, leaving a vehicle with gun in hand to go and threaten someone that they perceive to be following them. And if they have, then I hope and pray that someone tells their girlfriends to run for the hills as fast as they possibly can.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I see lots of talk about culpable homicide. That charge relates to the unintentional killing of a human being; ex: a man gets drunk and drives, has an accident and another man dies, that is unintentional killing, that is culpable homicide. And I read a lot of opinions here about OP getting that charge and not murder, I strongly believe that those opinions are misled. That being said I really don't understand all of the debate a out it, I mean either way he is going to prison for at least 15 years! Throw in the other charges and it just gets worse. And as I understand it they do not have a super luxurious prison dedicated for celebrity convicts.

I hope my message does not sound harsh to your ears, it is just the way I think and express those thoughts in a short message.

I have read many cases in the UK where people have been killed by someone in a fit of rage and end up being convicted of manslaughter not murder .My own personal belief is that killing in anger should be still be murder .
We see miscarriage 's of justice everyday ,some people treated too harshly and some too leniently .i guess that will always be the case . No system can ever be perfect I suppose

 

[Bambina]

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.

It is not OP's messages to Reeva that are the issue (though telling). It is Reeva's messages to OP.

 

[Insp.Dots]

I see lots of talk about culpable homicide. That charge relates to the unintentional killing of a human being; ex: a man gets drunk and drives, has an accident and another man dies, that is unintentional killing, that is culpable homicide. And I read a lot of opinions here about OP getting that charge and not murder, I strongly believe that those opinions are misled. That being said I really don't understand all of the debate a out it, I mean either way he is going to prison for at least 15 years! Throw in the other charges and it just gets worse. And as I understand it they do not have a super luxurious prison dedicated for celebrity convicts.

I hope my message does not sound harsh to your ears, it is just the way I think and express those thoughts in a short message.

Personally, I get my opinion from listening to the trial, reading and watching as much about the case as I can fit in but mostly from what several established lawyers and experts have said. Yes, 4 shots through a closed door seems a pretty good case for Murder BUT if the defence can show that OP was not thinking in a clear manner due to be scared, fearful of his life or that it wasn't planned he may get the culpable charge. Considering IMO opinion the defence haven't even started yet I reserve the right to say I am not sure looking at it from pure legalities the case has been proven yet. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE THE MAN OR AM DEFENDING HIM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

 

[Bambina]

I bet the 90% is going to be an issue. Roux is going to painstakingly go through and count all the mundane messages, including the "Oks" and "sures" (or similar) to show that 99% of the messages were normal/non-threatening. Perhaps he will even characterize them as loving.

Did they mention how many messages there were between R and OP?

 

[Really?]

A few of my mates are really moody and get overly jealous regarding their girlfriends. It doesn't mean they'd intentionally kill them though.

disclaimer: I'm not suggesting they'd do it by accident either :no:

I'd like to say that those are not good relationships.....jealousness...arguing about that *advertiser censored* is draining...

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I bet the 90% is going to be an issue. Roux is going to painstakingly go through and count all the mundane messages, including the "Oks" and "sures" (or similar) to show that 99% of the messages were normal/non-threatening. Perhaps he will even characterize them as loving.

Did they mention how many messages there were between R and OP?

I am not sure that they did .
One thing I would like to know is whether or not Reeva's phone messages were deleted and if so when ? or whether they just had to bypass the pin code .
Un less I have missed something this hasn't been confirmed yet ?

 

[wishIknewmore]

Yes, thank you. Didn't she say that she thought about it and realized it wasn't right so she had them correct it? That to me is not shady, it's being honest. If she was shady, she wouldn't have corrected it at all.

I think she's trying to be honest. If all the witnesses said the same exact thing then I would be screaming "collision!"

" So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

Excerpt from:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

There are several other interesting things regarding witnesses memory so its worth reading.

 

[Really?]

OP pointed the gun at a door to a (small) toilet room knowing their was a person or persons behind that door........

He had options......he chose to shoot to kill.....in SA that is enough for premeditation........:drumroll:

 

[steveml]

I doubt that your mates have had issues of firing guns in a crowded restaurant, out the sunroof of a car while going down the road, leaving a vehicle with gun in hand to go and threaten someone that they perceive to be following them. And if they have, then I hope and pray that someone tells their girlfriends to run for the hills as fast as they possibly can.

I see the connection of OP's diabolically irresponsible gun use and the shooting of Reeva, although I don't see that this has any bearing on the status of their relationship. I understand the idea of keeping daughters away from bad guys, but this isn't what the trial is about.

If bad guys intentionally killed, bank robbers would all be single.

 

[TorisMom003]

I am watching the testimony from this morning. This defense lawyer came out of the gate with a tone that would put anyone off in a matter of seconds, IMO. It's no wonder that Mrs. Stipp was on the defensive.

As to the question of if the other defense lawyer was in court all morning, yes he is there but is hidden from camera view at the time of the cross examine by the defense.

MOO