Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Cherwell]

But other than Oscar's story, what is to say Oscar didn't fire the shots, then call stander before doing anything else?.

That's a possibility - if he knew all along that it was Reeva in the loo, and that he had just shot her to death. Panic and horror, call someone to sort it all out?

No matter what I say... people can and will suggest alternatives... speculate.
It is unlikely that OP was so aware of an upcoming court case involving times of events, that he "faked" anything.
It is not likely that in the minute or so he thought "right, I have shot her, now I have to do all this stuff really fast, slot in a phone call early just to screw up the State case that might be made in the future... I only have a minute"

It was not just one phone call.. it was 3? a few seconds apart, including describing Reeva's injuries and so it was AFTER he had bashed open the door, dragged her body out and was kneeling over her in a pool of blood in the bathroom.

I must have missed the bit where he "described Reeva's injuries". What did he say, and to whom?

 

[Val1]

However as the expert pointed out....the other messages were short one line sentences or just a few words. The messages pointed out were long emotional type ones....about "feelings".....ie .....Houston, we have a problem.

Hmm, and yet I don't recall even a single solitary "feelings" type message was found or presented by either the defense or prosecution where the three simple words most often used to convey being in love or in a loving relationship, I love you, were said, not from or to OP, among what 7000+ messages? Yup, definitely a problem.

 

[MeeBee]

Hmm, and yet I don't recall even a single solitary "feelings" type message was found or presented by either the defense or prosecution where the three simple words most often used to convey being in love or in a loving relationship, I love you, were said, not from or to OP, among what 7000+ messages? Yup, definitely a problem.

I could have sworn I saw a text where Oscar did say I love you. Going back to see.

 

[luvmygarden]

And what I see is those on the firmly guilty side have many different theories about what happened, theories that don't even support the state's case. They themselves are confident in their theories but this is certainly a problem for me and has created even more doubt. If a clear picture of the state's case hasn't come through and a clear picture of what happened that night has not emerged that is a problem. At this point, it should be clearer what the state wants to say. That to me shows that state's case is not as strong as I initially thought it would be. So many unanswered questions yet so many are so convicted they have it all figured out.

That's O.K. I believe all the questions re: States case is in anticipation of what the defense will throw out to the court. Until the defense presents their case there are questions. There are anticipated changes to the knowledge of the case. Maybe a futile waste of time on all our parts to read and write opinions but if no one did this whole case could be archived.
Jodie Arias case brought out questions for both sides when both had their time in court and it also gave the state more questions to ask and boy did JA give some answers that were quite profound. The defendant in that case loved every minute of her trial. Until the END that is.
I am sure OP just wants it over and done and won.

 

[Gryffindor]

I think that anyone who has been in a jealous, controlling, abusive, manipulative .. even violent .. relationship .. the minute they started hearing those messages being read out, would've related to every single one of them .. and I think you would either have had to have been in that kind of relationship in order to be able to recognise it, or you would've had to have had some kind of training in it.

Also, anyone who knows anything about domestic abuse and violence will understand that the fact a relationship is perfectly normal and loving for 90% of the time doesn't mean that it's not an abusive one, because that is actually how those kinds of relationships work .. i.e. the abuser is not being abusive or manipulative continually, it comes in bursts and as the relationship progresses it becomes progressively more frequent.

Thank you for putting that so beautifully! You're spot on. I was in a highly abusive, hellish relationship which I got out of VERY swiftly. All the textbook behaviours started after merely a month or 2!! They escalated rapidly and became the "norm" frighteningly quickly! The messages sent shivers down my spine :-(

The MOST telling phrase was "don't want to rock the boat". Tells everything, from my own horrific, life-threatening experience x

 

[james83]

OP phoned first... but the legend lives on! :floorlaugh:

That does not change the fact that there was no time to do all that he had to do before phoning.

WHAT sort of things do you imagine he was doing after fobbing off Baba?

I'll tell you what he wasn't doing, taking reeva to hospital like he claimed he was told to.

 

[Val1]

Mangena said they only open up when they hit human flesh.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-12--ballistics-expert-provides-damning-testimony-against-the-blade-runner-133426019.html

Roux told Mangena that the bullets might have deflected course as they passed through the door. No, Mangena replied, "Black Talon only opens up when it hits a moist target like human flesh."

 

[Rumpole]

That's a possibility - if he knew all along that it was Reeva in the loo, and that he had just shot her to death. Panic and horror, call someone to sort it all out?



I must have missed the bit where he "described Reeva's injuries". What did he say, and to whom?

Phoned Netcare and described injuries and was told to bring her in to hospital himself.

 

[Viper]

Hmm, and yet I don't recall even a single solitary "feelings" type message was found or presented by either the defense or prosecution where the three simple words most often used to convey being in love or in a loving relationship, I love you, were said, not from or to OP, among what 7000+ messages? Yup, definitely a problem.

I love you. That is one of the most difficult things to tell someone for the first time if you really mean it. It's significant that the two of them didn't use those exact three words, and use them often to reaffirm their feelings to one another this early in the relationship.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm not talking about the brainstorming aspect of this. Surely, we're all brainstorming. But, again, at this point, if we have to brainstorm the state's case then, again, that's a problem.

There wouldn't really be a lot of point having these threads if we weren't all discussing the various different scenarios and possibilities and trying to fathom out what really happened (as, I would imagine, people are doing on every other section of this board in regard to all sorts of other cases, too) .. .. I can't see the point of this line of discussion, it has nothing to do with discussing the actual case itself.

 

[Really?]

Hmm, and yet I don't recall even a single solitary "feelings" type message was found or presented by either the defense or prosecution where the three simple words most often used to convey being in love or in a loving relationship, I love you, were said, not from or to OP, among what 7000+ messages? Yup, definitely a problem.

Someone mentioned or asked that before......was it you?...great point !!

 

[MeeBee]

That's O.K. I believe all the questions re: States case is in anticipation of what the defense will throw out to the court. Until the defense presents their case there are questions. There are anticipated changes to the knowledge of the case. Maybe a futile waste of time on all our parts to read and write opinions but if no one did this whole case could be archived.
Jodie Arias case brought out questions for both sides when both had their time in court and it also gave the state more questions to ask and boy did JA give some answers that were quite profound. The defendant in that case loved every minute of her trial. Until the END that is.
I am sure OP just wants it over and done and won.

I understand this luvs. I just think the state's case should be clearer. But that's just MO. And I'm certainly not saying people aren't entitled to their opinions or that they can't have differing theories or I'm upset that no one agrees with me. Just that, for me, personally, it's a problem when after the state's case, things are still so unclear.

I find the JA trial an anomaly in that the state's case got even better as the trial went on after he'd rested. The difference there was a defendant who told so many lies that it allowed him to bring in new evidence and pin her down. It also allowed him to ask questions about things that he probably wouldn't have if JA hadn't nailed herself down to something on direct exam, for instance her finger and the texts on the day of the alleged pedo pics and breaking of said finger. If she had never gotten nailed down on those he never would have asked.

But the thing is even after the state rested we had a clear idea of what happened. Jodi got mad at Travis, planned his murder, staged a gun burglary, staged an alibi, drove down to Travis, killed him, then drove on to her alibi. 1, 2, 3. Juan didn't need cross exam or the defense CIC to make his case clearer. It certainty didn't hurt.

There's still a lot of questions here. And I know that all cases won't have a clear answer or an exact recounting of what happened. But, usually, what the state wants to say is clearer. That's my only point. Certainly wasn't chastising anyone for having different theories. Just, that, for me it was a problem because it's making it even more confusing that the state has so many different possibilities instead of a clear idea of what they want to say.

 

[Val1]

I'm not talking about the brainstorming aspect of this. Surely, we're all brainstorming. But, again, at this point, if we have to brainstorm the state's case then, again, that's a problem.

You've never played the game of guessing what all the ingredients are and how a dish was prepared? Sure the ingredients may not be exactly the same(lemon juice/milk instead of buttermilk, margarine instead of butter, etc) as what was used or how it was constructed, but amazingly the end results can be identical.

Recipes may not be the best analogy, but the best I could come up with... :twocents:

 

[james83]

Phoned Netcare and described injuries and was told to bring her in to hospital himself.

Where did you read this because his affidavit says "I phoned netcare and asked for help".

 

[jay-jay]

I love you. That is one of the most difficult things to tell someone for the first time if you really mean it. It's significant that the two of them didn't use those exact three words, and use them often to reaffirm their feelings to one another this early in the relationship.

Yes, that struck me, too .. and strangely, rather than finding their relationship a 'normal, loving' one .. it actually comes across to me as being an intensely obsessive one, unhealthy so. Listen to what her friend Phuti Khomo says here at 19:57-20.40 about how 'overwhelming' the relationship was and the 'intensity' of it, which 'took it's toll' ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MedbKo8mgs

 

[MeeBee]

There wouldn't really be a lot of point having these threads if we weren't all discussing the various different scenarios and possibilities and trying to fathom out what really happened (as, I would imagine, people are doing on every other section of this board in regard to all sorts of other cases, too) .. .. I can't see the point of this line of discussion, it has nothing to do with discussing the actual case itself.

I can't see the point either but people keep asking me about it so I keep responding. \o/. My original point was about the case.

I'm not saying we can't float ideas around here, I've been here a while, I know what these threads are for and how they work. All I was saying was the different very different theories some of have of what happened are making it even more difficult for me to say the state made their case and it's making it harder for me because that means the state has not made a clear case of what they want to say. Just, he intended to kill someone.

 

[Rumpole]

That's a possibility - if he knew all along that it was Reeva in the loo, and that he had just shot her to death. Panic and horror, call someone to sort it all out?



I must have missed the bit where he "described Reeva's injuries". What did he say, and to whom?

Rather than pick away at every detail, which is an endless occupation since people can speculate endlessly....

The point I am making is that the State contention of shots at 3:17 means that after firing the shots, after perhaps a minute OP would have had to have got on the phone even before gaining access to the toilet to see what damage had been done... that is a daft notion to say the least, as it stands, but further than that, having alerted people and with them only minutes away he would have had to rush around doing a whole bunch of stuff. It simply makes no sense at all.

I am convinced that the shots were the "first bangs" and the second bangs were bat on door. I don't even see any doubt about that. To deny that requires a presumption of guilt and to deny reality if it does not fit that presumption. Which is known in the trade as delusion.

 

[MeeBee]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-12--ballistics-expert-provides-damning-testimony-against-the-blade-runner-133426019.html

Isn't that what I said?

:waitasec:

 

[MeeBee]

You've never played the game of guessing what all the ingredients are and how a dish was prepared? Sure the ingredients may not be exactly the same(lemon juice/milk instead of buttermilk, margarine instead of butter, etc) as what was used or how it was constructed, but amazingly the end results can be identical.

Recipes may not be the best analogy, but the best I could come up with... :twocents:

:facepalm:

 

[steveml]

I think that anyone who has been in a jealous, controlling, abusive, manipulative .. even violent .. relationship .. the minute they started hearing those messages being read out, would've related to every single one of them .. and I think you would either have had to have been in that kind of relationship in order to be able to recognise it, or you would've had to have had some kind of training in it.

Also, anyone who knows anything about domestic abuse and violence will understand that the fact a relationship is perfectly normal and loving for 90% of the time doesn't mean that it's not an abusive one, because that is actually how those kinds of relationships work .. i.e. the abuser is not being abusive or manipulative continually, it comes in bursts and as the relationship progresses it becomes progressively more frequent.

I've read the signs, and the websites, and know people who have unfortunately been in abusive relationships and I still disagree that you can simply suggest that this is an abusive relationship on the basis of 4 disagreements from a sample total of 1700.

If I'd have seen anything more frequent and progressively worse I'd agree. But from the 1st message until the 1700th nothing get's progressively worse.

About 99.7% of all the messages sent between Reeva have nothing remotely indicating disagreement, and of that 99.7%, a total of about 90% were indicating affection.