Trial Discussion Thread #15

[kittychi]

They don't come across as major rows to me. For a major row to occur you would expect some kind of continued disagreement.
At least a few messages backwards and forwards - but there's hardly any evidence to show that these comments went any further.

BBM...There is evidence of a final row, however: Reeva Steenkamp was shot four times and died.

 

[Viper]

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?

He had even MORE stuff to do after that!!! Going downstairs to open car doors, carrying Reeva's body down stairs etc

Do you think he was also arranging the crime scene having instantly worked out what would be needed? Again he only had a few minutes before people were on the scene. He was having to nip about so fast that night it's a wonder why he did not put on his blades, rather than prosthetic legs

BIB. Perhaps. If so the first thing is to think of an excuse, I mean Reeva is dead and OP can't bring her back so why should he pay a price too, right? So he decided on the tried and true intruder story. The natural thing to do next is add some props. So IMO he got the box of watches from the storage cabinet and took them to the Bathroom and set them by the window. While he was there he opened the window. Really just has to grab his legs and make a few seconds Long phone calls now. He takes Reeva downstairs, getting his hands bloody. Pretends she Is still alive and fakes performing CPR. Now with all the people around he comes to his senses about the watches prop and runs back upstairs to get them out of the bathroom, he puts them on the cabinet as he runs out the door.

 

[Rumpole]

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

Sorry I can not give you a link. I have read it many times. It seems to be accepted.. the State are not making an issue of the fact that OP carried Reeva down stairs, that the car doors were open in preparation for transporting Reeva.

 

[minor4th]

I don't think people are suggesting witnesses have lied, that's perhaps the wrong word and would suggest some kind of conspiracy (noooo, not going down that road) it's more a case of questioning reliability of recollection. The nature of the speed at which media moves today makes it very difficult for someone to provide a statement free from any outside influence, unless that statement's made very early before any press release.

Mrs Stipp herself would not admit that memory recollection can be difficult at times, even when Roux asked her...and ironically this was just after she said she couldn't remember holding the curtain back. If she'd simply agreed she'd have gone up in credibility with me. I find it hard to put my total faith in a witness statement, when the witness will not accept that they could be mistaken, even after it's been shown that they clearly were.

As it happens, I've not dismissed her statement, just made a 'handle with caution' note.

The messages don't reveal anything unusual to me. Now, if there was a single solitary threat, either within the huge amount of messages, heard by a single member of the public, or discussed by Reeva to somebody else, I'd be in agreement quicker than a quick thing.

I have actually suggested that a couple of witnesses lied. Mrs. Stipp, Darren Fresco and Vermeulen come to mind.

 

[Gryffindor]

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.

That's because the abuser does, says, damages etc face to face.

 

[steveml]

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.

Roux was responding directly to the states expert witness. He's not spoken yet.

 

[jay-jay]

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

Yes, same here, Gryffindor .. well done for getting out quick, mine took me a couple of years to get out of, mainly because I kept getting manipulated back into it again because of the '90% of the time was loving and normal' thing, and you find yourself thinking that because of that, you must be imagining the other 10% (actually, I would put it at more like 99% good and only 1% bad, and yet it still ended with him breaking into my house and trashing the place .. when has that ever been normal?).

I'm really trying hard not to be biased though, or reading things into it just because I've been there .. but some of the things just sound too close for comfort, and really ring loud alarm bells .. mainly because everyone I have come into contact with in some of my many discussions with other people who have been in a DV/DA situation previously all tell me the exact same things about their abusive partners. It's almost as if all those abusive partners have some kind of 'Domestic Abuse for Dummies' handbook, because they all say virtually the exact same things or behave in the exact same way .. I've always found it so astonishing that they act independently, and yet all act in the exact same way!

 

[Rumpole]

The first thing is to think of an excuse, I mean Reeva is dead and OP can't bring her back so why should he pay a price too, right? So he decided on the tried and true intruder story. The natural thing to do next is add some props. So IMO he got the box of watches from the storage cabinet and took them to the Bathroom and set them by the window. While he was there he opened the window. Really just has to grab his legs and make a few seconds Long phone calls now. He takes Reeva downstairs, getting his hands bloody. Pretends she Is still alive and fakes performing CPR. Now with all the people around he comes to his senses about the watches prop and runs back upstairs to get them out of the bathroom, he puts them on the cabinet as he runs out the door.

Nice story.. pure speculation. Can never be proved one way or the other..... NEXT!

 

[Really?]

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.

I don't fully comprehend the assertion that the gun shots first or last makes much of a difference, really. Reeva is dead....gone...she can't tell us what happened. We have OP's story only....and of course the states witnesses to get a clearer picture......he fully meant to kill the person behind the door......not finding out who/what it was is the suspicious part to me.....he knew she was in the master suite. All reasonable thinking is that he should have know or at least find out first who/what it was before he riddled the door and person behind it. boom

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

I think three abusive upsets in three weeks just before the poor girl is murdered is a situation not to be disregarded. These upsets were not spread over 1700 texts - that is Roux trying to plant a false impression. I shall be very interested to hear the date of the fourth.

In my earlier post I said rows but that was the wrong word as it infers raising voices. Difficult to do that in texts but, rest assured, if they have been in each other's company their voices would have been raised.

 

[steveml]

That's because the abuser does, says, damages etc face to face.

Well the obvious answer to that is we have no evidence to support it. We can't just assume somebody has done something without some kind of proof.
That's about as useful in court as saying 'I don't like the look of him'. Fine, but it means nothing.

Unfortunately Reeva can't tell us any more about the relationship, if there was an issue unfortunately she's not told friends, family, work colleagues or anybody else. Unless something is yet to be presented in court that's the way it is I'm afraid.

 

[jay-jay]

That's because the abuser does, says, damages etc face to face.

That is correct (My Lady) :yes:

 

[steveml]

I think three abusive upsets in three weeks just before the poor girl is murdered is a situation not to be disregarded. These upsets were not spread over 1700 texts - that is Roux trying to plant a false impression. I shall be very interested to hear the date of the fourth.

In my earlier post I said rows but that was the wrong word as it infers raising voices. Difficult to do that in texts but, rest assured, if they have been in each other's company their voices would have been raised.

Whatever Roux is trying to do, the state have been through every message and every text.
They've played their hand, and are probably as surprised as me that they haven't found anything more incriminating.
They don't get another chance with the messages, those were all they could find.

 

[Viper]

Nice story.. pure speculation. Can never be proved one way or the other..... NEXT!

I don't know, maybe Oscar will write a book. He's going to need some money after he gets out of prison.

 

[Rumpole]

I don't fully comprehend the assertion that the gun shots first or last makes much of a difference, really. Reeva is dead....gone...she can't tell us what happened. We have OP's story only....and of course the states witnesses to get a clearer picture......he fully meant to kill the person behind the door......not finding out who/what it was is the suspicious part to me.....he knew she was in the master suite. All reasonable thinking is that he should have know or at least find out first who/what it was before he riddled the door and person behind it. boom

The difference is...... IF OP shot KNOWING Reeva was behind the door.. then I for one would want him found guilty of the highest degree of murder possible in SA.. sentenced to LWOP.

IF he shot thinking it was an intruder, then the crime (if any) is open to debate.. depends on details of law in SA. Personally I do not have a problem with shooting to kill an intruder. If OP genuinely thought he was doing just that, then it becomes a case of mistaken identity.. an accident even, but I imagine some sort of lesser crime such as manslaughter (or the SA equivalent)

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

After reading your post, I just banged my head against a wall:banghead:. If you read the evidence, the known three emotionally abusive incidents happened in the four weeks immediately prior to OP murdering RS. We will hear about the 4th one very soon and it will not suprise me if this is very near the other three. Time will tell. These were conversations not single messages.

 

[Rumpole]

I don't know, maybe Oscar will write a book. He's going to need some money after he gets out of prison.

I never buy the books... last one I bought was "Helter Skelter" back in the 70's

He wont be going to prison (IMO) unless Nel puts down his cup of tea and actually presents a case

 

[Interested Bystander]

Whatever Roux is trying to do, the state have been through every message and every text.
They've played their hand, and are probably as surprised as me that they haven't found anything more incriminating.
They don't get another chance with the messages, those were all they could find.

Nope, there was one that Roux did not read out because it was about Reeva and he did not feel it appropriate at the time out but said something like "you will hear about this later".

All the messages were put into evidence by Nel. We most definitely will hear more about them. The other point was that the IT specialist said that it was not just 4 messages but 4 conversations. Why would Roux say 4 messages - he is a prize liar IMO.

 

[MeeBee]

Nope, there was one that Roux did not read out because it was about Reeva and he did not feel it appropriate at the time out but said something like "you will hear about this later".

All the messages were put into evidence by Nel. We most definitely will hear more about them. The other point was that the IT specialist said that it was not just 4 messages but 4 conversations. Why would Roux say 4 messages - he is a prize liar IMO.

It was Roux that found a text that he didn't want to read out because it would reveal personal things about Reeva and he didn't feel it appropriate. I don't remember if he was the one that said, "you'll hear about this later," though.

ETA: never mind you said Roux, I apologize.

 

[Gryffindor]

Yes, same here, Gryffindor .. well done for getting out quick, mine took me a couple of years to get out of, mainly because I kept getting manipulated back into it again because of the '90% of the time was loving and normal' thing, and you find yourself thinking that because of that, you must be imagining the other 10% (actually, I would put it at more like 99% good and only 1% bad, and yet it still ended with him breaking into my house and trashing the place .. when has that ever been normal?).

I'm really trying hard not to be biased though, or reading things into it just because I've been there .. but some of the things just sound too close for comfort, and really ring loud alarm bells .. mainly because everyone I have come into contact with in some of my many discussions with other people who have been in a DV/DA situation previously all tell me the exact same things about their abusive partners. It's almost as if all those abusive partners have some kind of 'Domestic Abuse for Dummies' handbook, because they all say virtually the exact same things or behave in the exact same way .. I've always found it so astonishing that they act independently, and yet all act in the exact same way!

Lol love the dummies reference! ;-) I was actually expecting at the time, my 1st child (daughter) and he knew this! I valued my unborn child and myself more than that scum psycho (her dad) although he fitted in a heck of a lot of varied abuse before I eventually got out.

There are indeed a list of symptoms, if you will, which characterise these abusers and in Reeva's limited messages, Oscar conveyed and displayed every one!! Funnily enough, I'd attempted to lock myself for protection in a (tiny) bathroom too . . . . .

Oh and eventually you feel like breathing in front of them is "rocking the boat" :-\

I literally feared for my life just before I escaped - literally had to. Escape. No other way possible.