Trial Discussion Thread #15

[steveml]

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.

We have very little fact in this case. We do however know one fact. If someone is abusive towards someone else in a relationship, there is a good chance they will continue to do so with future partners.
However, the facts tell us that 99.99% (and however many more) of these people, will not go on to eventually intentionally shoot their partners.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

I think it has to be taken more on the basis of the length of the relationship rather than the number of text messages, which can run into thousands simply because they can be one word, one smiley, a few xxxx's, back and forth .. I can clock up hundreds of those sorts of messages on another forum I belong to, plus also when I used to MSN message with my abusive ex partner, we could clock up hundreds of them, just in one night (and Whats App is only a mobile phone version of MSN messenger, basically). So, quite honestly, I wouldn't put too much faith in the fact that there were 1000's of 'normal' messages because that's fairly easily done, and is quite the norm these days .. it doesn't really have a great deal to do with whether a relationship is normal or not.

They had actually only been dating for 3 months, and to me, that is what is more relevant .. the fact that there were four extremely concerning exchanges during the third month (i.e. they had only been dating around two months by then), and they are not the type of message you would expect to see between a couple during the first flush of love, and they are not just arguments about normal stuff, these are much deeper disagreements which relate to OP being controlling and possessive. Also, as said, much of the stuff would've been carried out face to face .. don't forget, these phone messages actually relate to things that have actually taken place at a previous point in time, and something which has prompted the text arguments .. so, not only do you have the text disagreement but you have the actual occasion (for instance, the engagement party) itself where things weren't going quite so swimmingly. Those text messages cannot just be taken in isolation, but they were a really big indicator as to what was going on/going wrong with that relationship .. a massive indicator, in fact.

 

[james83]

So going by Oscar's story
Reeva has been dragged out of the toilet and is laying on the bathroom floor
Oscar's call's Netcare and the call ends at 3:21:11
He runs down to open the front door as he had been told to bring her in.
So he's then going to carry her down to his car?, er no he calls security and cries down the phone at 3:21:33
Then answers the phone to security and says everything is fine at 3:22:21
and finally carries Reeva down at the time Stander and Baba arrive at 3:26
So how come he was told to to take Reeva to hospital at 3.21.11 but doesn't carry her down the stairs till over four and a half minutes later?.

 

[minor4th]

So sorry, but 3 messages that some consider "emotionally abusive" does not tend to show that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva.

And this is why I brought up Alyce LaViolette the other day - after MeeBee brought this to my attention - making broad conclusions about this relationship as abusive based on three texts is exactly what ALV was trying to do to Travis. She looked at a few cherry picked text messages and concluded that he was abusive, and I'll bet most of you thought she was completely absurd for such a suggestion.

 

[Gryffindor]

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.

Indeed so. Point also being you don't tell anyone. I didn't either. You don't want to tell anyone. You CAN'T tell anyone . . . .

 

[steveml]

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

Ah, I see a storm brewing :wink:

:escape:

 

[steveml]

Indeed so. Point also being you don't tell anyone. I didn't either. You don't want to tell anyone. You CAN'T tell anyone . . . .

I do appreciate that, and I'm not for one minute trying to be insensitive.

:whiteflag:

 

[jay-jay]

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.

The proof is in Reeva's text messages, where she is referring to certain occasions where OP behaved badly towards her .. and in front of other people, too. Each of her messages refers to something which happened in real life, so they are the proof of his behaviour towards her.

 

[minor4th]

Ah, I see a storm brewing :wink:

:escape:

Just setting the record straight and owning up to my own posts about witnesses who lied. I don't know why it's such a big taboo to say a witness lied when they clearly did.

 

[Really?]

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.

But somebody did do something wrong. They murdered the other person in the relationship.

No, Reeva can't tell us anything now....only ear witnesses who heard a woman screaming horribly....past texts showing some discord in the relationship....broken tiles, panels....rummaging or the crime scene....etc.....that tells the story. moo

 

[Really?]

That is correct (My Lady) :yes:

I like your style....lol

 

[steveml]

Just setting the record straight and owning up to my own posts about witnesses who lied. I don't know why it's such a big taboo to say a witness lied when they clearly did.

Fair play to you.

I had my Stipp rant a while ago, and it seemed to fall on deaf ears.

They must have caught me at a low point :smile:

 

[Really?]

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

Yes ! possible title......." If I killed Reeva".

 

[Viper]

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.

BIB That is incorrect. The forensic officer was very clear that the technology they used does recover deleted data, period. All of the texts sent without WhatsApp were entered in to evidence, Nel only disclosed a few of them, but the rest are in evidence. In adition all of the phone's data were entered in to evidence, along with the instructions on how to access them. IIRC the data recovered from OPs WhatsApp after the day of the 13th were not read out or shown on the monitors, but they are there. So many may be very surprised when Nel starts reading more text messages during his x-exam of OP.

 

[minor4th]

I like your style....lol

I like your kitty!!!

 

[steveml]

But somebody did do something wrong. They murdered the other person in the relationship.

No, Reeva can't tell us anything now....only ear witnesses who heard a woman screaming horribly....past texts showing some discord in the relationship....broken tiles, panels....rummaging or the crime scene....etc.....that tells the story. moo

Everybody agrees OP killed Reeva, that's the one thing that cannot be denied.

The important thing is how and why.

 

[soozieqtips]

Just setting the record straight and owning up to my own posts about witnesses who lied. I don't know why it's such a big taboo to say a witness lied when they clearly did.

Have you reasoned why Mrs Stipp would 'deliberately intend to deceive'? What's her motive? I can see why OP would need to lie. After all, he's the one facing jail, but Mrs Stipp? If someone intends to deceive, there must be a reason - unless they're a pathological liar.

 

[minor4th]

Fair play to you.

I had my Stipp rant a while ago, and it seemed to fall on deaf ears.

They must have caught me at a low point :smile:

It's such a double standard for people to say Oscar is a proven liar because he changed his statement from "the fan" to "two fans" - yet when we have a witness on the stand who unequivocally admits that she swore to a statement that was false ...we can't call her a liar.

That really and truly makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[minor4th]

Have you reasoned why Mrs Stipp would 'deliberately intend to deceive'? What's her motive? I can see why OP would need to lie. After all, he's the one facing jail, but Mrs Stipp? If someone intends to deceive, there must be a reason - unless they're a pathological liar.

Yes, I have considered why she would do that in fact. However, it's irrelevant to talk about her motive to deceive - we know that she did. That's not in question at all.

 

[jay-jay]

So sorry, but 3 messages that some consider "emotionally abusive" does not tend to show that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva.

It was actually 4 .. and that was 4 'occasions'/exchanges (i.e. comprising a number of messages per occasion) .. it wasn't 4 'messages'. Those 4 occasions/text exchanges related to things that had happened a day or so earlier in real life, so each of those text exchanges you can now double up to 8 occasions where they were arguing or not happy with each other. 8 occasions after 2 months dating seems quite a lot to me. There may even have been more 'face to face' ones on top of that, we just don't know .. but certainly there is proof of 4 occasions of something upsetting happening in real life, then 4 more occasions of a 'follow up' argument/disagreement, so you've got 8 altogether.

It's pointless doing all this numbers and percentages stuff though .. it's the 'content' of the messages that needs to be understood .. and fully understood .. not what percentage they amount to. Even just one message in the same vein of those presented in court, would've been enough to show there was something very badly wrong with that relationship, and not just a normal argument.