Trial Discussion Thread #17

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you. I tend to feel, having read his whole message (which was written in a very irritated tone and where he seems to excuse everything he does) she probably was not thumping or tapping. I rather suspect she was stroking the back of his neck but this obviously was enough to aggravate him and is my opinion only. I don't somehow feel tapping would be showing her love, which she claims she was doing.

And this is why context is important. She thinks she was lovingly stroking his neck, he thinks she was tapping him. How can we possibly know who is right if we weren't there?

And does it really matter? The point is she touched him somehow, he got irritated and told her to stop. He realized afterward he should have asked her in a nicer way to stop. Still don't think irritation or moodiness is abuse. His excuses may be legitimate reasons for why he acted how he acted.
 
I was watching the testimony at the time and very clearly remember that it was stated the iPads were his. One was a 2 and one was a 3. Reeva probably didn't carry her iPad around, if she had one. I will see if I can find the testimony when I get to a proper lap top, but really remember this as do others, so it must have merit.

As part of the state's case, they are arguing that it wasn't really a loving relationship because OP had been looking at *advertiser censored* earlier. I believe this was said in opening statements. I really do think that all they wanted out of the iPad history stuff was the *advertiser censored*. If not, I feel it would have been clearer what they actually were trying to say.

No one cares about the *advertiser censored*. The only thing that OP looking at *advertiser censored*, 15 minutes after walking through his front door in to the welcoming arms of a knock out blonde model that wanted to be with him, tells us is that he does not really appreciate Reeva all that much. He's a moron and should be punished for that fact alone! :floorlaugh:
 
And this is why context is important. She thinks she was lovingly stroking his neck, he thinks she was tapping him. How can we possibly know who is right if we weren't there?

And does it really matter? The point is she touched him somehow, he got irritated and told her to stop. He realized afterward he should have asked her in a nicer way to stop. Still don't think irritation or moodiness is abuse. His excuses may be legitimate reasons for why he acted how he acted.

Well of course it all matters! A woman has been shot dead here, through a bathroom door, and there is an extremely strong likelihood that it was as a result of a domestic violence incident! Everything points to it .. those texts .. the crime scene evidence .. the improbability of OP's version .. the fact he has changed his evidence .. the ear witness statements .. everything points to it, and so do those texts!
 
No one cares about the *advertiser censored*. The only thing that OP looking at *advertiser censored*, 15 minutes after walking through his front door in to the welcoming arms of a knock out blonde model that wanted to be with him, tells us is that he does not really appreciate Reeva all that much. He's a moron and should be punished for that fact alone! :floorlaugh:

The prosecution sure does. It's part of their case against Oscar.
 
Well of course it all matters! A woman has been shot dead here, through a bathroom door, and there is an extremely strong likelihood that it was as a result of a domestic violence incident! Everything points to it .. those texts .. the crime scene evidence .. the improbability of OP's version .. the fact he has changed his evidence .. the ear witness statements .. everything points to it, and so do those texts!

And there is also a possibility that it was all a tragic mistake. All those texts show me is that they argued and got upset with each other sometimes.

Really, I was talking about the semantics of the tapping vs. stroking argument. I'm not saying Reeva's death doesn't matter and I didn't say it all doesn't matter. Context :)
 
There is so, so much more available in the media than texts alone to suggest Oscar's relationship with Reeva could be emotionally abusive. Reeva's words I find most powerful - but put into context with everything we've learned about Oscar (not necessarily testified to) - it's difficult for me to dismiss the texts as simply the down side of an otherwise normal relationship.
 
The thing to note here is that this was Reeva showing anger and frustration towards OP, and rightly so, but we can tell a lot by OP's response.

OP didn't turn aggressor and turn it all back on Reeva. He wasn't even sarcastic or impolite towards her. He apologised, said his conduct was unacceptable and wanted to sort things out.

Oh yes, I had plenty of those types of emails from my abusive ex partner .. so both Reeva's messages and the way OP responded to them, are quite telling. Reeva's ones are the most telling though.

'Abusive relationships' was discussed in quite some depth only a few days back though, so I'm not really sure why we're going over it all again .. surely easier to just look back at the other thread and read what people have said there? There were some extremely valuable points made during that discussion, which appear to have been lost in the quagmire now.
 
This is a fantastic recreation. That's exactly what I've been thinking but have not been able to properly verbalize it. I have thought that the locking of the door is what caused him to shoot, OP thinking the person was coming out. The pause could be the initial shot, OP listening and waiting, hearing more movement and firing again until there's no more movement.


I try to stay within each model. I am not discounting the prosecution model either, but trying to give each a fair chance. When the defence starts I imagine I will be more critical of their version depending on how their testimony goes ...
 
Really? How is *advertiser censored* related to th State's case? Tell me more...

The state said earlier in the case that this evidence [the *advertiser censored*] would contradict the athlete's claim of a "loving relationship" with Reeva.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-looked-*advertiser censored*-night-3260132
 
Oh yes, I had plenty of those types of emails from my abusive ex partner .. so both Reeva's messages and the way OP responded to them, are quite telling. Reeva's ones are the most telling though.

'Abusive relationships' was discussed in quite some depth only a few days back though, so I'm not really sure why we're going over it all again .. surely easier to just look back at the other thread and read what people have said there? There were some extremely valuable points made during that discussion, which appear to have been lost in the quagmire now.

I appreciate that.

That's ok. We'll move on :smile:
 
I agree .. as I've said in a previous post "a thorn in his side" .. and it's pretty clear to me that it was because she was a strong woman who kept telling him not to treat her like dirt. You can tell it really irked him to be told of his faults.

I'm sure RS's complaining of his treatment of her irked him, but OP treated her poorly because he fundamentally didn't like or respect her, much less love her deeply. Her "I'm not a stripper or HO" msg to him said it all.
 
And there is also a possibility that it was all a tragic mistake. All those texts show me is that they argued and got upset with each other sometimes.

Really, I was talking about the semantics of the tapping vs. stroking argument. I'm not saying Reeva's death doesn't matter and I didn't say it all doesn't matter. Context :)

I didn't say you said that 'Reeva's death didn't matter' .. I said that establishing the state of their relationship mattered .. because when you have got a woman who has ended up dead, and who has been sending the types of texts that Reeva was sending (believe me, I know enough about abusive relationships from having spoken to enough women about them due to my involvement in support groups for victims of domestic abuse to know that those were not just normal, run of the mill, disagreements), then all that matters.
 
And I'd be reluctant to call every douchey or moody thing a guy does abusive without the proper context. I'm not saying it's acceptable to criticize your gf's accent or gum chewing, but sometimes people can get irritable and every little thing your SO does annoys you. I tell my husband all the time to stop smacking his food, especially when I'm irritated, stop touching me, and every little thing. And the text where he apologizes for snapping at her while she was thumping his neck because he was tired could have been written by my husband. Not because he's abusive, but because sometimes I do cutesy little things like that, like tap him or tickle him, admittedly annoying stuff, and sometimes he's just not in the mood and tells me to stop. He always tells me later he's sorry, he was just tired or whatever, and hopes I'll keep doing stuff like, that.

I got the impression that the accent thing was more about a put on accent than her real accent, like how valley girls or the Kardashians speak. Again, I know it's unacceptable to tell her to stop talking that way, especially in public, but, again, I'm still reluctant to shout "ABUSE!" Again, I got that it was more out of irritation rather than the need to control. We're lacking context here.

My :twocents:, the fact that she put all those in texts tells me RS either wanted some form of record for what had been happening, or she didn't feel she could confront OP directly with what she was upset about(possibly because she was scared of how he would react which she had also stated in one of the texts), and quite possibly for both those reasons.

I've been upset about more than a few things with my husband(and vice versa him with me), but there has never been anything that we haven't been able to deal with face to face even though I knew some of it would likely anger him. Iow's our relationship, although sometimes testy, has never given either of us cause to fear each other so that we felt the only way to communicate safely was through messaging. That alone raises suspicions that all was not right with them and provides context imo.
 
There is so, so much more available in the media than texts alone to suggest Oscar's relationship with Reeva could be emotionally abusive. Reeva's words I find most powerful - but put into context with everything we've learned about Oscar (not necessarily testified to) - it's difficult for me to dismiss the texts as simply the down side of an otherwise normal relationship.

Exactly, Kate.
 
Oh yes, I had plenty of those types of emails from my abusive ex partner .. so both Reeva's messages and the way OP responded to them, are quite telling. Reeva's ones are the most telling though.

'Abusive relationships' was discussed in quite some depth only a few days back though, so I'm not really sure why we're going over it all again .. surely easier to just look back at the other thread and read what people have said there? There were some extremely valuable points made during that discussion, which appear to have been lost in the quagmire now.

That's just kind of how the discussion naturally unfolds sometimes. You go from talking about one thing to another to another.
 
The prosecution sure does. It's part of their case against Oscar.

The state said earlier in the case that this evidence [the *advertiser censored*] would contradict the athlete's claim of a "loving relationship" with Reeva.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-looked-*advertiser censored*-night-3260132

Oooooh nooooo! Just what kind/type of *advertiser censored* was OP looking at? Going out on a limb here but... Gay?
 
I'm sure RS's complaining of his treatment of her irked him, but OP treated her poorly because he fundamentally didn't like or respect her, much less love her deeply. Her "I'm not a stripper or HO" msg to him said it all.

Yes, I'm trying to work out what she was responding to when she said that and what prompted her to say it. When I look at the messages, the one in which she says that, there is no message from OP inbetween or anything .. so I wonder why she ended up saying that at that particular juncture?
 
The state said earlier in the case that this evidence [the *advertiser censored*] would contradict the athlete's claim of a "loving relationship" with Reeva.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-looked-*advertiser censored*-night-3260132

The piece was unclear imo, but I think "this evidence" includes the entire history gleaned from the "mobiles"... not specifically the *advertiser censored*/car search.
 
I didn't say you said that 'Reeva's death didn't matter' .. I said that establishing the state of their relationship mattered .. because when you have got a woman who has ended up dead, and who has been sending the types of texts that Reeva was sending (believe me, I know enough about abusive relationships from having spoken to enough women about them due to my involvement in support groups for victims of domestic abuse to know that those were not just normal, run of the mill, disagreements), then all that matters.

Yes, and all I was saying that, to me, it doesn't matter whether she was actually tapping or stroking him. That's all.

I kind of think I know enough about abusive relationships, both physical and emotional, to comment on the matter, too. I was also abused as a child into my teen years. My own personal observations is that you can't say, one way or another, from these few texts, whether this was an abusive relationship or not. It's just too vague and we don't know the inner workings of this relationship or these people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
1,588
Total visitors
1,675

Forum statistics

Threads
605,720
Messages
18,191,162
Members
233,505
Latest member
reneej08
Back
Top