Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[minor4th]

I'm sorry, minor4th, but I don't see the correlation. I don't think this was about him ending their relationship or her ending it either. I don't see any evidence of that on either side, really (although, the evidence never paints the full portrait).

Instead, I believe something went down that day that angered OP. Something not connected to RS at all, but something she was trying to comfort him over and that is why she chose to go back over to his place.

I obviously don't know either of these young people, but when thinking about it, I wish so hard that he'd snapped at her in a text and told her not to come back. She'd be alive and none of this would have happened...at least, not to her. I don't wish it on anyone else, but I stand behind my opinion that this really had very little if not absolutely nothing to do with Reeva Steenkamp.

And that's what I mean by sinister. Some people are born violent and it isn't their environment, it's innate. I think OP is the perfect example of someone born with a propensity for violence. He's channeled it mostly through sports, but it's been brimming at the surface for awhile. (I base this on all the other accounts of his short temper coupled with him wielding a deadly weapon like a mere cigarette.)

So, again. Nothing to do with Reeva. A madman comes in many forms and can be very hard to spot - and I would think this especially true in SA where, from what I've read, is a great deal of violence.

This was bound to happen with OP. Now it has. And my gut tells me we will never know or understand why.

Thanks. I misunderstood the thrust of your earlier post I was responding to. You could be right. I agree that we will likely never know with any confidence what happened.

 

[weeeva]

I believe many, myself included, are questioning why - if Oscar's memory is clouded - can he so distinctly remember to correct the prosecutor on very small and even sometimes benign details?

Imo, it wasn't a huge blunder but rather a mistake and one Nel conceded. Nel's pool of people helping him to keep straight Oscar's ever-evolving 'version' is decidedly smaller than Websleuths.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

Does this mean that everyone's memory must be perfect at all times? No room for slip-ups, mistakes or human error?
Does it mean we have to remember everything all the time or remember nothing at all?
No in between, no grey areas?
No leeway for circumstances?
I was chatting to an old friend of mine recently 30 odd years since she emigrated abroad. I can't believe that she forgets some things that are as clear to me as if it was yesterday. I had forgotten about one event that she remembered, but when she mentioned it, it came back to me.
Everybody is different.

 

[BritsKate]

When I say "violence" I mean "violence" - between intimate partners or otherwise.

I agree that there can be abuse without violence, but I do not believe that "domestic violence" includes non-violent behaviors, even if they are abusive.

But it actually does because non-physical, non-overtly violent behaviors can be every bit as destructive, sometimes even more so. Emotional abuse can turn deadly very quickly with no precipitating physical violence at all - in fact, only about 60-70% of women murdered by their abuser had a history of physical violence.

Here's the definition used by the Centers for Disease Control:

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans. The term "intimate partner violence" describes physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. This type of violence can occur among heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy.

IPV can vary in frequency and severity. It occurs on a continuum, ranging from one hit that may or may not impact the victim to chronic, severe battering.

There are four main types of intimate partner violence (Saltzman et al. 2002):

Physical violence is the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm. Physical violence includes, but is not limited to, scratching; pushing; shoving; throwing; grabbing; biting; choking; shaking; slapping; punching; burning; use of a weapon; and use of restraints or one's body, size, or strength against another person.

Sexual violence is divided into three categories: 1) use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether or not the act is completed; 2) attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, to decline participation, or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or because of intimidation or pressure; and 3) abusive sexual contact.

Threats of physical or sexual violence use words, gestures, or weapons to communicate the intent to cause death, disability, injury, or physical harm.

Psychological/emotional violence involves trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. Psychological/emotional abuse can include, but is not limited to, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resources. It is considered psychological/emotional violence when there has been prior physical or sexual violence or prior threat of physical or sexual violence. In addition, stalking is often included among the types of IPV. Stalking generally refers to "harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property" (Tjaden & Thoennes 1998).

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html

 

[Carmelita]

I've seen a fair bit of support for OP out there, maybe not here. It makes me feel very queasy and uncomfortable.

But I totally agree with you regarding not following the majority conclusion. In general. I do so very rarely in my life and wish I had rephrased what I said but... in this particular case, the general consensus is correct and the majority are seeing it right. Because it really is that obvious. Humans know humans but this looks like a fish. It smells like a fish, it swims like a fish. It even sounds like a fish. It's got a big hook in its mouth... And it's called Oscar FishyStorius.

Hi Truedetective,

I agree with you on some levels but my question for you is the old adage does a fish know that it is wet?

I don't think that Oscar acted within reason even if the killing of Reeva happened just as he has portrayed it. But the question for me is was he, is he so mentally and psychologically defective that he believes he acted within reason or is he lying through his teeth. In my mind I haven't come to that conclusion.

I will agree that he is a fish though.

 

[weeeva]

I think it makes all of us a little cuckoo ,me included lol
I have a good feeling the judge is on top of it though .
Everyday I listen I have more confidence in her ability to make sense of important facts which will enable her to make a decision.

I have faith in the judge. At first I thought she was falling asleep, but no she is on the ball.

 

[Really?]

I'm working on a soundtrack for OP's trial.....hhmmm


starts with " Biatch don't kill my vibe"...Kendrick Lamar....

somewhere in there will be The Smiths...." The Boy with a Thorn In His Side"

haha...

and the last song is "To The End".....by Blur

Any suggestions are welcome ....

 

[benn25]

Just had a power nap so back on this again....
Nel just caught OP out again! Nel trying to decifer when OP spoke to Reeva either before he shouted at the intruders to get the f out of the house or after.
Nel says "you just spoken to her...why would you.....you just whispered at her....just now"
and OP says "thats correct my lady"

BOOM!!!

Nel even emphasises the word whisper.

Oh my a slip of the tounge, confusion, didnt hear the word whisper, did he forget he only just mentioned he spoke to her in a low tone. Absolutely crazy from OP.

 

[kittychi]

The problem is, without some history of violence or threats, you can't make a rational leap to the conclusion that on that night he lost his temper and couldn't control himself so reached for his gun and killed Reeva. There's no context for that.

This is history, no?

Samantha testified that he often screamed at her. She told court she heard the athlete shout at her "sister, best friend, another friend, and his best friend."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-9175954.html

Also threatened to break someone's legs (Batchelor's?) and f*ck him up. He has history of a violent temper, IMO.

Who yells at a sister, best friend, etc. What an arrogant, rude, self-important little man.

IMO he was a loose cannon.

 

[anagrammy]

This also explains why her hands were in a protective position (the DT pathologist said that if she'd been surprised by the shots she wouldn't have had time to lift her hands) and why, according to Burger and Johnson, the intensity and the fear in her voice escalated just before the shots. She must have seen him right before the shots.

This is the most disturbing aspect of this grisly murder. Imagine her horror during the pause between the first shot and the volley of three. Clearly she saw him look in and see her, that she was still alive, and then taking aim to finish her off.

That was certainly the blood-curdling scream heard by witnesses.

To me, the pause between the first and last shots during which he changes his aim is the evidence of premeditation rather than an explosion of four shots that went everywhere and just happened to kill her.

 

[BritsKate]

Does this mean that everyone's memory must be perfect at all times? No room for slip-ups, mistakes or human error?
Does it mean we have to remember everything all the time or remember nothing at all?
No in between, no grey areas?
No leeway for circumstances?
I was chatting to an old friend of mine recently 30 odd years since she emigrated abroad. I can't believe that she forgets some things that are as clear to me as if it was yesterday. I had forgotten about one event that she remembered, but when she mentioned it, it came back to me.
Everybody is different.

If it were consistent, that would be one thing but it isn't. He claims he can't remember but has no problem with recall when correcting Nel on details of little to no significance and that's the point made by Nel, myself, and many others on this board that responded to your earlier post.

Indeed, everybody is different and memory works differently for everyone. But when one is lying, deliberately deceiving, it's also very difficult to maintain precision in telling one's account. Especially if it's non-linear. So yeah, he could be telling the truth and Nel could just be a big, bad bully or he could be lying and Nel, in his duty as a prosecutor, is challenging the accused's veracity.

 

[minor4th]

But it actually does because non-physical, non-overtly violent behaviors can be every bit as destructive, sometimes even more so. Emotional abuse can turn deadly very quickly with no precipitating physical violence at all - in fact, only about 60-70% of women murdered by their abuser had a history of physical violence.

Here's the definition used by the Centers for Disease Control:

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html

I'm not disagreeing that abusive but non-violent behaviors can be just as destructive or that emotional abuse is not abuse. I totally agree with you about that. My earlier comment was that this was not a violent relationship. IMO this was not even what I could call an emotionally abusive relationship just based on the limited info we have, but that was not the point.

I'm not even questioning whether emotional abuse can turn deadly. I know that it can.

Here is the definition I work with on a daily basis - and on this basis, one can obtain an emergency protective order:

§ 71.004. FAMILY VIOLENCE. "Family violence" means:

(1) an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself;

(2) abuse, as that term is defined by Sections 261.001(1)(C), (E), and (G), by a member of a family or household toward a child of the family or household; or

(3) dating violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.0021.​

So it includes dating relationships and elsewhere in the Family Code the definition is extended to include former spouses and former intimate partners. But it does not include "emotional abuse" because that alone does not pose an immediate threat of physical harm.

 

[minor4th]

This is history, no?

Samantha testified that he often screamed at her. She told court she heard the athlete shout at her "sister, best friend, another friend, and his best friend."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-9175954.html

Also threatened to break someone's legs (Batchelor's?) and f*ck him up. He has history of a violent temper, IMO.

Who yells at a sister, best friend, etc. What an arrogant, rude, self-important little man.

IMO he was a loose cannon.

Yelling is rude and perhaps abusive but it is not violent. And I do not believe Batchelor's story of OP threatening to break his legs.

 

[weeeva]

Problem is it's a very selective cloudy memory that he has, also I wouldnt presume that was an 'unintentional' mistake from Nel.

Why would Nel's mistake be intentional? I don't think it was.
As for OP's memory, of course he is going to remember some things and forget or get confused about others. Is that not human nature?
If he remembers stuff it is rehearsed, if he forgets stuff he is being selective. He can't win in some peoples eyes. (not you personally).

 

[kittychi]

Does this mean that everyone's memory must be perfect at all times? No room for slip-ups, mistakes or human error?
Does it mean we have to remember everything all the time or remember nothing at all?
No in between, no grey areas?
No leeway for circumstances?
I was chatting to an old friend of mine recently 30 odd years since she emigrated abroad. I can't believe that she forgets some things that are as clear to me as if it was yesterday. I had forgotten about one event that she remembered, but when she mentioned it, it came back to me.
Everybody is different.

BBM: These points need to be applied to all of the witnesses as well as Oscar, then.

 

[james83]

Does this mean that everyone's memory must be perfect at all times? No room for slip-ups, mistakes or human error?
Does it mean we have to remember everything all the time or remember nothing at all?
No in between, no grey areas?
No leeway for circumstances?
I was chatting to an old friend of mine recently 30 odd years since she emigrated abroad. I can't believe that she forgets some things that are as clear to me as if it was yesterday. I had forgotten about one event that she remembered, but when she mentioned it, it came back to me.
Everybody is different.

You can't compare everyday events to something like this though, i can't remember half the stuff i bought on my weekly food shop earlier this afternoon, but ask me for example about what i remember doing on september 11th 2001 or july 7th 2005 and i can recall many small things from those day's that i would never normally remember, i'm prety sure if i "accidentally" shot dead my wife i would remember with total clarity almost every detail of the events that led upto it.

 

[Carmelita]

This is the most disturbing aspect of this grisly murder. Imagine her horror during the pause between the first shot and the volley of three. Clearly she saw him look in and see her, that she was still alive, and then taking aim to finish her off.

That was certainly the blood-curdling scream heard by witnesses.

To me, the pause between the first and last shots during which he changes his aim is the evidence of premeditation rather than an explosion of four shots that went everywhere and just happened to kill her.

This scenario I simply don’t see as being plausible. Are you suggesting Oscar shot her through the door, peeked in through a bullet hole, or bashed the door in with a cricket bat and then took dead aim at her head? Wouldn’t the trajectory of the bullets though the door (or lack thereof) bear witness to that scenario?

There is no way Reeva retreated to the bathroom after she was shot in the hip so logically the bullets all came while she was in the bathroom.

 

[james83]

Why would Nel's mistake be intentional? I don't think it was.
As for OP's memory, of course he is going to remember some things and forget or get confused about others. Is that not human nature?
If he remembers stuff it is rehearsed, if he forgets stuff he is being selective. He can't win in some peoples eyes. (not you personally).

Simply to rattle him, not saying that's what happened but i certainly believe Nel doesn't make as many "mistakes" as it seems.
I really wouldn't let what anyone think's get to you, ultimately what Masipa and to an extent her accessors think is all that matter's.

 

[TipDog]

Does this mean that everyone's memory must be perfect at all times? No room for slip-ups, mistakes or human error?
Does it mean we have to remember everything all the time or remember nothing at all?
No in between, no grey areas?
No leeway for circumstances?
I was chatting to an old friend of mine recently 30 odd years since she emigrated abroad. I can't believe that she forgets some things that are as clear to me as if it was yesterday. I had forgotten about one event that she remembered, but when she mentioned it, it came back to me.
Everybody is different.

I would venture to say yes to all of the BIB questions when one is on trial for taking the life of another. By OP's very own behavior at the beginning of this trial and his words in his apology to RS' family that this is all he's thought about, not sleeping, etc., I would expect him to remember exactly what happened that night. There will be a few discrepancies, sure. When you're in a panicked state of mind, you can and will forget some details. But where OP is faltering is that he is trying to not only stick to "his version" but to enhance it. And at any time when asked about the evening, he should be able to speak with clarity at least, no matter how much Nel is grilling him.

You know, years ago, I met with the DA in a small town (where I'm from) about a matter I won't go into. He, as well as two officers, grilled me for over three hours. I was 21 at the time and scared out of my wits. I did nothing wrong but I was telling the truth about something very damaging about an upstanding teacher at my high school. I wasn't the only one, but I was the oldest of those finally stepping forward.

After all was said and done, the officers left the room (this was long before any need to have anyone present when you were alone with a doctor, policeman, etc.). I literally broke down in front of the DA, looked him in the eyes and swore to him I was telling the truth.

This is what he said to me, pretty much verbatim, "I've heard many stories from many victims in my career. Some have the music, while some have the words...then, there are those who have the song. Mary, you sing."

IMHO, OP does not.

 

[BritsKate]

I'm not disagreeing that abusive but non-violent behaviors can be just as destructive or that emotional abuse is not abuse. I totally agree with you about that. My earlier comment was that this was not a violent relationship. IMO this was not even what I could call an emotionally abusive relationship just based on the limited info we have, but that was not the point.

I'm not even questioning whether emotional abuse can turn deadly. I know that it can.

Here is the definition I work with on a daily basis - and on this basis, one can obtain an emergency protective order:

§ 71.004. FAMILY VIOLENCE. "Family violence" means:

(1) an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself;

(2) abuse, as that term is defined by Sections 261.001(1)(C), (E), and (G), by a member of a family or household toward a child of the family or household; or

(3) dating violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.0021.​

So it includes dating relationships and elsewhere in the Family Code the definition is extended to include former spouses and former intimate partners. But it does not include "emotional abuse" because that alone does not pose an immediate threat of physical harm.

Stalking falls under the umbrella of psychological abuse. Your interpretation, the statute you work with, is dependent on jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction is different, ergo, their definitions and interpretations will also vary. There are places in the world where emotional abuse is a chargeable offence and an abuser can be imprisoned for it.

But I fear I'm going down a rabbit hole and taking this thread O/T. I understand you don't believe Oscar and Reeva's relationship was an abusive one and while I have my doubts, I really just wanted to make sure to state emotional abuse was seen as 'domestic violence' as there are still way too many who minimize its effects or potential lethality. On that at least, it would seem we agree.

 

[kittychi]

I would venture to say yes to all of the BIB questions when one is on trial for taking the life of another. By OP's very own behavior at the beginning of this trial and his words in his apology to RS' family that this is all he's thought about, not sleeping, etc., I would expect him to remember exactly what happened that night. There will be a few discrepancies, sure. When you're in a panicked state of mind, you can and will forget some details. But where OP is faltering is that he is trying to not only stick to "his version" but to enhance it. And at any time when asked about the evening, he should be able to speak with clarity at least, no matter how much Nel is grilling him.

You know, years ago, I met with the DA in a small town (where I'm from) about a matter I won't go into. He, as well as two officers, grilled me for over three hours. I was 21 at the time and scared out of my wits. I did nothing wrong but I was telling the truth about something very damaging about an upstanding teacher at my high school. I wasn't the only one, but I was the oldest of those finally stepping forward.

After all was said and done, the officers left the room (this was long before any need to have anyone present when you were alone with a doctor, policeman, etc.). I literally broke down in front of the DA, looked him in the eyes and swore to him I was telling the truth.

This is what he said to me, pretty much verbatim, "I've heard many stories from many victims in my career. Some have the music, while some have the words...then, there are those who have the song. Mary, you sing."

IMHO, OP does not.

Another :goodpost: