Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[jay-jay]

I truly hope so. For me, this goes a lot further than what happened to a bright, beautiful woman on a continent I've never been to. It isn't about a handful of texts, a single card, or even getting a birthday wrong. Its about a pervasive attitude that someone, anyone, can berate, belittle, threaten or intimidate others and its often disregarded, minimised, justified, or accepted.

Abusive behaviours are extremely destructive to those in receipt. Someone, anyone, exhibiting them deserves a deeper level of scrutiny because quite often non-physical abuse leads to physical and sometimes fatal violence.

So its my hope, even if one doesn't believe Oscar could be abusive, that they're more aware of potential red flags that may one day save someone they love. A quick temper; overt disrespect of someone they believe more vulnerable; justification of behaviours they know hurt others or blaming them instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions; controlling, possessiveness, domineering, or intense jealousy; a history of physical violence - and threats to commit such violence are included; using a weapon to intimidate; reckless behaviour; opposition to authority; wanting to intensify a relationship quickly; seeking to isolate a victim, even if its just a psychological isolation - like making them feel guilty for spending time with friends; checking up on them; manipulation; intimidation and gaslighting are all warning signs of a potential abuser.

Reeva's passion was fighting violence against women. In South Africa, a woman is murdered by her intimate partner every 8 hours. It's fitting her legacy be what she so passionately fought against - violence, in any form; abuse, of any type, is never acceptable. Whether one is an international icon or a beggar on the corner.

^^^ all of this .. every bit of it ^^^

I've been astonished by just how little many people know about these types of relationships .. well, having said that, no I'm not astonished because I didn't know myself until I was in one and it took me being in one to really understand it. There really does need to be one heck of a lot more education about this issue, and as I've mentioned before, something good has to come from this dreadful incident and hopefully greater understanding of this issue will be Reeva's lasting legacy.

 

[zwiebel]

RS's card was simple and sweet. Adding a smiley face made it lighthearted too imo. I don't think it's proof that she considered OP the love of her life on that day, but that she sincerely cared for him. I think it's obvious OP wasn't following RS on Twitter, or he'd have known she expected some loving overtures from him that day. Despite OP knowing she was cooking dinner at home for them that evening, he didn't arrive with anything for her - even flowers.

DebinGa, that hyphen you used in your post - it was kind of to add emphasis, maybe? Make sure readers noticed that part? '-even flowers'.

I think that's why Reeva added the hyphen to her Valentine card too - I think she wanted Oscar to know she was saying 'I love you' in a serious way?

 

[Carmelita]

BBM - Nigella Lawson is worth millions and yet stayed in an abusive relationship with Charles Saatchi for years. Having 'other' options doesn't change the mindset of the abused, as if that were so, rich women would never be abused, and yet they are. It has nothing to do with money or options.

I have to run, I agree with your post for the most part, but many women see the danger signs and get out before the control, violence and abuse begins.

Declaring Reeva is one of the woman who would have stayed is unfair to Reeva as that is an unknown by strangers on the internet. She has more in the column of would not have stayed than would have.

 

[celticthyme]

I don't think he could have done all of that so easily with his stumps.

Also, why would the key be on the floor if she was just going to pee? Wouldn't she have just turned the key (if she even wanted to lock it in the first place), left the key in the door, and then just turned key again, when done, to open it? That means key would still be in the door when Oscar broke the panels.

Key on the floor means she was holding the key in her hands to make sure there was no way Oscar could open the door.

In a recent post Oscar refers to some blood on the bathroom wall as being from his "sock." (i can not find it right now) Dose this mean he had on his prosthetics? Does one wear socks on stumps? I am a Registered Nurse, (RN). We would not permit and teach patients to have slippers or those socks with those treads on the bottom when walking on slippery surfaces. I would think if OP chased Reeva in his highly agitated state, he would be even more unstable on his stumps and need to have on his prosthetics for stability.

 

[jay-jay]

Are you insinuating that his defense will now claim that he was temperately insane on Valentine's day, or Reeva killing has now made him lose his mind given his disturbing behavior in court?

Also, why would anyone even want him to get off of this hideous crime?

 

[Really?]

:facepalm:

So he could hear her breathing, but he decided to take "some time" to just lay over her and do his kumbyah thing?

Then, he suddenly switches modes and is trying to get her out of there as quick as possible, by golly, doing everything he can to get her "help."

Even Jodi's story did not fall apart so quickly!

BBM:.......:floorlaugh:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I just watched the original Psycho for the first time about a week ago because I am watching Bates Motel.



Great movie. But I still don't lock my bathroom door even when I shower : )

I saw it when I was 12 years old. . Been locking it ever since! Lmao!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[canny]

I bet m'lady recognizes malingering when she sees it.

Very true

 

[aoibhinn]

I got it, Aoibhinn!

I know about this addiction you speak of. And (true confession): I really, really enjoy arguing...errrr....debating cases. There's one or 2 cases that I follow closely that have what might appear like some smackdown, dragout fights since the cases have been ongoing in one form or another for several years and the same people end up arguing. It's similar to a bunch of guys who beat each other up for fun & then go out for a couple beers afterwards.

I've followed four cases, all with the help of Websleuths. I hope the word 'addicting' wasn't inappropriate. I'm interested in the process. It relates to my studies (somewhat) and I try to make myself follow the evidence, stay impartial etc. but it's hard. I listened to the start of OP's testimony last week and then I stopped listening and started to read instead. His manner on the stand and in the courtroom was influencing my opinion. He might be whiny, reckless and entitled, I thought. It shouldn't mean he's automatically guilty.

HOWEVER, this OP case is not really that much of a mystery IMO.

He's got a temper, he's got a gun, he's got really deadly bullets, and he's got a dead girlfriend in the loo, while claiming he thought an intruder had crawled into his 2nd floor bathroom window (how said intruder did that, no one can figure out) and said intruder locked himself in the loo where he menaced OP. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I realize OP is a paranoid gun-toting testosterone-fueled dude with a temper, but he's considered sane, so....

In addition to the above, however, too many individual disastrous occurrences lined up on the night to create 'the perfect storm'. With each one, the probability that he was telling the truth decreased. The sequence of events from the time he claims to have awoken until he shot Reeva are just not credible.

For example, I can accept maybe he didn't see the light from her smartphone illuminating the dark room (but unlikely, I use mine for this purpose). But when put together with the fact that they never discussed the noise from the bathroom, he never checked (yelled) to make sure she was contacting the police, that Reeva never shouted out that she was in the toilet .... it's just too many co-incidences. That's not real life.

 

[04009margaret]

WOW, listening to a legal debate by SA lawyers on Sky. The state only has to prove OP had intent to pull the trigger. OP's credibility is so tainted by his testimony that BR can only hope to create some doubt through all his witnesses. They then went on to say that all the expert testimony presented by the defence is based on OP's version & that's the only way the doubt can be created. Only problem with that is OP has now destroyed his version & he now has no version to create that doubt before the court. According to them OP is done, can't be resurrected.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I truly hope so. For me, this goes a lot further than what happened to a bright, beautiful woman on a continent I've never been to. It isn't about a handful of texts, a single card, or even getting a birthday wrong. Its about a pervasive attitude that someone, anyone, can berate, belittle, threaten or intimidate others and its often disregarded, minimised, justified, or accepted.

Abusive behaviours are extremely destructive to those in receipt. Someone, anyone, exhibiting them deserves a deeper level of scrutiny because quite often non-physical abuse leads to physical and sometimes fatal violence.

So its my hope, even if one doesn't believe Oscar could be abusive, that they're more aware of potential red flags that may one day save someone they love. A quick temper; overt disrespect of someone they believe more vulnerable; justification of behaviours they know hurt others or blaming them instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions; controlling, possessiveness, domineering, or intense jealousy; a history of physical violence - and threats to commit such violence are included; using a weapon to intimidate; reckless behaviour; opposition to authority; wanting to intensify a relationship quickly; seeking to isolate a victim, even if its just a psychological isolation - like making them feel guilty for spending time with friends; checking up on them; manipulation; intimidation and gaslighting are all warning signs of a potential abuser.

Reeva's passion was fighting violence against women. In South Africa, a woman is murdered by her intimate partner every 8 hours. It's fitting her legacy be what she so passionately fought against - violence, in any form; abuse, of any type, is never acceptable. Whether one is an international icon or a beggar on the corner.

All JMO, FWIW, and apologies for the length. Its a passion I share with Reeva.

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

Thanks button was t enough!
Bravo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Britlaws]

WOW, listening to a legal debate by SA lawyers on Sky. The state only has to prove OP had intent to pull the trigger. OP's credibility is so tainted by his testimony that BR can only hope to create some doubt through all his witnesses. They then went on to say that all the expert testimony presented by the defence is based on OP's version & that's the only way the doubt can be created. Only problem with that is OP has now destroyed his version & he now has no version to create that doubt before the court. According to them OP is done, can't be resurrected.

Maybe that's why Roux looks so depressed today and all that huffing!!

 

[soozieqtips]

Just yesterday, the BBC and the Telegraph suggested there was at least another couple of full days to go of Nel questioning OP on the stand. Then today, quite suddenly, he ended his cross without going through some of the finer details I would have expected him to. For example, the trip upstairs, the missing phone (who took it and why??), the toilet door slamming (why didn't he suggest to OP that Reeva must have been upset when she slammed the door?). He was much more subdued (Nel) than the last few days. Hmmmm. I'm not a lawyer so I realise he did whatever he thought he had to do. But I have to admit I was surprised at the sudden end.

 

[Really?]

Some posters have commented on here that they though Nel was off his game today. I just thought he was of the opinion that he'd got all he was really going to get and that, by continuing, he was risking diluting the impact of what he had already nailed OP on.

However, I do notice a difference in Roux, no? He seems to be doing a lot of sighing, which is audible from the microphone and looks harassed. He's skipping quickly through the geologists evidence and not really hammering home any points... a quick clarification here and there but thats it. Now, he may go back and do this after he's gone through all the exhibits but I'm not sure he will. Am I the only one to think that Roux is the one off his game?

He was also mightily p*ssed off with his client after OP stepped down. He said he was finished, sat down and turned his chair towards his left, right away from OP. Have a look at the video, it was noticeable. I know he was ticked at OP thinking he could just interupt the judge whilst she was addressing counsel to tell her about the door frame ( :floorlaugh: ), but I feel that it could be more than that. I could hazard a guess that Roux wants him to cop to a plea of CH and he's refused. Not sure but I'll bet there's something.

ETA it's at 12.25 of session two!!!

Thanks for that...I had it on but I really do want to re-listen a few more times..:facepalm:......:floorlaugh:

 

[Emz73]

i agree with the wow.



caveat. the events are from his own book. so there might be some facts in there. and some exaggerations.

'The revelations about Pistorius’ tangled personal life are detailed in his 2009 memoir Blade Runner'

Why admit to behaving like that??
Did he think it gave him an edge? Bit dangerous? Made him manly and attractive?

Not the gorky teen with no legs?

 

[canny]

Also, why would anyone even want him to get off of this hideous crime?

His admirers will stoop to any length to keep him away from prison. The poster got upset with my post for some reason and came up with an outlandish theory based on Roux's defense today. My reply was only a reminder that OP under no circumstances can ever be certified as mentally ill.

 

[DebinGA]

DebinGa, that hyphen you used in your post - it was kind of to add emphasis, maybe? Make sure readers noticed that part? '-even flowers'.

I think that's why Reeva added the hyphen to her Valentine card too - I think she wanted Oscar to know she was saying 'I love you' in a serious way?

Well, I didn't give the hyphen much thought, but OP doesn't seem to have exerted himself on RS's behalf during their short time together. He didn't behave like someone who loved his lady and delighted in pleasing her imo. RS tweeted a week before about having a dinner/movie night at home with her boo. She offered to cook Valentine's dinner for him, and she was cooking for OP on Feb. 13 too. Maybe I missed the testimony about kind, unselfish things OP did for Reeva.

 

[zwiebel]

I just watched the original Psycho for the first time about a week ago because I am watching Bates Motel.

Great movie. But I still don't lock my bathroom door even when I shower : )

Aaarghh.You just reminded me of something. My experience of an intruder;

Late night, I am on the first floor of a ruined, isolated house in a foreign country on a freezing night, taking a shower. Only my barky dog is with me, but locked outside the bathroom. There are two locked doors between me and the ruined ground floor, which has broken windows, doors and no lights.

As I'm in the shower, there is a crash, the tinkle of broken glass from downstairs, frantic barking from the dog for a moment, then all falls silent....Then all the power goes. I am naked, freezing, no idea where the dog is, in complete darkness and the only window that is survivable to jump from is in the bathroom where I am.

The most horrible experience of my life - I thought 'they' had got my dog.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Just following trial here and am only up to p. 11. Would someone please provide the gist of Dixon's conclusions re "the door splinters"? Also, did Dixon test the illumination in the bedroom if the bathroom light was ON immediately after the first bangs as both Shipps contend?

NO, I remember.

 

[soozieqtips]

From Andrew Harding of the BBC:

It has been exhausting just to watch Oscar Pistorius - doubled up on the ropes for hour after hour, heavy arms trying to fend off another clinical combination of lethal jabs and low blows from prosecutor Gerrie Nel.

As the athlete finally slinks wearily back across the court from the witness stand to the dock, he must know that the last five days have done him few favours in this trial.

He has been forgetful, evasive, agitated, uncertain, argumentative, and defiantly - some would say deliberately - ambiguous about some of the key issues at the heart of this murder trial.

However well his forensic experts proceed to shore up his testimony in the coming days, his credibility has been damaged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27030307