Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[aoibhinn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eeva-Steenkamp-met-ex-just-2-days-killed.html

Mr Lahoud said he would be giving police a statement.
He said that during his five years with Miss Steenkamp, he could not remember her locking the toilet door when she went to the bathroom.


'''''''''''''''
can anyone help with which bf was the aggressive/abusive one. i assume it was not mr lahoud.

I've seen Mr. Lahoud speak in the documentaries that I watched online. He had a 4.5 year relationship with Reeva. They lived together. He comes across as a real gent, a lovely guy. He accepted Reeva's relationship with OP and maintained a friendship with her.

In one of the documentaries he describes meeting her on Feb. 12th for coffee. He mentioned that OP kept texting her while they were together. Mr. Lahoud became concerned and asked Reeva if OP was OK with their meeting for coffee.

Reeva brushed it off, saying it was fine. IMO, that's not fine. It's possessive, controlling behaviour.

 

[nastasya]

Oscar Big Lie #49,391 Reeva Locking the Door

OP said she locked the bathroom door because she heard him scream at the intruder to leave the house.

Reeva had already got up to go to the bathroom according to OP's version.

This means she either had the keys with her or the keys were already in the toilet door before she got there.

As Nel said, OP's story is so improbable that it could not have happened.

 

[canny]

I have not seen any Oscar apologist here.

I have no vested interest in the outcome of this case other than justice for Reeva. I don't know if that is going to happen. I hope that I am wrong.

The judge will not be using a Mirror article to render her decision, she will be using the evidence, her own prejudices, emotions and the advice of her two court experts (sorry I don't remember what they are called).

Roux by his short examination of Oscar has opened wider the door for appeal due to mental defect IMO.

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?

 

[TrueDetective]

I just happened upon this article and vid while googling for something, and I was surprised by the judge's nodding during this bit at the end of Nel's x-exam .. quite telling, methinks! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...orius-murder-trial-Reeva-wanted-to-leave.html .. oh, and the second time you see her towards the end of that vid, she visibly rolls her eyes heaven-wards when OP, once again, say "I don't know, MiLady"!

Unless its just editing that is the most responsive I've seen the judge to testimony. It is also a very telling part of the story.

 

[DebinGA]

BIB. I don't know for sure. But the DT does seem to be throwing as much stuff at the wall as they can hoping that some of it will stick. OPs convoluted testimony shows that. This expert did the lights stuff, OP was too short to be seen by the Stipps, ballistics, pathology, sound testing, ??? IDK, he was just all over the place, just like all of the rest of the Defense's case.

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?

 

[Carmelita]

respectfully snipped by me for relevance ...

I'd like to hear more about OP's "mental defect". I think he has a "character defect" for sure.

I agree with you, but I don't believe that an appeal can be requested for character defect so the legal/linguistic gymnastics will commence at the end of the trial if Oscar gets anything other than a slap on the wrist.

I actually do believe he has a mental defect but it it is neither here or there as I believe it is his moral/character defects that have brought about his mental defect.

 

[aa9511]

Just posting thoughts of what I read on hear about Roux's cross so far:

-Reeva's Valentine's Day card seems to me like it was the first time she said "I love you," to him, the way she said, paraphrasing, "today seems like a good day to tell you.....I love you." Seems like she wanted make it special, since it was first time she said (or wrote) it to Oscar.

-the card doesn't make a difference to me. I think the relationship was in early stages so Reeva didn't understand the significance of Oscar's subtle attempt to control...like "stop chewing gum in front of cameras"....it was very subtle signs but I believe they also had good and fun times so it didn't seem like a big deal to her. Also, many men are controlling in some ways, so she probably just chalked it up to him "being a man." I don't think it's signficant either way b/c I think that night was Oscar losing his temper based on some argument, and that can happen at any time....the relationship doesn't need a history of abuse or violence for a man to lose his temper one time. I believe it was Oscar's loss of control of his temper, coupled with the easy access to his gun, that lead to this tragedy.

-the cricket bat sounds - totally different circumstances. They were all in the courtroom close by to hear the sounds. What about being where the Stipps were or where Burger and her husband were? The gun shot sounds would surely travel farther than the cricket bat sounds would. Yes, if I stand right next to someone swinging a cricket bat at a door, it might sound like a gunhot to me as I'm standing right next to the sound. Now take me away to a different house and let's see how the sound travels and what it sounds like from there. Surely, it is not going to sound the same like when I was standing right next to it!

-Nel is going to pick apart the "jack of all trades." Honestly, if I was a juror I would have hard time taking anything he said seriously as he doesn't seem to be a dedicated expert to any single thing.

JMO.

 

[DebinGA]

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?

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

 

[hetty]

I can't imagine believing anyone with a clear understanding would/could point to that card as evidence of the state or quality of a relationship.

I also find it disingenuous that anyone with knowledge of the subject could/would come to the belief that it doesn't happen~couldn't happen...to a beautiful, successful and intelligent woman.

IMO It was the beginning of a relationship. Controlling and abusive doesn't happen overnight. It's Insidious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please show me where I said it doesn't or couldn't happen to anyone, beautiful or otherwise? I didn't say that, please don't say I did.

 

[Carmelita]

I don't think anyone in my house locks the bathroom door. The only time I lock it, is if I'm home alone and bathing or taking a shower.

I've seen psycho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 : )

 

[nastasya]

I nominate OP and putting on his prosthesis/fan story as top 5 most stupid things he said.

OP said if the fans were where they were shown in the photo, he couldn't have put on his prosthesis because they were on that side of the bed.

If the fan was in the way, he certainly would have figured out how to put on his prosthesis by extending his legs beside the fan.

Does anybody really believe this part of his story?

 

[aa9511]

BIB. I don't know for sure. But the DT does seem to be throwing as much stuff at the wall as they can hoping that some of it will stick. OPs convoluted testimony shows that. This expert did the lights stuff, OP was too short to be seen by the Stipps, ballistics, pathology, sound testing, ??? IDK, he was just all over the place, just like all of the rest of the Defense's case.

Do you or anyone else recall what Dr. Stipp said regarding seeing someone pass over the window?

IIRC, he said he saw someone's torso passing over the window? And the light was on then?

Is this correct? TIA.

 

[TrueDetective]

Only problem with the way you put it now, Lisa, is that anything done out of Court is not a stipulation, it is an illegal act. It is corruption and collusion. Certainly there was no stipulation at the BH. Rather the opposite, as Nel put Botha back on the stand (after Roux ambushed him with news of the 5th phone, and asked why he didn’t access what he didn’t even know existed or had in his possession); who then testified that he only learned of the 5th phone’s existence the afternoon before in Court. Is it proper to even make a “stipulation” well after the alleged data in that crucial piece of evidence has already been testified to in court?

And as I've detailed here numerous times, even at the BH that the matter of criminal crime scene removal of evidence seems quite proven. At BH, we heard Mag. Nair actually berate Det Botha for not getting records from the 5th phone that DT only told PT existed the day before, and which they would NOT surrender to Pros for another 11 days if my calculation is correct.

And MSM drops all mention of this. I saw one video a year ago, where a reporter cornered Roux after BH day in court, and he, with a smirk or smile said "the defense has it and that's all I can say about it." This too may be gone.


“This one runs deep.”

Snipped for brevity.

Thanks Shane, fantastic stuff.
Just wondered though... The mystery of the missing 5th phone - what do you think was done with it? What was on it? Did it get taken because it was "the smoking gun"?
If calls/texts were made to Reeva they would still be on hers. They also might sync with his ipad.
I understand that this whole element is very worrying but I would be grateful if you could try to fill in the gaps.
Thanks...

 

[jay-jay]

This to me is odd.

I cannot tell you if a single member of my family or if any of my friends lock the bathroom door when they go inside the loo. I have never noticed or paid the least bit of attention. I would find it curious that anyone could remember whether or not someone locked or didn't lock a bathroom door behind them.

I've always known who are 'door lockers' in my family .. I used to be one, and so did my mum, dad and sister (and this is 40 odd years back I am remembering from) .. but then when I got married, my husband (<<-- this isn't the violent one I've mentioned, by the way) was a non-door locker and then I became a non-door locker too.

 

[DebinGA]

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.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

Oscar Big Lie #49,391 Reeva Locking the Door

OP said she locked the bathroom door because she heard him scream at the intruder to leave the house.

Reeva had already got up to go to the bathroom according to OP's version.

This means she either had the keys with her or the keys were already in the toilet door before she got there.

As Nel said, OP's story is so improbable that it could not have happened.

In all the houses I've ever lived in (about 11 or 12, I think, in different countries), the toilet has always had a lock. If it's a key lock, the key is always left on the inside, ready for people to turn.

I don't think I have ever heard of people carrying spare keys for a toilet for a private residence, even on a keyring. They just always seem to be left inside the door.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don’t believe Oscar and Reeva had a healthy loving relationship. I don’t believe that the card proves that they had a loving healthy relationship. What the card indicates to me is that on February 13th Reeva loved Oscar in spite of the red flags that she had seen in their relationship.

What I do believe the card gives credence to is that Reeva did not believe she was in a violent or abusive relationship. We are talking about a woman with a law degree, she was just on a television show, and her modeling career was taking off. She was not “stuck” in a relationship due to financial needs, children, social pressure, religious values, self-worth that had been meticulously and maliciously sapped out of her, lodging, any of the other reasons that many women through no fault of their own feel trapped by their abuser.

Reeva had a world of options, that she knew were viable, there is no indication that she was living fearfully under Oscar’s dominance and control.

Reeva loved Oscar she had hope for their relationship. That in and of itself is terribly sad.

And yes I know abuse can be insidiously hidden but that simply does not seem to be the case here. Not violent physical abuse.

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.

 

[Carmelita]

<modsnip>

Thank you! That could well be, I'll try to clarify my position. I am looking for holes in the prosecutions case and I am finding them. I am not seeing Oscar's inconsistencies as game changers, and I think even more so if I am familiar with Nels prosecuting style.

I have on numerous occasions said that I do not believe Oscar's version of that morning is an accurate rendition nor do I think that Oscar is a sweet misunderstood boy man.

I think he is arrogant, self absorbed and perceives himself as perfect and anything that challenges that view is a threat to him.

All that said I am still not convinced that Oscar knowingly and intentionally shot Reeva .

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Do you or anyone else recall what Dr. Stipp said regarding seeing someone pass over the window?

IIRC, he said he saw someone's torso passing over the window? And the light was on then?

Is this correct? TIA.

May I help you: Mr. Stipp said, a figure with light upper part crossed the window from the right side to the left.

 

[nastasya]

Oscar did not waver in spite of Nel’s tactics as to his basic version of the events of that night. I would call that a loss for Nel.

I completely disagree 100%.

OP didn't just waiver, he waivered within the same sentence at times.

The biggest "waiver" was when OP now denies that he was shooting at an intruder in self-defense. Nel asked him to repeat it and he did.

OP now claims that he did not kill Reeva because he was shooting at an intruder.

Do you realize what this means?

It means that entire defense case has just changed.

Whereas before they were building a case that OP shot Reeva protecting himself from a perceived intruder, now the defense MUST show that the gun accidentally went off - four times.

That's a huge waiver.

The entire defense case of mistaken identity has just been proven incorrect by the accused.

What evidence will they present to show the gun accidentally went off?