Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[jay-jay]

He went from describing quite clearly that he heard a click and the sound of wood moving to indicate that he thought the door was opening. Only when Nel said well how could it have been that because the door was locked and it never opened did OP then say he must have heard the magazine rack moving. Bizarre!

Exactly my point, thanks for confirming!

 

[steveml]

BIB 1

Forgive me for being direct, but you do not know in the least if in fact the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt to Judge Masipa. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but proving OP to be an unreliable (i.e. lying on the stand) defendant is enough to give reasonable doubt. From every article I've read and every opinion of actual attorneys, OP has been a disaster for his own defense. Sympathize with him all you want, it's your right to do so. But you simply do not know what the judge is thinking with respect to this case.


BIB 2

Hogwash. Given they were both trying to keep incredibly thin, she could have been eating raw vegetables out of a bag and a piece of fat free cheese with her fingers. No plates or forks needed. And I must have missed where the state is saying that the meal caused an altercation. They are merely using RS' stomach contents to show that OP is (yet again) lying about what happened that night.

BIB 3

In your opinion but not in mine or many others. It's the opposite - OP's defense is what is too thin and scrappy. And by details, do you mean the ones he kept adding in to fit "his version" to the evidence and then tripping up over whenever questioned about them?


BIB 4

You weaken your argument when you say Nel's attempt to do his job is pathetic, IMO. Perhaps you find it unnecessary, but it shows no "pathetic" maneuver by the PT.

BBM

With respect, that isn't true. If a question is posed whereby you cannot give an answer we should never presume that the person is therefore lying.

If Reeva did nip down for some vegetables to eat during the evening and OP was asleep, how can he be expected to give a yes or no answer?

Nel has obviously made this appear to some as if OP was lying, therefore it clearly demonstrates how unfairly the question was delivered.

 

[Cherwell]

When asked if Reeva knew how to activate/deactivate the alarm (in the house), OP responded that he wasn't sure if she knew how to or not.

Now this brings up more questions about just how concerned with security and safety OP really was. Remember, Reeva went to OP's house on the 13th when he was not there to do laundry and get some work done. So, how did Reeva get into the home without knowing how to deactivate the alarm? Or did OP leave the home without turning the alarm on? And if he left the home without turning the alarm on, then one can say that his claims of paranoia about security and safety are nothing more than hot air blown to get away with murder.

I asked about this a long time ago, but nobody picked up on it. Did she have a key, or was the elusive housekeeper there to let her in?

 

[TorisMom003]

and he totally ignored it in the text bless her. She was clearly wrong about it being the right time to tell him though. I didn't watch today, how did OP respond to the card being shown and read? Did he have a breakdown?

He read out the card. Made a mistake with some of the words. No tears, no sniffling, no need for the green bucket.

These are the last words that Reeva ever wrote to him, the one in which she tells him that she loves him, and he reads it out as if he is reading something from a stranger.

MOO

 

[clearskies1]

She may not have known he had a gun in his hand at that point though .. he may have been angry and threatening, but only when she had retreated into the bathroom and locked the door did he go back and get his gun.

Yes, that's true. I was just pointing out that I believe OP was in a real rage (pounding door & bathtub with bat) before the shots and that if that were me in the locked room I would definitely think about jumping out the window.

JMO

 

[Magdalyn]

Ah yes, but you ignore the context.


Firstly, RS had already mentioned in a text message that he planned to reveal her feelings for him (very soon). She was stringing it out, waiting for the opportune moment. Making him wait. That isn't the way an abused partner would do it. Rather she was in complete control of how and when she wanted to reveal this. It was not some sort of knee jerk reaction uttered out of a desire merely to placate him.

Secondly, this was clearly and unambiguously a declaration of her love for him. In speaking of the "right moment," she was telling him she had fallen in love with him. Had she just said, "I love you," you wouldn't necessarily know for sure, you're right. But what can she mean by "the right moment", other than the right moment in their relationship with one another. If she had been planning to leave him, then t it was utterly the wrong moment in their relationship to say she loved him.

Thirdly, I have no doubt whatsover that these two people were very much in love with each other.

1) Reeva may not have yet realized she was ignoring all the signs of a controlling, manipulative, abusive man. Early days. Her 'love' and endorphins may have blinded her/allowed her to excuse what she wouldn't have excused had she been outside this relationship looking in. IOW, she may have been unintentionally, tragically, ignoring signs of abuse/potential for abuse. First and foremost in her mind: She loves him. She'll worry about the fact that sometimes he scares her later.

2) She could have meant since Valentine's Day was coming soon, that'd be the perfect time to tell him what she personally has been keeping inside. She's both really feeling like she loves him, and a romantic holiday is upon them. Also, the right moment for her may not have been the right moment for him. It's not always simultaneous, equal, mutual, or on the same schedule.

You may be confusing me with another poster. I've never conjectured Reeva had been planning to leave him/the relationship prior to the 13th/14th. I suspect she really, really wanted to leave when he was raging at her, (and scaring her--as he does sometimes, as per Reeva) on the 13th/14th, though.

I have much doubt about Oscar's feelings towards Reeva. I actually believe he's a narcissist. He does seem to love himself, very, very much.

 

[TorisMom003]

BBM

With respect, that isn't true. If a question is posed whereby you cannot give an answer we should never presume that the person is therefore lying.

If Reeva did nip down for some vegetables to eat during the evening and OP was asleep, how can he be expected to give a yes or no answer?

Nel has obviously made this appear to some as if OP was lying, therefore it clearly demonstrates how unfairly the question was delivered.

OP was insistent that Reeva could NOT go down to the kitchen for a snack without him knowing about it. OP painted himself into a corner with that remark. Much like he has painted himself into a corner throughout his testimony.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

I believe there is some widespread confusion of what is "evidence" and what is "proof"

A card that Reeva wrote "I love you" on the day of her death is "evidence" that Reeva loved Oscar and that this was a loving relationship. It is not "proof" of such, but it IS "evidence."

Reeva's previous comments that she was scared of Oscar's reactions and snapping at her is "evidence" of trouble in the relationship, at least on the date she wrote that. It is not "proof" that it was not a loving relationship, but it is at least "evidence" that it wasn't a loving relationship at that time.

 

[aoibhinn]

Ah yes, but you ignore the context.

Secondly, this was clearly and unambiguously a declaration of her love for him. In speaking of the "right moment," she was telling him she had fallen in love with him. Had she just said, "I love you," you wouldn't necessarily know for sure, you're right. But what can she mean by "the right moment", other than the right moment in their relationship with one another. If she had been planning to leave him, then t it was utterly the wrong moment in their relationship to say she loved him.

Respectfully chopped.

Clearly. Because nothing says "I love you" like a $2 Hallmark card with a smiley face signature. The glamour and romance, hey?

You must be from my generation. You know how we roll....

 

[fox1lady]

He read out the card. Made a mistake with some of the words. No tears, no sniffling, no need for the green bucket.

These are the last words that Reeva ever wrote to him, the one in which she tells him that she loves him, and he reads it out as if he is reading something from a stranger.

MOO

Oh my goodness! Really? I would have thought this would have been a heartwrencher moment for him taking everything into consideration and reading the words to the effect of "today seemed perfect to tell you I love you", today being the day he killed her.

 

[Viper]

So we agree that no conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a card from Oscar?

Oscar testified he loved Reeva. He is the only one who can say whether he did or did not.

Aside from Oscar saying he loved Reeva and Reeva writing a card saying "I love you", there are countless messages of a loving nature - kiss, kiss, kiss, I miss you more, baba, booboo, etc. Reeva was spending the night at Oscar's house and had spent the previous night with him as well. All of those things are evidence of a loving relationship.

Is there also evidence that there were times when this relationship was not so loving? Absolutely.

BIB. No. I don't care if he had to run down to the kitchen and scribble a heart on a bar napkin. He had to have made some effort to memorialize his love and affection for Reeva on that day of hearts. Otherwise he is just an *advertiser censored******* and had no feeling of love, or even romance. This is Girlfriend Boyfriend 101. Very simple material to understand.

 

[TrueDetective]

BBM
Could be nothing or...
You have to see the possibilities, and learn Shane-Speak: "This one runs deep."

I need more than that Shane, I'm missing something here.
Why would Nel not question an obvious inconsistency or not pursue a potentially sensitive area?
You're such a tease!!

 

[Gryffindor]

And therefore adept at defending the indefensible ?

Just a question.

I'd say more to determine a true, honest and reliable outcome of justice; based on facts, evidence and the law.

 

[Cherwell]

Darn it lol, I should have thought of that... do they sell blank VD cards? Must remember that next time I'm faced with that problem

Doesn't have to be a "Valentines" (or any "occasion" card). Just look for a blank card with an appropriate image. Look at the art repro and photographic sections.

 

[fox1lady]

Goodness me, as I haven't watched today, did the card bring out such a lively debate in the courtroom?

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks for the explanation!

As far as the P.S. part I am bored and work and enjoy the debate. So no need for an ignore list as of now, but thanks for the help!

What does BBM stand for? The only other forums I use are for Football.

BBM - is 'bolded by me' :smile:

It's useful if you're replying to a very long post and just want to reference a sentence or two. You have to remember to put BIB or BBM to show that it's you who bolded it, and not the original poster. Pretty sure that's right, and if not, Nel can tell me "Your version isn't true" :floorlaugh:

 

[Paysee]

You can love someone but not necessarily feel that you're in a loving relationship! Excuse me for doing an OP and not actually answering the question

Thats really profound, and so true.

 

[Magdalyn]

I believe there is some widespread confusion of what is "evidence" and what is "proof"

A card that Reeva wrote "I love you" on the day of her death is "evidence" that Reeva loved Oscar and that this was a loving relationship. It is not "proof" of such, but it IS "evidence."

Reeva's previous comments that she was scared of Oscar's reactions and snapping at her is "evidence" of trouble in the relationship, at least on the date she wrote that. It is not "proof" that it was not a loving relationship, but it is at least "evidence" that it wasn't a loving relationship at that time.

Not confused here.

The card is evidence that Reeva loves him. Period.

If the words 'I love you', spoken, or written on a Valentine's Day card, are 'evidence of a loving relationship' we have a board filled with formerly abused men and women who would like to tell you otherwise.

 

[benn25]

OP was insistent that Reeva could NOT go down to the kitchen for a snack without him knowing about it. OP painted himself into a corner with that remark. Much like he has painted himself into a corner throughout his testimony.

MOO

Exactly he should of just said "yes she could of gone down for some food, but I dont know as I was asleep". End of questioning about Reeva's midnight snack.

The problem with OP throughout x-exam is his over elaboration of the questions posed to him, for whatever reason. Simple questions turned into elaborate answers when a yes or no answer would of sufficed or even I dont know would of been better.

It proves he's trying to prove his innocence too much by giving extra info which keeps coming back to bite him in the arse.

 

[Paysee]

Please excuse my ignorance but what does BIB stand for?

BIB = Bit In Bold

BBM = Bolded By Me