Trial Discussion Thread #48

[soozieqtips]

I have no problem at all with Cherwell's contribution-interpretations…

What I resented was being told by Cherwell that I had no business contributing myself by expressing my own interpretations and views.

I must have missed something, because I don't recall any of Cherwell's posts saying any such thing.

 

[Greater Than]

I get what you are saying but I stated that I was not sure if disproving OP's version was enough by itself to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt… I'm still not sure.

The 'Reeva screaming in fear' evidence is also twofold :

- It disproves OP's version of events (as the 'argument at 2AM' and the 'stomach content' evidence)

- It is circumstantial evidence of murder

Naturally, an argument between a couple is a possible motive for a murder… but if instead of an argument, a passionate and loud sex-romp was heard between 2AM and 3AM, the motive aspect would disappear completely but the disproving aspect would remain.

BIB - I disagree. Overhearing them having sex rather than an argument wouldn't disprove his version, it would strengthen it.

 

[minor4th]

When does the case get going again?

 

[Greater Than]

When does the case get going again?

Closing arguments are set to begin on August 7th.

 

[minor4th]

Closing arguments are set to begin on August 7th.

And we don't get to see their Heads if Argument until they argue it in court, right?

 

[Cherwell]

I must have missed something, because I don't recall any of Cherwell's posts saying any such thing.

You're right, soozie, I said no such thing. Thank you.

 

[Scand]

I know Moller said he received a laptop as well as mobile phones to have a look at, but I never heard any evidence on what they had found on the laptop (which I think was Reeva's). I am curious to know what the contract said (the one Oscar said he had made amendments to for Reeva) because I suspect there might have been a scheduling conflict between her work and the travel plans he had made for her via Zyl. I also wonder if the e-mail sent from Zyl to Oscar on 13 Feb 2013 has been submitted as evidence. My suspicion is that the trips were Oscar's Valentines Day present/surprise and he might not have understood why her work was more important than his (going on the me, me, me evidence that Nel has been presenting).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[soozieqtips]

I know Moller said he received a laptop as well as mobile phones to have a look at, but I never heard any evidence on what they had found on the laptop (which I think was Reeva's). I am curious to know what the contract said (the one Oscar said he had made amendments to for Reeva) because I suspect there might have been a scheduling conflict between her work and the travel plans he had made for her via Zyl. I also wonder if the e-mail sent from Zyl to Oscar on 13 Feb 2013 has been submitted as evidence. My suspicion is that the trips were Oscar's Valentines Day present/surprise and he might not have understood why her work was more important than his (going on the me, me, me evidence that Nel has been presenting).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BIB - I think if the trips were going to be his present to Reeva, he'd have made sure to say so in court, rather than come up with the invisible bracelet and fictional charm that he was going to buy for the invisible bracelet.

 

[Scand]

BIB - I think if the trips were going to be his present to Reeva, he'd have made sure to say so in court, rather than come up with the invisible bracelet and fictional charm that he was going to buy for the invisible bracelet.

I think you are proving my point. He had to come up with a bracelet story because he couldn't mention the trips since this was the reason for the argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[soozieqtips]

I think you are proving my point. He had to come up with a bracelet story because he couldn't mention the trips since this was the reason for the argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except the fact he got her nothing she could actually open could also have led to an argument, yet he still mentioned the invisible bracelet and charm.

 

[Val1]

I get what you are saying but I stated that I was not sure if disproving OP's version was enough by itself to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt… I'm still not sure.

The 'Reeva screaming in fear' evidence is also twofold :

- It disproves OP's version of events (as the 'argument at 2AM' and the 'stomach content' evidence)

- It is circumstantial evidence of murder

Naturally, an argument between a couple is a possible motive for a murder… but if instead of an argument, a passionate and loud sex-romp was heard between 2AM and 3AM, the motive aspect would disappear completely but the disproving aspect would remain.

This is why I wish Nel had dipped into the apparent "cover-up" activities shortly after OP killed RS. Surely the evidence we already have points to premeditation(thought he could get away with it in the few moments it took to get his gun and shoot her dead)? Garbage bags, twist ties, then the possibly unlocked and running car sitting in the driveway(didn't quiz the Standers or bring into evidence any of that iirc), an open front door, turning off the alarm so as not to trigger it and cause all and everyone to come running, all points to the ability to getting a body out quickly and quietly into that car, a few quick calls to your closest and most loyal friends, including the head of security for your complex to possibly ensure you could get out the gate without having to log it and for the cameras to perhaps conveniently be "accidentally" off-line(gee, why not just scrub it all for any entries after RS had left the first time), oh and your immigrant "housekeeper" that has cleaned up your "messes" for the last 2+ years awake and in the street shortly after 3am, who supposedly didn't hear or know anything about that whole night(heck maybe he wasn't even aware that his "boss" was in town that week eh?...but we'll never know officially now) while you had perhaps spent the night at your best friend's(see phone calls) after a "boys night" out and had been too tired to drive home, see "training" schedule.

Yea, I can hear the lament now...
RS is missing oh my, but she was supposed to have gone to the movies... she must have been hijacked while driving home which I told her never to do.... now I don't want that house close to where she was temporarily staying with friends after all, you know, the one that I couldn't really afford but I was buying it for her ...

That buying a house to be close to someone and then claiming or insinuating that you were going to be living together in it doesn't make any sense to start with, if that was true, it shouldn't matter where the house was. Nevermind that he'd been in the market for the previous couple of years to both sell his house and buy another one in town...
:moo:

 

[Scand]

Except the fact he got her nothing she could actually open could also have led to an argument, yet he still mentioned the invisible bracelet and charm.

Again, I feel you are proving my point. He couldn't "wrap" the e-mail from Zyl. The bracelet story sounds like a completely made up thing (I do believe we both agree on that).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[geevee]

Near the beginning of 4/15 of Nel's cross of OP when he's again being asked about her jeans being turned inside out, OP states that 'Reeva was already in her pajamas when I got home around 6:00' - so when did she change into the shorts and vest top? Nel asked him about the clothing she was wearing when shot and when did she have time to get dressed, OP said she must have fallen asleep in her clothes. Her overnight bag was neatly packed, so where are her pajamas he said she was wearing when he came home?

I can't fathom how the judge could believe a word out of his mouth, it's all so ridiculous.

 

[Scand]

Near the beginning of 4/15 of Nel's cross of OP when he's again being asked about her jeans being turned inside out, OP states that 'Reeva was already in her pajamas when I got home around 6:00' - so when did she change into the shorts and vest top? Nel asked him about the clothing she was wearing when shot and when did she have time to get dressed, OP said she must have fallen asleep in her clothes. Her overnight bag was neatly packed, so where are her pajamas he said she was wearing when he came home?

I can't fathom how the judge could believe a word out of his mouth, it's all so ridiculous.

I have also thought about the fact that Reeva was shot in the vest that you can see she was wearing when she arrived back at Silver Woods (from the security video). Would she really wear the same vest in bed? I guess it's possible, but it indicates to me that she might not have gone to bed.

The inside out jeans points more to me that they had just been washed and were possibly drying on the balcony (Oscar mentioned Reeva was doing laundry, one reason why she stayed during the day).

A mystery to me are the jeans in the garden, under the bathroom window. That doesn't look like a "normal" place for them to be in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scand]

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2014/04/an-easter--of-oscar.html

I thought this article was really insightful (except the conclusion, which I didn't quite follow).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[808]

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2014/04/an-easter--of-oscar.html

I thought this article was really insightful (except the conclusion, which I didn't quite follow).


That article summarises the interest I have in this trial. The privilege and expectation of drive through justice that OP feels he's entitled to ddsmiley:.
Thanks for that Scand.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Graphic photos.

“Dignity”.

Who are we really “protecting” - the victim/family...or ourselves?

Are certain brutalities publicly “acceptable” while others are not?

WHY?

Withholding graphic crime scene photos/graphic court testimony is wrong.

It’s simply stunning in it’s misguided sense of “decency” and “propriety”. In their vast wisdom, the courts unilaterally determine that we are all children, innocent Pollyannas who live in Neverland - that we can’t handle the truth, we must be “protected”. Protected from what - the TRUTH?

During OP’s testimony, graphic photos of dead Reeva were “accidentally” shown in court.

“ACCIDENTALLY”?

Isn’t the whole point of this murder trial the graphically dead Reeva?!! This notion of “accidental” showing - as if it is somehow a grave offense - is ridiculous in the extreme, bizarre on its face. If one is accused of murder, shouldn’t the graphic results of that murder be the #1 evidence displayed in open court? Isn’t that death the singular point of the entire trial?!

It’s like enthusiastically electing to throw a brutal, bloody war, but then not show the graphic, gruesome results of that brutal, bloody war to the public (the same public that fights the war and pays for the war). Such a sanitized policy is cowardly and perverse (especially when war crimes are involved!). War is extremely bad, extremely ugly - but let’s just sanitize it and pretend - we won’t show just how extremely bad, how extremely ugly it really is. [side note: This is one reason maimed/traumatized US war veterans are all but invisible when they return, why they too often end up homeless or commit suicide, why they too often don’t get the help they desperately need - we REFUSE to show the truth of war and its manifestly awful consequences. Same with murder - most victims simply become little more than invisible names and statistics.]

Simple words too often fail miserably to accurately convey the harsh reality in murder cases.

“Murder”, as a word and legal concept, is clean, neat, abstract. A murdered human is not clean, neat or abstract. For god’s sake, let us deal in REALITY! (Let those who don’t wish to see such photos turn away.) We have a solemn moral duty as a society (the justice system even more so) to accurately, publicly display the wretched TRUTH - murderous actions have miserable, insanely horrid consequences. Portraying anything less than the entire truth is a grave disservice to victims. (Seriously, do you honestly think a murder victim would wish the stark visual reality of their death withheld? I certainly would not.). By disallowing open court to view all such photos (treating the public like 3 year olds), the crime itself is diminished, whitewashed - like sanitized war photos. It disrespects victims in the extreme by not showing the ENTIRE truth of the crime.

Excuses of protecting the victim’s and/or family’s “dignity” simply do NOT hold up (yes, the family has every right NOT to view the photos, if they wish, which I staunchly defend). But also remember this: murder is a crime not only against the person, but against the State; the public has a vested interest in crimes against the public.

Let’s face reality head on. The victim is DEAD - s/he does not care about “dignity”. The family desperately wants JUSTICE above all - if graphic photos/graphic testimony help bring justice, isn’t that the goal? The only road to justice is to literally see the whole truth. (If it was my murdered daughter, I’d want the freaking WORLD to see exactly what OP did.) To downplay the graphic nature of murder in a misguided bid to preserve alleged “dignity” is to subtly, indirectly continue the proliferation of violence. (Well, yeah, he killed her but it wasn’t so bad - I saw the [sanitized, highly selective] photos.) NO!!! “Killing” someone doesn’t tell the story - ALL graphic crime scene photos/testimony tells the real story - not bits and pieces through an arbitrary filter.

Society must SEE the true consequences of violence. Yes, seeing such horrid photos / hearing graphic testimony is extremely uncomfortable - but that’s the point: murder and its far-reaching familial/societal consequences are extremely uncomfortable. It should be. The dead body is Exhibit #1 - it too often gets lost amid all the trial legalese and courtroom dramatics in a warped sense of preserving "dignity".

The accused did not shy away from committing murder - we should never shy away from seeing the full results of that murder, if we so wish.

Full justice demands full disclosure.

Murder victims deserve nothing less.

That is true dignity.

One more thing. . .

The extremely disparate treatment of graphic court testimony/photos between Reeva Steenkamp’s murder trial and the Anene Booysens of the world is a whole other discussion entirely, isn’t it? Highly selective “dignity” - based on class and color. Apparently, certain victims deserve more “dignity” than others.

 

[808]

In this documentary before the trial the prosecution representative said the clothing was a fundamental part of their case.

See around 30:50 in this "dated" documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeM6v3PYIfI

This doc seems to better catalogue OP's free-fall over the years :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q

You see him give his BS account of what happened on the VAAL river and articles pop up about his assault case against the other young girl.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

[Pistorius friend] Mike [Azzi’s] son Dexter has often spent the weekend at Pistorius’s home. ... Dexter was at the house two weeks before Christmas and recalled how he knocked over a fan and Pistorius became panic-stricken. The athlete immediately grabbed his gun for protection before shouting to check if Dexter was OK. - March 9 2013
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-suicidal-reveals-best-1753776

That’s right, folks, Oscar first SHOUTED to see if his friend Dexter was alright!

(WHY didn’t OP shout to Reeva as he grabbed his gun from under the bed she was supposedly in? He could freaking reach out and touch her!)

OP did NOT shoot girlfriend Sam Taylor. He asked her about noises in the night before investigating.
OP did NOT shoot his washing machine. He investigated the noise.
OP did NOT shoot his friend Dexter Azzi. He shouted to him.

OP did shoot Reeva Steenkamp. He did NOT ask her about the “noise”.

WHY???

Only on this one night, only with Reeva Steenkamp, did he NOT do the one thing he had always previously done.

Tell me again this was just an “accident”, a “tragic mistake”.

 

[kittychi]

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2014/04/an-easter--of-oscar.html

I thought this article was really insightful (except the conclusion, which I didn't quite follow).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That was a great read, Scand. Thank you.