Trial Discussion Thread #48

[vansleuths]

What is it about the Pistorius's that they seem to leave a trail of destruction behind them .. Carl Pistorius with the manslaughter of a woman he knocked off her motorcycle (and apparently her fault, because she'd been drinking), Oscar with his killing of Reeva, and now I read this from that article ..?? --->>

(.. and I sincerely hope that was not yet another incident were OP asked someone else to take the blame, like he did with the firing of the gun in Tasha's restaurant .. presumably there were witnesses to who was actually driving the car at the time, to confirm it was actually Kruger?) You know, I would steer well clear of that family, or anyone they happen to be with at the time ..

BIB I'm not sure how many people followed the case of Carl Pistorius. I know I hadn't and when I heard he was being charged with CH, I thought this was something that ran in the Pistorius family.

But then I read that even the Barnard family felt that Carl had been unjustly charged with CH. Here is a quote from AP

"He also thanked the Barnard family, which had insisted he was not to blame for her death, "for their outspoken support and seeing that justice has been served.""

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/safrican-court-frees-brother-oscar-pistorius

 

[vansleuths]

The issue is not whether OP has the right to wear NIKE clothing. He can wear anything he wants (unless, or course, his NIKE contract forbids him to publicly wear NIKE if he ever breaches his contact, but who knows - I imagine murder would be a very serious breach).

That he deliberately wore NIKE tank/shorts during his MURDER reenactment video clearly shows his out-of-whack psyche. NIKE dropped him! It’s like he’s in serious denial. He did not yank them out of his closet my sheer accident.

IMO, he’s advertising that he’s still available for sponsorships, foolishly hoping against hope that he’s got some sports career left, a glimmer of former glories. It’s simply another sad, damning self-indictment.

I don't think he is advertising. This video was never meant to be seen by the public.

It was only meant to be used by the animation studio and I'm sure in the final footage, no one would have seen a Nike shirt.

 

[808]

Thanks Greater Than. You are correct that Nike could go after the TV station for not blurring out the Nike logo when airing their show and I think they would have a case.

OP I think is still safe from any lawsuits because I doubt it was ever written in his contract that he can't wear a Nike shirt after their contract is finished...though I stand to be corrected if someone can show me the contract between Nike and OP.

He may not be as safe as you think...
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-and-other-disgraced-athletes-cost-sponsors/

A fallen icon like Pistorius on the other hand, will forever be remembered as a man who killed his girlfriend. Whether it was by willful malice or grotesque irresponsibility, neither image is one to which a consumer goods company can connect its brand. A brand is the company’s reputation; A strong brand is a highly valuable asset, responsible for huge amounts of revenue. Subsequently, it should come as no surprise when a sponsor takes the next step beyond canceling an athlete’s contract, and actually sues its former beneficiary. This is exactly what happened to Lance Armstrong in 2013. The government sued Armstrong for sponsorship money earned while he was riding for Team United States Postal Service (USPS). The government claimed that the disgrace cost it over 10 million dollars when Armstrong and other members of his team were disqualified for doping.

When accepting highly lucrative sponsorships, athletes like Pistorius commit to a higher level of conduct representative of companies like Nike or Wilson. When a sponsored athlete cheats at sports, cheats on a spouse, or worst of all cheats another person out of their very life, he or she should expect a cost for their disgrace.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I agree. Well said.

I do have faith in Nel, but I still wonder why we never heard from net care? Wouldn't they have records or recordings showing what was said in that initial call from OP? I really want to know if anyone ever told him to bring her in himself. That seems unreal, unless he downplayed the situation.

Agreed. The total absence of Netcare from the courtroom is one of the biggest, most frustrating mysteries of this trial.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

After the murder, OP could utter only a few words regarding what happened. 'Thought she was an intruder'
Standers, Stipp, his best friend Divaris , his coach heard nothing more than that from him for hours..
He was so mortified that he couldn't talk even at some point he could not even talk on the phone to security , only crying was heard. Only mumbling . AN ACCIDENT HAPPENED AND I THOUGHT SHE WAS AN INTRUDER.PERIOD. No more no less.

I would expect an innocent person at least to try to tell the whole tragedy to each coming person after a while, how it happened etc esp to a best friend but that's just me. Anyway..

But then OP gives instructions to Standers , tells them to take dead Reeva with brains flowing from the holes in her head to hospital , talks to Carice in the kitchen , careful enough to notice Dr Stipp's actions and even to critisize him in court, calls his lawyer and takes a trip to upstairs and goes thru Reeva's bag..

Seems very calculative and selective again and again.. JMO :jail:

He figured the LESS he said to anyone, the better (and he sure did NOT want to talk to authorities first, hence his first phone call to friend Stander...with the additional bonus it insured time for Reeva to die and he could manipulate the crime scene).

His strategy - scream and wail and puke, all while repeating the same one “intruder” sentence OVER and OVER and OVER to everyone - after a while The Lie becomes The Truth, right?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Knowing Oscar, he might just have worn that clothing to thumb his nose at Nike.

That is also a definite possibility! LOL!!!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am not sure if this has been posted before. I don't personally recall it but apologies if it is a duplication.

The Unmaking of Oscar Pistorius
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-unmaking-of-oscar-pistorius/article10585576/?page=1

“In a sports-crazy nation, nobody questioned the idolizing of Oscar Pistorius. Not after his scrapes with the law, not when he applied for more gun licences, and not when he was allowed to enter an Olympic event for which he hadn’t qualified.”

 

[Lyra500]

"I am not sure which witnesses the State will rely upon in order to attempt to prove its case against me. Nonetheless, I undertake not to communicate with any witness, whoever he or she may be, and any other persons whose names may appear on a list of “State witnesses”, to be provided by the State."
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Application

I still do not understand how his very public comment to Gina Myers* in the courtroom is not a violation of his bail conditions? How and why was it virtually ignored by the Court?

* Even viewed and heard by a court police officer!

Thank you for posting this - it just shows what a huge hypocrite and liar this man was right from the start. Compare the bold underlined statement with this description of the grounds for the appeal against his bail conditions. This article was from March 28, 2013, a mere six weeks after the murder, but OP's defence team announced their intention to appeal these bail conditions within a month of the murder.

This is an article about the filing of the appeal from 11 March, 2013.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/03/11/pistorius-bail-appeal/1977899/

This article from March 28, 2013 covers the appeal hearing:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/28/oscar-pistorius-bail-conditions-relaxed

And this is the bit which really rankles - compare and contrast.....

Roux also argued against the ruling that Pistorius was not allowed to return to his home in a gated community in the eastern suburbs of Pretoria, where he shot Steenkamp dead.

His lawyers say he must be allowed to consult residents in order to prepare his defence against the murder charge.

Disgraceful.

I can remember posting at the time that I could not see the difference between "consulting residents to prepare his defence" and witness tampering. Seriously - what is the difference?

It is obvious that a defence team needs to find and interview witnesses, but since when has a murder suspect been allowed to participate?

 

[jay-jay]

BIB, I think as a celebrity, whether he is found innocent or guilty, he will pay because he has lost everything he has ever worked for in terms of his athletics, his post-retirement plans, the respect of friends and family. It's all gone. No matter where he goes, people will always whisper behind his back about how he was once accused of murder and "got a way with it". It will never leave him in this life, it will haunt him until the day he dies.

As for the afterlife, I leave that up to OPs relationship with God, but I do believe everyone, no matter who, is entitled to forgiveness after atonement. While none of us have probably ever killed anyone, I'm sure we've all done some things we're not very proud of. Jesus did say, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone....

I think it's probably best I don't reply with what I really want to say to that!

 

[jay-jay]

BIB, I think as a celebrity, whether he is found innocent or guilty, he will pay because he has lost everything he has ever worked for in terms of his athletics, his post-retirement plans, the respect of friends and family. It's all gone. No matter where he goes, people will always whisper behind his back about how he was once accused of murder and "got a way with it". It will never leave him in this life, it will haunt him until the day he dies.

As for the afterlife, I leave that up to OPs relationship with God, but I do believe everyone, no matter who, is entitled to forgiveness after atonement. While none of us have probably ever killed anyone, I'm sure we've all done some things we're not very proud of. Jesus did say, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone....

OK, to respond to the first paragraph .. would you say that about any other killer, or is this just Pistorius you would be ok with, getting off his jail term for murder, on the basis that 'he's lost everything anyway'? Why should he be treated any differently to any other murderer? Murder carries a jail term, he murdered Reeva, he should serve that jail term, end of.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Reeva met OP on 4 November 2012. The following are some of her tweets and Whatsapp messages until he murdered her.

Reeva Steenkamp @reevasteenkamp 11 Nov 2012
They said. Reeva baby use your head. But I chose to use my heart instead.

She departed for Jamaica on 12 November and returned on 25 November.

25 Nov 2012: “The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places.” Wise words for an amazing person @OscarPistorius

28 Nov 2012: When someone makes a big mistake & is evidently wrong but turns it around to make you feel like the wrongdoer. That.

3 Dec 2012: I'm so disappointed in myself today, more than anyone else. I never learn from the past. How do you grow if you never learn?

6 Dec 2012: Wondering what my stalker is up to? Kinda miss him lurking around tonight …

10 Dec 2012: Great gym session with @gi_myers missed @OscarPistorius and @Kevin_Ko_Lerena though! Hope you boys are having a great day X

Retweeted by Reeva Steenkamp
Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius 11 Dec 2012: Everything happens for a reason. Practice some faith in yourself and others. Pray and trust that His will shall prevail.

15 Dec 2012: Being around this bridal party makes me appreciate my friends & look forward to the day I get married to the man of my dreams.

19 Dec 2012: Raise your hand if 2012 was a crazy *advertiser censored* year for you. You learnt hard lessons. You got hurt. You survived. You're the future king of 2013.

20 Dec 2012: Dear boys of today. Let's drop our handbags and pick up our balls. Sincerely, the women of yesterday, today and tomorrow ))

25 Dec 2012: We have a problem @OscarPistorius pic.twitter.com/ugUZYxrY

26 Dec 2012: You truly are the devil reincarnated.

26 Dec 2012: OK. But where ARE you????

27 Dec 2012: In 2013 I will speak my mind. Walk where my feet dream to tread. Share company with those who make my heart smile. Make my dreams a reality.

28 Dec 2012: Planning a wild week of debauchery with @Iamfomo in London next year!!! Yes please and dankie wow.
Isn’t this interesting. Reeva was already planning a trip to London and not with OP. “dankie” means “thank you”. Iamfomo is one of her girlfriends as I discovered in an earlier tweet the same day.

29 Dec 2012: I am who I am by the grace of God. Nothing more. Nothing less. If He can love me as I am, then so should you I guess. - Me

31 Dec 2012: I've learnt many valuable lessons this year. Thank you 2012 for the education! Above all, "trust your inner voice" stands out for me. #2013 (Why didn't she listen to that voice?)

16 Jan 2012: Out of every misery, you WILL find your rainbow. A lesson. A truth. Nothing is a wasted experience if you look with willing eyes!

17 Jan 2012: "You built your walls so high, no one could climb it. But I'm gonna try boy ... Would you let me see beneath your beautiful ..."

19 Jan 2013 – Whatsapp from Reeva: (Edited for brevity) “I wasn't a stripper or a ho. I certainly have never been a prude and I've had fun but all innocent and without harmful repercussions.”

27 Jan 2013 – the very long Whatsapp message fromReeva: He ruined her best friend’s engagement, picked on her incessantly, denied she was flirting, felt sick that he’d made a scene, complained of his jealousy, mentioned his tantrums, she’s scared of him sometimes, he snaps at her … It just goes on and on and on.

His pathetic response was all about him. He was sick, tired, she left his side to talk to another guy, “I was 30 minutes late and I know you don't like it when I drive fast but then you could've asked Gina to drive herself so that we wouldn't have to”, she should have whispered in his ear if she didn’t like the song playing, he was upset, had a headache, and apologized for criticizing her for putting on an accent.

28 Jan 2013: Sometimes your blessings lay beneath a mountain of tribulations. Be patient and see them through. You will appreciate them far more!

1 Feb 2013: He certainly doesn't need more followers but he's beautiful to look at & says some smart stuff too (photo of OP was attached)

8 Feb 2013: When it takes you an entire day to try and compose a fitting response, a lacking one at that, rather leave it. It's just substandard.

8 Feb 2013 – Whatsapp message from Reeva: (Edited for brevity) I didn't think you would criticize me for doing that especially not so loudly so that others could hear. I might joke around and be all Tom boyish at times but I regard myself as a lady and I didn't feel like one tonight after the way you treated me when we left. I'm a person too and I appreciate that you invited me out tonight and I realize that you get harassed but I am trying my best to make you happy and I feel as though you sometimes never are, no matter the effort I put in. I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating you and be attacked by you -- the one person I deserve protection from.

8 Feb 2013: Before you lift a pen or raise your voice to criticize, acknowledge people's circumstances. You don't know their struggles. Their journey.

9 Feb 2013: Excited for a chilled Saturday evening in with good food, movies, popcorn, frozen yoghurt & my boo.

9 Feb 2013: I woke up in a happy safe home this morning. Not everyone did. Speak out against the rape of individuals…

13 Feb 2013: It's a beautiful day! Make things happen. Starting my day off with a yummy healthy shake from my boo

I can’t help feeling that a lot of the tweets were about him.
Bang … bang, bang, bang. A beautiful, caring young woman with so much to give, kindhearted, generous and looking forward to getting married one day gone forever.

 

[HoolyDooly]

There appear to be LOTS of nervous, anxious people in South Africa. How come the vast majority of them have never committed murder?

I’m very curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that OP’s actions were reasonable. You’re saying that a reasonable man would not expect to hear noise from the bathroom when his GIRLFRIEND is sharing his bed and house?!!! Why would OP automatically first assume it was an “intruder”??? It’s impossibly bizarre.

Being young does not excuse one from murder.
Living in SA does not excuse one from murder.
Having a disability does not automatically excuse one from murder.

Remember, throughout his entire life, right up until Feb. 14, 2013, Oscar himself categorically denied being disabled. Now he cowers behind his “disability”.

One cannot pick and choose when one’s disabled or not, whenever it’s convenient.

Thank you for answering my post. Yes I am a fence sitter on this one. On one hand I can see that if someone believed they were vulnerable they could take the wrong reaction out of fear and just shoot. If this was paranoia or phobia for example. I can also see as I posted that he could have shot her through feeling justified to retaliate if she had incensed him some how. But also I can see a blend of the two. For example OP overreact in a disagreement -shoots- realises what he has done - regains some composure - comes up with 'intruder dun it' story. This is where the Judge will sift through the data, know what is fluff, guff and padding from the advocates on both sides, triage down to critical facts and deliberate. I have no doubt the judge will be a wake up to any pretence of wheeling out the disability when required, she is no mans fool.

I am not a OP supporter just an I interested observer. I am however keen to see far less violence against women. If this young man did this deed in hot blood, the evidence will be clear to the judge and her professional team.

We have been discussing the pros and cons of having professional no jury in trials over here. I think they have there place especially with a 12 person jury and one of them is recalcitrant for example. In Queensland for murder all members of the jury must agree to the verdict.

Would you have preferred to have a jury? I would be interested to know. I will continue to read all your posts and views. It is an eye opener to read posts where I think "Now why hasn't anyone else come with that idea so far!"

Cheers Hooly

 

[eimajjjj]

Thank you for answering my post. Yes I am a fence sitter on this one. On one hand I can see that if someone believed they were vulnerable they could take the wrong reaction out of fear and just shoot. If this was paranoia or phobia for example. I can also see as I posted that he could have shot her through feeling justified to retaliate if she had incensed him some how. But also I can see a blend of the two. For example OP overreact in a disagreement -shoots- realises what he has done - regains some composure - comes up with 'intruder dun it' story. This is where the Judge will sift through the data, know what is fluff, guff and padding from the advocates on both sides, triage down to critical facts and deliberate.

I am not a OP supporter just an interested observer. I am however keen to far less violence against women. If this young man did this deed in hot blood The evidence will be clear to the judge and her professional team. We have been discussing the pros and cons of having professional no jury in trials over here. I think they have there place especially with a 12 person jury and one of them is recalcitrant for example. In Queensland for murder all members of the jury must agree to the verdict.

Would you have preferred to have a jury? I would be interested to know. I will continue to read all your posts and views. It is an eye opener to read posts where I think "Now why hasn't anyone else come with that idea so far!"

Cheers Hooly

The trouble with even considering OP just feeling paranoid and this being an accidental shooting isn't just the unreasonabilitzy of a man shooting without being sure of where his loved one is, which I think alone could still be debated as true or not. The trouble is, you have to combine this unreasonability with five separate people hearing a woman scream, impossibilities in his story, contradictions in his story, lies on the stand and an enormous heap of circumstantial evidence to say that he murdered this woman.

If you want to ignore that and focus on the 'paranoia' of SA only then that's fine but you'll not only be discussing a hypothetical situation and nothing that relates to this trial and also you'll still have to produce better evidence or arguments that combat an enormous pile of circumstantial evidence against OP better than then defence team has to convince myself and others of anything other than his obvious guilt.

 

[jay-jay]

Just following on from Judgejudi's post upthread .. I had another read through Reeva's tweets (had previously looked a few months back but must've only read her last ones as there were a number of them that I don't remember seeing before) and found this one quite interesting ..

https://twitter.com/reevasteenkamp/status/292692585133260800

.. she's talking about a new apartment there .. now whether or not this was just something she was dreaming about having, or was actively looking for, I don't know but this was from the 19 January, less than a month before she was killed, and it doesn't sound very much to me like she was planning to move in with OP in his new J'burg place.

 

[HoolyDooly]

Hi HoolyDooly and welcome aboard !!

I was tickled by the image of you tiptoeing into this "circus" armed with trash can lid and hard hat and all the while waving a white flag. LOL

IMO we need more posters here who don't agree with the majority opinion... makes for better discussion. I like the way you worded your post, acknowledging different possibilities. Let's face it, although many of us feel strongly that OP's guilty, none of us knows for sure. Nor do we know what the Judge will decide.

I wouldn't btw want to be in her shoes for love or money!

Oh Fanx Foxbluff........I thought I did hear the squeal of the nylon in the reel going crazy because I bagged a big marlin ! tee hee hee. There are more angles in this case that Dark age Brittain IMO. Anyway I could never understand why OP never opted to just leave (telling R " ..there is some joker is in the bathroom, quick lets get out and ring security/cops, tell Frank to leg it..." etc)

But there is a lot of 'what if's' and 'but what about this' on both sides of the debate. We all want to see justice for Reeva


Cheers Hooly

 

[Lyra500]

Just following on from Judgejudi's post upthread .. I had another read through Reeva's tweets (had previously looked a few months back but must've only read her last ones as there were a number of them that I don't remember seeing before) and found this one quite interesting ..

https://twitter.com/reevasteenkamp/status/292692585133260800

.. she's talking about a new apartment there .. now whether or not this was just something she was dreaming about having, or was actively looking for, I don't know but this was from the 19 January, less than a month before she was killed, and it doesn't sound very much to me like she was planning to move in with OP in his new J'burg place.

Yes - to me that just exposes yet another OP lie. He literally will make up absolutely anything in his efforts to get himself off the hook or to try and cast himself in a more positive light - like telling that neighbour that Reeva was his fiancé.

It is as if the OP brand is all he can think or care about. The fact that he is the cause of his own demise would be utterly devastating for most people, but he is so deluded that I wonder whether he even understands who is the real creator of his downfall.

 

[Lyra500]

Thank you for answering my post. Yes I am a fence sitter on this one. On one hand I can see that if someone believed they were vulnerable they could take the wrong reaction out of fear and just shoot. If this was paranoia or phobia for example. I can also see as I posted that he could have shot her through feeling justified to retaliate if she had incensed him some how. But also I can see a blend of the two. For example OP overreact in a disagreement -shoots- realises what he has done - regains some composure - comes up with 'intruder dun it' story. This is where the Judge will sift through the data, know what is fluff, guff and padding from the advocates on both sides, triage down to critical facts and deliberate. I have no doubt the judge will be a wake up to any pretence of wheeling out the disability when required, she is no mans fool.

I am not a OP supporter just an I interested observer. I am however keen to see far less violence against women. If this young man did this deed in hot blood, the evidence will be clear to the judge and her professional team.

......................................................Respectfully snipped

Hello Hooly

It is interesting to read alternative views, but I confess to finding it difficult to see your view as on the fence because of the bits I have bolded.

Your two possible ends of the spectrum are either that he felt vulnerable, paranoid and afraid and killed Reeva OR that he felt justified in killing her because she did something to provoke him.

None of the scenarios suggested include him shooting her in a totally unjustifiable rage (even thought there are numerous examples of his unacceptably aggressive behaviour in a number of different settings.).

I am afraid for me this just errs way too far into 'blame the victim' territory. Whichever of the scenarios above it is, it casts OP as the victim - I absolutely cannot see him that way.

Not only did he shoot Reeva four times (whilst claiming he didn't realise he was doing it) but he has lied and lied and lied again during the trial and changed his accounts repeatedly when he finds that his most recent version no longer holds water.

Because of this, I find any conclusion which is still undecided or fence sitting completely bemusing.

Still, the world would be terribly dull if we all thought the same way.

 

[HoolyDooly]

The trouble with even considering OP just feeling paranoid and this being an accidental shooting isn't just the unreasonabilitzy of a man shooting without being sure of where his loved one is, which I think alone could still be debated as true or not. The trouble is, you have to combine this unreasonability with five separate people hearing a woman scream, impossibilities in his story, contradictions in his story, lies on the stand and an enormous heap of circumstantial evidence to say that he murdered this woman.

If you want to ignore that and focus on the 'paranoia' of SA only then that's fine but you'll not only be discussing a hypothetical situation and nothing that relates to this trial and also you'll still have to produce better evidence or arguments that combat an enormous pile of circumstantial evidence against OP better than then defence team has to convince myself and others of anything other than his obvious guilt.

Thanks for replying.

I would have to agree that there IS a lot of holes and inconsistencies to wade through ! And though it is clear that there was no necessity to just shoot in this instance (could have skedaddled?), if he really did believe there was an intruder (because I think from what I have read he did have a paranoia that this was going to happen one day - default mindset)
he could have mentally went straight to 'the intruder is here - must get gun and put into practice what I have been readying myself for...." especially if he knew the ladder was outside - could have given him the yips. (sorry about the long sentence)
I know it seems weak.... That could account for bigger that needed weapon to counterbalance his (private) opinion that he was more vulnerable etc..

However regardless he should of left first, not shot first. I have mixed doubts, and OP confounded me a few times with implausible points that just beggars belief.

The judge is maybe going to need at times a Valium-salt-lick and a few double brandies on standby in her deliberations.

OH and BTW I don't think all SA is paranoid, (inset here " I am not worthy-bowing person" picture) just work with ex SA and they've said the sense if personal security is low etc .

Hooly

 

[kittychi]

He may not be as safe as you think...
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-and-other-disgraced-athletes-cost-sponsors/

A fallen icon like Pistorius on the other hand, will forever be remembered as a man who killed his girlfriend. Whether it was by willful malice or grotesque irresponsibility, neither image is one to which a consumer goods company can connect its brand. A brand is the company’s reputation; A strong brand is a highly valuable asset, responsible for huge amounts of revenue. Subsequently, it should come as no surprise when a sponsor takes the next step beyond canceling an athlete’s contract, and actually sues its former beneficiary. This is exactly what happened to Lance Armstrong in 2013. The government sued Armstrong for sponsorship money earned while he was riding for Team United States Postal Service (USPS). The government claimed that the disgrace cost it over 10 million dollars when Armstrong and other members of his team were disqualified for doping.

When accepting highly lucrative sponsorships, athletes like Pistorius commit to a higher level of conduct representative of companies like Nike or Wilson. When a sponsored athlete cheats at sports, cheats on a spouse, or worst of all cheats another person out of their very life, he or she should expect a cost for their disgrace.

I would love to know if there was anything in any of his contracts that specified he needed to have exemplary behavior at all times.

This makes me curious if one of his sponsors got wind of the Tasha gun incident and ended the relationship at the meeting OP went to earlier in the day February 13, even though his friend took responsibility for the incident. Even the "appearance" of a problem or being in the wrong place at the wrong time may have been enough to sever the contract. And would make for a very "shi**y day" as Reeva called it in her text.

Poor Oscar :violin:

 

[HoolyDooly]

Hello Hooly

It is interesting to read alternative views, but I confess to finding it difficult to see your view as on the fence because of the bits I have bolded.

Your two possible ends of the spectrum are either that he felt vulnerable, paranoid and afraid and killed Reeva OR that he felt justified in killing her because she did something to provoke him.

None of the scenarios suggested include him shooting her in a totally unjustifiable rage (even thought there are numerous examples of his unacceptably aggressive behaviour in a number of different settings.).

I am afraid for me this just errs way too far into 'blame the victim' territory. Whichever of the scenarios above it is, it casts OP as the victim - I absolutely cannot see him that way.

Not only did he shoot Reeva four times (whilst claiming he didn't realise he was doing it) but he has lied and lied and lied again during the trial and changed his accounts repeatedly when he finds that his most recent version no longer holds water.

Because of this, I find any conclusion which is still undecided or fence sitting completely bemusing.

Still, the world would be terribly dull if we all thought the same way.

Oh no no no, not blaming victim AT ALL...lost in context...my original post ...way back eons ago..I was being scarcastic about op actually - using italics....meaning she said something that he deemed she should not say ( she who had incensed him ). I say I am fence sitting because I like to stand back and think.
He should have NOT SHOT ANYONE. He had no reason to shoot. He may have thought (in his mind for what ever cause) that he had a right to for defence - he says - but Nels prosecution team has created significant doubt, especially with OP's ducking and weaving - it is even obvious to blind Freddy.

As I have posted previously I can also see that he may well shot in rage at the door Reeva was behind mercilessly then chose on reflection to say it was an intruder - I made an error etc.....to get out of the guilt and ultimate responsibility and culpability.
It could well be that he wants to desperately believe himself that he did not secumb to rage and shoot Reeva in spite?

Hooly