Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[soozieqtips]

I will move on in a moment but I think the messages as far as the Defence is concerned confirms that there were real problems in their relationship and that RS was frightened of him. I don't understand, if you have suffered emotional abuse, how you feel he was just bad tempered at times. His picking on her and telling her to change her ways, his "offness" and his complete disregard (at the time) for her feelings is very telling. These are all signs of the start of emotional abuse. Abusers nearly always apologise profusely and then do it again but the abuse worsens with time.

Having been abused yourself, I would have thought these you would recognise these danger signals. Perhaps your abuse was so bad that the OP/RS situation, for you, seems nothing. I think what is very important with these messages is how they escalated towards the ending of her life and that she was, at times, scared of him.

My point with respect to you not agreeing that his attitude "constitutes emotional abuse" is that you have endlessly commented that you thought their arguments were nothing more than tiffs that were resolved. To me and I am sure many others that indicates you do not think his attitude consistutes emotional abuse and above you have iterated your same feelings.

Definition - Constitutes = establishes. I think nitpicking is unnecessary in our posts it devalues otherwise intelligent arguments.

Now I will move on

I agree with everything you've said about the emotional abuse existing in OP and Reeva's 'deeply loving' relationship. I posted a few threads ago that anyone dismissing it as nothing significant, either hasn't been abused... or has been desensitised to it, which can happen. The overwhelming majority of us see the abuse for what it is - real and escalating. The only reason it didn't escalate any further and establish a longer pattern of behaviour is because OP shot her dead before it could. Fortunately, the Judge will be perfectly aware of what constitutes emotional abuse.

 

[MeeBee]

Again with accusing the prosecution team.... I ask, who stands more to gain if it appears that the police/prosecution "leaked" stuff?

Just like so many of those "leaked" pics that Sky News had that the police got a dressing down for, heck it wasn't even the same bathroom they showed(note OP's doesn't have a sink in it) and the rest were obviously taken the second day when the defense were there too.

When it comes right down to it I wouldn't be surprised if it was OP's "team" who had made that offer for the pics of the door to get a heads up for the bail hearing. People with money think they can buy their way out of anything and unfortunately that's all too often true.

As for the watches, people keep accusing the police for those but there were so many people there that day(not even counting the gardener and housekeeper) that shouldn't have been but had been "invited" to come to the crime scene by OP, friends and family that any one of them could have easily walked off with one, just like they did with the cell phone. You have to admit that all the confusion with everyone there and a watch going missing in the midst of it, the body having been moved, evidence being compromised etc certainly didn't hurt OP's case at all!

So seriously, is there proof that would stand up to the judge's criteria for these accusations against the prosecution and/or law enforcement, or is this yet more spin doctoring for the other side?

This is evidence that has not been "put to" the judge. I'm talking about the attempt to spin things against Oscar in the court of public opinion. There is evidence that at least some of the misleading or incorrect information has been put out by police and investigators because it's information that only those close to the case would know. I doubt OP's team was behind the flat out lie that OP used the cricket bat to bash Reeva's head in or the tidbit that he was hiding his password.

 

[Val1]

This is evidence that has not been "put to" the judge. I'm talking about the attempt to spin things against Oscar in the court of public opinion. There is evidence that at least some of the misleading or incorrect information has been put out by police and investigators because it's information that only those close to the case would know. I doubt OP's team was behind the flat out lie that OP used the cricket bat to bash Reeva's head in or the tidbit that he was hiding his password.

bbm - So the answer is no, there's no proof?

 

[MeeBee]

bbm - So the answer is no, there's no proof?

No. But I've never said there was.

ETA: well, there's no doubt they were behind the cricket bat leak.

 

[Britlaws]

Forgive me if I have this wrong but I think there is much misunderstanding about the elements of the offence charged and what has to be proven. Without any legal gumpf, the charge is that:

1) OP intentionally or recklessly killed someone AND
2) that none of the available defences to this apply - e.g. putative self defence, insanity etc.

OP has admitted that he did #1. The state still has to prove this just in case, for example, if OP claims at the trial that his statements were made under duress. So, despite his admission, they still have to prove the elements of the offence - that he made the decision to pick up the gun, chose himself to fire it into a confined space with lethal/deadly ammo, and that his actions did or were very likely to kill the occupant in the toilet and they did in fact die as a direct result of this. They dont have to prove that he knew that they would die, just that it was very likely they would (reckless, called dolus eventualis). They also dont even have prove for #1 that OP knew who he was killing, or was likely to kill. In my opinion, little in reality was needed to prove #1 and I think this has been established - his gun, he fired it, the ballistics evidence, the injuries etc. I recall a remark by the judge when Nell requested adjournment before the public holiday, she said "she thought it was reasonable as the state had made a case". The defence has given no indication that him being the killer is disputed.

The most difficult part is #2, the putative self defence and that is what the case is about. The test is subjective, i.e. what OP felt/thought at the time and his fear of intruders, he thought it was an intruder etc. It is difficult to rebutt something in someones head. So all the state can do is to try to prove things like he knew it was Reeva and not a burglar as she screamed and if witnesses in the neighbourhood heard them he must have too, if he was so fearful of crime and had been a victim, how come he had never reported one before, that she was scared of him and they'd had problems, increasing the likelihood of an argument and rebutting the 'deeply in love' as well as generally discrediting his testimony by establishing he has lied and evidencing his general recklessness etc. etc.. They are doing this to prove that #2 - putative self defence doesn't apply, rather than prove #1 that he killed someone. So, this sort of evidence can't be considered for it's worth in proving he killed, it has to be considered re it's worth in establishing that his thoughts at the time were reasonable given his circumstances.

Hmm, I hope that makes some sense!

 

[Insp.Dots]

It is a strangely insensitive thing to say at that moment.

Not defending anyone, but we all no how miss-information got put in the press early on, at one stage they said Reeva had been surprising OP and had secretly entered the house, then we had that OP had taken steroids etc....so...I'm not sure this is true! Who knows, we probably never will.

 

[kittychi]

So according to the article above "Audrey/Clarice asks her father to call an ambulance", so First of all Oscar calls Stander to ask him to phone an ambulance, then when arriving at Oscar's, Stander ask's Baba to call an ambulance, then inside Oscar's house Clarice asks her father to call an ambulance, what the hell?.

I thought Dr. Stipp testified that HE told someone (Baba? Stander?) to call an ambulance!

IMO All of this confusion is partly Roux's doing with his cross x's of the PT witnesses. Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I think he is one talented defense attorney milking everything he possibly can to twist things so nothing appears to be a surety.

 

[kittychi]

I had Clarice nailed for taking the phone if it wasn't for that ping at a tower distant from the one that was used from the house.


it doesn't mean that Clarice wasn't travelling with it.. but...

What time did Oscar's legal team arrive? Perhaps Clarice gave it to them.

 

[steveml]

This is interesting but confusing for me at the same time because I am not that tech savvy .My son was saying yesterday his iTunes password gives access to his apple email's iCloud
I have no idea whether this is true . Do any of you guys have email through iTunes and apple account ? This is quite beyond me lol

You can be assigned an iCloud email address. I have one, but I've never used it as I have rarely used iTunes or iCloud. If somebody asked me my password I wouldn't have a clue. On the odd occasion I've wanted to access it I have to obtain a new password, as (from memory) the password has to have 1 capital letter, as well as numbers and letters. It could have changed as it's a long time since I've used it. In fairness, if he used iTunes regularly I would expect him to know it.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Forgive me if I have this wrong but I think there is much misunderstanding about the elements of the offence charged and what has to be proven. Without any legal gumpf, the charge is that:

1) OP intentionally or recklessly killed someone AND
2) that none of the available defences to this apply - e.g. putative self defence, insanity etc.

OP has admitted that he did #1. The state still has to prove this just in case, for example, if OP claims at the trial that his statements were made under duress. So, despite his admission, they still have to prove the elements of the offence - that he made the decision to pick up the gun, chose himself to fire it into a confined space with lethal/deadly ammo, and that his actions did or were very likely to kill the occupant in the toilet and they did in fact die as a direct result of this. They dont have to prove that he knew that they would die, just that it was very likely they would (reckless, called dolus eventualis). They also dont even have prove for #1 that OP knew who he was killing, or was likely to kill. In my opinion, little in reality was needed to prove #1 and I think this has been established - his gun, he fired it, the ballistics evidence, the injuries etc. I recall a remark by the judge when Nell requested adjournment before the public holiday, she said "she thought it was reasonable as the state had made a case". The defence has given no indication that him being the killer is disputed.

The most difficult part is #2, the putative self defence and that is what the case is about. The test is subjective, i.e. what OP felt/thought at the time and his fear of intruders, he thought it was an intruder etc. It is difficult to rebutt something in someones head. So all the state can do is to try to prove things like he knew it was Reeva and not a burglar as she screamed and if witnesses in the neighbourhood heard them he must have too, if he was so fearful of crime and had been a victim, how come he had never reported one before, that she was scared of him and they'd had problems, increasing the likelihood of an argument and rebutting the 'deeply in love' as well as generally discrediting his testimony by establishing he has lied and evidencing his general recklessness etc. etc.. They are doing this to prove that #2 - putative self defence doesn't apply, rather than prove #1 that he killed someone. So, this sort of evidence can't be considered for it's worth in proving he killed, it has to be considered re it's worth in establishing that his thoughts at the time were reasonable given his circumstances.

Hmm, I hope that makes some sense!

I was trying to say something similar yesterday.
Prosecution have demonstrated that OP knew gun rules about when he could lawfully shoot . He armed himself . He went towards an unarmed non threatening person ( premeditation can be seconds or minutes of planning ). He shot four times through a closed door without establishing who he was shooting at .That being the case it is now up to the defence to prove why OP thinks he acted lawfully ?
The prosecution don't need to prove a motive or to disprove his version beyond the above points ?
I get a bit confused at the differences between UK law and SA law which seems to be very clear about when it is ok to shoot a target .
I also think I read somewhere that pre meditation case can be strengthened further if it is proven that OP has tried to cover up a crime by lying after the fact and alleging he thought an intruder was in the toilet .Whether or not that has been established will be down to the judge after the defence ?

 

[Gryffindor]

It was merely Oscar's WhatsApp (internet messaging) account he "couldn't remember" the password for. This app is available on Apple and Android devices.

Was it his personal phone that Oscar had done a jailbreak on when he got it? (Bypasses all Apple security) Thus, frees it up with no restrictions.

Although as I've just typed that about WhatsApp - why couldn't they have just hit "forgotten password" and entered a new one? Bingo!

Haha. I understand they wanted into his whole phone content though, so doing what they did gave them unrestricted access ;-)

 

[Gryffindor]

What time did Oscar's legal team arrive? Perhaps Clarice gave it to them.

I'd defo wager his lawyer went with it.

 

[kittychi]

So could the information regarding OP forgetting his phone password have all been media spin?

It appears that the phone wasn't locked at all. The password he couldn't remember was for his iTunes account.

Maybe the deliberate attempt to mislead was because he had a bad taste in music...

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/exclusive-enca-gains-access-oscars-itunes-account

LOL..I seem to remember Reeva complaining about a certain song or artist he played in the car that he knew she didn't like.

The forgotten password had to be more than media spin since it necessitated an expensive trip to the US to pry the password out of it.

 

[Gryffindor]

As for the ex of roughly 5 years - Oscar wasn't at the height of his fame, wasn't the well-known, idolized Oscar Pistorius, had no reputation, image, sponsorships, deals etc to uphold. No ego at that point. He wasn't the Oscar he is today.

In fact, he'd dated Samantha for 3 years. So Oscar was with this Jenna lassie when he was about 18-23 or 17-22??

 

[steveml]

I thought Dr. Stipp testified that HE told someone (Baba? Stander?) to call an ambulance!

IMO All of this confusion is partly Roux's doing with his cross x's of the PT witnesses. Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I think he is one talented defense attorney milking everything he possibly can to twist things so nothing appears to be a surety.

That's so true regarding the way he directs his questions.

He asks the same question about a dozen different ways, so the only person that doesn't end up confused is himself :waitasec:

It doesn't help his own cause sometimes. Thank goodness Judge Masipa's got a couple of assessors to help.

A standard joke on Twitter became: 'Barry Roux SC could convince me in an hour flat that my name is not (insert name) and I was never, in fact, ever born.'

 

[steveml]

As for the ex of roughly 5 years - Oscar wasn't at the height of his fame, wasn't the well-known, idolized Oscar Pistorius, had no reputation, image, sponsorships, deals etc to uphold. No ego at that point. He wasn't the Oscar he is today.

In fact, he'd dated Samantha for 3 years. So Oscar was with this Jenna lassie when he was about 18-23 or 17-22??

Doh, I shouldn't have brought the speedboat incident up then as that was in 2009. Can we leave that one out then? :wink:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

You can be assigned an iCloud email address. I have one, but I've never used it as I have rarely used iTunes or iCloud. If somebody asked me my password I wouldn't have a clue. On the odd occasion I've wanted to access it I have to obtain a new password, as (from memory) the password has to have 1 capital letter, as well as numbers and letters. It could have changed as it's a long time since I've used it. In fairness, if he used iTunes regularly I would expect him to know it.

Just had another chat with my son and daughter and am more confused than ever so think I will leave it to people with more IT experience lol.
Just adding here after further IT lesson that neither of my children bother with password 's for iTunes and think it is likely to be the apple ID which was withheld which in turn allows access to what's app and iCloud email .
It could be true that his phone wasn't locked but his apple account was

 

[Insp.Dots]

Lisa posted this image today:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42552&d=1396623738

There are a lot of people here that know what Reevas ex-boyfriend's look like, sadly I do not, but no one said that this man looks like any of them. From all of Reeva's texts where she is basically bending over backwards to develop a loving relationship with OP I cannot begin to believe that he is some man that Reeva was interested in; and both the State and the DT have not indicated that either. So I wonder who he is, and I wonder what his connection is to OP and the murder of Reeva...

Is it from the pic taken at the engagement party? I think, Justin Divaris and Franco's Hougaard may have been in it too?

There was one with Reeva and 3 guys.....can't think where I saw it.....but possibly off one of their Twitter pages as a tribute to RS.

Interesting to note that Oscar was also good friends with Justin and Francois.
It was Justin who set OP up with RS. It will also be interesting to see if he and Sam will give evidence. They did affidavits for BH but according to the media have distanced themselves now.
There is also Alex Pilakoulas another best friend who does seem to be standing by OP, he knew RS well too. He is at the same time friends with Fresco and Lerena. All credit to him for standing by his friend whilst others in the circle have gone the other way. Must make for a lot of awkward moments!

The other thing I don't get is why we didn't see Mark Batchelor, the Quinton guy or any of those allegedly threatened or witness to OP's short fuse.
I am surprised, as there are still reasonable doubts in the case, so why didn't the State make 'extra' sure by putting them on the stand?

It still feels to me like something happened or came out in that penultimate week that we don't know about...........there was a change in the air. IMO

 

[Interested Bystander]

I agree with everything you've said about the emotional abuse existing in OP and Reeva's 'deeply loving' relationship. I posted a few threads ago that anyone dismissing it as nothing significant, either hasn't been abused... or has been desensitised to it, which can happen. The overwhelming majority of us see the abuse for what it is - real and escalating. The only reason it didn't escalate any further and establish a longer pattern of behaviour is because OP shot her dead before it could. Fortunately, the Judge will be perfectly aware of what constitutes emotional abuse.

I think one of the problems one faces with emotional abusers is that they "love too much" in their eyes. What they don't seem to understand is that this is not love in the healthy sense of the word. Words alone do not define love, actions do. His actions are completely at odds with his dialogue.

I so agree with your comment about the abused becoming desensitised. I saw that in my parents' relationship. When the family offered to organise her leaving him she was reluctant to do so as she thought he still loved her. Her feelings seemed to be secondary in her mind. What was so sad for us as a family was that she was a lovely, kind, loving mother who spent her life making people happy but who we could see being emotionally brutalised by this horrid man. The day she died I found a photo of him in her purse. How very sad.

 

[kittychi]

Well, hopefully it will remind him again of the gravity of what he has done as I think, during this week off, he's just been practising screaming like a woman and sitting around in cafe/restaurants laughing and joking with some of his 'team' .. might knock the reality back into him, and hopefully having to sit there listening to all the horrific injuries again will unnerve him for when he comes to testify.

BBM - Get the bucket ready...

:violin: uke: