Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[G.bng]

I think what Moller said was something like 90% of the messages were normal, often loving. So perhaps not all the 90% were "loving".

I found the messages presented today pretty damning. This is too early in the relationship for “You have picked on me incessantly”, “I was not flirting with anyone today and I feel sick that you suggested that”, "You do everything to throw tantrums ...I’m certainly very unhappy and sad.”

Compare that to OP in the affidavit: "We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way."

Exactly... much too early in a relationship. OP that early on not loving her for herself but wanting her to be something she wasn't, e.g. to not chew gum, to not talk with an accent, not talk about exes, not touch any man even on the arm, etc.

 

[katydid23]

I disagree that it's not a common thing.

And I hope that wasn't to imply that my husband is abusive (because don't) or that it's not normal for men to get over the top angry every once in a while. The anger is never directed at me, fwiw. It's just a way to let them know their behavior was uncharacteristic and you don't like seeing them that way. It doesn't imply actual fear. It means it was scary to see them not acting like themselves.

But in this case, OP's anger WAS directed at Reeva. He was angry that she touched a man's arm and supposedly ignored him. She was afraid of the anger directed towards her.

 

[minor4th]

Up until now I have read your posts with interest, because you have quite rightly challenged the 'OP is guilty' lobby, and we all need to be challenged.

However, I cannot agree with any aspect of this post. I think you have misinterpreted the nature of the texts, and don't seem willing even to acknowledge that there MIGHT be classic signs here of an abusive relationship.

IMO.

You could be right. I just don't think it's that conclusive based on such a limited window into the relationship.

 

[Rumpole]

For god's sake i still can't get oldwadge's voice out of my head :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

James........ move away from the keyboard...... move away from the keyboard! :scared:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Well you have got to give it to OPs DT, they are brazen! Now, on top of everything else, they are going to put it to us that the bathroom lights were broken that night. I believe they are just building a record for the appeals process that is coming after his conviction.

I think they may be trying to say the toilet light was broken not the bathroom light but could be wrong
We don't know the relevance of that yet unless yet again they are trying to discredit Mrs Stipp's testimony about her view that there was a dim light on .
I have previously stated that it is my believe that the toilet door could have had the damage near the edge of the panels before the shooting which could have let light in from the bathroom . We will have to wait for further evidence on this .

 

[Cherwell]

Aside from what the primary argument is, gun bat bat gun, have you taken into account all of the damage OP did to his bathroom panels and wall tile outside of the WC? Have you considered that in your "sounds" timeline?

The tiles ......

Am I right in thinking that there were broken tiles on the floor? If so, that pretty much proves that the damage to them was done that day. Otherwise the housekeeper would have cleared them up. (Whereas it can be argued that the damage to the bedroom door & bath panel could have been done at some other time.)

So if OP smashed at the bathroom wall with his bat, breaking the tiles, could that be the sounds heard earlier?

 

[Insp.Dots]

Ehem... it IS a murder charge and "nothing more" according to SA law, I must be missing something if there is more that it could be ?!

Intentional/ premeditated....big difference in sentencing apparently

 

[lisasalinger]

I'm trying to view my own opinions from a distance and determine why exactly I don't think the state has made its case when so many others think they have. Here's what I have come up with:

• One thing is the way Oscar acted immediately after the incident and at the bail hearing and even during this trial. In my mind he does not act like the typical 'guilty' person. He was immediately remorseful and very emotional, he called out the windows for help before he even got her fully out of the toilet; he has seemed depressed and subdued since the incident - corroborated by messages he sent Cristo. When I compare that to others who I had a strong confidence in their guilt like Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, Martin MacNeill, Joran Van der Sloot, Mark Hacking, to name a few, there is a really drastic difference in the way he acted. He hasn't been caught in outright lies showing a consciousness of guilt, he hasn't been found to have covered up or hid things, and he didn't just go on about his life as though all was well. To me his emotion an remorse appears genuine.
  
  
• Although I considered his bail statement suspicious and even unbelievable or outlandish, the state has not provided anything that shows it to be manufactured or staged or impossible
  
  
• While he seems like an insensitive, rather entitled brat towards his girlfriends, there's no a history of abuse or lying or threats or things like that. Compare his jealousy to that of Arias - stalking ex-boyfriends, spying on their emails and text messages, slashing tires, etc. That is pathological jealousy that can truly lead to an inference of motive for violence; what we've seen of Oscar is more an immature type of jealousy that is undesirable but not pathological or indicative of violence.
  
  
• He didn't have some sort of big secret or double life that was about to be exposed. He wasnt facing a break up or divorce that would have resulted in losing custody of kids or paying child support or alimony or losing property
  
  
• There's just nothing that's been presented that really indicates he would lose his cool and shoot someone dead - his jealousy did not rise that that kind of level, his temper tantrums did not rise to that kind of level, and there's been a lot of talk about "rage" but I don't see it as anything beyond anger, perhaps unreasonable anger, but not "rage"

So it's not just that I'm trying to justify anything or convince anyone that he is definitely innocent - and I certainly do not think much of his character or personality from what I've heard. But it's the whole context that to me does not at all paint a picture of a guy who flew into a rage on Feb 13 and intentionally got his gun and killed his girlfriend.

Thanks for doing this, Minor. I appreciate and respect your views.

The only part I bolded was where you mentioned that there was nothing that indicated he could lose his cool and shoot someone dead. I think that we could say this about a lot of killers, otherwise we would be able to prevent a lot more murders.

Prior to their crimes, nobody thought Casey could kill, nobody thought Jodi could kill, nobody saw Scott Peterson's actions coming... it was only until they dug deep that they found some explanations.

Neither Casey, nor Jodi nor Scott had ever been violent with anybody before. Yes, they had some creepy, bad behaviors upon further inspection, but none of them were outwardly violent offenders. I think probably one of the common things we heard about all of them was "I never imagined they would do something like this."

 

[steveml]

IMBW, but I would think that if he killed Reeva in a blind rage there is no need for a motive... unless the rage can be considered motive.

It could be, and there doesn't have to be a motive. The problem is that if we accept that it was a one-off incident, we leave a huge hole for reasonable doubt.

This wouldn't be such a problem if we had eye-witnesses, but all we have are ear-witnesses, who's testimonies are not conclusive, or at least not in synch.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Just thinking how angry Oscar would have been watching that TV airing of Reeva post death kissing the other guy......

 

[steveml]

Ehem... it IS a murder charge and "nothing more" according to SA law, I must be missing something if there is more that it could be ?!

You got a cough :wink:

It's a murder charge with premeditation - it allows the Judge to impose a longer sentence than would normally be possible. SA do not recognise a charge of premeditated murder so it has to be done this way. If they just wanted a murder charge, they may have even got this without the need for any witnesses (although they wouldn't do this of course). The state have decided to play for higher stakes in this one.

 

[Cherwell]

Just recalling my aggravating Christo Meneaou 3.08am....3 claps of thunder...that caused major thread anxiety for someone as being speculative and not in the current tabled statements of evidence......that was his house, on the right, lit up like a proverbial Xmas tree..yes? Seems to fit ever so closely to the time stamps being bandied about of 3.02 to 3.08?
Has there been any descriptive nature of the bangs...I would have imagined the first set of bangs, if a cricket bat, to be slightly further apart and have a bit of thwack sound to them...however everyone appears to call them shot sounds. I wonder also where the bedroom door damage figures in sound -assault sequence.

No, it was not his house. See this plan

http://www.scribd.com/doc/162790733/What-did-Oscar-Pistorius’-neighbours-hear

Although Mr Menelaou's house isn't pinpointed, the names of the occupants of the houses on either side of OP's house are shown. In any case, IIRC in the interview given by Mr Menelaou, he said he was woken by the noise, so his house wouldn't have had all the lights on.

 

[lisasalinger]

His behavior would almost certainly not be tolerated in the US, and I agree that it does indicate mental instability or lack of control of his emotional expression - I also believe it to be a genuine reaction. Whether it's a reaction to his own guilty conscience or whether it's remorse - that's subject to different opinions and interpretations. I believe it to be genuine and not faked.

I tend to stay away from interpreting court behavior when they are not in the witness box. We all know it is theater. Sexy girls dress like librarians, gangsters put on suits and hide their tattoos, people wear glasses to look more book smart, they either dye their hair or don't dye their hair depending on what they are accused of... it's all fake and coached.

How somebody behaves is super fun to watch and talk about, but doesn't necessarily have relevance.

Now... how they behave in the witness box, I do believe has some relevance.

Jodi was a classic example of this. Her personality did a total flip flop the second Juan really started grilling her. It was in stark contrast to the sweet girl image she was trying to portray. For me, that is when it's relevant. It's like the equivalent of lying.

 

[delilah]

Even though I now feel he knowingly murdered her I have always thought it is going to be difficult to pin the full charge on him and I half expect a culpable homicide verdict.

I think it's been a good day for the prosecution and a pretty bad one for the defence. Yet another ear witness testifying to a woman screaming, and text messages that suggest OP is a controlling and jealous man. The defence tried its best to discredit Stipp, but only managed to annoy Masipa.

I think the case for intentional murder of RS has been strengthened today.

 

[soozieqtips]

Just thinking how angry Oscar would have been watching that TV airing of Reeva post death kissing the other guy......

She seemed to tread on eggshells around him all the time, always trying to make sure nothing upset him, angered him, made him jealous, annoyed him. And he had pretty much nothing for her except criticism. Talking to a waiter too long, wearing her hair in a ponytail, dressing too casually, mocking her voice, her accent, chewing gum, etc etc etc. Truly sounds like he was a horrible bully used to getting his own way, and also very insecure in that he needed to make Reeva feel bad about herself (which she did quite often judging by her texts) to make himself feel better. Also, 10% of bullying and criticism in any relationship is a bad sign. Even if 90% of it is 'normal' - that's like saying every 10 days my husband punches me in the face, but the other nine days he's a peach!

 

[minor4th]

Thanks for doing this, Minor. I appreciate and respect your views.

The only part I bolded was where you mentioned that there was nothing that indicated he could lose his cool and shoot someone dead. I think that we could say this about a lot of killers, otherwise we would be able to prevent a lot more murders.

Prior to their crimes, nobody thought Casey could kill, nobody thought Jodi could kill, nobody saw Scott Peterson's actions coming... it was only until they dug deep that they found some explanations.

Neither Casey, nor Jodi nor Scott had ever been violent with anybody before. Yes, they had some creepy, bad behaviors upon further inspection, but none of them were outwardly violent offenders. I think probably one of the common things we heard about all of them was "I never imagined they would do something like this."

That's all true, but with all of those you mentioned, there were other very clear indicators of their guilt IMO. In this case, those things are not present.

 

[Gavel Rash]

And in keeping to theme of what was his 'motive' its definition below

"A motive, in law, especially criminal law, is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.[1] Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.
The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime."

Jealousy, control, loss of station in life from exposure...motive.

 

[delilah]

Exactly... much too early in a relationship. OP that early on not loving her for herself but wanting her to be something she wasn't, e.g. to not chew gum, to not talk with an accent, not talk about exes, not touch any man even on the arm, etc.

Much too early in a relationship? When is it acceptable, then? After six months, a year?

 

[minor4th]

I tend to stay away from interpreting court behavior when they are not in the witness box. We all know it is theater. Sexy girls dress like librarians, gangsters put on suits and hide their tattoos, people wear glasses to look more book smart, they either dye their hair or don't dye their hair depending on what they are accused of... it's all fake and coached.

How somebody behaves is super fun to watch and talk about, but doesn't necessarily have relevance.

Now... how they behave in the witness box, I do believe has some relevance.

Jodi was a classic example of this. Her personality did a total flip flop the second Juan really started grilling her. It was in stark contrast to the sweet girl image she was trying to portray. For me, that is when it's relevant. It's like the equivalent of lying.

I don't completely agree. I think the demeanor of the defendants does say something about them, and I believe juries pay attention to this. Not sure about a judge though

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't think the light was on before he shot the gun because there was gun powder residue on the lightswitch in the bathroom - and to me that indicates that he had already shot the gun when he turned the light on.

There are no witnesses who said they saw the light on while the three initial bangs were happening as no one was looking out the window until that happened. If the witnesses have said that the lights were on during the initial gunshots at 3:00 -3:10 ish, then I believe they are mistaken or have remembered incorrectly.

Well that does change things then .
Will have another read through forensics
I do know that he goes to the shooting range so it is possible that there could have been gun shot residue all over his house before the fatal shooting of Reeva . It is even mentioned in his autobiography that he was stopped at an airport once because gunshot residue was on his legs