Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[Viper]

She complained about him buying rabbits and wondering who he had a past with that had anything to do with rabbit things.

Both of their texts indicate to me that they both had jealousy and insecurity issues and had unreasonable expectations of each other.

"Buying" rabbits? Are you sure it was buying? This confuses me. I thought that rabbits may be referring to his many past dates / girlfriends, or more likely attractive women that faun over him when they go out. Guess we will have to wait to find out.

But she definitely seems to be, again, letting him do things that are inappropriate in a committed relationship, but trying to have him stop.

 

[Gavel Rash]

You're right about that. I had forgotten the context in which she wrote the message. My bad

Not 'bad'...defensive ;-)

 

[minor4th]

Not 'bad'...defensive ;-)

Not defensive ...mistaken.

 

[minor4th]

"Buying" rabbits? Are you sure it was buying? This confuses me. I thought that rabbits may be referring to his many past dates / girlfriends, or more likely attractive women that faun over him when they go out. Guess we will have to wait to find out.

But she definitely seems to be, again, letting him do things that are inappropriate in a committed relationship, but trying to have him stop.

It did not make any sense to me when it was read. I have no idea other than the implication is that she was suspicious that it had to do with some past girlfriend. No indication that it actually was - only that she wondered who he had a connection with.

To me it sounded insecure.

 

[katydid23]

Did you see the part where she said she wasn't present when the photos were taken in her bedroom and then it was proved that it was she holding the curtain back?

That's a pretty good indication that she is not being truthful or that her memory cannot be trusted.

Not necessarily an indication that she was lying. Because wasn't it also shown that the pictures were taken on two separate days? So she may have been correct about that one day.

As for forgetting about holding open a curtain on the other day, is that an indication that she has a faulty memory on the day of the tragedy?

In my experience, a person is more likely to remember things that were frightening, out of the ordinary, like a murder in the house across the way. But not necessarily the things that happened weeks later when some photographers come by to take pix of your house for the defense team. She was a working mom with 4 kids. I am sure she had a lot on her plate that day. Holding open a curtain is not that memorable, in comparison to the blood curdling screams she heard at 3 am one morning.

I am surprised that you want to throw out her entire testimony because she did not remember holding open her drapes. There are 4 other people who heard the same thing as she did.

 

[crasshopper]

Respectfully, we have ONE text where Reeva says she's scared of Oscar snapping at her and getting mad at her.

We have texts that indicate he got angry - not that he had a "temper" that he directed at Reeva for no good reason." His display of temper manifested itself in him being unkind and pouty, not aggressive, not violent, not abusive.

There is nothing in those texts that indicate a "history of escalated, heated arguments."

Only one instance of the police being called to his house for domestic issues - and that case was dropped by police when they heard what really happened.

It's not that I disagree with the concept you're describing, but I believe the concept cannot be applied to what we've seen of text messages between Oscar and Reeva. Perhaps you are inferring other events about which we have no evidence, or filtering these interactions through your own experiences and beliefs that may create some bias?

Respectfully, I disagree completely. A person or woman does not become scared because someone is a little "angry" and her texts indicate that she was scared of him using a variation of the word "SCARED" more than once per review the transcripts. One gets upset or hurt when anger is directed at them, it takes more to elicit FEAR or alarm. ADDED after edit: Reeva also speaks to OP's "tantrums".

Personally, I have never had a man be more than solicitous or protective of me and have actually never had a horrible or argument with a partner so that suggestion on your part is completely erroneous and out of left field. I don't know how you would make that suggestion based on my posts. Regarding a converse situation, Travis WAS frightened of Jodi Arias and documented it, he saw glimpses too. Two different cases but both victims were "alarmed" and scared by certain behavior exhibited by the ones who ultimately killed them.


As for his display of temper causing him to pout amongst other behaviors you allege, it also caused him to shoot a gun through a car roof recklessly risking the passengers and potential passerby's.


I certainly accept that you find Mrs. Stipp untruthful, but I simply concluded the opposite and addressed that. Cheers.

 

[Viper]

It did not make any sense to me when it was read. I have no idea other than the implication is that she was suspicious that it had to do with some past girlfriend. No indication that it actually was - only that she wondered who he had a connection with.

To me it sounded insecure.

Insecure indeed. it says a lot about the relationship that she felt insecure about it. The whole thing is a mess obviously, we have seen how it ended.

 

[minor4th]

Something else about Mrs Stipp - which I did not hear earlier - is she signed an initial affidavit that said she saw a man in the window when that was false! How can that not lead to doubts about her credibility and integrity? She is willing to lie under oath, so why would anyone believe that now all of a sudden she is telling the complete truth?

I have questions about Captain Van Ardt (sp?) who seems to have been the one who prepared all of these statements for witnesses to sign. There is a pretty good indication that he used Mr. Johnson's statement as a template for Burger's statement. Now there is an indication that he used Dr Stipp's statement as a template for Mrs. Stipp or at least putting words in witnesses' mouths.

Is he going to testify?

 

[minor4th]

Not necessarily an indication that she was lying. Because wasn't it also shown that the pictures were taken on two separate days? So she may have been correct about that one day.

As for forgetting about holding open a curtain on the other day, is that an indication that she has a faulty memory on the day of the tragedy?

In my experience, a person is more likely to remember things that were frightening, out of the ordinary, like a murder in the house across the way. But not necessarily the things that happened weeks later when some photographers come by to take pix of your house for the defense team. She was a working mom with 4 kids. I am sure she had a lot on her plate that day. Holding open a curtain is not that memorable, in comparison to the blood curdling screams she heard at 3 am one morning.

I am surprised that you want to throw out her entire testimony because she did not remember holding open her drapes. There are 4 other people who heard the same thing as she did.

I didn't say I want to throw all of it out - I'm saying it's unreliable.

Whether it's because she was a distracted mom with 4 kids or something more sinister, her memory has been shown to be faulty. And she's also been shown to sign a false affidavit under oath.

 

[DebinGA]

It did not make any sense to me when it was read. I have no idea other than the implication is that she was suspicious that it had to do with some past girlfriend. No indication that it actually was - only that she wondered who he had a connection with.

To me it sounded insecure.

1) A few comments back and forth about RS's Tropica gig where OP thinks she smoked a lot of weed and mentions he couldn't be with someone like that. She answers, "Me neither."

2) Then comes the "rabbit" bit: [CNN transcript]
RS to OP: It's like I see rabbit things in your house and when we go places you take pics of them everywhere. For me I'm thinking who do you have that connection with? And the same things will play on your mind. At the end of the day this is now not then
[immediately followed by 3 below]

3) RS: I am not a stripper or a HO.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I've been thinking about the dogs.

They MUST have been put up somewhere that night, because if they were loose in the house there was so much blood in various places, I do not see how they could have avoided tramping into it. And we've neither seen nor heard anything about doggie foot prints.

Perhaps when Reeva was there he enclosed the dogs somewhere in the house at bedtime?

I've known of women who have a boyfriend whose dog is used to sleeping in bed with the guy. Often the dog doesn't like it when someone else is in the bed. They will bother the "new" person or still get onto the bed. Some guests do not like this, thus the dog owner puts the dog somewhere enclosed for the night.

No one but the attorney today has mentioned a dog barking. Which is unusual, come to think of it, with two dogs in the household.

 

[katydid23]

I didn't say I want to throw all of it out - I'm saying it's unreliable.

Whether it's because she was a distracted mom with 4 kids or something more sinister, her memory has been shown to be faulty. And she's also been shown to sign a false affidavit under oath.

She returned and corrected that signed affidavit after thinking more about it. I have no problem with her doing that. She at one point realised that she had put something her husband described, into her police statement. That happens quite often when two people witness the same incident. But she had the good sense to sort it out and change the statement. I give her a lot of credit for doing so.

I don't think that her memory is all that faulty. As I said earlier, failing to remember being asked to hold the drapes open, is nothing at all like remembering the blood curdling screams of a neighbor at 3 am.

 

[crasshopper]

Something else about Mrs Stipp - which I did not hear earlier - is she signed an initial affidavit that said she saw a man in the window when that was false! How can that not lead to doubts about her credibility and integrity? She is willing to lie under oath, so why would anyone believe that now all of a sudden she is telling the complete truth?

I have questions about Captain Van Ardt (sp?) who seems to have been the one who prepared all of these statements for witnesses to sign. There is a pretty good indication that he used Mr. Johnson's statement as a template for Burger's statement. Now there is an indication that he used Dr Stipp's statement as a template for Mrs. Stipp or at least putting words in witnesses' mouths.

Is he going to testify?

She quickly realized that that was erroneous and the affidavit was annotated to indicate and retract that. SHE DID NOT LIE UNDER OATH! She repeatedly explained that she was a lay person dealing with an affidavit. Later she picked up the discrepancy and made certain it was corrected. VanArt incorrectly recorded what she said. It is certainly reasonable that after a long day of preparing this affidavit and interviews she would be tired reviewing it and she may have been nervous or confused when she answered that question from the detective or the detective could have made the error in recording exactly what her response was.

In addition, those who write are very familiar with the pittfalls of proofreading to soon after writing. Your mind reads what you thought you wrote. Hence, it is always best to review when fresh and rested to pick up these errors. There is a well known term for this phenomenon in radiology called "search satisfaction", which radiologists mush guard themselves against when reviewing films.


Goodness, in my opinion you are making a really unreasonable jump to suggest the detective used various witnesses statement's as "templates" for the other's statements. I have seen no indication of that at all.

 

[soozieqtips]

Something else about Mrs Stipp - which I did not hear earlier - is she signed an initial affidavit that said she saw a man in the window when that was false! How can that not lead to doubts about her credibility and integrity? She is willing to lie under oath, so why would anyone believe that now all of a sudden she is telling the complete truth?

I have questions about Captain Van Ardt (sp?) who seems to have been the one who prepared all of these statements for witnesses to sign. There is a pretty good indication that he used Mr. Johnson's statement as a template for Burger's statement. Now there is an indication that he used Dr Stipp's statement as a template for Mrs. Stipp or at least putting words in witnesses' mouths.

Is he going to testify?

Mrs Stipp admitted her error about seeing someone moving in the window and retracted that part soon after. How exactly does that make her a liar? If she hadn't retracted it, I could see your point, but she did. Will you judge OP the same way if he says something under oath that contradicts his affidavit? Actually, I believe he already has changed a few significant details, one of which is that he was talking to Reeva shortly before he shot and killed her. I'm sure the judge will be most interested in why he left this pertinent detail out of his affidavit, aside from why so many people heard her screaming, when according to OP - she didn't ever make a sound.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Was it Johan Stipp or his wife that testified that [he][she] 'quietened the dogs who were barking' and went back to bed...but I cant recall if this was in relation to the sound tests carried out post event and involved the Stipps dogs or not?

 

[Viper]

This buying rabbits thing seems like it means simply flirting. I mean that is what OP was so jealous about, Reeva talking to men that he didn't know (insecure OP). So since he was constantly beating her up about it, it would make sense for her to point out to him that that is what he does, intentionally and frequently.

 

[minor4th]

She returned and corrected that signed affidavit after thinking more about it. I have no problem with her doing that. She at one point realised that she had put something her husband described, into her police statement. That happens quite often when two people witness the same incident. But she had the good sense to sort it out and change the statement. I give her a lot of credit for doing so.

I don't think that her memory is all that faulty. As I said earlier, failing to remember being asked to hold the drapes open, is nothing at all like remembering the blood curdling screams of a neighbor at 3 am.

Well, I have a big problem with her signing a sworn statement that is false. She read it, she swore to it, and she signed it. That does not happen often, and it wasn't a matter of her thinking about it more and realizing it wasn't true - she knew it wasn't true when she swore to it.

 

[minor4th]

She quickly realized that that was erroneous and the affidavit was annotated to indicate and retract that. SHE DID NOT LIE UNDER OATH! She repeatedly explained that she was a lay person dealing with an affidavit. Later she picked up the discrepancy and made certain it was corrected. VanArt incorrectly recorded what she said. It is certainly reasonable that after a long day of preparing this affidavit and interviews she would be tired reviewing it and she may have been nervous or confused when she answered that question from the detective or the detective could have made the error in recording exactly what her response was.

In addition, those who write are very familiar with the pittfalls of proofreading to soon after writing. Your mind reads what you thought you wrote. Hence, it is always best to review when fresh and rested to pick up these errors. There is a well known term for this phenomenon in radiology called "search satisfaction", which radiologists mush guard themselves against when reviewing films.


Goodness, in my opinion you are making a really unreasonable jump to suggest the detective used various witnesses statement's as "templates" for the other's statements. I have seen no indication of that at all.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

We don't know when and under what circumstances she changed it, but it doesn't matter - she swore to something she knew was false. Are you saying in general we can't rely on sworn statements from lay witnesses because they are lay witnesses and don't know what it means to make a sworn statement? That does not make any sense at all to me.

If Oscar signed a sworn statement that contained knowingly false information, would you write it off as a simple and irrelevant mistake? Heck no - you would call him a calculating liar and likely declare that nothing he says can be believed. It's no different except that her dishonesty does not support the outcome you desire IMO

 

[crasshopper]

..... Will you judge OP the same way if he says something under oath that contradicts his affidavit? Actually, I believe he already has changed a few significant details, one of which is that he was talking to Reeva shortly before he shot and killed her. I'm sure the judge will be most interested in why he left this pertinent detail out of his affidavit, aside from why so many people heard her screaming, when according to OP - she didn't ever make a sound.

Excellent post!

Let's see how one excuses these significant discrepancies without calling him "untruthful", "unreliable" or accusing him of "lying under oath".

 

[soozieqtips]

Goodness, in my opinion you are making a really unreasonable jump to suggest the detective used various witnesses statement's as "templates" for the other's statements. I have seen no indication of that at all.

For OP to be innocent, it has to be that everyone is lying, mistaken, or embellishing the facts. I think when OP said: "We were deeply in love and couldn't be happier. I know she felt the same way" he was lying, mistaken, and embellishing the facts.