Trial Discussion Thread #15

[minor4th]

My other half and I have been together just over 5 years - thousands of texts and emails between us, quite a few where we're making up after a squabble or falling out.



Not once have I ever said, or even hinted, that I'm scared of him sometimes. Not once. That's because I'm not, and he's never done anything, even when angry, which would make me scared of him.



I suppose it's a complete irrelevance that Reeva sometimes felt scared of OP? She only said it once so she can't have been THAT scared, the silly girl.



Wow.

It indicates that this was not a healthy relationship as one should never remain in a relationship where one feels scared of their partner. Full stop.

 

[Trooper]

Wait just a minute - that is a woeful mischaracterization of the "logic" and discussion in this thread.

Let's have some intellectual honesty here and put things in their proper context.

No one said there were no "red flags" or that all of those texts point to a perfectly happy relationship.

And no one said that it's impossible for an emotionally abusive person to become physically abusive just because he's not been physically abusive in the past.

I think those things are a given and commonly understood by all.

On the flip side, the "logic" is that red flags in text messages = emotionally abusive relationship = physically abusive relationship = intentional domestic homicide.

And just like you can't say it's impossible that someone could commit domestic homicide if there's no evidence of physical abuse; you also cannot say that "red flags" in some texts messages means in hindsight that Reeva's death was an intentional domestic homicide.

bolded by me


but what you CAN say in court if your barrister is stupid enough to let you put in your bail affidavit and your trial affidavit is 'that I knew Reeva was in love too'..


Roux /Oscar opened the door for the inference to be made.. no use Roux and Oscar and anyone else complaining about it now.


it was sloppy work by both Oscar and Roux's team.. a matter of editing, but even so, on a murder charge, .. it was a bold claim for Oscar to make.

being challenged on it is not only legitimate but necessary.

 

[Val1]

Thank you. That is exactly the information I was looking for.

For further clarification:

 

[Trooper]

'And just like you can't say it's impossible that someone could commit domestic homicide if there's no evidence of physical abuse; you also cannot say that "red flags" in some texts messages means in hindsight that Reeva's death was an intentional domestic homicide.'

so this conclusion is wrong.. it can and indeed must be inferred

because, .. you see.. she IS dead of an intentional domestic homicide. ..

 

[steveml]

Actually, I wonder if there were any other messages which were missed due to them appearing to be lovely dovey. There are a number of classic type of things which abusers say to their 'loved one' .. things like "I would never hurt you" .. now to some, that might sound like a fairly benign thing, but it is a classic thing which abuser say to their victim and which, in a normal loving relationship, would never even need to be said anyway .. so if I had read through all the messages myself and saw that (or one of the other classic lines) being said, that would've set all the alarm bells ringing whereas someone who doesn't know a great deal about DA probably wouldn't really think that much of it.

I think we can safely assume that those messages have been scrutinized by the state exert witness and lawyers. They know exactly what they're looking for.

They've also seen more DA cases than we'll ever hear about.

 

[steveml]

'And just like you can't say it's impossible that someone could commit domestic homicide if there's no evidence of physical abuse; you also cannot say that "red flags" in some texts messages means in hindsight that Reeva's death was an intentional domestic homicide.'

so this conclusion is wrong.. it can and indeed must be inferred

because, .. you see.. she IS dead of an intentional domestic homicide. ..

To infer this you must know some information that the Judge doesn't.

Otherwise it's simply incorrect, and should be treated as such.

 

[Val1]

'And just like you can't say it's impossible that someone could commit domestic homicide if there's no evidence of physical abuse; you also cannot say that "red flags" in some texts messages means in hindsight that Reeva's death was an intentional domestic homicide.'

so this conclusion is wrong.. it can and indeed must be inferred

because, .. you see.. she IS dead of an intentional domestic homicide. ..

The thing that seems to be missing from the extrapolation exercise, is context, something that Ms.L also didn't take into account during JA's trial.

 

[G.bng]

Couple of questions ...

Did they enter ALL the text messages in evidence (like on a CD or something)? Or did they just so far admit the ones they've talked about?

I forgot what my second question was lol

Iirc they admitted into evidence the whole lot.

 

[minor4th]

If there's any extrapolating it's from:

His girlfriend saying she's scared of him sometimes
Him going off in a strop because she's touched a man's arm
Him getting angry because she's mentioned an ex just once - even though he thinks nothing of boasting about how many girlfriends he's had

But hey - this is entirely normal in a healthy relationship that's only a few weeks old, right?

This is a young man who has already demonstrated complete irresponsibility with regard to guns, anger that can result in someone getting hurt & a childish inability to take responsibility for his own actions.

If you think that the above is all meaningless because none of his girlfriends have had black eyes before then words fail me.

This "extrapolation" makes more sense than a woman making a mistake = liar willing to commit perjury.

Wow you sure read a whole lot into those text messages.

I don't know what "going off in a strop" means but if it means pouting and acting like a spoiled child -- then I agree that is how Oscar came across.

However if you think pouting and acting like a spoiled child predicts domestic homicide, then words fail me.

Uh .. No I would not conclude that this was a normal healthy relationship. If I could extrapolate from those few texts Id say you've got two people who are very competent and comfortable in public and social environments but who are immature and insecure in romantic or intimate relationships. And none of that surprises me one bit when you're talking about a young man with celebrity and fame and wealth and admiration who has not yet grown up and learned how to be a man -- coupled with a woman who has had troubled relationships in the past, is hyper sensitive to criticism and excruciatingly focused on appearances and public perception.

If I were extrapolating from a few text messages...

 

[Trooper]

To infer this you must know some information that the Judge doesn't.

Otherwise it's simply incorrect, and should be treated as such.

did she die in what was for all purposes a domicile she was invited into?? yes

was she murdered?? yes.

was it intentional?? yes.


its no use being cranky about roux allowing Oscar to put that little vignette into his statements.. 'I knew Reeva was in love, too'... it was , on its face, looney.. among a few other bits .. quite a few..


and its even more useless trying shift it around now. there it is. .

 

[steveml]

bolded by me


but what you CAN say in court if your barrister is stupid enough to let you put in your bail affidavit and your trial affidavit is 'that I knew Reeva was in love too'..


Roux /Oscar opened the door for the inference to be made.. no use Roux and Oscar and anyone else complaining about it now.


it was sloppy work by both Oscar and Roux's team.. a matter of editing, but even so, on a murder charge, .. it was a bold claim for Oscar to make.

being challenged on it is not only legitimate but necessary.

One of Reeva's messages starts 'I'm the girl who fell in love with you...'

I agree that them both being 'deeply in love' can be open to question.

 

[Trooper]

Wow you sure read a whole lot into those text messages.

I don't know what "going off in a strop" means bit if it means pouting and acting like a spoiled child -- then I agree that is how Oscar came across.

However if you think pouting and acting like a spoiled child predicts domestic homicide, then words fail me.

Uh .. No I would not conclude that this was a normal healthy relationship. If I could extrapolate from those few texts Id say you've got two people who are very competent and comfortable in public and social environments but who are immature and insecure in romantic or intimate relationships. And none of that surprises me one but when you're talking about a young man with celebrity and fame and wealth and admiration who has not yet grown up and learned how to be a man -- coupled with a woman who has had troubled relationships in the past, is hyper sensitive to criticism and excruciatingly focused on appearances and public perception.

If I were extrapolating from a few text messages...

that's your opinion. lets hear the judges..


its quite ok to have different opinions.

I happen to agree with red flag labeling. that's ok too. I don't need agreement on my opinions , as such.

 

[Trooper]

One of Reeva's messages starts 'I'm the girl who fell in love with you...'

I agree that them both being 'deeply in love' can be open to question.

yea ,.. .but that's reevas own words.. its OSCAR saying he knew Reeva was in love ON THAT NIGHT, too.

just another example of Oscar speaking for Reeva.. when she , you will agree. cant speak for herself on Feb 14 2013. .

I can hardly believe she was in love with Oscar while she was screaming to death.

that's a bit much .

 

[steveml]

did she die in what was for all purposes a domicile she was invited into?? yes

was she murdered?? yes.

was it intentional?? yes.


its no use being cranky about roux allowing Oscar to put that little vignette into his statements.. 'I knew Reeva was in love, too'... it was , on its face, looney.. among a few other bits .. quite a few..


and its even more useless trying shift it around now. there it is. .

You can't just put yes after an answer because you want it to be true.
It's open to question until the end of the trial (which has not yet even been defended).

Opinion doesn't make it fact, and therefore you're still incorrect.

 

[screecher]

Wait just a minute - that is a woeful mischaracterization of the "logic" and discussion in this thread.

Let's have some intellectual honesty here and put things in their proper context.

No one said there were no "red flags" or that all of those texts point to a perfectly happy relationship.

And no one said that it's impossible for an emotionally abusive person to become physically abusive just because he's not been physically abusive in the past.

I think those things are a given and commonly understood by all.

On the flip side, the "logic" is that red flags in text messages = emotionally abusive relationship = physically abusive relationship = intentional domestic homicide.

And just like you can't say it's impossible that someone could commit domestic homicide if there's no evidence of physical abuse; you also cannot say that "red flags" in some texts messages means in hindsight that Reeva's death was an intentional domestic homicide.

BBM


Actually, the poster may say anything she'd like as long as it's respectful, is not ridiculing nor telling other posters how and what to post.

That's my understanding of the rules here.

 

[steveml]

yea ,.. .but that's reevas own words.. its OSCAR saying he knew Reeva was in love ON THAT NIGHT, too.

just another example of Oscar speaking for Reeva.. when she , you will agree. cant speak for herself on Feb 14 2013. .

I can hardly believe she was in love with Oscar while she was screaming to death.

that's a bit much .

It is a bit much to accept, because it blows your theory of a bad relationship somewhat.

That's fine, and I wouldn't expect you to think any different. I've no problem with that at all.

 

[Trooper]

You can't just put yes after an answer because you want it to be true.
It's open to question until the end of the trial (which has not yet even been defended).

Opinion doesn't make it fact, and therefore you're still incorrect.

this is the Oscar Pistorious trial you are referring to, ???


isn't he charged with Murder?? intentionally??


maybe I'm on the wrong thread.

 

[minor4th]

BBM





Actually, the poster may say anything she'd like as long as it's respectful, is not ridiculing nor telling other posters how and what to post.



That's my understanding of the rules here.

My reference to "you" was to a general "you" and not directed at a specific poster. Substitute the word "one" for "you" and the meaning is understood.

 

[Trooper]

didn't the murder take place in his home/? wasn't his intimate partner murdered??


is this a parallel universe??

lets have some reality, please.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I am just re reading all the phone call records and one thing that I have noticed so far is that OP's statement states that Reeva suggested that stay in and have a quiet dinner when it appears from the messages that she was planning to leave at 3pm . He then suggests that she stays the night .
This seems to be quite a discrepancy ? Thoughts anyone ?