Trial Discussion Thread #15

[soozieqtips]

I've noticed that some who support OP's innocence tend to outright dismiss any suggestion of abuse towards Reeva. He was just being 'moody' or 'pouty' or it was Reeva herself who incorrectly perceived his moods. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know. But I do know that abuse shouldn't be glossed over because it doesn't suit the 'innocent' theory. Many here who recognise abuse for what it is... can clearly see how OP conducted himself in his 'new' relationship with Reeva, and we don't excuse and minimise it, or even subtly put the onus on Reeva because maybe she had standards that OP couldn't meet. Abuse is abuse, full stop. And anyone here who has been abused and still shrugs OP's behaviour off as 'nothing that points to anything' has obviously been desensitised to it and isn't thinking from the victim's point of view. The dead victim.

 

[Interested Bystander]

So we are in fact extrapolating from 4 conversations that OP was emotionally abusive, therefore he was physically abusive, therefore he intentionally killed Reeva? Did I get it right that time?

No, not exactly. There is adequate proof in his texts that he was definitely emotionally abusive. Physical abuse is something that happens in a high percentage of emotion abuse cases.

I know a number of posters want to write off his texts as nothing more than a tiff but we have had at least three, and possibly 4, conversations that show this man was a control freak and verbally and emotionally abusive.

I think if one has worked with or lived with emotionally abusive patients/family these texts immediately shout TROUBLE AHEAD. The abusers can be perfectly normal much of the time, and loving, and are always sorry about the abuse (usually through fear of loss of their partner). Often their behaviour is not apparent to others outside the family.

In my father's case it was because he couldn't bear the thought that my mother had friends for whom she felt any affection. These were female friends. He also caused her estrangement from her brothers and sisters with various verbal threats and non personal violence. He just couldn't deal with the fact that there were other people in her life, even her brothers and sisters for whom inevitably she had affection.

He was even jealous of us, his children. If we were to visit them for lunch he would throw a fit because one or other of us would go to the kitchen to help/talk to our mother. However, he never threatened any of the girls (strange that) but he did break canes over the boys when they were younger. So there was physical violence perpetrated on others at times.

I agree that it does not mean that being emotionally abusive/unstable always leads to murder but there is plenty of evidence that in a large percentage of cases it escalates into violence. In OP's case, I think he has demonstrated that he does get "out of control" if irritated which IMO opinion suggests he would have, at some stage, caused injury.

I would be very interested to learn the reasons for his parent's divorce. His father is a gun freak, perhaps he also had the rather short fuse that OP displays at times. No doubt this information is available somewhere.

 

[steveml]

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


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


maybe I'm on the wrong thread.

Maybe you're in the wrong country?

If a charge equals guilt, what's the point in a trial? Where in law does this unusual ruling apply to SA.?

 

[Trooper]

may I respectfully ask Steve and Minor if in some way you are thinking that Oscar is being tried for culpable homicide or some other charge except the one that the Republic of South Africa has drawn up under the auspices of the Dept. of Justice??

and that you do know exactly what he is on trial for, and what that indictment means??

this would save time and get us all on the same page.

 

[minor4th]

No one's glossing over abuse or minimizing bad behavior just because we don't think the text messages are evidence of an intentional homicide. Can we stop setting up that straw man please?

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Did Trooper ever say the relationship was bad 100% all the time? If so, I must have missed it. The majority of abusive relationships are not bad 100% of the time. That's how the victim keeps getting pulled back in.

 

[MeeBee]

may I respectfully ask Steve and Minor if in some way you are thinking that Oscar is being tried for culpable homicide or some other charge except the one that the Republic of South Africa has drawn up under the auspices of the Dept. of Justice??

and that you do know exactly what he is on trial for, and what that indictment means??

this would save time and get us all on the same page.

It seems there is some confusion about what it means to be charged with something and what the presumption of innocence is. OP is being charged with intentional murder. The charge does not make it a fact, that's why there's a trial. If a charge was accepted as fact what would be the point of trial. That OP is being charged of intentionally killing his girlfriend does not make it a fact and it does mean Oscar is being charged with intentional homicide so he committed intentional homicide.

Not being snarky but maybe there's a language barrier or something.

 

[steveml]

Iirc they admitted into evidence the whole lot.

Yep, it seemed that way. They handed over what looked like the pages of the messages that were read out, and a larger stack of printouts, which I presume were all the remaining messages.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

Who is saying that these texts "prove" it was an intentional domestic homicide?

Nobody but OP can possibly know what the intention was - or even if there was one.

The most that can be done is to find a possible reason. This is a possible reason - no more no less. So I fail to see what your point is.

What precisely is the point of a trial if absolutely everything is dismissed as "proves nothing"?

She was scared of him. A month later she's dead in his toilet because of him.

That matters.

 

[steveml]

may I respectfully ask Steve and Minor if in some way you are thinking that Oscar is being tried for culpable homicide or some other charge except the one that the Republic of South Africa has drawn up under the auspices of the Dept. of Justice??

and that you do know exactly what he is on trial for, and what that indictment means??

this would save time and get us all on the same page.

I'm beginning to wonder here. In your country, do you not presume innocent?

This is the only thing that can lead me to understand this way of thinking.

 

[soozieqtips]

No one's glossing over abuse or minimizing bad behavior just because we don't think the text messages are evidence of an intentional homicide. Can we stop setting up that straw man please?

Excuse me? Where did I say that the texts were evidence of intentional homicide? I don't believe I did. I've said various things, like it was indicative of an abusive relationship, and that OP was clearly a control freak with a short fuse. But I did not say the texts were evidence of intentional homicide, so please don't add details that aren't there.

 

[Trooper]

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.

I don't have a theory of any kind re their relationship, except how it ended up. my theory is he shot her, he killed her..

what I am saying, and its not hard to follow is, that Roux and Oscar left themselves wide open to challenge on the matter of how this relationship was going so far south that Reeva ended up with her head blown off on the toilet room tiles.

and Oscar. putting this idiotic little sentence in his statement 'I know reeva was in love too'.. has opened himself up to all and ANY challenge.

he should have kept his mouth shut. simple.

 

[Trooper]

Maybe you're in the wrong country?

If a charge equals guilt, what's the point in a trial? Where in law does this unusual ruling apply to SA.?

my good man. you are I presume floating the incorrect concept of innocent until proven guilty. people always leave out the bit after that. ---> in a court of law.. you , me, all other posters are NOT in a court of law. we are on an internet forum ..

Im not using this forum to persuade people of Oscars guilt or innocence.. I believe he is as guilty as hell. You choose otherwise..what difference does it make??

 

[Trooper]

I am expecting Oscar to be found guilty, by the way. as well as believing he is guilty.


also, I believe he will be found guilty of the 3 other charges he is facing.

 

[Cherwell]

In my father's case it was because he couldn't bear the thought that my mother had friends for whom she felt any affection. These were female friends. He also caused her estrangement from her brothers and sisters with various verbal threats and non personal violence. He just couldn't deal with the fact that there were other people in her life, even her brothers and sisters for whom inevitably she had affection.

He was even jealous of us, his children. If we were to visit them for lunch he would throw a fit because one or other of us would go to the kitchen to help/talk to our mother.

A friend of mine was involved with a woman who was exactly like this. She had been diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder, and was on medication for it. It was a very worrying time for his family and friends, and thank goodness the relationship ended after she overstepped the mark in such a shocking way that he couldn't ignore it.

 

[Trooper]

It seems there is some confusion about what it means to be charged with something and what the presumption of innocence is. OP is being charged with intentional murder. The charge does not make it a fact, that's why there's a trial. If a charge was accepted as fact what would be the point of trial. That OP is being charged of intentionally killing his girlfriend does not make it a fact and it does mean Oscar is being charged with intentional homicide so he committed intentional homicide.

Not being snarky but maybe there's a language barrier or something.

oh meebe, you are Stipping now..

 

[MeeBee]

my good man. you are I presume floating the incorrect concept of innocent until proven guilty. people always leave out the bit after that. ---> in a court of law.. you , me, all other posters are NOT in a court of law. we are on an internet forum ..

Im not using this forum to persuade people of Oscars guilt or innocence.. I believe he is as guilty as hell. You choose otherwise..what difference does it make??

Right, in a court of law. But to say intentional murder has not been proven is not a confusion on what Oscar's being charged with. He has not been convicted of it yet so one just can't say, he's being charged with murder so he committed a murder. That has not been proven yet. Yes, some feel it has, but it still doesn't make it a fact.

 

[MeeBee]

oh meebe, you are Stipping now..

Clever!

 

[minor4th]

No, not exactly. There is adequate proof in his texts that he was definitely emotionally abusive. Physical abuse is something that happens in a high percentage of emotion abuse cases.



I know a number of posters want to write off his texts as nothing more than a tiff but we have had at least three, and possibly 4, conversations that show this man was a control freak and verbally and emotionally abusive.



I think if one has worked with or lived with emotionally abusive patients/family these texts immediately shout TROUBLE AHEAD. The abusers can be perfectly normal much of the time, and loving, and are always sorry about the abuse (usually through fear of loss of their partner). Often their behaviour is not apparent to others outside the family.



In my father's case it was because he couldn't bear the thought that my mother had friends for whom she felt any affection. These were female friends. He also caused her estrangement from her brothers and sisters with various verbal threats and non personal violence. He just couldn't deal with the fact that there were other people in her life, even her brothers and sisters for whom inevitably she had affection.



He was even jealous of us, his children. If we were to visit them for lunch he would throw a fit because one or other of us would go to the kitchen to help/talk to our mother. However, he never threatened any of the girls (strange that) but he did break canes over the boys when they were younger. So there was physical violence perpetrated on others at times.



I agree that it does not mean that being emotionally abusive/unstable always leads to murder but there is plenty of evidence that in a large percentage of cases it escalates into violence. In OP's case, I think he has demonstrated that he does get "out of control" if irritated which IMO opinion suggests he would have, at some stage, caused injury.



I would be very interested to learn the reasons for his parent's divorce. His father is a gun freak, perhaps he also had the rather short fuse that OP displays at times. No doubt this information is available somewhere.

I will concede to you that the messages indicate there are some real issues in this relationship.

The problem I have with all the conclusions about abuse and particularly domestic homicide is that this was a 3-4 month old relationship; they didn't live together or even spend that much time together it seems; we see no evidence of escalating abuse; and we see no "cycle"of abuse.

If those things were present then I'd agree that might be something relevant to consider in evaluating the case.

But I think it is just flat out wrong and even insulting to DV victims to jump to a conclusion that a few messages, with no context, clearly proves this was an abusive relationship and it makes intentional homicide more likely.

Domestic violence and abuse is a very complex dynamic - and when we talk about escalating abuse and a cycle of violence we're talking about a whole pattern of behaviors over a longer period of time - a period of tension building, leading to an incident of violence, followed by regret and remorseful promises of better behavior, leading a victim to believe the violence is behind them, only to lead to another cycle of the same pattern of abuse.

It is very very hard to maintain that kind of dynamic between abuser and victim if the victim is not isolated and always accessible to the abuser - if they don't live together or share resources or have any kind of dependency on each other that allows an abuser to maintain power and control of the victim.

The fact that Reeva was "walking on eggshells" and fearful of Oscar's reactions is definitely not a good sign, but without any context it's impossible to know whether that says more about Oscar or Reeva. And under the circumstances as they were, I just do not see the evidence that Oscar was engaging in the spectrum of behaviors we normally associate with abusers.

There's really no indicator that he was pathologically jealous or tried to control Reeva's social relationships or activities. He seemed to have no problem with her having lunch with her ex. Given that, It's really hard to see a pervasively and obsessively jealous boyfriend

 

[steveml]

Did Trooper ever say the relationship was bad 100% all the time? If so, I must have missed it. The majority of abusive relationships are not bad 100% of the time. That's how the victim keeps getting pulled back in.

It doesn't matter so much what myself or Trooper decide on what constitutes DA, it matters much more to Nel, Roux, OP and the judge.

As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate that this subject is quite personal to some, but I think we're getting a bit bogged down on this now. Is it not time to move on, as most of us are reiterating what we've already said, but saying it in a few different ways? A Roux-ism :smile: