Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Really?]

Oscar has probably contradicted half of his witness's before they have said a word on the stand.

:silly:

 

[strydohj]

Can anyone deny the possibillity that OP could have kicked the door with prosthetics before he shot at it. Is is possible that he had them on initially during the allegged argument that progressed to the bathroom with RS locking herself in the toilet. Is is possible that they could have fallen off while kicking after which he used them to hit the door and or metal plate on bath. That would explain sufficient length of the accused to be seen from Stipps house initially as well as explain the initial set of noises and the low entry points of bullet holes on the door.

I would love to hear opinions on feasibillity or lack thereof on this scenario.

 

[James50]

He is so clearly adding and tailoring as he goes along .. the sudden introduction of the 'magazine rack' in relation to the wood moving noise came out of nowhere yesterday and was really misjudged by OP. He'd be better off just saying nothing, sometimes.

I don't think the tailoring argument holds much water. What I heard OP doing was trying to add clarity to what happened. As he explained, his bail application was not exhaustive. He'd be a fool to just let Nel rip that testament to shreds on the basis that he never qualified any of the statements he made in it.

 

[fox1lady]

You've misunderstood him. He said a movement as opposed to a mere sound, that's to say the sound of something moving. I don't think you can say that he definitely meant something else because if I'd heard the sound of something moving in the room, that's what I'd say as well if I wanted to be brief.

You've also misunderstood his point about the wooden rack. He stated clearly that he wasn't altogether st'ure what he'd heard, but in his panic he feared it might be the sound of the door about to open. He only realised with hindsight that it must have been the magazine rack. In the state of mind that he was in and with events moving so rapidly, he didn't have time to interpret it.

He's a liability with a gun isn't he? I can't believe he couldn't answer the question when Nel asked him who was to blame for him shooting Reeva... WTH!

 

[TorisMom003]

When asked if Reeva knew how to activate/deactivate the alarm (in the house), OP responded that he wasn't sure if she knew how to or not.

Now this brings up more questions about just how concerned with security and safety OP really was. Remember, Reeva went to OP's house on the 13th when he was not there to do laundry and get some work done. So, how did Reeva get into the home without knowing how to deactivate the alarm? Or did OP leave the home without turning the alarm on? And if he left the home without turning the alarm on, then one can say that his claims of paranoia about security and safety are nothing more than hot air blown to get away with murder.

MOO

 

[fox1lady]

I don't the tailoring argument holds much water. What I heard him doing was trying to add clarity to what happened. As he explained, his bail application was not exhaustive. He'd be a fool to just let Nel rip that testament to shreds on the basis that he never qualified any of the statements he made in it.

He went from describing quite clearly that he heard a click and the sound of wood moving to indicate that he thought the door was opening. Only when Nel said well how could it have been that because the door was locked and it never opened did OP then say he must have heard the magazine rack moving. Bizarre!

 

[soozieqtips]

I haven't seen any such suggestion. You've seen posts suggesting Reeva saying 'I love you' in a card is evidence of an abusive relationship? Must have missed all of them. Perhaps you could respond to each specifically so we can see what to you see? Thanks!

~snipped~

BBM - even stranger, is that the 3 people who thanked that original post haven't produced a single post that stated anyone... anyone ever said that a card was evidence of an abusive relationship!

 

[Britlaws]

I haven't seen any such suggestion. You've seen posts suggesting Reeva saying 'I love you' in a card is evidence of an abusive relationship? Must have missed all of them. Perhaps you could respond to each specifically so we can see what to you see? Thanks!

BiB: Really? You've seen these posts too? I might need glasses. Where are these posts where the posters state Reeva's "I love you" indicates abuse in a relationship. Thanks!

Now, Grffindor, you did state this:

Which, I may have missed it, you really didn't follow up with to explain to us how Reeve's words 'says it all'.

But there was this post:

Here, you seem to be saying Roux/Oscar/the reading of the card says so much with so little ... it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, the implication is that this card in which Reeva wrote the words 'I love you' before Oscar shot her to death...has shown ....what? All I can see is that Revva wrote she loved him. It doesn't show anything about whether she wanted to leave, whether or not they were arguing that night or ever argued, or if he was abusive ever before or the night she died.

It is this post that has implied Roux/the card has somehow proven mutual intimate partner happiness...very effectively?

I've seen no such post that implies the opposite--that 'I love you' in a card shows abuse. I have, however seen past posts that imply 'Sometimes I'm scared of you' doesn't mean anything at all...

I have gone into court with women with black eyes, broken bones etc wanting to withdraw their statement against their partners saying "but I love him". Thank the lord we changed the law in the UK so we can still get them convicted now.

 

[Rumpole]

Nel made suggestions of what might have happened. It was all conjecture, like it normally is in cases where only one person is left to tell the story of how another person met her demise. That's a prosecutors's job, but he doesn't have to provide motive down to the exact detail. He can't, even though I'm sure he'd like to. But he can suggest what might have happened.

I respect that you think the state's case doesn't make sense, but I disagree wholeheartedly. It makes much more sense to me than OP's ever-changing version, where he is both incredibly unstable and vulnerable on his stumps, yet like Superman, goes charging toward a perceived threat to save his girlfriend and then "accidentally" pulls the trigger four times striking her with enough aim to kill her from all three wounds.

You can use conjecture to formulate a hypothesis... but then you have to PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is OK provided there are enough "blocks" of facts.

This meal is just pure unsubstantiated supposition.

It was NOT a sandwich as I see suggested. State's own expert says it was some sort of vegetable meal. There had to be dishes etc. None were found.
And if the implication is that this was more than a "meal" it was an occasion for a violent argument that escalated into murder... I think food scraps, broken plates WOULD be circumstantial evidence to support that. The fact that such evidence was not found is circumstantial evidence that it never happened.

It really is a pathetic excuse for a case. Especially since there is testimony of just a single voice at 2:00 AM... and no sign of a disturbance at 3:20?

The "Screams" were all after the GUNSHOTS heard by 3 closest STATE witnesses, and so it is at the very least IN DOUBT that the screams were Reeva since they came at a time after she was dead.

The State's entire case is too tiny and scrappy to refute and replace OP's detailed version.


As an Aside:
I think it is pathetic for Nel to be requesting a 2 week adjournment. If time was of an essence he has known all along and could have upped his game, speeded up a bit..... NOT taken the extra day and a half tacked on to an existing long weekend.

OP (guilty or innocent) is entitled to have this torture of a trial completed ASAP. As are all the other interested parties... Reeva's family etc.
I do hope the Judge simply denies this request and tells BOTH sides to "pull finger"

 

[Linda7NJ]

~snipped~

BBM - even stranger, is that the 3 people who thanked that original post haven't produced a single post that stated anyone... anyone ever said that a card was evidence of an abusive relationship!

When I think of a relationship ...I think of it as being between two people, it's reciprocal.
So she gives him a nice card & cooks dinner for him and she received absolutely nothing from him in return.

That's what some assert is a loving relationship?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

I disagree. To me it shows more that Reeva hoped they would be. Where is the reciprocal card and gift from OP, who was apparently hoping to go back to a party he'd left earlier that evening in any case.

Less than a month earlier he told the press he was not in any relationship because women lie when they say they don't mind how busy you are.

That says a lot about his feelings for women in general and Reeva in particular. He was self obsessed above all else and I feel the relationships he did best in were those with younger malleable women with less sense of their own identity, who were prepared to do as they were told.

Ironically, Reeva's "I love you" in her card might have raised her expectations about his behaviour on the night of the killing, even if he had not yet read the card, and might actually have contributed towards conflict that led to the fight. Who knows, but definitely a theory.

It is hard for me to grasp how anyone can argue that a card saying "I love you" does not suggest this was a loving relationship.

It is beyond reason and understanding IMO

 

[vansleuths]

The attorney DJ on Oscar Radio also said the way he was answering questions i.e. as if he was an attorney himself and then answering questions with questions would not go down well with the judge and she will see it as evading them.

Could you tell me the URL of Oscar Radio, I wouldn't mind streaming it over the net..

Thank you

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I think the new benchmark is where some people is agreeing that a card from RS somehow shows both OP and RS love each other and that they are in a loving relationship...man...it feels weird just writing that haha.

Why so negative? Roux is well educated and studied and it's his level.

:facepalm:

 

[clearskies1]

Re OP's testimony that when he woke up (after 3 am) Reeva said to him "can't sleep baba?" this suggests that he's saying Reeva never fell asleep that night. What was she doing when she said that -- lying down, sitting up? Did OP testify about that? If I woke up at that time and the person next to me (Reeva) was still awake I would definitely ask the person what was wrong, why are you still awake?

 

[TorisMom003]

It is hard for me to grasp how anyone can argue that a card saying "I love you" does not suggest this was a loving relationship.

It is beyond reason and understanding IMO

I am using the following as an example.

Let's say a stalker puts a card on my car. In that card the stalker says "I love you". Now just because that stalker loves me, has told me they love me in a card, does NOT a relationship make. It also does not mean that I love that stalker. When one person says "I love you" it does NOT mean that the other loves them back.

Let's remember that we are all adults here, not high school girls going crazy over some boy that we love that may or may not love us back. We can pretend to be in a "loving relationship" with that boy that we "love" but it doesn't mean that the boy feels the same way towards us and that he isn't using us for something in his favor.

MOO

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

It is hard for me to grasp how anyone can argue that a card saying "I love you" does not suggest this was a loving relationship.

It is beyond reason and understanding IMO

You have never heard of a person misleading or lying to someone?

What if she felt guilty because she cheated on him? You have no idea if the I love you was genuine, just like we have no idea if it wasn't genuine.

Crazy to know her true meanings "beyond reason"...

 

[james83]

I haven't seen any such suggestion. You've seen posts suggesting Reeva saying 'I love you' in a card is evidence of an abusive relationship? Must have missed all of them. Perhaps you could respond to each specifically so we can see what to you see? Thanks!



BiB: Really? You've seen these posts too? I might need glasses. Where are these posts where the posters state Reeva's "I love you" indicates abuse in a relationship. Thanks!

Now, Gryffindor, you did state this:



Which, I may have missed it, you really didn't follow up to explain to us how Reeva's words 'says it all'.

But there was this post:



Here, you seem to be saying Roux/Oscar/the reading of the card says so much with so little ... it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, the implication is that this card in which Reeva wrote the words 'I love you' before Oscar shot her to death...has shown ....what? All I can see is that Reeva wrote she loved him. It doesn't show anything about whether she wanted to leave, whether or not they were arguing that night or ever argued, or if he was abusive ever before or the night she died.

It is this post that has implied Roux/the card has somehow proven mutual intimate partner happiness...very effectively?

I've seen no such post that implies the opposite--that 'I love you' in a card shows abuse. I have, however seen past posts that imply 'Sometimes I'm scared of you' doesn't mean anything at all...

I'm surprised the judge didnt see that card and immediately dismiss the case, after all no man has ever killed a woman who loved him.

 

[BritsKate]

It is hard for me to grasp how anyone can argue that a card saying "I love you" does not suggest this was a loving relationship.



It is beyond reason and understanding IMO

A relationship is comprised and based upon two people. If one cannot use text messages indicating fear and describing known aspects of IPV as *possibly* signs of an abusive, toxic or unhealthy relationship - then it stands to reason the opposite inference cannot be gleaned from a card by one of two individuals in the relationship.

You saw everyone stating Reeva's card meant she was in an abusive relationship. I saw everyone stating it wasn't evident of anything more than her loving him. Many people love others who treat them very poorly - it doesn't make their relationships either loving or healthy.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Britlaws]

You can use conjecture to formulate a hypothesis... but then you have to PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is OK provided there are enough "blocks" of facts.

This meal is just pure unsubstantiated supposition.

It was NOT a sandwich as I see suggested. State's own expert says it was some sort of vegetable meal. There had to be dishes etc. None were found.
And if the implication is that this was more than a "meal" it was an occasion for a violent argument that escalated into murder... I think food scraps, broken plates WOULD be circumstantial evidence to support that. The fact that such evidence was not found is circumstantial evidence that it never happened.

It really is a pathetic excuse for a case. Especially since there is testimony of just a single voice at 2:00 AM... and no sign of a disturbance at 3:20?

The "Screams" were all after the GUNSHOTS heard by 3 closest witnesses, and so it is at the very least IN DOUBT that the screams were Reeva since they came at a time after she was dead.

The State's entire case is too tiny and scrappy to refute and replace OP's detailed version.


As an Aside:
I think it is pathetic for Nel to be requesting a 2 week adjournment. If time was of an essence he has known all along and could have upped his game, speeded up a bit..... NOT taken the extra day and a half tacked on to an existing long weekend.

OP (guilty or innocent) is entitled to have this torture of a trial completed ASAP. As are all the other interested parties... Reeva's family etc.
I do hope the Judge simply denies this request and tells BOTH side to "pull finger"

His 'torture of a trial"? oh pulleeeeese! What about the victim? what about her family??! They haven't complained. Geeze, I just think you do this out of some perverse desire to wind people up.

 

[DebinGA]

He's a liability with a gun isn't he? I can't believe he couldn't answer the question when Nel asked him who was to blame for him shooting Reeva... WTH!

What did Nel ask OP re the black talons + "fault" today, i.e. "Was it the black talons fault?" or "Whose to blame for the black talons?" Did OP answer that black talons are the recommended ammo for that gun?