Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[soozieqtips]

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.

As others have wisely noted, it's odd that a SINGLE card is evidence of a 'loving' relationship... yet FOUR nasty texts from OP to Reeva (where she says she is SCARED of him) is not considered evidence of an abusive relationship! You truly could not make this stuff up. I guess all logic has gone to ground.

 

[James50]

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!

He is not as good as he could be at acquitting himself, that's true. However had I been him, I would have said in regards to who was to blame for the gun going off (as opposed to Reeva being killed), "Can you qualify what you mean by blame? If you mean was I to blame from the standpoint of intention, then no. No one was to blame for that, it's just something that happened. It was just the way the sequence of events and mistakes played out. However if you mean was I to blame for accidentally killing her, then yes that is the case."

He had to be careful there because of the legal noose Nel was trying to force him to stick his head into. And I think it was more a case there that Nel was more confident the semantics than OP is because of his familiarity with legalese etc. Again, I don't it showed one thing or the other. It was just more court theatrics.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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

1 (one) card doesn't certificate a love, only more of that and loving sms and loving words from both sides, not only her but also him. It's easy.

 

[steveml]

I think what may be more important is whether you, or I, well the judge, are convinced OP shot knowing a person was in the toilet, that he intended to shoot, and that if he didn't in his mind intend to kill the person, should he have foreseen that consequence as a possibility ? Along with other legal conundrums such as whether a reasonable double amputee should have gone towards the danger, shouted a warning, fired a warning shot etc. etc. etc.

I agree. I think it's very probable that he intended to shoot, and I think it's very probable that a reasonable person would have expected those shots to kill the person in the toilet cubicle. The interpretation of the law in SA isn't that important to me, as this is their system and I wouldn't necessarily expect the same laws and punishments to be applied country to country. If the punishment under SA law was 30 years I'd be perfectly OK with that.

The important thing for me is that the outcome is the correct one, based on the case that has been put to Judge Masipa. If the court decides that OP intended to kill Reeva, he should be properly sentenced for that crime and will rightfully carry that burden with him for the rest of his life.

If, however, the court decides that OP did not intentionally kill Reeva, he should be properly sentenced for the crime he did commit, and nothing more, as he will also have to carry the burden that he unintentionally shot his girlfriend on Valentine's Day for the rest of his life.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Really, all men who have murdered their partners should now have a retrial and enter a card as new evidence.

 

[Cherwell]

Nel seems to have pulled this tiny scrap of a "State Case" out of his....... ear!


IF Nel is contending that this Mythical Meal (Last Supper) at 2:00AM which was an occasion for an argument then shooting.

WHERE are the damned dishes?

Did the Cops find dirty plates, bowls cutlery in the bedroom? Fast food cartons? Disposable plates etc? Food scraps spread around perhaps? Were the spots on the duvet tested for Gravy? lol
In turn was the kitchen searched for same signs of a recent meal? The remnants of that meal? Particularly food spilled or thrown around during an argument?

Nel's case does not make sense, and so is not true (Nel's Rule)

Nice strawman. Well played, sir.

 

[TorisMom003]

What did Nel ask 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?

I just finished listening to that part about 20 mins ago and yes OP did say that.

 

[TorisMom003]

I agree. I think it's very probable that he intended to shoot, and I think it's very probable that a reasonable person would have expected those shots to kill the person in the toilet cubicle. The interpretation of the law in SA isn't that important to me, as this is their system and I wouldn't necessarily expect the same laws and punishments to be applied country to country. If the punishment under SA law was 30 years I'd be perfectly OK with that.

The important thing for me is that the outcome is the correct one, based on the case that has been put to Judge Masipa. If the court decides that OP intended to kill Reeva, he should be properly sentenced for that crime and will rightfully carry that burden with him for the rest of his life.

If, however, the court decides that OP did not intentionally kill Reeva, he should be properly sentenced for the crime he did commit, and nothing more, as he will also have to carry the burden that he unintentionally shot his girlfriend on Valentine's Day for the rest of his life.

Don't forget those extra charges that OP is also on trial for. He still has to be found guilty or not guilty on those as well.

 

[james83]

~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!

"Says it all"

 

[aoibhinn]

I have a question about the food. Reeva cooked a meal for OP and by his account (which I believe), they ate at around 7pm. I can't remember what the meal was exactly but I've a feeling that chicken was mentioned. Is this correct?

The medical examiner found no chicken in Reeva's stomach contents. He stated he found vegetables and a white cheese.

If this is correct, it suggests Reeva ate again, sometime after 7pm.

Dirty dishes have been mentioned. Pretoria is sub-tropical climate in a developing country. I've been in a few. Leaving food/dirty dishes out overnight doesn't make any sense. It's unhygenic and unwise. Google 'Pretoria pest control'. There are a lot of companies.

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

Nice strawman. Well played, sir.

He completely ignores the absurdity of OP's story, and points out flaws in the prosecutions.

For some reason they think OP does not have to prove that he did not mean to kill her (which I think he should). OP killed her, that is the fact of it. This isn't about proving if he shot her, it is about proving that it was an accident. The burden of proof should rest equally on both sides shoulders. As he clearly is not "innocent".

JMO

 

[TorisMom003]

I have a question about the food. Reeva cooked a meal for OP and by his account (which I believe), they ate at around 7pm. I can't remember what the meal was exactly but I've a feeling that chicken was mentioned. Is this correct?

The medical examiner found no chicken in Reeva's stomach contents. He stated he found vegetables and a white cheese.

If this is correct, it suggests Reeva ate again, sometime after 7pm.

Dirty dishes have been mentioned. Pretoria is sub-tropical climate in a developing country. I've been in a few. Leaving food/dirty dishes out overnight doesn't make any sense. It's unhygenic and unwise. Google 'Pretoria pest control'. There are a lot of companies.

OP said the meal was chicken stir fry. Not sure how Reeva would make that meal, however it typically (in my experience) does not include cheese, white or any other color.

 

[Magdalyn]

It suggests they were in a loving relationship.

It only says Reeva loved him.

A declaration of love suggests nothing about Oscar's feelings for her, or the relative health or functionality of their relationship.

If 'I love you' suggests 'loving relationship', what does, 'sometimes I'm scared of you' suggest?

IMO, 'I love you' means Reeva loved him. Nothing more.

'Sometimes I'm scared of you' means sometimes Reeva was scared of Oscar. Nothing less.

 

[minor4th]

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.

So have I!! More times than I'd even like to remember. More often than not an abuse victim will not even admit to me (their own lawyer) the full extent of the abuse until I either ask the specific right question or enough time has passed that the victim begins to trust me and also has gained some perspective about domestic violence. e.g. victims are often reluctant to acknowledge or even understand sexual assault within the context of an intimate relationships, but it is very often an aspect of the abuse.

I've also represented men who had been brutally beaten by a girlfriend or wife, but they're willing to take a conviction for family violence assault just to keep from exposing the abuse they have suffered and to "smooth over" things so they can continue a relationship with the batterer. In some ways it's even harder for men who are victims of domestic abuse and violence because there are more hurdles for them receiving support from society and from the judicial system.

Domestic violence and abuse is a horribly insidious and complex relational dynamic, and it is hard to understand if one has not lived it or had a great deal of exposure to it and study of the psychological underpinnings.

All of that being true, you cannot say that a card from Reeva to Oscar saying "I love you" does not indicate that that this was a loving relationship or at least that Reeva loved Oscar -- it does suggest that, unless there is enough evidence that this was an abusive relationship and that Reeva would say "I love you" when she really didn't.

 

[Emz73]

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.

I think that IS exactly what this poster is doing.
If you didn't reply then I wouldnt have to see his/her word salad version of posts :smooch:

 

[steveml]

As others have wisely noted, it's odd that a SINGLE card is evidence of a 'loving' relationship... yet FOUR nasty texts from OP to Reeva (where she says she is SCARED of him) is not considered evidence of an abusive relationship! You truly could not make this stuff up. I guess all logic has gone to ground.

I think the main thing we can glean from the card is that if there was any continuing fallout from the texts prior to the fateful evening, by phone or by any other means,
it didn't look likely that Reeva had intention to end the relationship when she arrived at the house that afternoon. This rules out one probable cause for an argument.

 

[Rumpole]

He completely ignores the absurdity of OP's story, and points out flaws in the prosecutions.

For some reason they think OP does not have to prove that he did not mean to kill her (which I think he should). OP killed her, that is the fact of it. This isn't about proving if he shot her, it is about proving that it was an accident. The burden of proof should rest equally on both sides shoulders. As he clearly is not "innocent".

JMO

The Jurisprudence system we all cherish is that the Defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the (considerable) burden is on the STATE to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

People may WANT there to be an equal burden of proof on both sides, but that is simply NOT the rules.

 

[minor4th]

I submit that one can assume that written words have their ordinary and plain meaning on face value - unless there is some extrinsic evidence that clearly suggests that the words mean something different.

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

It only says Reeva loved him.

A declaration of love suggests nothing about Oscar's feelings for her, or the relative health or functionality of their relationship.

If 'I love you' suggests 'loving relationship', what does, 'sometimes I'm scared of you' suggest?

IMO, 'I love you' means Reeva loved him. Nothing more.

'Sometimes I'm scared of you' means sometimes Reeva was scared of Oscar. Nothing less.

I think you could easily argue that it doesn't even mean SHE loved him. She might have just wanted to say it on a valentines day card with out actually being "in love" with him.

Maybe she just felt like it was what people do on V-Day.

It is absurd to use a single valentines day card to determine someone's complex emotions toward a person. It could mean any number of things.

 

[aoibhinn]

OP said the meal was chicken stir fry. Not sure how Reeva would make that meal, however it typically (in my experience) does not include cheese, white or any other color.

Thank you, TorisMom. The important point to bring from this is he didn't find any chicken on examining stomach contents. This suggests a second (later) meal/snack/what have you....