Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[fox1lady]

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.

I think it may have pleased the judge more if he had something like " I take responsibility milady for Reeva being shot when the gun went off but I did not intentionally shoot her"... rather than make out that he was without blame. Is there really a difference between taking her life and killing her?

 

[steveml]

~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!

I wasn't aware you had to validate thanks?

...and for that reason nobody is obliged.

 

[TipDog]

Really? I think not. This is how it works. Words mean what they say unless there's other evidence to suggest that the words don't mean what they say.

Trust me on this

No, they don't. And per your very own argument, Reeva's message to OP about how he scared her, she wasn't sure they could give each other what they need, etc. is paramount to this case then (which, in fact, I believe it is). Also, per your argument, OP's lack of words on Valentine's Day to RS is evidence that he didn't feel the same - thus, no loving relationship.

Trust me on this.

 

[fox1lady]

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

Only if it has "I love you" written somewhere

 

[jay-jay]

OP, being so considerate, hit the side of the door (right side) instead of the center or left side of the door because he didn't want the panel to come out and hit Reeva. Never mind that he had just fired four lethal shots into the toilet room door at her.

Amazing isn't it, but this is what these people are like .. they continually add things which make them sound caring in order to counteract something bad they've done .. my ex would tell me things like beating someone up but then taking them to hospital, just to make it sound as if he really cared! (I never believed any of it, but that's exactly the type of thing he continually used to come out with)

 

[DebinGA]

As per the phone (tower) and text records, Reeva had intended to leave before OP got home that evening, so that sounds about right. She left in the late afternoon and returned shortly before OP.

So sad that Reeva likely returned to his house because he'd had such a disturbing meeting regarding "his hurdle" that she wanted to be there for him in his hour of need.

 

[Rumpole]

Really? I think not. This is how it works. Words mean what they say unless there's other evidence to suggest that the words don't mean what they say.

Trust me on this

Don't forget that OP is charged with 1st Degree felony bad Grammar, with the lesser included charge of Second degree Spelling mistakes.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Welcome to WS and thank you for adding another voice of reason to what has increasingly felt like Bizarro world at times.

 

[Viper]

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:

BIB. LOL! Word salad?! That is just perfect. :lol:

 

[jay-jay]

People have different reactions, if it were me in a small room and an enraged person pounding on the door with a bat, I would think about jumping out the window, even if it meant a 2 story fall. It's fight or flight and she could not win a fight with OP.

JMO.

She may not have known he had a gun in his hand at that point though .. he may have been angry and threatening, but only when she had retreated into the bathroom and locked the door did he go back and get his gun.

 

[steveml]

Correct .. it's all so staged, isn't it .. most people, if they did want to pray, would do it inside their heads and all this continual mouthing of prayers is because it needs to be seen (or so they think, when actually it looks worse because if they really thought OP was innocent then they wouldn't need to be praying like there's no tomorrow and the facts/truth would be speaking for itself).

Uncle Arnold isn't fooling anyone either, with all his nicey nicey stuff offering out food and drinks to all and sundry all the time.

I think it's unfair to criticize family members - they have done nothing wrong other than supporting the rest of their family. We don't have the right to judge them.

 

[Magdalyn]

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.

snipped for focus and bolded by me.

Your "or at least" negates your assertion that 'I love you' indicates a loving relationship. 'I love you' only indicates what Reeva feels, and feels like writing in a Valentine's day card.

It can't possibly suggest anything else. We have to take the words at face value and not extrapolate meaning that isn't written there. If "I love you" suggests a loving relationship, you must then feel that, "Sometimes you scare me" indicates an abusive relationship.

Can't have it both ways.

Do we expect she'd write, "Though you hate when I chew gum, touch other men, and call me twice when I'm lunching with my ex, I love you, and also, sometimes I'm scared by you."

 

[Really?]

So cooking chicken and choking chicken if you like.

omg....lol...:silly:

 

[Paysee]

Haven't you ever eaten straight out of the fridge late at night? Some cheese slices, a few vegetables. They didn't have to have a food fight!

Its night here and I am eating crisps as I browse here. Vegetables? Cheese? Don't make me feel guilty :tantrum:

 

[James50]

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...

Ah yes, but you ignore the context.

Firstly, RS had already mentioned in a text message that he planned to reveal her feelings for him (very soon). She was stringing it out, waiting for the opportune moment. Making him wait. That isn't the way an abused partner would do it. Rather she was in complete control of how and when she wanted to reveal this. It was not some sort of knee jerk reaction uttered out of a desire merely to placate him.

Secondly, this was clearly and unambiguously a declaration of her love for him. In speaking of the "right moment," she was telling him she had fallen in love with him. Had she just said, "I love you," you wouldn't necessarily know for sure, you're right. But what can she mean by "the right moment", other than the right moment in their relationship with one another. If she had been planning to leave him, then t it was utterly the wrong moment in their relationship to say she loved him.

Thirdly, I have no doubt whatsover that these two people were very much in love with each other.

 

[G.bng]

Suffolk coastal here also - small world!

That surprised me, I thought there were so many more things he could have queried with OP - but I think he did a good job, maybe any more questions would have over-egged the pudding

Maybe I should say then... Saxmundham area calling!

Yes, I am pretty sure he proved CH and according to a BBC reporter the PT team has apparently confided to them that they are confident they have proved that OP intended to shoot at whoever was behind the toilet door, which pleases me no end because I was concerned they had forgotten the possible intruder OP cornered there and shot at like a sitting duck.

 

[fox1lady]

Ok, but let's deal with the actual facts in this case.

What does Reeva mean when she says "I love you" in a card to Oscar?

Maybe she just couldn't find a Valentine's card that didn't say I love you on it... what was she supposed to say? I have actually found myself in that predicament whilst in a relationship, I've pondered whether I should just not buy a card or buy the card but write I "like" you instead of I love you... what does one do to keep the peace? :banghead:

 

[aa9511]

~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!

This is turning into a case-within-a-case!

 

[04009margaret]

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

Let's hope the judge & the assessors clicked onto that

 

[G.bng]

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.

Whatever... but at best that will still give him culpable homicide!