Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[minor4th]

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.

What?

Yes, Reeva's message to OP that she was scared of Oscar snapping at her and scared of the way he would react to her means exactly what it says! When she said she wasn't sure they could work out, I submit the words have exactly their face value meaning.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (generally speaking). So the absence of a card from OP saying "I love you" is not evidence that he did not love Reeva. Neither is it evidence that he loved her - it's evidence of nothing.

 

[TrueDetective]

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"

So wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start.

In fact, I'm not going to bother as you didn't bother to respond to my earlier direct reply.

However, as a general comment in brief defence of the PT - the adjournment is unavoidable due to other legal matters and was known about and has kicked in due to how long the case has taken and the ill assessor didn't help. Roux also took his time in x-exam but of course you wouldn't mention that.
Yes it's a pain, nobody wants these long breaks, we all want to whizz through it now to the end but this is how the justice system often works. It slow going.

Regarding the torture of a trial - if you take away the Media intrusion in the case - it has gone to trial much faster than many major cases. Trials aren't meant to be easy, and especially not for the accused.

 

[TipDog]

It is EVIDENCE of a loving relationship, not to be confused with PROOF of a loving relationship.

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (Texas Rules of Evidence, Section 401)

It is intellectually dishonest to say that a card saying "I love you" does not tend to make it more probable that this was a loving relationship.

Then the long message from RV to OP is even more compelling evidence that this was not a loving relationship (although, agreed, not proof). It is more probable that there was trouble in paradise of this mere four-month long relationship - one in which the woman ended up murdered.

To me, this VD card was rather informal and almost glib. With as lovey-dovey as Reeva seemed to be (to everyone, certainly in texts/tweets), you'd think she'd have written a far more intimate "I love you" if she were truly that much in love with him. I almost feel it was a lame attempt (not to be critical of her, just an observation).

With all do respect, Minor, you simply cannot have it one way and insist that we must all agree or we're dishonest. This is probably a good reason why both you and I are not attorneys! :thud:

 

[emmavoberry]

It is intellectually dishonest to say that a card saying "I love you" does not tend to make it more probable that this was a loving relationship.

All that the card can suggest is that at the time Reeva wrote it, SHE felt love for Oscar. It does not support a finding of reciprocity needed to "make it more probable" that theirs was a "loving "relationship."

No matter circumstantial evidence of such a reciprocation, it would not argue the probability of Oscar intentionally or simply unlawfully killing her. Couples can be loving one moment, and their love imperiled the next. One of them can feel loving while the other seethes. The card is but a painful reminder that Reeva was emotionally available, forthcoming, vulnerable, and hopeful.

 

[TipDog]

What?

Yes, Reeva's message to OP that she was scared of Oscar snapping at her and scared of the way he would react to her means exactly what it says! When she said she wasn't sure they could work out, I submit the words have exactly their face value meaning.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (generally speaking). So the absence of a card from OP saying "I love you" is not evidence that he did not love Reeva. Neither is it evidence that he loved her - it's evidence of nothing.

Yes. Evidence of nothing. Think about that. I'm betting the judge will.

 

[Cherwell]

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?

I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean Oscar loved her. And as it takes two people to make a relationship, it's not proof, on its own, of a "loving relationship". At least, not a mutually loving one.

 

[james83]

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 to tell him 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.

Lets move this on a touch, so she was waiting for valentine's day to tell him she loved him, do you think therefore Oscars claim that "they agreed not to make a big thing of valentine's day" ring's true?, or was she maybe expecting him to make a big deal of there first valentine's day?, consider Reeva's tweet's from the 13th feb 2013

Reeva Steenkamp ‏@reevasteenkamp 13 Feb 2013
What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow??? #getexcited #ValentinesDay

Reeva Steenkamp ‏@reevasteenkamp 13 Feb 2013
@gossig That sounds amazing! Wow that's what it's all about! It should be a day of love for everyone may it be blessed!

Doesn't prove he meant to kill here, but those tweets coupled with the "agreed not to make a big thing of valentine's day" don't add up.

 

[Paysee]

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

Relationship = 2 people. You agree?

Reeva bought a gift for OP, with a card saying I love you, and cooked dinner for her. She is loving towards him.

What did OP do for her to show his loving?

 

[minor4th]

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:

She wrote it out in her own hand, and signed it with a smiley face.

Are you saying that Reeva's decision to write "I love you" in a Valentine's card does nothing at all to answer the question of whether Reeva loved Oscar? That defies logic and reality IMO, if that is what you're suggesting.

 

[shane13]

Yes, clearly an obvious opportunity for Nel to use the actual evidence to discredit OP's testimony but for whatever reason he didn't. I'm still surprised by that.

BBM
Could be nothing or...
You have to see the possibilities, and learn Shane-Speak: "This one runs deep."

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

Speculating based on nothing at all then twisting and turning adding more speculation, while denying, and down playing what facts there are, is illogical, unscientific, and dangerous in a murder trial (and even in discussion).

Facts?

She wrote "I love you" on a card. That in no way proves ANYTHING about their relationship. Ludicrous to assume that she loved him based on that.

What am I twisting? What am I turning? What am I denying? What am I down playing?

She wrote "I love you". That is the FACT. Is writing "I love you" proof of love?

 

[Nausicaa]

(...)

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 to tell him 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.

1. Your case that she loved him is much stronger than your case that he loved her.

2. Anger and love are two powerful passions both notorious for their ability to blind. Even if he did love her, he certainly killed her and anger would be a sufficient explanation of his doing so deliberately.

3. The act of killing someone, like the contents of a Valentine card, should be presumed to bear its natural meaning unless the contrary is proved.

 

[Rumpole]

Nel Stated that there was ONE colleague with ONE "other legal matter", but that the adjournment was being sought mainly due to more personal plans.

I put it to you... vacation plans etc.

Really... this is a Murder Trial. Nel can manage without one of his assistants. I hope the Judge tells them to "suck it up" in regards their personal plan disruptions and get on with it.

The trial is NOT meant to be part of the punishment and mental torture, especially since the defendant is INNOCENT until the verdict is reached, and may well remain innocent even then.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

Nope, I haven't misunderstood ... it's what Nel keeps referring to as 'tailoring' .. tailoring the evidence.

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

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

I am hoping this is a joke?

 

[minor4th]

Yes. Evidence of nothing. Think about that. I'm betting the judge will.

So we agree that no conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a card from Oscar?

Oscar testified he loved Reeva. He is the only one who can say whether he did or did not.

Aside from Oscar saying he loved Reeva and Reeva writing a card saying "I love you", there are countless messages of a loving nature - kiss, kiss, kiss, I miss you more, baba, booboo, etc. Reeva was spending the night at Oscar's house and had spent the previous night with him as well. All of those things are evidence of a loving relationship.

Is there also evidence that there were times when this relationship was not so loving? Absolutely.

 

[James50]

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:

No, that doesn't work, because she'd already told him in a text that she wanted to tell him about her feelings for him. So she was planning this for some time, and she didn't say she loved him but that this was the right time to tell him that.

 

[TorisMom003]

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

The female assessor was the one that asked OP the question. I feel sure that she listened carefully to his answer.

 

[DebinGA]

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.

We can't read minds, but we can notice behavior like obvious praying. It's no accident that OP throws in "the Lord" at every opportunity. He went to the balcony and screamed for the Lord to help him. He saw Reeva's dead body and screamed for the Lord to keep her alive. He wanted "a Christian partner" like Reeva. But based on his history, he and the Lord weren't speaking a lot of the time imo.

 

[Cherwell]

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:

Buy a blank card and write whatever you want!
IMO all cards should be "blank for your own message" - most people are capable of writing "happy birthday" or whatever.