Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Viper]

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?

BIB. One fact in this case is that the defense is tacky and desperate to create the illusion that some fantastic lifelong bond of love and caring existed between OP and Reeva, and that it was cut short by OP "accidentally" murdering Reeva. It never existed. Just two people in a short relationship on Valentines Day, one of whom gave the other a rather silly card as a token of her new feelings. I can't believe that we are arguing about the meaning of the words in that card. But if we must then I see a lack of any heartfelt words; using roses are red, violets are blue, that is amateur stuff compared to things written to people one really loves.

Back to the defense saving this little gem for OPs last moments on the stand. It is hugely offensive to do that, use a kind gift that the murder victim gave to her killer in an attempt to influence the public and the court. Disgusting.

Sorry if others have said the same, I am just rejoining the thread and I start at the end.

 

[luvmygarden]

Think the Valentine's card message and Reeva's words says it all.

Maybe another incidence where Reeva had it wrong. Time for LOVE, time for a neck rub, time for quick goodbyes to save time for OP to get something to eat. Time to enjoy an engagement party but leaving early for OP. Never to get the day back again. And another day Reeva will never get back again Is A Day In The Life Of A beautiful, Vibrant Young woman, daughter, niece, friend. Potential wife and mother and grandmother. Because OP DECIDED her fate. SO SAD.

 

[fox1lady]

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.

You can love someone but not necessarily feel that you're in a loving relationship! Excuse me for doing an OP and not actually answering the question

 

[Insp.Dots]

I have so much catching up to do over the long weekend but have a couple of questions that are niggling me so can anyone help please?

1. What/when was the last call or text sent from Reeva's phone?
2. What were the jeans doing in the garden?
3. Who was the man in photo shown on the screen?
4. Hole in Bedroom door?

When we discussed previously someone (sorry no memory of who) said if Nel has put it into evidence there is definitely a reason for it and it would come out when he cross-examined OP....
The cross examination is over as is the state's control over future evidence from defence yet from what I have seen these things were not dealt with.

ETA: Oscar's so called 'new girlfriend' reported by the Sun and Daily Fail, just happens to be a member of the extended family who he has known for years and is NOT his Girlfriend. I will not name her again as per Forum rules and she has I'm , if anyone wants to check this they will find it in the wonderful world of Facebook. It took a lot of digging but it does become clear.
I understand this has little to do with the current case but it annoys the heck out of me when we have false reporting. It's like a Chinese whisper and can do a lot of damage to innocent people.

 

[minor4th]

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:

But I am an attorney.

 

[emmavoberry]

Correct me if I am mistaken.
1) Oscar claims the screaming witnesses heard was his own (though he also says he "knew" this but could not "hear" himself).
2) As usual, he attempts to "have it both ways," testifying that IF it had been Reeva screaming, he did not hear her because his ears were ringing from the shots.
3) On Monday, asked why he would have been screaming, he answered that he wanted to ask Reeva why she was calling the police.

Sorry if this has been discussed since its mention and I missed it.

I would think Nel would capitalize on it.

PS Murphy'sLaw picked this up from listening to the video three times.

 

[James50]

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

\

Well, duh, of course he will claim that, since that is the position of the prosecution, but it's just a statement. It can read also as mere clarification and if one goes much beyond that we're splitting hairs.

 

[Paysee]

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 don't know. This case must be tough on OP's family. The brother / nephew they were so proud of, suddenly killing someone, and facing a long imprisonment?

If it was my brother, I would be constantly praying too. Maybe even with my lips moving and in court.

 

[Rumpole]

But I am an attorney.

Touché !

:tyou:

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

BIB. One fact in this case is that the defense is tacky and desperate to create the illusion that some fantastic lifelong bond of love and caring existed between OP and Reeva, and that it was cut short by OP "accidentally" murdering Reeva. It never existed. Just two people in a short relationship on Valentines Day, one of whom gave the other a rather silly card as a token of her new feelings. I can't believe that we are arguing about the meaning of the words in that card. But if we must then I see a lack of any heartfelt words; using roses are red, violets are blue, that is amateur stuff compared to things written to people one really loves.

Back to the defense saving this little gem for OPs last moments on the stand. It is hugely offensive to do that, use a kind gift that the murder victim gave to her killer in an attempt to influence the public and the court. Disgusting.

Sorry if others have said the same, I am just rejoining the thread and I start at the end.

Please excuse my ignorance but what does BIB stand for?

 

[TrueDetective]

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 loving relationship is reciprocal and generally equal.

To take the counter argument to the extreme to make the point - imagine a stalker obsessed with their victim. The stalker loves, adores, worships the victim - sends them gifts, calls them 100s of times a day etc etc.
The victim is scared and frightened, just wants the stalker locked up and hates the stalker.
If you saw one 'romantic' card from the stalker would you immediately assume, without context and full knowledge that theirs was a loving relationship?

You think you know but nobody really knows. There is doubt as to close they were and how little 'real time' they spent together. We do however have vital evidence from the what's apps, previous character evidence and now ashes in the sea to suggest that this relationship had problems, that it was not equal and the ease to which you can dismiss that is troubling.

 

[soozieqtips]

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?

In Bizarro World, yes. In a logical world, no.

It's pointless to use logic if others don't.

 

[fox1lady]

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.

and he totally ignored it in the text bless her. She was clearly wrong about it being the right time to tell him though. I didn't watch today, how did OP respond to the card being shown and read? Did he have a breakdown?

 

[Nausicaa]

But I am an attorney.

And therefore adept at defending the indefensible ?

Just a question.

 

[supernovaNic]

I don't think it matters if Reeva loved him or not. I think what's important is that Oscar said he was more into her than she was into him. I believe him on this. A man being insecure in a relationship and having Oscar's personality can lead to some ugly behavior,, jealousy ... etc. ... not a good combo.

 

[TrueDetective]

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

Darn it, you got there first. Wrote mine before I read yours!
Bravo Toris!

 

[TorisMom003]

There was some confusion about the recorded sound test of the cricket bat on the door that was played in court today by the defense. BOTH sounds were of the cricket bat hitting the door. The first was an over the shoulder type of hitting with the cricket bat. The second was more of a ramming into the door with the cricket bat. Neither of those sounds was of a gun shot into the door.

 

[fox1lady]

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.

Darn it lol, I should have thought of that... do they sell blank VD cards? Must remember that next time I'm faced with that problem

 

[jay-jay]

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.

I wouldn't expect you to .. OP didn't just try to 'add clarity', he directly contradicted himself on numerous occasions, simply because he kept chucking stuff into his 'version' (as even he himself started referring to it as in the end) as he went along.

 

[minor4th]

And therefore adept at defending the indefensible ?

Just a question.

That's not really a question - it's an implied statement with a question mark attached.

Just a statement.