Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[minor4th]

1. Prosecution doesn't need to.
2. There is no way of knowing the reason for the fight.

In fact there's no way of knowing there was a fight

 

[molly333]

So you admit that he might kill her if she disturbed him before an important event?

I need something that sets him off into a murderous rage against the most beautiful girl he has ever met.

 

[aoibhinn]

Oscar is an immensely complex individual with (IMO) many things wrong with him. Most are of an episodic nature.

You have learned well both Quantum Physics and Oscar-World/Oscar Speak. Congrats. (Observation usually forces a definitive outome or specific state.)
This will do you well in the world, because there are people everywhere who speak that way.

The Native Americans were familiar with this concept IMO. (Ancient peoples intrinsically understood the Quantum world and Oscar World IMO.) Recall what they called it? "Speaking with forked tongue". Meaning such people could speak simultaneously out of both sides of their mouth.
And you doubted, if needed that Oscar could speak in 2 voices simultaneously if needed. I don't.

BTW, the Coen Bros.made a movie that basically has Quantum Physics
and the Uncertainty Principle play out thorughout the move.
Many viewers did not first read up on this before seeing it, so it's a very underrated and unique movie: A Serious Man

Seeing it now can enable people to understrand Oscar World and Oscar-Speak to some extent.

I only have a basic grasp but being born of the universe, it makes sense that the laws of physics could apply to us in aspects other than the visible/physical. (esp. BIB, but other facets)

I'll watch out for that movie. I like the Coen Brothers but I missed that one.

 

[minor4th]

The question regarding the alarm system was interesting, as Reeva had entered the house prior to Oscar and, as far as I know, she was alone....would she not have had prior knowledge of how to disarm the system or was it not on at the time?

If she did have knowledge, she could have disarmed it when she went downstairs to have a snack...if it was ever on that is..

Yeah, the alarm issue - I took it to mean she was looking for a way that Reeva could have gotten a snack closer to the time of her death. I would take that question as favorable to Oscar.

Not sure about the window, and that's why I'm going back to listen to Mrs Stipp's testimony

 

[Cherwell]

I totally don't remember Mrs Stipp saying she saw the toilet window on, so I'm going to listen to her testimony again to find out the timing she gives for everything and what she says about the lights.

I think it was Mrs Stipp who described it as there being a light in the toilet which was dimmer than the bathroom light .... it may have been Dr Stipp. I think they used different ways to describe it, but essentially they agreed, it boiled down to the same thing.

 

[molly333]

OP didn't know there was a "killer" in the house. He claims he thought it was an intruder. But (assuming his version), he didn't even know if the intruder, locked behind a closed door, was even armed. As we all now know, there was only one killer in the house that night and it wasn't any intruder.

Personally, I wish Reeva could have called the police to tell them there was a killer, OP, in the house and then none of us would be be having this discussion. She'd have either lived or there would be solid evidence of what really happened that night.

Why didn't she call the police? Do we know?

 

[BlueShoe]

I hadn't seen MOO before I came to this site, and I thought someone was impersonating a cow... but I didn't know why!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
:moo:

Yes, me too. I thought it was definitely a cow friendly forum.

 

[minor4th]

No. OP has only said that it was not working. Perhaps Roux has another witness that will testify to the fact that the light was not working. Until then we only have the word of the defendant, who has reason to lie.

MOO

That is not a lie that helps him though IMO. And presumably the investigators knew that whether the light worked or not and would have testified that it was working if that was the case.

 

[TorisMom003]

Is that a known? I thought that she arrived at the house about ten minutes before him and then he arrived but there is no verification that she entered the home before he got home. My memory on this is fuzzy so I may be wrong.

Reeva had already been at his house, when he was not there, to do laundry and some work. OP was not there when she arrived the first time. Text messages show this.

 

[Cherwell]

The question regarding the alarm system was interesting, as Reeva had entered the house prior to Oscar and, as far as I know, she was alone....would she not have had prior knowledge of how to disarm the system or was it not on at the time?

If she did have knowledge, she could have disarmed it when she went downstairs to have a snack...if it was ever on that is..

I've mentioned a couple of times without any response that the housekeeper might have let her in.

Personally I don't think the alarm was switched on that night. He didn't remember switching it off. I'm not convinced either of them went to sleep.

 

[minor4th]

well, we need something, don't you agree?

Otherwise--coming out of the blue weights towards accident.

Neither do we know for sure it was them fighting. Maybe it was the couple down the street.

We don't even know it was fighting, certainly don't know it was a couple fighting. Merwe only said she heard one voice talking loudly and she interpreted as maybe being one side of an argument (maybe someone talking loudly on the phone, since she didn't hear the other person talking IMO)

 

[Magdalyn]

In fact there's no way of knowing there was a fight

Except for the testimony to consider--a witness hearing one. A witness who has nothing at stake in the outcome of the trial.

 

[TorisMom003]

Why didn't she call the police? Do we know?

Because OP never told her to call police.

Because Reeva did NOT have her phone with her in the toilet room.

We only have OP's word, which is meaningless at this point IMO, that he even told her to phone police or that she had her phone in the toilet room.

If OP shot and killed Reeva intentionally does anyone really expect him to tell the truth?

 

[molly333]

Yeah, the alarm issue - I took it to mean she was looking for a way that Reeva could have gotten a snack closer to the time of her death. I would take that question as favorable to Oscar.

Not sure about the window, and that's why I'm going back to listen to Mrs Stipp's testimony

The answer to the question is favorable to Oscar. Reeva knew how to work the alarm system. And, could have used it to call for help for that matter [I haven't seen any evidence that she couldn't].

 

[molly333]

Because OP never told her to call police.

Because Reeva did NOT have her phone with her in the toilet room.

We only have OP's word, which is meaningless at this point IMO, that he even told her to phone police or that she had her phone in the toilet room.

If OP shot and killed Reeva intentionally does anyone really expect him to tell the truth?

That makes sense to me. But, it wasn't proven--unless I missed something.

 

[clearskies1]

Just a hunch...but this was where the perfect storm began that day. OP should have been left alone to lick his wounds. But RS, in her attempt to be the good gf, walked right into the wounded lion's den. And wounded animals are the most dangerous.

Yes, have the same hunch. On direct exam OP said when he got home that day (RS already there), the doors were locked and the dogs were "running around the house." Sounded like he was definitely not happy about that. Unfortunately the judge interrupted and asked him to speak louder -- at that point Roux moved away from that topic (understandably). I know it's a small point, but I do think he was angry from the get-go when he got home. Then if RS challenged him at all, he might have been like -- who do you think you are? You use my home (i.e., does her wash there)...... escalating to get out of my house.... All speculation on my part of course.

JMO

 

[TorisMom003]

I do hope it is understood that the alarm remote is on OP's key ring. If Reeva and OP were in an argument/fight/whatever one wants to call it, does it make sense that he would let Reeva have access to his key ring?

 

[Cherwell]

well, we need something, don't you agree?

Otherwise--coming out of the blue weights towards accident.

Neither do we know for sure it was them fighting. Maybe it was the couple down the street.

No, i don't think we need a reason for the argument/fight. It could have come out of all sorts of issues.

Unless someone else comes forward and testifies that they were up late arguing, I think we can conclude that it was OP & RS. Mrs van der Merwe heard arguing. While she was not sure of the source, they later heard crying which her husband identified as OP. I think if that came from a different direction she would have said so.

 

[TorisMom003]

That makes sense to me. But, it wasn't proven--unless I missed something.

Then why did Reeva not call? What was proven as to why she did not call?

 

[Fuskier]

I have a problem with self-reporting. It is often, especially when delivered in personal defense, self-serving. OP serves himself by making a case for his being terribly in love with Reeva, her not as much into him, and their relationship being mutually loving.

Doing so counters the theory he would be so enraged at her as to harm her. His claim that he was more in love than she garners sympathy and once again, goes to his not wanting to intentionally harm a person he is so besotted with. AND, let us not forget, Oscar is not only a gun-grabber, but a blamer. He gets ticked off, overwhelmed and off goes the gun through thee sun-roof, at the dog. And then it's all someone else's fault and he didn't do it, or not willfully. The tenor of his testimony about his feelings for Reeva and their relationship inequity implies that she's to blame for his shooting her. He was just trying to protect her, so mistakenly killed her to do so. IF (and remember, Oscar is covering bases in advance) it's established to any probably degree he did mean to kill her or scare her or reflexively shot but without lethal intent it's he we should feel sorry for and she who had the upper hand in the relationship, loved this worthy person less...In the OJ case, the jury felt Nicole had beatings and her killing coming to her. In a variety of ways, the defense made this case. Thus, jury nullification.

But the interesting thing is how transparent Oscar's strategy is in casting himself as the martyred one in a star-crossed love affair. That he doesn't see how others might perceive his testimony goes to a streak of the sociopathic in his character. Before the uproar--I did say streak. And I do not man to indict all sociopaths, in any case, as homicidal. Most are good salespeople, politicians, money embezzlers... A hallmark of the character disorder is blatant lying with seemingly no care for the fall-out ("I'll think about that tomorrow") coupled with an inability to read other people's emotional responses. Though this can undermine their credibility, it can also, paradoxically, lead others to be so incredulous that they will say "why would he/she commit to a glaring falsehood, when the truth could be determined later, or say something so appalling? He/she must be telling the truth as he/she knows it. He/she, in the second case, must not MEAN what she/he said. It's a slip.

I have a problem with those who believe wholesale what Oscar reports. Many (not all) who end up with criminal charges are, if not "born liars," sociopathic ones who acquire the habit to avoid the consequences of their anti-social behaviors.

Nel is trying to show this about Oscar. And since it's a cunning, baffling, and powerful trait he does well to do so.

I agree with emmavoberry that the following indicators are possible in this case:

1) OP serves himself ... his being terribly in love with Reeva, her not as much into him...this sets the scene to counter the theory he would be so enraged at her as to harm her. It also garners sympathy for him.

2) ... How transparent Oscar's strategy is in casting himself as the martyred one in a star-crossed love affair... and having to 'endure' cross-examination on his actions.

3) ... Oscar is not only a gun-grabber, but a blamer. He gets ticked off, overwhelmed and off goes the gun through the sun-roof, at the dog, in the restaurant... then it's all someone else's fault and he didn't do it, or not willfully.

4) He is inviting others to feel sorry for him in this situation.

5) A streak of sociopathic character disorder?...A hallmark of the character disorder is blatant lying, no care for the fall-out and an inability to read other people's emotional responses.

5) ...sociopathic streaks exist in people who acquire the habit over a lifetime to avoid the consequences of their anti-social behaviors.

6) It is a 'cunning' and powerful personality feature which deludes others.

I, like some others here, have a problem with those who believe wholesale what Oscar reports. I believe we have witnessed 'cunning' in action during his testimony, the intellectual agility coupled with emotional manipulation which is self-serving.

All in my opinion only.