Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[liesbeth]

Found this article by Mike Colman from News Corp Australia Network. I wanted to comment, but in the end I decided to let you read it for yourselves. A few quotes to get you started. BBM.

Of the five individuals who have come to define this trial with their daily appearances: Pistorius, Steenkamp’s mother June, Judge Masipa, Nel and Roux, there is no doubt that Roux has been the most influential.

Over the past five months we have seen the firm hand of Judge Masipa, the theatrics of Pistorius, the stoic dignity of Mrs Steenkamp and the aggression of Nel but, most of all, the quiet menace of Roux.

Time and again his (Roux's) unrelenting cross-examination has turned state witnesses into gibbering wrecks.

Two senior police officers were forced to resign after Roux had finished with them; neighbours of Pistorius recanted on their version of events; the integrity of forensic evidence was questioned and the standard of the police investigation totally discredited.

So popular has he become, that he has attracted his own cheer squad who have stood outside the courtroom wearing T-shirts emblazoned with one of his favourite lines, “If I put it to you ...”

All I can say is...well, nothing. I'm speechless.

Edit: Just for the record. In South Africa Roux is not seen as a quiet menace or the most influential person in the case. The police officers were not forced to resign by Roux. Neighbours did not recant. The police investigation was not discredited. And the whole "I put it to you" thing? Pure satire.

 

[liesbeth]

This is a very interesting Round Table discussion with Judge Greenland....(respectfully snipped by me to save space....Part 2: The issue of the reasonable man test as regards a disabled person.

This is an extremely interesting discussion. I think it explains why the defense tried so hard to create the dichotomy: Oscar the disabled vs Oscar the Olympian. Because in South African law there is no "reasonable disabled man."

Thanks for the link.

 

[Cherwell]

Also, we know OP wasn't tech savvy because Reeva had to explain to him what Face timing was:

@OscarPistorius It's called FaceTime boo!!! Hahahahaha

I wonder what OP believed "face timing" to be ?? LOL

OP probably did not appreciate being made fun of by RS, on Twitter, on New Years Eve !!

Yes, that tweet provides an interesting insight into the dynamics of the relationship: Oscar is unlikely to have appreciated being teased; and, poor unsuspecting Reeva, being the warm, fun-loving woman that she appeared to be, probably had no idea that he wouldn't see the funny side...

Do we know what OP had tweeted to RS?

If not, I think it's a big leap to assume she was teasing or making fun of him. It could have been OP who had made fun of it, in the same way that some people refer to Twitter as Twatter, or Facebook as Facebollocks (I hear this all the time).

 

[Cherwell]

Found this article by Mike Colman from News Corp Australia Network. I wanted to comment, but in the end I decided to let you read it for yourselves. A few quotes to get you started. BBM.

All I can say is...well, nothing. I'm speechless.

Edit: Just for the record. In South Africa Roux is not seen as a quiet menace or the most influential person in the case. The police officers were not forced to resign by Roux. Neighbours did not recant. The police investigation was not discredited. And the whole "I put it to you" thing? Pure satire.

http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-...tor calls Pistorius a liar&itmt=1405169040310

Thanks. What a load of tripe.

At least he concedes this: "One doesn’t have to speak to many locals in South Africa’s capital to realise that the majority believe Pistorius murdered Steenkamp."

 

[Nausicaa]

Time and again his (Roux's) unrelenting cross-examination has turned state witnesses into gibbering wrecks.

Just read "Nel" for "Roux" and "defence" for "state" and you have the exact truth which we have all observed.

 

[Greater Than]

We must be reading another conversation! It makes perfect sense to me and appears very lucid.

At its core is yet another argument instigated by OP and Reeva patching it up.

OP is being suspicious and jealous about drug taking from Reeva's past and goes on to voice his insecurities about what she did when on them, Reeva points out it's the past and she has her own insecurities about OP's rabbit-related paraphernalia (obviously from a former relationship) to contend with, and she then addresses OP's concern directly - assuring him that while no prude, she never acted like a stripper or ho and the fun was harmless

The the suspiciousness and jealously about Reeva smoking weed was not from Reeva's "past." It was from the month before. It was when she was in Jamaica filming Tropica Island, which was while she was dating OP. She apparently admitted to him when she got back that she had smoked once, but the night before these texts she slipped and mentioned another time, which upset him.

She then switched gears and talked about the "rabbit things." That's when she refers to the past, implying those rabbit things relate to past girls OP had dated.

Then she stated she's never been prude, but wasn't a stripper or a ho, although she's had innocent fun. Now that I've read it again, it does sound like she is bringing it full circle and referring back to when she smoked pot in Jamaica, saying she had fun but did not hook up with any guys. I'm still lost on how OP's ex girlfriend "rabbit things" fit into this conversation though.

January 19, 2013:

RS to OP: Baba

OP to RS: Yes.

RS to OP: There are a lot of things that could make us both feel like s**t.

RS to OP: I'm just very honest

RS to OP: I won't always think before I say something just appreciate that I'm not a liar.

OP to RS: I know. It was just when you got back from tropica you made it sound like you had only smoked weed once and then last night that came out. I don't know how many times you took or if you took other things or what you did when you were on them

RS to OP: I'm sorry if it upset you it wasn't my intention

OP to RS: I do appreciate it. could never be with someone that was

RS to OP: Me neither

RS to OP: It's like I see rabbit things in your house and when we go places you take pics of them everywhere. For me I'm thinking who do you have that connection with? And the same things will play on your mind. At the end of the day this is now not then

RS to OP: I wasn't a stripper or a ho

RS to OP: I certainly have never been a prude and I've had fun but all innocent and without harmful repercussions.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/

 

[Cherwell]

The the suspiciousness and jealously about Reeva smoking weed was not from Reeva's "past." It was from the month before. It was when she was in Jamaica filming Tropica Island, which was while she was dating OP. She apparently admitted to him when she got back that she had smoked once, but the night before these texts she slipped and mentioned another time, which upset him.

She then switched gears and talked about the "rabbit things." That's when she refers to the past, implying those rabbit things relate to past girls OP had dated.

Then she stated she's never been prude, but wasn't a stripper or a ho, although she's had innocent fun. Now that I've read it again, it does sound like she is bringing it full circle and referring back to when she smoked pot in Jamaica, saying she had fun but did not hook up with any guys. I'm still lost on how OP's ex girlfriend "rabbit things" fit into this conversation though.

Indeed not. I inferred that he just had a lot of things with rabbit motifs, which I wouldn't associate with a girlfriend necessarily. It's not uncommon for people to have an affection or liking for something like that - for instance my cousin has a "thing" for pigs, so there are various pig-related items around the house, teatowels, ornaments, a pig-shaped chopping board in the kitchen etc. It needn't mean anything.

 

[alioop]

Found this article by Mike Colman from News Corp Australia Network. I wanted to comment, but in the end I decided to let you read it for yourselves. A few quotes to get you started. BBM.











All I can say is...well, nothing. I'm speechless.

Edit: Just for the record. In South Africa Roux is not seen as a quiet menace or the most influential person in the case. The police officers were not forced to resign by Roux. Neighbours did not recant. The police investigation was not discredited. And the whole "I put it to you" thing? Pure satire.

I just read this article 10 mins before I read your post. I think Mike Coleman has been following a totally different Oscar trial than we have been or he is related to Oscar.

 

[Greater Than]

This is a very interesting Round Table discussion with Judge Greenland.

The reasonable/unreasonable disabled person

Part 1: Whether or not disabled persons are to be judged differently in a situation of claimed self-defence, real or imagined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn7LwJTZhxU

“ ... You would then be setting a standard for disabled people which is simply not reasonable. You’ll be saying that disabled people are just not reasonable. ... Whether it’s self-defence or whether it’s putative self-defence, you have to be under threat of imminent injury or death. When it’s self-defence it’s actual, when it’s putative it’s imagined. So for Oscar to be cleared, then the Court would have to set a standard saying “But this this doesn’t apply to disabled people. They’re not required to be reasonable”.

SBM

That's exactly what I said when Derman was laying it on thick that people with disabilities, as a group, are more vulnerable to have crimes committed against them. The law is the law, for able and disabled people alike. Unless one is found to have the inability to distinguish right from wrong, no one, legs or no legs, can take the life of another and use "I felt vulnerable" as an excuse for murder.

 

[Greater Than]

Found this article by Mike Colman from News Corp Australia Network. I wanted to comment, but in the end I decided to let you read it for yourselves. A few quotes to get you started. BBM.











All I can say is...well, nothing. I'm speechless.

Edit: Just for the record. In South Africa Roux is not seen as a quiet menace or the most influential person in the case. The police officers were not forced to resign by Roux. Neighbours did not recant. The police investigation was not discredited. And the whole "I put it to you" thing? Pure satire.

This is the perfect example of why the trial was broadcasted live. Anyone who actually watched knows this person's perspective of what really took place is highly skewed.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I suspect a lot of 'skeletons' are going to come out of the closet and a lot of 'dirty laundry' will be washed in public by OP's former girlfriends and hook ups when the Trial is over and OP is in prison.

I hope so! ! 😊

 

[Cherry]

I could hv sworn during the olympic games there was some reference to a lucky rabbits foot that he used, carried, always had with him etc. Anyone else remember this? This "rabbit" thing jogged that for me....it was for competition, a talisman, a good luck charm as much as I can remember...anyone else?

 

[Interested Bystander]

The the suspiciousness and jealously about Reeva smoking weed was not from Reeva's "past." It was from the month before. It was when she was in Jamaica filming Tropica Island, which was while she was dating OP. She apparently admitted to him when she got back that she had smoked once, but the night before these texts she slipped and mentioned another time, which upset him.

She then switched gears and talked about the "rabbit things." That's when she refers to the past, implying those rabbit things relate to past girls OP had dated.

Then she stated she's never been prude, but wasn't a stripper or a ho, although she's had innocent fun. Now that I've read it again, it does sound like she is bringing it full circle and referring back to when she smoked pot in Jamaica, saying she had fun but did not hook up with any guys. I'm still lost on how OP's ex girlfriend "rabbit things" fit into this conversation though.

Maybe she was questioning whether OP was still emotionally attached to the earlier girlfriend as he had kept mementos on display even though the relationship was over and RS now was his girlfriend? Possibly she was a little insecure but goes on to say "that was then and not now" to indicate she will accept it was something in the past and he should do the same.

 

[fox1lady]

Oh my gosh, I've just listened to that "***** don't kill my vibe" song... how chilling is the first verse????
Poor Reeva bless her... Rest in perfect peace.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF8aaTu2kg0&feature=kp

 

[eimajjjj]

cannot WAIT for Nel's closing argument...

*watches calendar

 

[K.T]

BiB… that's breaking news to me…not surprised because I too believe OP was an insecure child in a man's body.

Have you got a reference ?

February 1 texts (Don't look at the date on the article, it's a typo)

http://mediaslutza.com/2014/04/04/you-10-april-2014/

I think WSers posted the other articles (Yahoo Sports?) which included these texts and messages of the trial...and these messages, like everything else Pistorius, were discussed here for quite a few pages.

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe she was questioning whether OP was still emotionally attached to the earlier girlfriend as he had kept mementos on display even though the relationship was over and RS now was his girlfriend? Possibly she was a little insecure but goes on to say "that was then and not now" to indicate she will accept it was something in the past and he should do the same.

But where is the indication that it had anything to do with a girlfriend?

Maybe he just thinks rabbits are cute. Maybe his mum used to read Beatrix Potter to him.

Actually that might be seen as a bit of a red flag from his POV, her assuming it was connected with an ex. I mean, if that was me, I'd just say something like "Oh, when did you start collecting rabbits? Did you ever have them as pets?" etc. I wouldn't say "Who do you have that connection with" - wouldn't even enter my head.

 

[fox1lady]

Re Cherwell's post regarding car keys


I also have been speculating that there may well have been a repetition of the Cassidy Taylor Memmory incident in that Oscar was being totally unreasonable, pushing Reeva to leave without her belongings, including keys.

It seemed to me like he was like that with Samantha Taylor when he gave testimony that he "helped pack" Samantha's things and "put them in the boot" when they were splitting up. I don't see it that way at all, I could imagine that he was in a rage and chucking her stuff into a case and telling her to get out more like.

 

[james83]

Sorry if already posted, this is from a highly respected S.A criminal law professor

James Grant @CriminalLawZA · 5h
Pistorius conceded: 1) intention to kill & 2) unlawfulness. His (original) defence is that he did not intend to UNLAWFULLY kill.

@CriminalLawZA So out of interest, which way do you see it going? How much has been proven, what will hold weight etc?

James Grant
‏@CriminalLawZA
@makeitcountforO My head won't allow me to call it - I'd wanna see all the evidence again. My gut tells me Oscar is in trouble.

 

[Interested Bystander]

But where is the indication that it had anything to do with a girlfriend?

Maybe he just thinks rabbits are cute. Maybe his mum used to read Beatrix Potter to him.

Actually that might be seen as a bit of a red flag from his POV, her assuming it was connected with an ex. I mean, if that was me, I'd just say something like "Oh, when did you start collecting rabbits? Did you ever have them as pets?" etc. I wouldn't say "Who do you have that connection with" - wouldn't even enter my head.

I can see your point but I suspect she was aware they were presents from a past girlfriend or she would not have said "that was then not now". However, that is pure speculation on my part. I am not too sure many young men collect small animal paraphernalia but I am happy to be wrong. My son thought it laughable that a guy of his age would be attached to rabbit paraphernalia. His opinion was that the boy has a problem if he is collecting such trivia.