oh that should be fun. but i have to wonder, if there's supposedly all this new "evidence", why hasn't it been handed over to the relevant authorities? surely that's perjury?
This is Australian tabloid TV at its worst. They will have nothing new to say.
I see what you're saying, but to me, it would seem a bit sneaky to make an inference of violence/aggression from the photos in summation but not to mention it when cross-examining OP himself. I thought defence was all about responding to a case that has been put to him- ie murder (with premeditation) of RS? If the prosecution didn't raise it then why would the defence? I guess I am seeing it from the flip side!!
And why didn't Vermeulen (or another expert) examine the damaged tiles/ door/ bath to try and establish when/how it had been made? Unless it is not especially relevant?
(Sorry- I've lost where I was going with this train of thought...)
Both the prosecution and the defence team saw the photographs. Nothing sneaky. It's of more concern that the defence avoided any questions on it they saw the damage too and had the opportunity to get OP to offer an explanation they didn't. Hmmmm
I paid scant attention to the Valentine card, it was the last thing shown at the end of OPs testimony. I didn't give it much importance in the whole scheme of things.
I suppose the framed photos were a suggestion of effort.
Had a google , all I can find is an image of the inside. Small card and in the middle it says
Happy Valentines Day
Above Reeva has written. I think today is a god day to say....
And below: I love you. Something else I cannot decipher and a smiley face.
I would not trust it to be written by her at all unless it was tested and verified.
Anything to save his arse!
I see what you're saying, but to me, it would seem a bit sneaky to make an inference of violence/aggression from the photos in summation but not to mention it when cross-examining OP himself. I thought defence was all about responding to a case that has been put to him- ie murder (with premeditation) of RS? If the prosecution didn't raise it then why would the defence? I guess I am seeing it from the flip side!!
And why didn't Vermeulen (or another expert) examine the damaged tiles/ door/ bath to try and establish when/how it had been made? Unless it is not especially relevant?
(Sorry- I've lost where I was going with this train of thought...)
Yes, I would have liked to have seen questioning about this too and have wondered how these photos etc can/will be used in argument. It's untested evidence. Perhaps it can be used and then argued against by the DT?
I would not trust it to be written by her at all unless it was tested and verified.
Anything to save his arse!
I never thought of that:o surely not. I think Reeva was big on Love and Valentine. She tweeted several things about it including Valentine should be about a day of love for everyone. May it be blessed. And what have you got up your sleeve for your love tomorrow ? . And wishing a friend the best Valentine.
As I assume OP read her tweets it staggering that he didn't even get a card for her knowing she set such store by it.
Both the prosecution and the defence team saw the photographs. Nothing sneaky. It's of more concern that the defence avoided any questions on it they saw the damage too and had the opportunity to get OP to offer an explanation they didn't. Hmmmm
'faulty lock' could be used to infer reason for prior damage to edge of bedroom door. Did Dixon or Wolmarans talk about how the tiles came off or am I imagining that?
But why offer an explanation anyway, when nothing has been directly said about it? Isn't it for the prosecution to put forward and the defence to respond?
What do you mean by "briskly but unsympathetically by his parents"?
He was encouraged to get on with things, not to see himself as disabled, not to feel self-pity, and to expect achievement from himself just as if he didn't have a disability. "The loser is the one who doesn't even try..." etc.
All of which works well to produce a self-reliant, determined child instead of a whiny victim.
However, the brutal truth is that he WAS disabled. He had some very uncomfortable issues to deal with that were unique to him. It would be almost impossible not to feel a level of insecurity that his wholly able peers didn't feel, He WOULD be picked on because he was distorted and different. But there seems to have been no channel open for him to discuss those unique fears with his parents. His mother would - by all accounts - have been robustly dismissive. He seems to have had to keep all the vulnerable places hidden from view.
I see what you're saying, but to me, it would seem a bit sneaky to make an inference of violence/aggression from the photos in summation but not to mention it when cross-examining OP himself. I thought defence was all about responding to a case that has been put to him- ie murder (with premeditation) of RS? If the prosecution didn't raise it then why would the defence? I guess I am seeing it from the flip side!!
And why didn't Vermeulen (or another expert) examine the damaged tiles/ door/ bath to try and establish when/how it had been made? Unless it is not especially relevant?
(Sorry- I've lost where I was going with this train of thought...)
BIB Must admit I would have liked further investigation into the damage caused in the bathroom & to the bedroom door. Surely they could have tested forensically or otherwise for the likelihood that the damage was caused by the same cricket bat, or even possibly from OP kicking out with his prosthetic legs. Considering there was damage to them too.
He was encouraged to get on with things, not to see himself as disabled, not to feel self-pity, and to expect achievement from himself just as if he didn't have a disability. "The loser is the one who doesn't even try..." etc.
All of which works well to produce a self-reliant, determined child instead of a whiny victim.
However, the brutal truth is that he WAS disabled. He had some very uncomfortable issues to deal with that were unique to him. It would be almost impossible not to feel a level of insecurity that his wholly able peers didn't feel, He WOULD be picked on because he was distorted and different. But there seems to have been no channel open for him to discuss those unique fears with his parents. His mother would - by all accounts - have been robustly dismissive. He seems to have had to keep all the vulnerable places hidden from view.
That's not healthy.
And he was sent to boarding school where he would have had to keep any insecurities/weaknesses hidden even more.
'faulty lock' could be used to infer reason for prior damage to edge of bedroom door. Did Dixon or Wolmarans talk about how the tiles came off or am I imagining that?
But why offer an explanation anyway, when nothing has been directly said about it? Isn't it for the prosecution to put forward and the defence to respond?
No not necessarily.
If there had been reasonable explanations for the damage what would be easier than Roux getting OP to give it.
I'm Sure Nel will say there was a lot of damage in the house which the defence chose not to offer any explanation or WTTE. I don't think it's very important really.
In the same way as the jeans lying outside. The evidence was put there, it's up to the defence and OP to explain it as he is the only person who knows.
I paid scant attention to the Valentine card, it was the last thing shown at the end of OPs testimony. I didn't give it much importance in the whole scheme of things.
I suppose the framed photos were a suggestion of effort.
To be honest, for me, framed photographs as present for someone I love would rank (only just) slightly above a Yankee Candle gift box.
But that says more about me than it does about RS ;-)
Poor RS. Sh was investing so much in OP and then he repays her like this .........
She'd carefully stuck a packet of heart-shaped marshmallows to the front of the wrapped present.... She'd taken care about this.
I really don't think the valentine's card says that much about the relationship, it says more about Reeva. I remember doing similar things myself in younger years & in new relationships. It was generally more about the idea than the reality, the same with birthdays, Xmas etc. I would go to a great deal of trouble regardless of how happy the relationship was at that point, looking back it was probably a way of papering over the cracks or at least not confronting the truth. I think it was the same for Reeva, she wanted the idea of OP to be the reality but she knew deep down that it wasn't the truth and that he wasn't the man she had hoped he would be.
'faulty lock' could be used to infer reason for prior damage to edge of bedroom door. Did Dixon or Wolmarans talk about how the tiles came off or am I imagining that?
But why offer an explanation anyway, when nothing has been directly said about it? Isn't it for the prosecution to put forward and the defence to respond?
It provides circumstantial evidence that there was violence in the house, in the same way that a female talking in a loud annoying voice is circumstantial evidence of an argument that night.
The state provided its evidence in the form of testimony from EVDM and photographs of damage to doors, including large cracks, wedging marks, an airgun shot, broken tiles and a dented bath, highly unusual to find in a peaceful household.
They can't do anything further than say in their summing up that this is suggestive of trouble that night, because only OP can prove otherwise. He has denied any argument of course.
He tried to explain the damaged bedroom door by giving a ridiculous story about barging into it to open it when he knew his house, knew it was latched, and knew it wouldn't just open like that. So that will not be believed by anyone with a brain, and it does not explain the shot.
By not addressing the shot, or the damage in the bathroom, he is leaving himself open to supposition about what could have caused it. The onus was on him, knowing that the photos were submitted in evidence, and that the judge would make conclusions of her own if he didn't, to explain it. Roux would not have left that bit unexplained if OP had given him a reason for the damage occurring prior to that night.
Nel on the other hand would not need to say 'and how did that damage get there?' If he did, the court would have to weigh up any answer and wonder if it was the truth. How could OP explain it anyway? 'I fire at doors for shooting practice sometimes?' The damaged bath panel shows the use of excessive, deliberate force. How would that be explained without admitting to an act of aggression?
That sounds like the least she could do short of nothing:) small card, photo frame and a handful of marshmallows.
I disagree. I think it was a pretty big deal for her to tell him she loved him for the first time. She had wanted to before but he had ruined that by storming off from a party. Now Valentine's Day gave her the perfect opportunity.
I disagree. I think it was a pretty big deal for her to tell him she loved him for the first time. She had wanted to before but he had ruined that by storming off from a party. Now Valentine's Day gave her the perfect opportunity.
It was a thoughtful gift. He hadn't given her a thought, had he? That might have riled him and put him in a bad mood when he realised he'd done nothing for her. Baloney about the bracelet.
I disagree. I think it was a pretty big deal for her to tell him she loved him for the first time. She had wanted to before but he had ruined that by storming off from a party. Now Valentine's Day gave her the perfect opportunity.
She strikes me as more of a bunch of roses , champagne hand made chocs sort of girl.
Or a romantic meal at least. Maybe OP loved marshmallows tho. Who knows.
It was a thoughtful gift. He hadn't given her a thought, had he? That might have riled him and put him in a bad mood when he realised he'd done nothing for her. Baloney about the bracelet.
She had been tweeting lots of tweets about how exciting , romantic, important it was. Funny he missed it.
Comments
This is Australian tabloid TV at its worst. They will have nothing new to say.
Both the prosecution and the defence team saw the photographs. Nothing sneaky. It's of more concern that the defence avoided any questions on it they saw the damage too and had the opportunity to get OP to offer an explanation they didn't. Hmmmm
Anything to save his arse!
I should have added "and I'm sure would have a more informed opinion"!
Yes, I would have liked to have seen questioning about this too and have wondered how these photos etc can/will be used in argument. It's untested evidence. Perhaps it can be used and then argued against by the DT?
I never thought of that:o surely not. I think Reeva was big on Love and Valentine. She tweeted several things about it including Valentine should be about a day of love for everyone. May it be blessed. And what have you got up your sleeve for your love tomorrow ? . And wishing a friend the best Valentine.
As I assume OP read her tweets it staggering that he didn't even get a card for her knowing she set such store by it.
'faulty lock' could be used to infer reason for prior damage to edge of bedroom door. Did Dixon or Wolmarans talk about how the tiles came off or am I imagining that?
But why offer an explanation anyway, when nothing has been directly said about it? Isn't it for the prosecution to put forward and the defence to respond?
He was encouraged to get on with things, not to see himself as disabled, not to feel self-pity, and to expect achievement from himself just as if he didn't have a disability. "The loser is the one who doesn't even try..." etc.
All of which works well to produce a self-reliant, determined child instead of a whiny victim.
However, the brutal truth is that he WAS disabled. He had some very uncomfortable issues to deal with that were unique to him. It would be almost impossible not to feel a level of insecurity that his wholly able peers didn't feel, He WOULD be picked on because he was distorted and different. But there seems to have been no channel open for him to discuss those unique fears with his parents. His mother would - by all accounts - have been robustly dismissive. He seems to have had to keep all the vulnerable places hidden from view.
That's not healthy.
BIB Must admit I would have liked further investigation into the damage caused in the bathroom & to the bedroom door. Surely they could have tested forensically or otherwise for the likelihood that the damage was caused by the same cricket bat, or even possibly from OP kicking out with his prosthetic legs. Considering there was damage to them too.
Thanks to everyone who clarified that for me. Sounds like Reeva was a definite heart on her sleeve kind of woman.
And he was sent to boarding school where he would have had to keep any insecurities/weaknesses hidden even more.
No not necessarily.
If there had been reasonable explanations for the damage what would be easier than Roux getting OP to give it.
I'm Sure Nel will say there was a lot of damage in the house which the defence chose not to offer any explanation or WTTE. I don't think it's very important really.
In the same way as the jeans lying outside. The evidence was put there, it's up to the defence and OP to explain it as he is the only person who knows.
But that says more about me than it does about RS ;-)
Poor RS. Sh was investing so much in OP and then he repays her like this .........
Yeah I think so too. I'm guessing she was pretty disappointed to get nothing. Tho in fairness she wasn't supposed to be there that night anyway.
I agree, but I'm not big on Valentines anyway. Load of commercial guilt tripping for the young.
She'd carefully stuck a packet of heart-shaped marshmallows to the front of the wrapped present.... She'd taken care about this.
I really don't think the valentine's card says that much about the relationship, it says more about Reeva. I remember doing similar things myself in younger years & in new relationships. It was generally more about the idea than the reality, the same with birthdays, Xmas etc. I would go to a great deal of trouble regardless of how happy the relationship was at that point, looking back it was probably a way of papering over the cracks or at least not confronting the truth. I think it was the same for Reeva, she wanted the idea of OP to be the reality but she knew deep down that it wasn't the truth and that he wasn't the man she had hoped he would be.
It provides circumstantial evidence that there was violence in the house, in the same way that a female talking in a loud annoying voice is circumstantial evidence of an argument that night.
The state provided its evidence in the form of testimony from EVDM and photographs of damage to doors, including large cracks, wedging marks, an airgun shot, broken tiles and a dented bath, highly unusual to find in a peaceful household.
They can't do anything further than say in their summing up that this is suggestive of trouble that night, because only OP can prove otherwise. He has denied any argument of course.
He tried to explain the damaged bedroom door by giving a ridiculous story about barging into it to open it when he knew his house, knew it was latched, and knew it wouldn't just open like that. So that will not be believed by anyone with a brain, and it does not explain the shot.
By not addressing the shot, or the damage in the bathroom, he is leaving himself open to supposition about what could have caused it. The onus was on him, knowing that the photos were submitted in evidence, and that the judge would make conclusions of her own if he didn't, to explain it. Roux would not have left that bit unexplained if OP had given him a reason for the damage occurring prior to that night.
Nel on the other hand would not need to say 'and how did that damage get there?' If he did, the court would have to weigh up any answer and wonder if it was the truth. How could OP explain it anyway? 'I fire at doors for shooting practice sometimes?' The damaged bath panel shows the use of excessive, deliberate force. How would that be explained without admitting to an act of aggression?
That sounds like the least she could do short of nothing:) small card, photo frame and a handful of marshmallows.
I disagree. I think it was a pretty big deal for her to tell him she loved him for the first time. She had wanted to before but he had ruined that by storming off from a party. Now Valentine's Day gave her the perfect opportunity.
It was a thoughtful gift. He hadn't given her a thought, had he? That might have riled him and put him in a bad mood when he realised he'd done nothing for her. Baloney about the bracelet.
She strikes me as more of a bunch of roses , champagne hand made chocs sort of girl.
Or a romantic meal at least. Maybe OP loved marshmallows tho. Who knows.
She had been tweeting lots of tweets about how exciting , romantic, important it was. Funny he missed it.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=73613986&posted=1#post73613986
Oh no, Konya - I daren't!!