One Tragic Night (71 page)

Roux accepted the assumption. He read several more items to Moller for him to confirm, which he did. On the calls to Van Zyl, Moller conceded that his analysis couldn't say who made those calls, only that they were made from Oscar's handset.

Roux then turned his attention to the four messages Moller had read to the court that the state believed showed that Oscar was abusive. The captain said he had read through more than 1 700 messages:

For Roux it was about context and perspective. The vast majority of the communication between Oscar and Reeva was normal conversation, and yet the state had chosen to focus on the four examples of unhappiness and distress in the relationship that the messages appeared to reveal.

The advocate read Moller the message his client sent to Reeva about the
Tashas shooting incident, where he said, ‘Darren told everyone it was his fault.'

‘One thing that is not there,' said Roux, ‘is that him saying to Reeva that he asked Mr Fresco to take the blame. It is not there?'

Moller agreed.

Roux spent the next several hours going through hundreds of messages between the couple. From the mundane good mornings and good nights, to the romantic and the fun. Messages ended with little Xs to denote kisses. Oscar checked up on Reeva to ensure she was safe at night. They shared dieting tips, supported each other when they were down. They spoke about cars, dreams and money.

Roux didn't venture on to the more intimate messages between the couple, but our study of the data report shows that the couple spoke about sex, and Reeva sent Oscar topless photos of herself, to one of which he responded: ‘You so cute.. I love that … You've just made me feel really naughty..'

What also emerged was their fondness of pet names for each other: ‘my boo', ‘my baba', ‘my baby', ‘bub', ‘boobi', ‘my angel'. The defence had collected its own list of hundreds of messages that were compiled into an exhibit and submitted to the court.

After brief argument between Roux and Nel, the defence was allowed to screen in court surveillance footage filmed on 4 February at a filling station's convenience store. It shows the couple touching, hugging and kissing as they scan a fridge for snacks.

Roux referred back to the WhatsApp messages showing love and affection. Moller agreed that the messages accorded with the behaviour witnessed in the footage. Roux made the point that after these argumentative messages to which the captain had referred, the interaction between the two returned to normal, that it was not ongoing bickering and unhappiness, but rather moments of tension between a normal couple that were quickly resolved through open and honest communication. Just days before the shooting, Reeva offered to cook a Valentine's Day meal.

Two days before she died, Reeva met with her former boyfriend Warren Lahoud. She had considered postponing the meeting, but Oscar insisted in a message that she see him because he had a dentist appointment. It was hardly an example of the possessive and jealous boyfriend the state was trying to portray.

However, in interviews after Reeva's death, Lahoud spoke about how Oscar repeatedly called Reeva during their short coffee meeting and he thought the sportsman's behaviour was odd.

Later that same day Oscar referred to a physiotherapist appointment where
he was to have his shoulder looked at. Oscar had claimed that he slept on the left side of the bed because his right shoulder was hurt – for Roux, this was evidence of the injury.

Moller was asked to read the messages right up to the last one in which Oscar told Reeva he would be home at about 6pm that evening: ‘Please stay and do whatever it was you were going to do
'.

Roux had shown the court there was far more to the messages than merely the arguments on which the state had relied. Those arguments made up a minuscule number amongst the hundreds of messages the couple sent each other daily over the brief period they dated. Yes, the advocate pointed out, there were instances of unhappiness and arguments. But is this unusual for a couple? He didn't believe so.

In re-examination Nel looked at what was not in the messages – the state and the defence had both identified specific messages to argue a particular point, but what was missing? Almost all the communication was short messages. The only long messages in their entire collection were the unhappy, angry ones.

The evidence of Captain Moller set out two things for both the state and the defence. Firstly, it provided a timeline of events. Logged calls and data are indisputable and they tracked the movements and actions of the parties involved. Secondly, it provided insight into the relationship. Most importantly, it provided the prosecution team with statements from a dead woman in which she described in her own words the concerns she had about the behaviour of her boyfriend. Reeva's ‘I'm scared of u sometimes' were the powerful words abused women related to, and in some people's eyes nullified every ‘I'm sorry, but …' excuse provided by an abusive partner. It didn't matter how many loving words the couple exchanged in the months they dated, as laboured by the defence; it was the instances of apparent fear and belittlement that the state believed characterised the relationship.

Moller's boss Colonel Mike Sales was called to testify about the iPads the police seized at Oscar's house. In the weeks before the trial this evidence had caused some controversy, with reports suggesting that Internet browser history showed that someone had been visiting pornographic websites while Oscar claimed to
be spending a relaxing evening with his girlfriend. The articles – their accuracy untested – spurred public debate on whether a man viewing porn amounted to infidelity, and further speculation that perhaps the couple were viewing porn together.

Sales used the same forensic diagnostic software his subordinate had employed on the iPhones to extract the data from the devices. The web browser history analysed started at about 6:30pm and ended at 9:20pm on the evening of 13 February. It showed the user browsed websites related to used car sales, Aston Martin, Ford Ranger and free mobile porn. The term ‘youjizz' featured amongst the Google search words.

Sales found commonalities between the two devices he studied – similar web pages accessed on different dates across the devices. It suggested the couple used each other's iPads interchangeably.

In cross-examination all Roux wanted to know from Sales was whether or not he was able to establish who was using the device at the time a particular website was being accessed. It was obvious – he couldn't say. For the defence, this meant that the state couldn't claim their client's ‘website activities from the time that he got home [were] in direct contrast to that of a loving couple spending time together', as stated in a request for further particulars prior to the commencement of the trial.

From the testimony of both Moller and Sales, a richer picture was painted of what went on in the hours and days before Reeva was shot. There was a better understanding of the relationship the couple shared, with details of their pet names and their disagreements being aired.

Perhaps the greatest mystery lingering after the phone experts left the witness stand was ‘What was on the iPhone?' Almost everyone wanted to know why no evidence was led about the phone taken to Apple in the United States and why the police had not bothered cracking the code. For many, it seemed obvious that the answer to the question of motive lay hidden between the metal and glass of the handset.

For Danny Myburgh and his forensic experts at Cyanre, the way the phone evidence was handled in court left more questions than answers. ‘They didn't explore Oscar's phone sufficiently. One thing that stood out for me – Moller was not very clear at all times on what device he was testifying from. No questions were asked. If you look at the evidence that was led – it was very
one-sided. They looked at Reeva's phone and led evidence from there. They predominantly used Reeva's phone and there was little to no supporting evidence stating that the information was found on both phones. If you find messages on “A's” phone, but didn't find it on “B's” phone, you have to conclude that it was deleted. You can therefore prove validity and completeness by checking “A” against “B”. It looked like they were just accepting the information without testing or validating it. If I was Barry I would have asked these questions. I would have asked them, “Well, did you find it on Oscar's phone?” Can you place Oscar behind the phone? It was as if … certain areas were “don't touch, don't ask, don't smell”.'

A source close to the defence legal team gives some insight into just why Roux was so willing to make the admissions on the cellphones and appeared so passive in challenging the chain of evidence regarding the phones.