I haven't read all the posts since I last commented yet, think I am up to posts made early this morning but I didn't want to forget the points I wanted to make so forgive me for posting before RTFT.
I wasn't able to watch or listen live on Friday and just caught up Friday evening via journalist twitter feed so didn't want to comment until I had watched the catch up as I find the live tweets miss out a lot and often due to different people having different takes on what is potentially important I find things I rate as very interesting or relevant missed out from live update. I have now watched most of Friday and wanted to make some observations.
Firstly on abuse in relationships.
OP has quite a few red flag indicators in his actions and words both now and in the past.
It has been raised that even though their is evidence of jealousy and controlling behaviours there is no evidence of physical abuse.
I think it is worth noting the differences in age, maturity and personality between the two woman that have been the centre of evidence.
Sam Taylor was/is a very young woman, little more then a child when her relationship with OP vegan. She seems (to me anyway) a little bit awed and enthralled in the jet set celeb lifestyle. She seems quite passive and seemed willing to put up with a great deal to maintain her relationship with OP, for example she stated I think that OP had cheated more then once and that he had shouted at her. I also found it interesting that she sat in the back seat when in the car with OP and Fresno.
Reeva on the other hand was closer to OP in age, she has life experience and previous serious relationships behind her. She was well educated and had her own career in the spot light that did not depend on her relationship with OP.
It was clear from the what's app messages that Reeva was willing to stand up for herself and preferred to have things out rather then allow herself to be pushed around.
I don't feel that it's much of a stretch to think the Reeva may have been the first woman who really stud up for herself to OP. While OP may have liked the idea of a more in dependant free thinking partner I think after a time it would have probably begun to annoy and frustrate him.
This is why I am not surprised at all that there is no history of OP using violence in past relationships. An abuse partner (let's face it, it's not always men) is at their most dangerous when they begin to lose control and Reeva wouldn't have had to threaten to leave for that to begin to happen, her willingness to pull OP up on shoddy behaviour and stand her corner would likely be enough.
So I really don't think that the lack of history of violence against woman can actually count for anything, in fact I think it could be an even greater indicator that he totally lost it with her in the cause of an argument, or even a heated discussion.
As a side note on this I found OP's testimony on Friday morning around the alleged assault on him very very interesting and a little chilling, it gave a real insight I thought into his attitude towards woman, woman who are his girls friend in particular.
He talked about his anger that another man had taken ST out if the country while he was at the Olympics. I think he was telling the truth about the run up to the alleged assault (but not the actual assault or confrontations with the men) and this made his testimony free and a little easier. He was angry that ST had been taken away under the impression of a business trip but that she reported he had become steady and inappropriate with his behaviour. OP hinted that the large age gap and ST youth made it worse even though there is a reasonable age gap between OP and ST and ST was even younger at the start of their relationship, big double standards.
Skipping ahead now to the argument he had with ST about this, he said that he had told her he had struggled to forgive her for her behaviour (being duped into the trip, how was it her fault?) and how much he had put up with from her. The picture he painted of himself was grim I thought, everything was ST's fault, the other mans behaviour was somehow partly her responsibility, her wishing OP hadn't confronted the man and stirred things up was somehow get fault and she was somehow defending him. And then he dumps her spectacularly!
He came across to me as treating ST as some kind of personal property he could pick up and put down on a whim and she was to be grateful to him for this.
I can't see a woman like Reeva putting up with that without defending herself. She was clearly very in love and too willing to put herself to one side for the good of the great OP but when he made personal (verbal) attacks on her she didn't just let it go and it's that I fear that could have been why OP list control of himself.
That is naturally if the States case is correct and I am still not sure that it is. I am sure that OP was controlling and emotionally abusive but I am very unsure if it was this that lead to poor innocent Reeva's death.
At the moment I am leaning on the side of pure utter recklessness. OP said on Friday that when he heard the noise and got his gun he didn't even think of the alarm and it didn't so much as cross his mind. I am thinking it very very likely that the same was true for Reeva. He heard an excuse to fire his gun and he was going to take it and finally live his fantasy.
Sorry for the very long post.
I have more thoughts on Fridays evidence but think this is already longer then people can manage, apologies, will carry on reading posts and catching up.