Suthrnqt
Verified Luddite
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 101
"People with disabilities are naturally more sensitive than others."
Wow.....just wow!
Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
"People with disabilities are naturally more sensitive than others."
Wow.....just wow!
double WOW
The only version that fits all of the State's ear witnesses testimony (adjusted to include just what they heard, and not what they imagine) and State expert testimony is OP's version.
I will apply Occam's Razor and go with OP's version.
......
reeva and oscar are in the house.
four bullets have been fired through a toilet door.
reeva has gunshot wounds to the head, hip and arm. she is dead.
......
two competing hypotheses:
1.
op version
oscar fired four times accidentally, at a closed toilet door, not meaning to shoot anyone, thinking an intruder entered the building through an open toilet window.
2.
state version
oscar murdered reeva, through a closed toilet door.
.........
using occam's razor:
my conclusion is that oscar murdered reeva.
[then work back from there]
I think OP's version is provably false re shooting into the bathroom door in the dark, because of the Stipp's clear, unambiguous testimony of seeing the bathroom light ON either "immediately" [Mrs. Stipp] or "several moments [Dr. Stipp] after the first bangs occurred around 3:00. So, what would make OP angry or desperate enough to kill Reeva? He believed that, had she lived to tell of it, something he'd done to her that night would lead to his arrest or at least more bad press that his sponsors wouldn't tolerate. As he pulled the trigger, I think he genuinely felt, "I'm fighting for my life here!"
I merely posted a link to read after you made the claim he has never so much as raised a fist. I said nothing about what could or could not be admissible in court or any problems with a neighbour. BTW---was he not arrested for assault after slamming a door on a woman and did he not spend a night in police custody in 2009? Sure he did. So much for never so much as raising a fist.
the police mention previous 'incidents' [plural] at the home of op here.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=559655457392056&set=vb.559627057394896&type=2&theater
separate note:
the mention of unconfirmed reports of a burglary or that she was 'mistaken for a burglar' - that didn't come from the police.
this is the morning of the shooting... who was passing on the story of her death as being 'mistaken for a burglar' at the house?????
They were having an argument. OP is on his prosthetics throughout. He wants Reeva to leave and they are screaming at each other. Reeva is scared
He chases Reeva upstairs and she locks the bedroom door. He has his gun with him and this is consistent with his later story about running about with the gun - it's just that it was earlier. He barges the bedroom door to open it (the primary door would give, that's why he offers that information to the judge as he's using it in his lies) which leads to the marks on the second door, which probably didn't give because of the latch into the floor.
Reeva picks up the bat at the bedroom door as a naturally defensive reaction and runs to the bathroom with it (as he breaks the bedroom door open). Remembering the ladders that had been up earlier in the day, she drops the bat and opens the bathroom window thinking that it might be a way to escape. Realising the ladder has gone and she can't escape, she locks herself in the toilet. She has her phone with her. She doesn't really expect to be shot at even if OP is wielding a gun so is standing at the door arguing with OP.
OP is mad. He screams "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" at Reeva as he follows her to the bathroom. He hears her opening the window and slamming the toilet door.
He arrives at the bathroom and switches on the light. Reeva is screaming at him from the toilet.
The first shot was to scare her and isn't 'aimed', it's just at the door, but it hits Reeva in the leg and she falls. He immediately picks up the discarded bat to strike the toilet door because he finds that the door is locked or perhaps simply to scare her. He strikes the door three times (this is the first set of 4 bangs, with a pause after the first bang). She is screaming at him (they are screaming at each other). She tells him she is badly hit and is going to phone the police. He sarcastically screams "call the police" at her. OP can tell where she is because of where her voice is coming from. He even hears the scrape of the magazine rack as she falls on it. He has completely lost the plot at this stage and can only think he has to stop her calling the police. Three aimed shots follow (the second set of 3 bangs).
Silence.
He needs to get into the toilet. He kicks the door. He then gets the cricket bat to prise the broken panel out. The crack that deviates through one of the bullet holes is caused at this point. He drags Reeva out and in this short period of time concocts the basis of the intruder story. He may well be crying but he's no longer screaming. He's thinking ... fast. The intruder story is later refined/embellished/contradicted a number of times (as we know). He may even have taken a later trip upstairs (as Stander saw) to rearrange/remove something incriminating. Anyway, it is after both sets of bangs that Dr Stipp hears OP screaming "help, help, help" (which makes more sense to me than OP's version which he says is after the first 'bangs'. What would he be calling out for?).
She dies quickly from the head wound as he carries her downstairs but is alive long enough to create the arterial spurts that are found.
He chases Reeva upstairs and she locks the bedroom door. He has his gun with him and this is consistent with his later story about running about with the gun - it's just that it was earlier. He barges the bedroom door to open it (the primary door would give, that's why he offers that information to the judge as he's using it in his lies) which leads to the marks on the second door, which probably didn't give because of the latch into the floor.
Reeva picks up the bat at the bedroom door as a naturally defensive reaction and runs to the bathroom with it (as he breaks the bedroom door open). Remembering the ladders that had been up earlier in the day, she drops the bat and opens the bathroom window thinking that it might be a way to escape. Realising the ladder has gone and she can't escape, she locks herself in the toilet. She has her phone with her. She doesn't really expect to be shot at even if OP is wielding a gun so is standing at the door arguing with OP.
OP is mad. He screams "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" at Reeva as he follows her to the bathroom. He hears her opening the window and slamming the toilet door.
He arrives at the bathroom and switches on the light. Reeva is screaming at him from the toilet.
The first shot was to scare her and isn't 'aimed', it's just at the door, but it hits Reeva in the leg and she falls. He immediately picks up the discarded bat to strike the toilet door because he finds that the door is locked or perhaps simply to scare her. He strikes the door three times (this is the first set of 4 bangs, with a pause after the first bang). She is screaming at him (they are screaming at each other). She tells him she is badly hit and is going to phone the police. He sarcastically screams "call the police" at her. OP can tell where she is because of where her voice is coming from. He even hears the scrape of the magazine rack as she falls on it. He has completely lost the plot at this stage and can only think he has to stop her calling the police. Three aimed shots follow (the second set of 3 bangs).
Silence.
He needs to get into the toilet. He kicks the door. He then gets the cricket bat to prise the broken panel out. The crack that deviates through one of the bullet holes is caused at this point. He drags Reeva out and in this short period of time concocts the basis of the intruder story. He may well be crying but he's no longer screaming. He's thinking ... fast. The intruder story is later refined/embellished/contradicted a number of times (as we know). He may even have taken a later trip upstairs (as Stander saw) to rearrange/remove something incriminating. Anyway, it is after both sets of bangs that Dr Stipp hears OP screaming "help, help, help" (which makes more sense to me than OP's version which he says is after the first 'bangs'. What would he be calling out for?).
She dies quickly from the head wound as he carries her downstairs but is alive long enough to create the arterial spurts that are found.
There it is again. This is stereotyping people who have a disability. It is incorrect!
Carmelita
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
Hi James,
On many of your points I agree with you but to your point of the disabled being more emotional than able-bodied folks I have to disagree. From my personal experience they for the most part are more stable emotionally than the average Joe. They have been stared at, laughed at mocked or patronized at some point in their life. Most of them learn to have a piss off attitude as to what other people think of them and they become rather strong emotionally.
I do think that Oscar’s emotional wherewithal was heavily influenced by his disability both for the good and the bad; it is part of what made him the strong unforgiving athlete that competed with able-bodied athletes in the Olympics and it is part of why he cannot allow himself to admit to his imperfections, (at least publicly).
On many of your points I agree with you but to your point of the disabled being more emotional than able-bodied folks I have to disagree. From my personal experience they for the most part are more stable emotionally than the average Joe. They have been stared at, laughed at mocked or patronized at some point in their life. Most of them learn to have a piss off attitude as to what other people think of them and they become rather strong emotionally.
I do think that Oscar’s emotional wherewithal was heavily influenced by his disability both for the good and the bad; it is part of what made him the strong unforgiving athlete that competed with able-bodied athletes in the Olympics and it is part of why he cannot allow himself to admit to his imperfections, (at least publicly).
If I look at two versions
1. Oscar's version (as a direct witness) He woke and spoke to Reeva. he then didn't see or hear Reeva get up and go to the toilet, he heard the bathroom window open, didn't check on or consult Reeva about the noise. He presumed an intruder came in the upstairs bathroom window and went into the toilet room and shut the door. He did a lot of thinking and assuming (about intruders, ladders, whether to go fast or slow, shout loud or be quiet, turn lights on or stay in the dark but he never once considered that Reeva who was awake had gone to the toilet. On hearing a noise within the toilet room he shot four times at the door killing Reeva. He then spent about 20 minutes to the point of getting Reeva out and to the stairs and although he had his phone he did not summons an ambulance which came over 40 minutes after he shot her.
The assumptions I'd need to make to accept this version
- 5 neighbours who testified to female screaming in fear/terror were all mistaken or lying
- neighbour Dr Stipp heard two different voices, after the first bangs, male and female but he must be mistaken or lying and this was Oscar sounding like two people.
- neighbour Dr Stipp saw the bathroom light on at Oscar's house immediately after first bangs but he was mistaken or lying
- neighbour heard female arguing (one side of an argument) 2-3 am was mistaken or lying
- Oscar was so close but didn't see or hear Reeva going to the toilet
- Reeva had food in her stomach from a meal 8 hours before although this defies medical information about gastric emptying
- while Oscar was screaming to Reeva before shooting she never once replied that she was there in the toilet
- Reeva didn't make any noise such as screaming before or during shooting
Assumptions I'd need to make regarding other incidents and Oscar's character and truthfulness
- a gun Oscar was holding fired spontaneously
- Sam Taylor (in court) and Darren Fresco (sworn statement) both lied about Oscar shooting out of a sunroof
These are just some of the assumptions that one needs to make to accept Oscar's version. I know if I went through all the witness testimony and details about the sliding doors open or closed there would be many more assumptions required.
VS
2. State's version (with evidence at the scene, phone evidence and witness statements and testimony)
Oscar and Reeva argued during the early hours of 14 February 2013
The argument increased in intensity
Reeva went to the toilet room and locked the door
Oscar shot at the door of the toilet hitting and killing Reeva
Reeva was screaming before and during the shooting
Reeva stopped screaming after she was shot in the head
Oscar hit or pushed a panel of the door so as to open the door and get Reeva out
Assumptions I'd need to make to accept this version
- Oscar is lying and willing to lie to avoid a murder conviction and jail
- Ear witness testimony may be inaccurate in regards to time due to clocks not set correctly and confusion about time after being woken from sleep
Applying Occam's razor I accept the State's version.
I feel that Dr Stipp's testimony is the most damning and I find him credible and beyond reproach as he went out of his way to help in the middle of the night at a risk of harm to himself. I feel he answered honestly and testified to Oscar seeming genuine in grief with tears and appearing to try to help Reeva.
1. Oscar's version (as a direct witness) He woke and spoke to Reeva. he then didn't see or hear Reeva get up and go to the toilet, he heard the bathroom window open, didn't check on or consult Reeva about the noise. He presumed an intruder came in the upstairs bathroom window and went into the toilet room and shut the door. He did a lot of thinking and assuming (about intruders, ladders, whether to go fast or slow, shout loud or be quiet, turn lights on or stay in the dark but he never once considered that Reeva who was awake had gone to the toilet. On hearing a noise within the toilet room he shot four times at the door killing Reeva. He then spent about 20 minutes to the point of getting Reeva out and to the stairs and although he had his phone he did not summons an ambulance which came over 40 minutes after he shot her.
The assumptions I'd need to make to accept this version
- 5 neighbours who testified to female screaming in fear/terror were all mistaken or lying
- neighbour Dr Stipp heard two different voices, after the first bangs, male and female but he must be mistaken or lying and this was Oscar sounding like two people.
- neighbour Dr Stipp saw the bathroom light on at Oscar's house immediately after first bangs but he was mistaken or lying
- neighbour heard female arguing (one side of an argument) 2-3 am was mistaken or lying
- Oscar was so close but didn't see or hear Reeva going to the toilet
- Reeva had food in her stomach from a meal 8 hours before although this defies medical information about gastric emptying
- while Oscar was screaming to Reeva before shooting she never once replied that she was there in the toilet
- Reeva didn't make any noise such as screaming before or during shooting
Assumptions I'd need to make regarding other incidents and Oscar's character and truthfulness
- a gun Oscar was holding fired spontaneously
- Sam Taylor (in court) and Darren Fresco (sworn statement) both lied about Oscar shooting out of a sunroof
These are just some of the assumptions that one needs to make to accept Oscar's version. I know if I went through all the witness testimony and details about the sliding doors open or closed there would be many more assumptions required.
VS
2. State's version (with evidence at the scene, phone evidence and witness statements and testimony)
Oscar and Reeva argued during the early hours of 14 February 2013
The argument increased in intensity
Reeva went to the toilet room and locked the door
Oscar shot at the door of the toilet hitting and killing Reeva
Reeva was screaming before and during the shooting
Reeva stopped screaming after she was shot in the head
Oscar hit or pushed a panel of the door so as to open the door and get Reeva out
Assumptions I'd need to make to accept this version
- Oscar is lying and willing to lie to avoid a murder conviction and jail
- Ear witness testimony may be inaccurate in regards to time due to clocks not set correctly and confusion about time after being woken from sleep
Applying Occam's razor I accept the State's version.
I feel that Dr Stipp's testimony is the most damning and I find him credible and beyond reproach as he went out of his way to help in the middle of the night at a risk of harm to himself. I feel he answered honestly and testified to Oscar seeming genuine in grief with tears and appearing to try to help Reeva.
TipDog
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay, I'll take a crack at it, although my theories won't be completely fleshed out since I have not seen all the evidence & missed some of the earwitness testimony.
Theory 1 - OP is telling the truth
During the course of the evening, they argued over something or several somethings. OP was in a heightened state already upon arriving home and it went from there. He'd gotten bad news that day and was feeling out of control which manifested into anger and distraction.
At 10pm, RS did yoga, he surfed the net. They likely had sex but it wasn't fulfilling for RS. She'd been doubting if this relationship was really working for almost two weeks and given his mood, the bad sex, the hot room and that she couldn't sleep, she slipped downstairs to grab a cold drink and had a small bite to eat out of the fridge. OP was sound asleep & didn't hear her. She slipped back upstairs, got back in bed & tossed/turned until a little before 3am. She got up and snuck to the bathroom, having grabbed her overnight bag. Very quietly, she packs it and starts to get dressed. Realizing her skinny jeans are going to make noise against her skin, she opens the bathroom window and tosses them out to retrieve them & put them on once downstairs. She really doesn't want to wake OP & start arguing.
OP hears window open, and the rest is his version. The reason RS never said a peep was because of her past experience with a home invasion. However, she did scream when he shot her, but OP couldn't hear her screams, as his ears were ringing.
OP is still lying about certain details (e.g. "can't you sleep, baba?", hearing wood move in the bathroom, etc.) because he really is petrified of going to jail or simply thinks he can beat this. Although more concerned with himself, he does feel genuine remorse and his PDEs are part due to nerves/part due to real remorse and being reminded/confronted with the details of how horrific her death really was.
Theory 2 - OP killed her in a rage
OP comes home in a heightened state. He'd received horrendous news that day, felt out of control and belittled. This was manifesting into seething anger. He snapped at RS about the dogs the minute he walked through the door. RS tried to sooth him which did the opposite and he pushed her away. She felt in her gut she should leave, but since it was the day before VD and she was trying to make this work, she stayed. She gave him his present and tells him that he can open it now if he wants. He tosses it on the table and dismisses it, saying it isn't even VD yet. RS's feelings are hurt, so she goes to make him dinner (swallowing tears, but keeping composed) while he runs upstairs to change. He really doesn't want her there, plops down on his bed and watches *advertiser censored* (to take his mind off the day). RS calls him down to dinner where he once again is moody, sullen, non-affectionate and doesn't even thank her for the meal - may have even been critical. RS starts to cry which only makes him madder.
From there, I simply don't know and can't begin to fill in the blanks. But you've got the following:
OP -
- 26 year old male with a very short temper
- moody and critical, snaps easily
- reckless and impulsive
- a celebrity used to getting his way
- not very bright and certainly not self aware
- got some damaging news that day, likely about his career
- his home (possibly territorial)
- his gun
RS
- 29 year old female
- very intelligent
- on the verge of real career success
- positive and happy
- nurturing & giving, possibly to a fault
- assertive
- likely high maintenance with concrete expectations
I think there was sex and arguing, no idea what order, but likely after sex was when RS texted that she was staying the night. This would have been around 10:30. I think they did get into bed together, looking at cars, but for some reason the arguing started back up again. OP was getting crueler in his comments and was angrier than she'd ever seen him. To try and diffuse the situation, she goes downstairs to make herself a drink, snacks out of the fridge (nervous eating). Then OP comes down not willing to be dismissed or ignored, more arguing. RS runs upstairs to get her things and leave. She was likely crying and now stressed and locks OP out of his bedroom.
And then escalation, likely shoving, certainly threatening, but by the time RS ended up in that toilet closet, OP had gone from heightened state to murderous rage, firing into the door knowing full well who his bullets were intended to hit.
I think RS was beyond hysterical not only because of OP's behavior but due to her past home invasion experience. There she was feeling trapped and scared out of her wits again. Her hysteria would have infuriated OP, especially in his home. I base that on how angry he got at the girl he kicked out due to drunken behavior. Only in that instant, he snapped and slammed a door in front of her. With Reeva, it was a gun.
I bet OP lacks self control when he feels his most vulnerable so the arguments they were having must have tapped into his tiny little bruised ego. He lacks the insight and humility to ever think anything is his fault, so it doesn't surprise me that he could quickly come up with the intruder story. Plus, saying he mistook her for an intruder is really the only defense he could come up with given the circumstances.
But that's all I got at this point. I do think Version 2 is more likely the truth and I base this on OP's testimony. His version isn't credible or logical for too many reasons to list, plus all the changes and additions to it. When describing a banana and it looks, smells and tastes like a banana, it's a banana. OP's version looks, smells and tastes like sour grapes to me.
Theory 1 - OP is telling the truth
During the course of the evening, they argued over something or several somethings. OP was in a heightened state already upon arriving home and it went from there. He'd gotten bad news that day and was feeling out of control which manifested into anger and distraction.
At 10pm, RS did yoga, he surfed the net. They likely had sex but it wasn't fulfilling for RS. She'd been doubting if this relationship was really working for almost two weeks and given his mood, the bad sex, the hot room and that she couldn't sleep, she slipped downstairs to grab a cold drink and had a small bite to eat out of the fridge. OP was sound asleep & didn't hear her. She slipped back upstairs, got back in bed & tossed/turned until a little before 3am. She got up and snuck to the bathroom, having grabbed her overnight bag. Very quietly, she packs it and starts to get dressed. Realizing her skinny jeans are going to make noise against her skin, she opens the bathroom window and tosses them out to retrieve them & put them on once downstairs. She really doesn't want to wake OP & start arguing.
OP hears window open, and the rest is his version. The reason RS never said a peep was because of her past experience with a home invasion. However, she did scream when he shot her, but OP couldn't hear her screams, as his ears were ringing.
OP is still lying about certain details (e.g. "can't you sleep, baba?", hearing wood move in the bathroom, etc.) because he really is petrified of going to jail or simply thinks he can beat this. Although more concerned with himself, he does feel genuine remorse and his PDEs are part due to nerves/part due to real remorse and being reminded/confronted with the details of how horrific her death really was.
Theory 2 - OP killed her in a rage
OP comes home in a heightened state. He'd received horrendous news that day, felt out of control and belittled. This was manifesting into seething anger. He snapped at RS about the dogs the minute he walked through the door. RS tried to sooth him which did the opposite and he pushed her away. She felt in her gut she should leave, but since it was the day before VD and she was trying to make this work, she stayed. She gave him his present and tells him that he can open it now if he wants. He tosses it on the table and dismisses it, saying it isn't even VD yet. RS's feelings are hurt, so she goes to make him dinner (swallowing tears, but keeping composed) while he runs upstairs to change. He really doesn't want her there, plops down on his bed and watches *advertiser censored* (to take his mind off the day). RS calls him down to dinner where he once again is moody, sullen, non-affectionate and doesn't even thank her for the meal - may have even been critical. RS starts to cry which only makes him madder.
From there, I simply don't know and can't begin to fill in the blanks. But you've got the following:
OP -
- 26 year old male with a very short temper
- moody and critical, snaps easily
- reckless and impulsive
- a celebrity used to getting his way
- not very bright and certainly not self aware
- got some damaging news that day, likely about his career
- his home (possibly territorial)
- his gun
RS
- 29 year old female
- very intelligent
- on the verge of real career success
- positive and happy
- nurturing & giving, possibly to a fault
- assertive
- likely high maintenance with concrete expectations
I think there was sex and arguing, no idea what order, but likely after sex was when RS texted that she was staying the night. This would have been around 10:30. I think they did get into bed together, looking at cars, but for some reason the arguing started back up again. OP was getting crueler in his comments and was angrier than she'd ever seen him. To try and diffuse the situation, she goes downstairs to make herself a drink, snacks out of the fridge (nervous eating). Then OP comes down not willing to be dismissed or ignored, more arguing. RS runs upstairs to get her things and leave. She was likely crying and now stressed and locks OP out of his bedroom.
And then escalation, likely shoving, certainly threatening, but by the time RS ended up in that toilet closet, OP had gone from heightened state to murderous rage, firing into the door knowing full well who his bullets were intended to hit.
I think RS was beyond hysterical not only because of OP's behavior but due to her past home invasion experience. There she was feeling trapped and scared out of her wits again. Her hysteria would have infuriated OP, especially in his home. I base that on how angry he got at the girl he kicked out due to drunken behavior. Only in that instant, he snapped and slammed a door in front of her. With Reeva, it was a gun.
I bet OP lacks self control when he feels his most vulnerable so the arguments they were having must have tapped into his tiny little bruised ego. He lacks the insight and humility to ever think anything is his fault, so it doesn't surprise me that he could quickly come up with the intruder story. Plus, saying he mistook her for an intruder is really the only defense he could come up with given the circumstances.
But that's all I got at this point. I do think Version 2 is more likely the truth and I base this on OP's testimony. His version isn't credible or logical for too many reasons to list, plus all the changes and additions to it. When describing a banana and it looks, smells and tastes like a banana, it's a banana. OP's version looks, smells and tastes like sour grapes to me.
My first theory (post #47) imaginatively explored the evidence to develop a scenario which might support the prosecution case. However, it is not impossible that the key events in the tragedy are as given by OP in his defence if one ignores his evolving and at times contradictory testimony which has done little to establish his credibility as a witness. It is the simplest conclusion and we have no hard facts to prove otherwise as the prosecution case is, as Nel says, based on circumstantial evidence.
In this scenario I am seeing OP as a person cornered on the witness stand who has a propensity for doing exactly what Nel says, e.g. evolving his story to fit. For example, OP deduces that the sound he heard in the toilet was the magazine rack moving once Nel eliminates all other possibilities. The leap OP makes to it moving position seems little different to a child using his vivid imagination to develop a scenario to fit when telling lies. There was a noise, it was probably the magazine rack, therefore it must have moved so that’s what he says he saw. He does not foresee that the evidence suggests otherwise.
He should not be arguing his own case by trying to explain every single detail when he doesn’t in fact know every single detail. He should simply say he doesn’t know. The more he has elaborated the less convincing he has become and the more support he gives to the view that he is trying to hide something, a view which I am inclined to share.
In my opinion OP made up the story about the position of the magazine rack in the toilet but is this important? Yes, it shows the type of person OP is but it doesn’t make him guilty of murder and the judge is not judging him on this point (albeit she will be using all evidence to come to her conclusion as to whether the defence case is possible).
I do not envy the judge and her team of assessors in coming to their verdict. If the events of 14 February 2013 were indeed a tragic accident, OP has not made it easy for them (or himself) with his obfuscation.
In this scenario I am seeing OP as a person cornered on the witness stand who has a propensity for doing exactly what Nel says, e.g. evolving his story to fit. For example, OP deduces that the sound he heard in the toilet was the magazine rack moving once Nel eliminates all other possibilities. The leap OP makes to it moving position seems little different to a child using his vivid imagination to develop a scenario to fit when telling lies. There was a noise, it was probably the magazine rack, therefore it must have moved so that’s what he says he saw. He does not foresee that the evidence suggests otherwise.
He should not be arguing his own case by trying to explain every single detail when he doesn’t in fact know every single detail. He should simply say he doesn’t know. The more he has elaborated the less convincing he has become and the more support he gives to the view that he is trying to hide something, a view which I am inclined to share.
In my opinion OP made up the story about the position of the magazine rack in the toilet but is this important? Yes, it shows the type of person OP is but it doesn’t make him guilty of murder and the judge is not judging him on this point (albeit she will be using all evidence to come to her conclusion as to whether the defence case is possible).
I do not envy the judge and her team of assessors in coming to their verdict. If the events of 14 February 2013 were indeed a tragic accident, OP has not made it easy for them (or himself) with his obfuscation.
JimCricket
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Folks,
I have been a lurker here for ages, but thought it was time to add some value to the conversation.
I have followed almost every moment of the trial phase and have, what I think, is a very clear understanding of what happened that night.
I don't like the character of the man, never have. I have friends who live in the same estate and they always thought of him as arrogant, treating girls badly. His version, strictly speaking is also murder under SA law, the question is how much weight will the judge put on state of mind and perceived vulnerability of his disability when she weighs it up a verdict and sentence.
It may be that OP is lying, but the state hasn't got around the 2 sets of shots and the time frame that matches OP explanation. Nel made it very clear in week 1 of trial that his entire case is that the last set of shots killed Reeva.
From Stipp, we know that there was no screaming before the first 4 shots, which tells us NO FIGHT!
The other "ear witnesses" did not even hear those shots and have no reference to compare the bat sounds against.
1. Oscar wakes up - Reeva is also awake
2. Oscar hobbles off the bed, pulls in the fans, not easy on stumps.
3. At the time, Reeva slides over and off the bed on the far side (a silent exercise if you think about it) with her phone for light or interest (I often check my phone in the middle of the night. Bad habit, but I do) Just last week I jumped out of my skin when I bumped into my Mrs in the bathroom passage, her coming out of the bathroom when I thought she was tucked up in bed, so in my head I can completely rationalise these events.
4. While OP is fiddling with the fans and doors, she has her pee. With the noise of the fans he would not hear it.
5. When done, she opens the window for some fresh air in the stuffy room. OP hears that noise.
6. He gets a fright himself and reacts very badly (granted, not sensible or reasonable, but it is easy to judge afterwards)
7. He starts screaming about burglars. She is scared herself, thinking guys must have come in on the balcony (open at the time she left the bed)
8. As OP's voice gets louder, she thinks he is retreating towards her, so moves from the window into the loo and locks the door. (which he hears slam as he is halfway down the passage)
9. He is now in the bathroom, she is waiting to quickly open the door for him to hide with her when he has a complete brain fart and starts shooting. (This in my mind is murder
Yes there could have been a fight, but there is nothing to prove it apart for some jeans on the floor.
For all of Gerrie Nel’s intense cross & his theatrics, he has bought very little to the table that disputes this version. On Nel’s side however is that in the process of getting his gun, walking down the passage and firing at the door, OP has ticked every box for murder under SA law.
OP made a terrible mistake of the stand. His best option is a Culpable Homicide conviction, in which case he should have admitted to shooting at the perceived intruders and hoped the judge goes easy on him.
As for the other charges - I cannot understand his plead of not guilty. His deception there makes his version on Reeva a harder story to buy.
I have been a lurker here for ages, but thought it was time to add some value to the conversation.
I have followed almost every moment of the trial phase and have, what I think, is a very clear understanding of what happened that night.
I don't like the character of the man, never have. I have friends who live in the same estate and they always thought of him as arrogant, treating girls badly. His version, strictly speaking is also murder under SA law, the question is how much weight will the judge put on state of mind and perceived vulnerability of his disability when she weighs it up a verdict and sentence.
It may be that OP is lying, but the state hasn't got around the 2 sets of shots and the time frame that matches OP explanation. Nel made it very clear in week 1 of trial that his entire case is that the last set of shots killed Reeva.
From Stipp, we know that there was no screaming before the first 4 shots, which tells us NO FIGHT!
The other "ear witnesses" did not even hear those shots and have no reference to compare the bat sounds against.
1. Oscar wakes up - Reeva is also awake
2. Oscar hobbles off the bed, pulls in the fans, not easy on stumps.
3. At the time, Reeva slides over and off the bed on the far side (a silent exercise if you think about it) with her phone for light or interest (I often check my phone in the middle of the night. Bad habit, but I do) Just last week I jumped out of my skin when I bumped into my Mrs in the bathroom passage, her coming out of the bathroom when I thought she was tucked up in bed, so in my head I can completely rationalise these events.
4. While OP is fiddling with the fans and doors, she has her pee. With the noise of the fans he would not hear it.
5. When done, she opens the window for some fresh air in the stuffy room. OP hears that noise.
6. He gets a fright himself and reacts very badly (granted, not sensible or reasonable, but it is easy to judge afterwards)
7. He starts screaming about burglars. She is scared herself, thinking guys must have come in on the balcony (open at the time she left the bed)
8. As OP's voice gets louder, she thinks he is retreating towards her, so moves from the window into the loo and locks the door. (which he hears slam as he is halfway down the passage)
9. He is now in the bathroom, she is waiting to quickly open the door for him to hide with her when he has a complete brain fart and starts shooting. (This in my mind is murder
Yes there could have been a fight, but there is nothing to prove it apart for some jeans on the floor.
For all of Gerrie Nel’s intense cross & his theatrics, he has bought very little to the table that disputes this version. On Nel’s side however is that in the process of getting his gun, walking down the passage and firing at the door, OP has ticked every box for murder under SA law.
OP made a terrible mistake of the stand. His best option is a Culpable Homicide conviction, in which case he should have admitted to shooting at the perceived intruders and hoped the judge goes easy on him.
As for the other charges - I cannot understand his plead of not guilty. His deception there makes his version on Reeva a harder story to buy.
O.k here goes.
I believe they argued and i believe the catalyst for the argument was most likely jealousy.
I am now very much a member of the bat used first brigade.
So an argument happened in the early hours as heard By Van Der Merwe, who it should be noted also heard a test argument coming from Pistorius house in February this year
After around an hour of hearing the arguing Van Der Merwe eventually falls asleep.
Meanwhile Oscar eventually erupts into a rage("sometimes i'm scared of you").
Reeva take's shelter in the toilet, i do not believe Oscar's claim that she has her phone with her in the toilet.
On his stumps at this point Oscar begins striking the door with the bat in a fury causing the damage to the door, he can now see Reeva, The Stipps heard the bat striking the door, Mrs Stipp believes the toilet light is on despite it being broken due to the bathroom light shining through the damage created by the cricket bat strikes.
Reeva at this point is now terrified and her desperate screams for help begin, the burgers are awoken by her screams, at one point Reeva yells out for help, Oscar mockingly shouts's out for help in reply.
Just before 3.17 Oscar totally loses control and grabs his gun, Reeva can see him through the damage in the door and her screams reach there peak, these are the screams Michelle Burger describe's as more intense, and Charl Johnson said "The intensity and fear escalated and that’s when the first shots were fired", also at this point Van Der Merwe is awoken by 4 loud bangs, her husband says those was gunshots.
I strongly believe he pauses slightly after the first shot but when Reeva scream's out he knows there is no way back, he fire's 3 more times until the screams stop.
For a short time he is frozen while what he has just done sink's in, eventually in total panic he phones Stander, he then phones Netcare, what is said i don't know but i don't believe he has got the toilet door open at this stage so he doesn't explain how severe Reeva's injuries are, hence they tell him to bring her in.
A this stage(3:21:11) he realises he better get the door open, he is unable to do this on his stumps, he goes to put on his prosthesis and walks back into the bathroom, Dr Stipp see's him walk from right to left as he approaches the toilet door and pries the panels out, he drags Reeva out, he know's she is dead and the implications are now dawning on him, as is typical of Oscar he begin's to think about how he can avoid punishment, the intruder story is his only option, he know's he has to act like he want's her to live is if his story is to be believed, he carries her downstairs just as Stander arrives, and the rest plays out as we know it happened.
I believe they argued and i believe the catalyst for the argument was most likely jealousy.
I am now very much a member of the bat used first brigade.
So an argument happened in the early hours as heard By Van Der Merwe, who it should be noted also heard a test argument coming from Pistorius house in February this year
After around an hour of hearing the arguing Van Der Merwe eventually falls asleep.
Meanwhile Oscar eventually erupts into a rage("sometimes i'm scared of you").
Reeva take's shelter in the toilet, i do not believe Oscar's claim that she has her phone with her in the toilet.
On his stumps at this point Oscar begins striking the door with the bat in a fury causing the damage to the door, he can now see Reeva, The Stipps heard the bat striking the door, Mrs Stipp believes the toilet light is on despite it being broken due to the bathroom light shining through the damage created by the cricket bat strikes.
Reeva at this point is now terrified and her desperate screams for help begin, the burgers are awoken by her screams, at one point Reeva yells out for help, Oscar mockingly shouts's out for help in reply.
Just before 3.17 Oscar totally loses control and grabs his gun, Reeva can see him through the damage in the door and her screams reach there peak, these are the screams Michelle Burger describe's as more intense, and Charl Johnson said "The intensity and fear escalated and that’s when the first shots were fired", also at this point Van Der Merwe is awoken by 4 loud bangs, her husband says those was gunshots.
I strongly believe he pauses slightly after the first shot but when Reeva scream's out he knows there is no way back, he fire's 3 more times until the screams stop.
For a short time he is frozen while what he has just done sink's in, eventually in total panic he phones Stander, he then phones Netcare, what is said i don't know but i don't believe he has got the toilet door open at this stage so he doesn't explain how severe Reeva's injuries are, hence they tell him to bring her in.
A this stage(3:21:11) he realises he better get the door open, he is unable to do this on his stumps, he goes to put on his prosthesis and walks back into the bathroom, Dr Stipp see's him walk from right to left as he approaches the toilet door and pries the panels out, he drags Reeva out, he know's she is dead and the implications are now dawning on him, as is typical of Oscar he begin's to think about how he can avoid punishment, the intruder story is his only option, he know's he has to act like he want's her to live is if his story is to be believed, he carries her downstairs just as Stander arrives, and the rest plays out as we know it happened.
JimCricket
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
The problem with the "bat first Brigade" is that no-one heard the bat and both the DT and the PT agree that the bats came after the shots. We cannot invent evidence.
My theory is that OP DID intentionally pull that trigger that night. However, I don't think he knew that Reeva was in there. I think he heard a noise and thought it was an intruder, picked up his gun and was going out there with the intention of shooting whoever was there. I don't believe him when he says he didn't intend to shoot anyone that night. Unfortunately for him, it WAS Reeva that he killed. I wish he would acknowledge that he WAS responsible for killing her and not keep going to his well rehearsed "I thought there was someone coming out to attack me" sentence everytime.
JimCricket
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with your assessment and this seems to be supported by the facts so far. He had a mental fart when he started shooting and he cannot come to terms with it now.
BIB. I didn't say they were all like that. I said often, which means not always, right
. Accorsing to experts: "Children with physical or learning disabilities may be at risk for unhealthy or delayed emotional development. Learning disabilities can exacerbate emotional issues and prevent the development of healthy peer relationships, according to Jean C. Gorman, author of "Teaching Exceptional Children," appearing on LD OnLine, a resource for learning disabilities and ADHD. Because a child's physical disabilities are more visible and intrusive, it can be difficult for her to gain the social benefits of playing with other children. A research report by SSTA Research Centre for the Saskatchewan School Board says that children with disabilities may be slower to develop emotions and weaker in expressing those emotions, and may have difficulty forming attachments, which impacts identity development."
http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/...ce-childrens-emotional-development-19539.html
JimCricket
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
I have watched almost every minute of it. There is NO dispute between the Police and Defence teams. The evidence was clear and definitive, the shots came before the bat. Nel even summed it up as such when he let OP off the stand.
- Status