Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
<snip>
Why would anyone that understands the basic concept of perjury, the law of physics and the charges against him deny that his finger was in the trigger of the gun involved in the restaurant incident? It makes no sense other than he is slightly delusional in order to preserve his own self-image and sanity or he is a total narcissist who cannot even fathom that his version of events would be questioned.
<snip>
Hi beach, thanks for the thread.
<snip>
Theory #1: Things happened essentially as OP has described. He believed there was an intruder in his bathroom and believed Reeva was in bed when he shot through the bathroom door. He may have embellished or polished his testimony to try to paint himself in what he thinks is a better light, legally, and he may be hiding some things but on the whole - this was not an intentional murder of Reeva and there was a mistake involved with his perceptions. This is what I think the evidence supports so far.
Theory #2 - Something caused Oscar to be fed up with the relationship that night and he decided impetuously to end it - much like when he told Samantha Taylor it was over and she needs to take his car and her things and leave.
<snipped a really great long theory to keep length of post down>
Nel has said several times that the State version is that shots were at time of second bangs heard by Stipps just after 3:17
State expert testified to absolute certainty that Cricket bat was AFTER shots.
OP was on phone 3:19
Just a few hard FACTS that have to be accounted for in ANY version.... else the version is disproved.
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.
There is no DOUBT that cops did not preserve crime scene... they admitted it on the stand?
Besides details of where items were does not refute OP's version...
I think boyfriend shooting girlfriend intentionally at 3AM is so bizarre... it makes no sense? (and so is not true as Nel and Judge Judy would say)
Occams Razor would imply a simpler explanation.
A paranoid guy shooting at what he thinks is an intruder.
Especially in SA where home invasion is common place, and especially a double amputee who may well have grown up feeling especially vulnerable...
There is ZERO evidence of domestic violence in this case... you do real cases a diservice by jumping to insert it as a reason...where there is no evidence.
Cop photographer DID admit moving items.. he would claim not significant, but he misses the point. You CAN NOT rely on photos once even some are know to be suspect. And photographer was certainly NOT the first person to walk through... so who knows what was moved before he got there. I would say the fan for sure, and possibly the duvet was moved before the photo Nel is using.
Maybe this discussion should not be in this thread
I am sure people have a LOT of complicated theories to post in this thread.
I also believe he is a narcissist who refuses to take responsibility for everything.
Oscar's personality is that he has a reputation to protect and he would rather blatantly lie than accept the possibility he has done anything wrong.
I don't see this. He took responsibility from the very beginning when he said to the first person on the scene: "I killed my baba." He took responsibility when he allowed himself to be cross-examined by Nel becuse actions speak louder than words. For Nel to have argued that he hadn't is simply disingenuous and so the mud just won't stick.
As far as being narcissistic is concerned, again I disagree. His disability has made him needy of attention and so he has come to expect it, but that doesn't make him a narcissist. He saved a man's life once. Not sure if a narcissist would do that.
When Nel read out his and Reeva's text exchanges and tried to say that it showed his relationship with her was "All about me," again this is disingenuous.
Reeva's entire text was about how OP had been awful to her. So what's the difference? Was that not being concerned at that point only about herself and her feelings etc? Who gives someone the right to run another person down and then suggest that they have no right to do it back? Nel wouldn't see it like that, because he does it himself. He doesn't want OP to argue, but he keeps saying HE will argue x, y, z. Where is the justice in that?
So it was more a case of two people venting on a bad day, exactly as OP said it was.
I hear what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree.
My example is the shooting of the gun at Tasha's.
OP asked for someone else to take the wrap.
Then he lied in open court that he took responsibility for it to the manager despite:
(a) all other witnesses disagreeing; and
(b) his own Whatsapp message to Reeva telling her he asked someone else to take responsibility for it.
He then followed this up by saying the gun went off 'accidentally' and he didn't pull the trigger.