Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

According to OP, before Reeva locked herself in the wc, she first slammed open the bathroom window, as that noise supposedly precipitated what followed. Why would she slam open the window so hard the noise of it hitting the frame was heard by OP in the next room over the noise of the fans? She wouldn't have done that imo unless she were seeking a way of escape from an enraged OP who'd earlier blocked her escape from the bedroom.

HauntsForHope said:

My theory is that she either saw him watching *advertiser censored* or sexting on his phone and was upset. It turned into an argument.
He chased her upstairs where she locked the bedroom door. He broke in and hit her, leaving blood on the wall, she ran into the bathroom with her phone to call for help, he followed, threw her jeans out the window so she couldn't leave, hitting and kicking he door and metal plate. Became enraged, got the gun from the bedroom and shot through the door, intending to kill her. He had to stop her from calling the police on him for hitting her. If she called police his career would be ruined. The first shot sent her back onto the magazine rack. When he heard it move from her falling on it, he aimed at the sound and fired several more times, with intent to kill. jmo

Click to expand...

Throwing the jeans out of the window I don't think, it would have prevented her to leave him.

Mr Fossil said:

Thought I’d listen to OP’s evidence in chief again. Fascinating! Here he tells Roux what happened shortly after arriving home...

OP: I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I got changed into my pyjamas and then I think around 7 o’clock I went downstairs and ...
Roux: Before we get there can we first deal with your iPad. Did you have access to your iPad that day, that evening?
OP: I did m’lady.
Roux: When was that?
OP: I had access to it the entire day.
Roux: I’m talking after arriving back at your house.
OP: From the time I arrived home ... Reeva was preparing dinner, I was talking to her and on my iPad. I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day to have a look at and, when I went upstairs, as I was drawing the bath I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while. I can’t remember if I was on it then and then as I got out of bed for a short time thereafter I was on it. And when we went down to dinner I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg from 35:10

I'm wondering if there was a little hanky panky between them when he got home rather than dinner at 19:10, which would also explain the 50 minutes when he doesn't use the iPad. They then ate later. I see that he / they looked at the *advertiser censored* sites on the iPad at 18:30.

Click to expand...

Could be. Here's one you missed:

I lay on my bed and took off my suit. :wink:

I keep reading observations on what Nel overlooked or didn't clearly state. However to do that, is to misunderstand what the roles of Defence & Prosecution are. Essentially, they have to influence a Judge who is going to weigh up the evidence presented. Roux's skill has been to place plenty of doubt out there, for which OP is hoping has presented enough of the 'Reasonable' flavour....

As for Nel, he has had to piece together a sequence of events based upon different witnesses & circumstantial evidence, that has to contradict itself as little as possible.

Hence, certain witnesses were not called, not pressing on matters which seemed obvious to outsiders & no time line for events in his HOA.

The way he has put this case together is brilliant. Let us not forget, Masipa is tasked with looking at both cases & decide ding which one is more truthful. I know that sounds obvious, but think about it using this scenario.

OP says that he started screaming as he walked down the passage.
Witnesses say they heard screaming.
OP says that he screams like a woman.
Witnesses say they heard a man & a woman.
OP says he was screaming so loudly he would not have heard Reeva, then the shots were so loud he wouldn't have heard her.
Witnesses say they heard screaming up until the shots.

A judge will say:

On balance of probabilities, there was screaming. There are differences between the accounts of the screams. If I believe OP, then ALL the other witnesses must be wrong. If I believe the witnesses, then just OP is wrong. Oh, hang on a minute, in the court transcripts the Defence said they would prove that Oscar screamed like a woman. Did they? No they didn't. It would render many witnesses potentially being wrong and would support the Defence's case, so I am surprised they did not present the evidence they said. Therefore, on balance of probability, the other witnesses are more likely to be telling the truth so I will accept their version.

That was a long winded example, but serves to help me present my point. Judge Masipa will do this with every contentious aspect of this case. Some examples are:

When RS & OP ate.
Whether they argued.
If Reeva was already awake when he woke up, why would she not have closed the doors as asked.
Why he was closing the doors if it was so hot.
How many fans there were.
The position of the Duvet.
The last time Reeva spoke.
Whether he saw he in bed under the Duvet.
Closing the curtains & doors.
Why some lights were bothering him, but others were not.
OP not hearing Reeva get up.
OP not seeing Reeva get up or walk along the passage.
What the noise was that startled him.
If it was a window, why would Reeva open it on her way to the toilet if she knew OP was closing the Balcony Doors.
OP running for his gun in the Dark.
OP finding it in a different place in the Dark.
Whether OP whispered or spoke in a low tone.
Why he approached this perceived danger when other options were available.
Why Reeva never once uttered another sound
Why he did not want to give his position away to someone in the dark.
Why he did not fire a warning shot.
Why once he knew someone was in the toilet, he did not inform them he was armed.
If he did not see the door open, how could he ascertain the level of threat.
What could possibly have been the noise that startled him.
Why did he not check the Window if the door was closed.
Why did he fire more than once?

And that is just his version, before the shooting.

There is a list just as long for afterwards and also each piece of ear witness testimony. Then there are all the 'experts' that were called.

This explains why it will take so long for Masipa to reach her conclusion and also, why, when it comes to evaluating pieces of the evidence in the above way, there will be only one outcome.

:jail:

eimajjjj said:

Was reading through the defence heads and while mostly very ambitious with smoke and mirrors there is two thing that worry me in their apparent validity:

1) Roux uses Stipp's hearing of two sets of gunshots as evidence that one can mistake cricket bat and gun noises .

2) EVDM did in fact mistake OP for a woman at first before being corrected by her husband.

I hope Masipa doesn't put too much weight on these!

Click to expand...

As to (2), I understand what she heard at that point was crying. Quite different from screaming. I can accept that he might sound like a woman when crying. There tends to be less variation in pitch with crying than in screaming.

LemonMousse said:

That's not actually how it works in practice, and that's not how it's worked in this case.

The defence are not required to prove anything, but it is obviously in their best interests to bring evidence that is supportive of their client's story.

The State accepts that Pistorius was distraught after the shooting - and yet the defence brought evidence to show that, indeed, he was distraught after the shooting.

If Netcare substantially supported OP's version, they'd have been called by the defence. No question. Conversely, if they substantially contradicted it, they'd have been called by the State. That neither called them means they can't have had much to say.

I have to say I find your suggestion that the defence wouldn't bother calling anyone who backed up OP because they don,t have to prove anything rather odd. That's obviously not how trials work, is it?

Click to expand...

Nope, it doesn't work like that at all. Both defence and prosecution will focus primarily on those aspects that will be brought into question.
It would be legal suicide to contest a case otherwise.

Why do you think Nel didn't bother going into detail over many aspects that were questioned on here (bedroom door, bathroom panel, bathroom tiles etc. etc). You don't really think it was simply because he couldn't be bothered do you? Why do you think they don't use all the allocated witnesses, even if some of those witnesses may have provided a little bit more to their case? It is essentially more damaging to overload a trial with unnecessary witnesses or evidence which doesn't need to be proven. This is how both advocates and their teams operate, by separating the wheat from the chaff and focusing on those issues that they believe will be brought into question. The trial isn't undertaken for our own personal entertainment.

As I have said previously, the Netcare call is a non-issue. Nel hasn't contested it, and as such any referral to it by Roux would be completely pointless. Judge Masipa and the assessors cannot draw any negative inference from the contents relayed in this call, as it has not been challenged by the state. Whether you agree with what happened or not is an entirely different matter. From a legal perspective it's irrelevant, and would have been a waste of time. As such the DT acted in entirely the correct manner regarding this issue.

kittychi said:

BBM: From this lay person's vantage point, Defense did a lot of wasting of the court's time. Roger Dixon testifying on matters in which he is not an expert comes to mind. The testimony of social worker Yvette Van Schalkwyk that Oscar sincerely was very upset about the killing seemed to be a last minute scramble.

Beginning with Oscar's evasive testimony, IMO, they did not mount a vigorous defense, but rather threw everything against the wall, including intentional muddling of timelines, hoping something would stick.

Click to expand...

I agree with the comment regarding Roger Dixon's expert witness testimony. A lot of this was unnecessary, wasted court time and had quite a detrimental effect on the DT's argument. This alludes to the point I was making previously about over-egging the pudding by trying to cover too many issues or introduce too many witnesses.

Focusing on the most important aspects is critical in a murder case. It's a balancing act of trying to ensure that the judge and her assessors have enough information to understand the plea, but not so much that it becomes a minefield to untangle. There will be actions and potential evidence that wasn't brought into play from both sides, but we can be fairly confident that the value of this evidence wasn't strong enough to enable the judge or her assessors to draw reasonable inference when reaching their conclusions.

In his closing Roux lambasted Nel for not calling Hilton Botha as a witness, as if vital info had been denied the court. Is there something in SA law that prevented Roux from calling Botha? If not, Roux's complaint seems ridiculous to me and, I hope, also to m'lady.

steveml said:

Nope, it doesn't work like that at all. Both defence and prosecution will focus primarily on those aspects that will be brought into question.
It would be legal suicide to contest a case otherwise.

Why do you think Nel didn't bother going into detail over many aspects that were questioned on here (bedroom door, bathroom panel, bathroom tiles etc. etc). You don't really think it was simply because he couldn't be bothered do you? Why do you think they don't use all the allocated witnesses, even if some of those witnesses may have provided a little bit more to their case? It is essentially more damaging to overload a trial with unnecessary witnesses or evidence which doesn't need to be proven. This is how both advocates and their teams operate, by separating the wheat from the chaff and focusing on those issues that they believe will be brought into question. The trial isn't undertaken for our own personal entertainment.

As I have said previously, the Netcare call is a non-issue. Nel hasn't contested it, and as such any referral to it by Roux would be completely pointless. Judge Masipa and the assessors cannot draw any negative inference from the contents relayed in this call, as it has not been challenged by the state. Whether you agree with what happened or not is an entirely different matter. From a legal perspective it's irrelevant, and would have been a waste of time. As such the DT acted in entirely the correct manner regarding this issue.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, you are mistaken.

You seem to say that when a side states something that isn't challenged by the opposing side that statement becomes "fact" and the Judge must consider it as such… that is incorrect

Only common cause evidence is considered that way.

As for the call to Netcare : the only things that are common cause is OP placed that call on his 0020 phone at 03:20:05 and the call lasted 1m 6s… that's it.

OP never provided a clear and concise description of the content of that phone call…

However, much contradictions and refutal evidence was led into the record :

1. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, Stander did NOT call an ambulance

2. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, Stander did NOT corroborate OP on the content of that phone conversation

3. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, OP was very insistent and determined to have Stander drive Reeva to the Hospital

4. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, he called Netcare himself 38 seconds after hanging up with Stander

5. Although OP called Netcare himself, he did NOT request an ambulance

6. Although OP called Netcare himself, he was very insistent and determined to have Stander drive Reeva to the Hospital

7. Although OP testified that he desperately wanted to save Reeva's life, he did absolutely NOTHING that can be deemed as taking basic and reasonable steps to do so.

… these elements are in the Court record and "negative" inferences will be made from them.

Objective bottom-line : we have OP calling Netcare BUT not wanting an ambulance sent to his house… can the "positive" inference be made from this that OP genuinely wanted to save Reeva's life and therefore the shooting must have been an accident ?… I think not.

… it would be like OP calling security after shooting Reeva and telling them "everything is fine"… Oh wait… that actually happened… can the "positive" inference be made from this that OP genuinely requested assistance and therefore the shooting must have been an accident ?… I think not.

steveml said:

I agree with the comment regarding Roger Dixon's expert witness testimony. A lot of this was unnecessary, wasted court time and had quite a detrimental effect on the DT's argument. This alludes to the point I was making previously about over-egging the pudding by trying to cover too many issues or introduce too many witnesses.

Focusing on the most important aspects is critical in a murder case. It's a balancing act of trying to ensure that the judge and her assessors have enough information to understand the plea, but not so much that it becomes a minefield to untangle. There will be actions and potential evidence that wasn't brought into play from both sides, but we can be fairly confident that the value of this evidence wasn't strong enough to enable the judge or her assessors to draw reasonable inference when reaching their conclusions.

Click to expand...

2 points which are intertwined & relate to your entire post. Firstly, Dixon being called was detrimental to the defence as he was trying to present himself as an Expert in fields that he had no right to (he is a Geologist for crying out loud!) This led to him being discredited & I believe is a big blow to the defence.

Secondly, on the 'who was called, who was not etc,' consider this.

You are Barry Roux, sat in your office, saying "Right, I can get you off this my lad, all I need are enough Experts to testify and you will be off the hook."

He then sends his juniors off to find the said 'Experts', and the only ones prepared to make themselves look stupid on the stand & stretch credibility, are the Motley Crew Nel ripped to shreds.

Picture Roux, with is head in his hands, uttering the words, "We are Goosed!"

With no credible Experts, Roux has had to suggest that the people that could have done a better job than the ones they had, didn't want to testify. It is probably one of the most ridiculous things that he said in the entire trial.

steveml said:

Nope, it doesn't work like that at all. Both defence and prosecution will focus primarily on those aspects that will be brought into question.
It would be legal suicide to contest a case otherwise.

Why do you think Nel didn't bother going into detail over many aspects that were questioned on here (bedroom door, bathroom panel, bathroom tiles etc. etc). You don't really think it was simply because he couldn't be bothered do you? Why do you think they don't use all the allocated witnesses, even if some of those witnesses may have provided a little bit more to their case? It is essentially more damaging to overload a trial with unnecessary witnesses or evidence which doesn't need to be proven. This is how both advocates and their teams operate, by separating the wheat from the chaff and focusing on those issues that they believe will be brought into question. The trial isn't undertaken for our own personal entertainment.

As I have said previously, the Netcare call is a non-issue. Nel hasn't contested it, and as such any referral to it by Roux would be completely pointless. Judge Masipa and the assessors cannot draw any negative inference from the contents relayed in this call, as it has not been challenged by the state. Whether you agree with what happened or not is an entirely different matter. From a legal perspective it's irrelevant, and would have been a waste of time. As such the DT acted in entirely the correct manner regarding this issue.

Click to expand...

Well, you only have to watched the trial to see that you are not correct. As I said, the State accepts that OP was distraught after the shooting - and yet the defence trotted out a wholly irrelevant social worker to tell the court how upset he was. And what was the point of the Standers? OP was upset & crying. Yet according to you, the defence will only call witnesses that refute the State's case. Clearly not so.

And it's worth remembering that there is a prima facie case against Pistorius....he did shoot Reeva. Shooting people is illegal, you know, so he DOES have a responsibility to demonstrate some kind of justification for doing what he did. This requires the presentation of evidence to show that what he's saying is the truth. This is not a "whodunit" case, it's a "whydunit" so the whole "defence don't have to prove anything" is not entirely applicable.

I am not sure how you can manage to say anything at all about Netcare since they were barely mentioned in the trial. Do you have inside information that you'd care to share? All I am saying is that, given the way the rest of the defence has been handled, it is strange in the extreme that a Netcare call handler who could confirm that he/she did indeed tell Pistorius to take a gun shot victim who was not breathing to hospital himself was not called.

It does not matter if you've said it before....it is too much of a leap to insist that the Netcare thing is a "non issue". That is not the only reason they may not have been called. Has it occurred to you that there may actually not be any Netcare evidence to bring? Maybe they did not record the call and no one can remember talking to him at all. In which case, there's no reason for either side to bring them to the stand. To assume that, because they weren't called, OP MUST be telling the truth about that bit, is presumptuous. You don't know that.

You are falling into the same trap that rather a lot of people are falling into with regards to what Nel needs to do. He does not have to offer a complete and concise explanation of what happened that night...how can he? The only living person there was Pistorius, and if Nel cannot explain certain things, because the only person who would know is not telling, then he cannot simply stand before the court and speculate.

He presents the evidence that he has and, while he is free to point out inferences that can be drawn from it, he is not free to to wildly speculate about things for which he has no evidence.

I suspect he either knows what OP will say about bashed in bath panels, jeans outside windows and bullet holes in doors, or he has no direct evidence to contradict whatever explanation OP gives. So what, precisely, is the point of him raising it in court?

It is only the fans of Pistorius who are desperate to believe he's innocent that insist Nel has to somehow tie up every lose end no matter what. He doesn't and he can't, because he wasn't there, and Masipa knows this.

Just to clarify a bit further for you, Steve.....

Nel: Now, then Mr Pistorius, how did this bullet hole get into the bedroom door?

OP: Well, Milady, I was messing around at Christmas with my air pistol and accidentally shot through the door.

Nel: Oh, OK.

Not going to happen, is it?! If The State has direct evidence regarding that hole, or the jeans or anything else, then they could raise it if it contradicts what OP says.

If they don't have the evidence then they won't raise the issue at all. It's all about the evidence. It's not a weakness in their case that they can't use their Spidey senses to conjure up an explanation for everything.

I've even seen other posters on another forum saying things like, "If the state can't offer an explanation for X, but OP can, then the court will and must accept OP's". Absolutely, 100% wrong. It's amazing how many people think this.

Here's a list of the defence witnesses, as far as I can remember (please feel free to add any I have missed out)

Jan Botha, pathologist
Oscar Pistorius
Roger Dixon, geologist
Johan Stander, friend of Pistorius
Carice Stander Viljoen, friend of Pistorius
Mr & Mrs Nhlengthwa, neighbours
Mrs Motshuane, neighbour
Christina Lundgren, anaesthesiologist
Yvette van Schalkwyk, social worker
Wollie Wolmarans, ballistics
Merryl Vorster, psychiatrist
Gerald Versfeld, surgeon
Ivan Lin, acoustic engineer
Peet van Zyl, Pistorius's agent
Wayne Derman, professor of sport and exercise medicine


I struggle to recall anything from any of these witnesses that significantly helped OP's case.

Cherwell said:

Here's a list of the defence witnesses, as far as I can remember (please feel free to add any I have missed out)

Jan Botha, pathologist
Oscar Pistorius
Roger Dixon, geologist
Johan Stander, friend of Pistorius
Carice Stander Viljoen, friend of Pistorius
Mr & Mrs Nhlengthwa, neighbours
Mrs Motshuane, neighbour
Christina Lundgren, anaesthesiologist
Yvette van Schalkwyk, social worker
Wollie Wolmarans, ballistics
Merryl Vorster, psychiatrist
Gerald Versfeld, surgeon
Ivan Lin, acoustic engineer
Peet van Zyl, Pistorius's agent
Wayne Derman, professor of sport and exercise medicine


I struggle to recall anything from any of these witnesses that significantly helped OP's case.

Click to expand...

Me too.

And even more startling, in two cases (Dixon & Wollie) they actively hindered his case by contradicting his evidence!

Sherbert said:

What's happened to our main thread all these days???

Regarding the issue of premeditated murder:

I've always thought that Reeva ran into the toilet and locked the door. This is, of course, quite plausible.

However, recently, I've started to wonder if OP chased her into the toilet, cricket bat in hand and then locked her in himself, for the purpose of containing her whilst he fetched his gun.

Did he need to get her into the toilet because he already knew he was going to execute her and blame it on mistaken identity afterwards?

If she was in the toilet, he could say that he didn't realise it was she behind the door because she was hidden from view.

He may even have told her through the door that he was going to shoot her and that he'd get away with it, too, because he'd tell everyone he mistook her for an intruder and everyone would believe him. This might explain the increasing intensity of her screams, as described by Charl Johnson.

Sorry if this theory has already been posted...

Click to expand...

I've also thought of this exact same scenario .. and what I've found surprising is that the PT seem to have automatically taken it as gospel truth that the key was on the inside, and yet we only have OP's word for it that it actually was (and we know just how unreliable that is). I supposed the PT have no way of being able to dispute it, so they've had to accept it, but it's not outside the realms of possibility that what you have posted is exactly what happened. I know this is a sleuthing forum, but in my gut I feel that this is actually what happened and I don't know why I feel that it is, just that I feel that something was not right about that key, and OP's elaborate story of retrieving it. Poor Reeva, justice MUST be done .. and that weasel cannot be allowed to get away with carrying out 'the perfect murder' .. execution, more like.

Cherwell said:

Here's a list of the defence witnesses, as far as I can remember (please feel free to add any I have missed out)

Jan Botha, pathologist
Oscar Pistorius
Roger Dixon, geologist
Johan Stander, friend of Pistorius
Carice Stander Viljoen, friend of Pistorius
Mr & Mrs Nhlengthwa, neighbours
Mrs Motshuane, neighbour
Christina Lundgren, anaesthesiologist
Yvette van Schalkwyk, social worker
Wollie Wolmarans, ballistics
Merryl Vorster, psychiatrist
Gerald Versfeld, surgeon
Ivan Lin, acoustic engineer
Peet van Zyl, Pistorius's agent
Wayne Derman, professor of sport and exercise medicine


I struggle to recall anything from any of these witnesses that significantly helped OP's case.

Click to expand...

Other than the two Standers, did any of those witnesses testify to hearing directly from OP about anything that he did that night? I know Dixon and Wolmarans told Nel they had never spoken to OP. The social worker and psychologist spoke with OP about his feelings, but not his actions iirc. A particularly damning testimony was ballistics expert Wolmarans' admission that he'd never spoken to OP about anything, including where he stood in the bathroom as he fired, how he held the gun, how the gun moved as he fired, or how he moved within the room while firing. When asked by Nel to replicate the timing of the shots, Wolmarans did so based on something he'd read, not something he could and should have heard first hand from OP.

Something I've been pondering:

Is it possible that Mrs Stipp was mistaken about the time on her clock when she first woke up? I am starting to think that it's likely she was.

Because it's always struck me as odd that two people as responsible as the Stipps clearly are, waited the best part of 15 minutes before trying to call anyone. And when you listen to their testimony (both of them) what they describe doesn't seem to be enough to fit that amount of time.

If for example, her clock actually said 3.12 instead of 3.02 and we take it back 3/4 mins because it was fast, then we get to around 3.08/9 as a time for the first bangs & screams. This fits perfectly with the estimate given by the Burger/Johnson's as around the time they first heard screams. And it also fits better with their description of going to the balcony, hearing terrible screams and then heading in to the phone.

Just a thought. Could be nonsense.

LemonMousse said:

Something I've been pondering:

Is it possible that Mrs Stipp was mistaken about the time on her clock when she first woke up? I am starting to think that it's likely she was.

Because it's always struck me as odd that two people as responsible as the Stipps clearly are, waited the best part of 15 minutes before trying to call anyone. And when you listen to their testimony (both of them) what they describe doesn't seem to be enough to fit that amount of time.

If for example, her clock actually said 3.12 instead of 3.02 and we take it back 3/4 mins because it was fast, then we get to around 3.08/9 as a time for the first bangs & screams. This fits perfectly with the estimate given by the Burger/Johnson's as around the time they first heard screams. And it also fits better with their description of going to the balcony, hearing terrible screams and then heading in to the phone.

Just a thought. Could be nonsense.

Click to expand...

I know that I've made exactly that mistake on more than one occasion when I get up in the night to go to the loo. I misread the time on the way there and get the correct time on the way back, when I'm slightly more awake.

Some tasty quotes from the state's heads of argument:

• It is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. We cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else. The accused was, however, demonstrably one of the worst witnesses we have ever encountered. (reference to Selebi trial, Nel's high profile scalp, the judge said the accused showed utter contempt for the court)
• We do likewise not anticipate that there will be a serious argument made out that the court should accept (where it contradicts the State’s evidence) the evidence of Mr Dixon and/or Mr Wolmarans. We respectfully argue that they must have been two of the worst “experts” that have ever testified in the High Court. (haha)
• The State will reveal to the court in these heads of argument that the accused, in keeping with his profession as an athlete, was faced during his trial with a race, and the opportunity to run with the baton of truth. The State will expose how he stumbled over his lies and deceit and in the process was unable to complete the race. (the 4x400m relay was OP's big hope of an Olympic medal which never succeeded, and also one of his biggest professional embarrassments and anger when dropped from World Championship team)
• It is the State’s case that the accused was a deceitful witness and that the court should have no difficulty in rejecting his core version of events, not only as not reasonably possibly true, but, in essence, as being absolutely devoid of any truth. (referencing his PR team - 'devoid of any truth' is their choice phrase)
• The incongruities, deceit and tailoring of his version are so significant that we have decided to number these issues. We have identified so many significant incongruities but have decided to restrict ourselves to the proverbial “baker’s dozen”. (the origin of the phrase baker's dozen: bakers threw in an extra loaf in order to make certain they didn't fall foul of the law)

The f##ker actually had the balls to re-tweet Uncle Arnie's "EVIL" tweet.

Throwing rocks at puppies then HIDING like a four year old - and he'll do it again once the coast is clear.

Well, we know one thing for sure: evil doesn't fall far from the tree.