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

foxbluff said:

Welcome aboard, BlessedMommy! Yes, we are indeed anxiously awaiting THE verdict. The Judge has scheduled the verdict for September 11 at 9:30AM (SA Time).

Click to expand...

Thanks foxbluff!!! I haven't formed an attachment to a case like this since Laci Rocha (Peterson yuk). My heart just breaks knowing what poor Reeva went through. :tears:

Love Kills

Cherwell said:

I expect he just forgot.

Click to expand...

Yes, probably!

Sherbert said:

I don't see it in terms of lawful and unlawful intent. Either there is an intention to kill or not. In PD and PPD, the argument is not that the intent is lawful, but that the intent to kill necessary for a murder conviction is absent.

In your example, the accused had the option to flee instead of shooting, so, given that it was foreseeable that the shooting would result in death, the Court should find that the intention to kill was present. And, if an intention to kill is present, it's murder.

Click to expand...

In self-defense you can have intent to kill and it won't be murder because your intent to kill is lawful and your conduct was also lawful.

Life is the most precious concept in Law… you have the right to respond with deadly force if someone attempts to seriously harm or kill you.

So if I come at you with a gun during an altercation… you can have the lawful intent to kill me to preserve your own life and my death will also be lawful.

Mmm...here’s a thought regarding the “reasonable man” vs "reasonable disabled man" debate / defense.

SA gun laws, training and competency tests do NOT make special allowances for one’s “disability” (real or perceived), “anxiety”, “vulnerability” or any other factor (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). Either you know and abide by the strict gun laws or you don’t. There is no special dispensation for mitigating factors.

Taking the firearms competency exam, OP once again proved that he wanted to be treated EXACTLY the same as everyone else.

Fast forward to 2.14.13 and suddenly, for the first time in his life, he doesn’t.

He wants you to forget that a 9mm Parabellum is a great equalizer, no matter who holds it. Even in his version, he clearly held every conceivable superior advantage, not the least of which the “intruder” was (inexplicably) hiding, trapped in the toilet. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. OP chucked all legal and moral responsibility that night by conveniently howling “disability”, “vulnerability”, “terror”, “anxiety” - something he had never before done in his entire life.

He and his defense team would have fared much better had he kept his mouth shut and never brought up disability-related “vulnerability”. He should have stuck to his first story like a man - mistaken self-defense. But, of course, being the murderous, sniveling jacked-up weasel he is, he couldn’t do that. He was forced to come up with a reason - ANY reason - to shoot through that door ... enter vague, nondescript “sounds” and “noises”. His own lies compelled him to tell even MORE lies, present even MORE bogus defenses. Is it any wonder his convoluted testimony, his entire defense is a Rubik's Cube on LSD?

SA gun laws didn’t exempt OP at any point - why should SA criminal courts?

He was more than able in killing a defenseless, terrified woman - he is more than able to suffer the consequences.

In my world, if you've got the balls to shoot four Black Talons through a closed, locked door (Reeva or "intruder") - under virtually NO threat or attack - you deserve whatever the F is coming your way.

Well said :clap:

Love Kills

jay-jay said:

I sincerely hope that OP has not tweeted any sentimental, insincere, PR campaign rubbish to mark her birthday (or did he do that on the 8th August instead? :facepalm: )

Click to expand...

On Twitter today:

‏@SanityCheek
#OscarPistorius probably still thinks his version of Reeva Steenkamp's birthday being on 8 August is reasonably possibly true. #EpicFail

AJ_DS said:

In self-defense you can have intent to kill and it won't be murder because your intent to kill is lawful and your conduct was also lawful.

Life is the most precious concept in Law… you have the right to respond with deadly force if someone attempts to seriously harm or kill you.

So if I come at you with a gun during an altercation… you can have the lawful intent to kill me to preserve your own life and my death will also be lawful.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know it's permissible to kill in self-defence, in certain circumstances. And in such cases there may be an intention to kill also.

But, in a legitimate case of killing in self-defence, it is not so much that the accused has a lawful intention to kill, as that the killing itself is not an unlawful act. In other words, there is no intention to commit an unlawful killing because there is no unlawful killing.

Whether or not the killing is lawful depends on the immediacy of the threat and the use of proportionate force.


MOO

The toilet door never opened in OP’s version*, hence there was never even a remote possibility of an “attack”.

This lone fact is utterly fatal to his case.

While he thought that closed door would magically save his azz from prison, it will ultimately be the very thing that convicts him.

The bitter truth for Oz is that under strict SA gun law (as OP clearly knows) - PPD demands two conditions: an actual or imminent, inescapable ATTACK plus the unequivocal INTENT to shoot in self-defense.

On his own testimony, OP has denied any attack happened (as he must LOL) and at certain points on the stand, even denied intent to shoot anyone! He, alone, has single-handedly undermined his own defense (well, OK, he had a lot of help from his “experts” lol).

Despite all the “noises”, “sounds” and “movement” he supposedly heard, his story could not allow that door to ever open (however beneficial it might have been as a “threat”). That’s why he never gave the “intruder” a chance to surrender or escape, despite his own “get the f##k out of my house” command. Of course, had the door opened, he would have seen Reeva Steenkamp and that would have instantly vaporized his entire story.

So, OP was essentially forced by his ever-escalating lies into a self-damning corner to maintain his poisonous little fairytale.

He PREEMPTIVELY killed the hidden, silent, trapped “intruder” in order to PREEMPTIVELY prevent any “attack” - which means he also PREEMPTIVELY blew up his own PPD.

He categorically (kinda sorta) denied automatism (after his magical gun magically went off 4 times before he had time to think) and well, Westkoppies blew his “GAD” defense to hell and back ... so where does that leave OP?

In a word, f##ked.

Isn’t it just terribly fascinating how Machiavelli-meets-Karma LIES work? :lol:

[Even if Judge Masipa had certain sympathies for OP (which I doubt in the extreme), the strict gun laws, strong, credible, multiple ear witnesses and strong circumstantial inferences practically dictate she convict him. I doubt SA or My Lady are going to suddenly bend / rewrite their gun laws to accommodate even Oscar Pistorius. It would then essentially be Official Open Season for “Oscar Defense” murders in SA. She would not want that nightmarish precedent on her head.]


* Why not?!! Why didn't this "intruder", intent on mayhem and plunder, simply walk in with AK-47 or bazooka drawn and take what he wanted? This was clearly a brazen, ballsy home invader who not only braved security guards, electrified 14' walls and guard dogs at 3am (clearly not a rookie) but who didn’t care how much noise he made! After all that effort to invade an OCCUPIED home, why would he suddenly hole up in a dead-end toilet, afraid to come out?!! Seriously?! The notion is patently illogical in the extreme.

Sherbert said:

Yes, I know it's permissible to kill in self-defence, in certain circumstances. And in such cases there may be an intention to kill also.

But, in a legitimate case of killing in self-defence, it is not so much that the accused has a lawful intention to kill, as that the killing itself is not an unlawful act. In other words, there is no intention to commit an unlawful killing because there is no unlawful killing.

Whether or not the killing is lawful depends on the immediacy of the threat and the use of proportionate force.


MOO

Click to expand...

Yes I get what you are saying… and I agree on principal.

However, the legal arena examines an actionable offense where intent always precedes conduct.

In legal terminology it is mens rea and actus reus : actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

jay-jay said:

I've just checked .. and he hasn't .. good. Nothing on his website either .. good. Perhaps he is realising that people can see through all that kind of BS (.. like they could his 'Valentine's Day' message on his website which, sadly, is still up on there)

Click to expand...

He probably forgot it was her birthday, he didn't remember when she was alive either.

AJ_DS said:

BiB… That can't be right…

There are many consecutive GPRS connections that last mere seconds… if the connection was continuous and uninterrupted there would be 1 long connection and not many short connections one after the other.

Also, we have whatsapp messages being sent and calls being received during a long uninterrupted GPRS connection in the beginning of the afternoon.

It would be useful that you post your work (timeline of GPRS connections with durations) so we can examine it and confirm or infirm your conclusions

Click to expand...

Here is my table of Reeva's GPRS connections with durations. Where the source is 'Phone records' the start time is accurate as is the duration in all but one instance, because Moller read these out or expanded them on the screen. The other start times are calculated from the durations that I have read from the chart. My calculated finish time is 28 seconds out by 13:07:02 (a Moller time) and 2 seconds out by 13:40:54. I realign my calculated time after each Moller time. I'm spot on by 20:04:17 but accept I may have read a 4 for a 6 or vice versa when scraping the durations, but it confirms what I thought. The GPRS durations cover the complete time Reeva's phone is on.

I do note, however, that 'events' seem to trigger a renegotiation of the cell connection. I'm guessing an event would be Reeva bringing the phone out of sleep mode (after entering her Passcode? not sure) as well as when she's on the move when the phone switches cell tower or when the phone manages to negotiate a better signal (e.g. from 2G to 3G). This would often naturally coincide with times that we know she used her phone but not all times. Periods of continuous activity (e.g. multiple calls or WhatsApps, when the phone doesn't sleep) don't trigger any renegotiation of the cell signal.



It's possible that Reeva doesn't have Auto Lock enabled on her phone and that she just switches it on and off as she chooses. This would leave the display lit if she forgets, which runs down battery faster, so is not good practise. Anyway, her non-use on the night of 13/14 Feb now becomes more interesting. If waking the phone causes the cell signal to be renegotiated then Reeva doesn't appear to attempt to use the phone (I find it hard to believe the phone was being continuously used from 20:04) and nor does OP. If the Passcode has to be entered to achieve this renegotiation then this isn't proven in his case, but I don't think it does. Any thoughts?

On to OP's GPRS data next ...

Lux et Veritas said:

While he thought that closed door would magically save his azz from prison, it will ultimately be the very thing that convicts him.

The bitter truth for Oz is that under strict SA gun law (as OP clearly knows) - PPD demands two conditions: an actual or imminent, inescapable ATTACK plus the unequivocal INTENT to shoot in self-defense.

On his own testimony, OP has denied any attack happened (as he must LOL) and at certain points on the stand, even denied intent to shoot anyone! He, alone, has single-handedly undermined his own defense (well, OK, he had a lot of help from his “experts” lol).

Despite all the “noises”, “sounds” and “movement” he supposedly heard, his story could not allow that door to ever open (however beneficial it might have been as a “threat”). That’s why he never gave the “intruder” a chance to surrender or escape, despite his own “get the f##k out of my house” command. Of course, had the door opened, he would have seen Reeva Steenkamp and that would have instantly vaporized his entire story.

Click to expand...

~snipped for brevity~ and just tagging on to your post to ask for clarification on something I still cannot get my head around (well, seeing as it's all lies, that's not really surprising!)

Anyway, my question is .. why did OP suddenly change the 'sound of wood moving', which I originally thought he had said somewhere or another was because of the toilet door fitting tightly and it rubbing against the door frame, to that of being the magazine rack? I was absolutely gobsmacked during his CE when Nel questionned him on this 'wood moving' noise and where I thought he was going to say that (because of the tightly fitting door) he thought someone was opening the door and it made a sound as they did so. I still cannot get the reason why he suddenly changed this sound to 'the magazine rack' .. it doesn't make an ounce of sense to me (yes, I know it won't! .. but I'm just trying to understand the lie that OP was weaving and what he was trying to make fit that lie by saying this).

Also, am I right in saying that he did actually say previously that the 'wood moving' noise was made by an ill-fitting toilet door? I'm almost certain that this is what he said, but I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard it or when he said it (was it in his bail application, plea explanation, or was it in his testimony to court prior to cross examination, I really cannot remember .. but I swear that is what he said, prior to the 'magazine rack' thing)?

jay-jay said:

Also, am I right in saying that he did actually say previously that the 'wood moving' noise was made by an ill-fitting toilet door? I'm almost certain that this is what he said, but I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard it or when he said it (was it in his bail application, plea explanation, or was it in his testimony to court prior to cross examination, I really cannot remember .. but I swear that is what he said, prior to the 'magazine rack' thing)?

Click to expand...

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 2 Around the 1:00:00 (1 hour) mark. I'm listening at work and just happened to be listening to this session

Incidentally, I think one of the most damning inconsistencies in OP's version is in the session I just linked above (at the 21 min mark): The toilet door 'slam' and 'noticing the door was closed'.

It is not just an omission of greater detail between bail and testimony. His actual reasoning and explanation is different.

jimmy73 said:

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 2 Around the 1:00:00 (1 hour) mark. I'm listening at work and just happened to be listening to this session

Click to expand...

Thanks for that .. so he says first there that (in his perception) he thought it was the door rubbing, then realised (tailoring) it must've been the magazine rack. But I'm sure that he also stated somewhere prior to that, that it was the door rubbing too and I'm just wondering where I heard that (I'm pretty sure that it had been discussed on here, and hence why I was so taken aback when he suddenly changed it to 'magazine rack'). So what was the purpose of him changing it from 'door abrasion' to 'magazine rack' .. because, imo, it makes his story all the more unbelievable .. had he just left it as 'door abrasion' that would've made much more sense to me, in his 'intruder' version, because it would make sense that you might open fire if you really thought, in your own mind, that the door was being opened instead of suddenly changing it to such a random object as the magazine rack .. that was just totally bizarre!

.. just having a read through his Bail Application again ..

"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps."

jay-jay said:

Thanks for that .. so he says first there that (in his perception) he thought it was the door rubbing, then realised (tailoring) it must've been the magazine rack. But I'm sure that he also stated somewhere prior to that, that it was the door rubbing too and I'm just wondering where I heard that (I'm pretty sure that it had been discussed on here, and hence why I was so taken aback when he suddenly changed it to 'magazine rack'). So what was the purpose of him changing it from 'door abrasion' to 'magazine rack' .. because, imo, it makes his story all the more unbelievable .. had he just left it as 'door abrasion' that would've made much more sense to me, in his 'intruder' version, because it would make sense that you might open fire if you really thought, in your own mind, that the door was being opened instead of suddenly changing it to such a random object as the magazine rack .. that was just totally bizarre!

Click to expand...

OP realised he couldn't say he heard the door opening / wood abrasion as the door was locked, and there would have been a sound of the door being unlocked first before the door could move.

There's more discussion here (Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 1) regarding the wood 'movement'.

At 15m50s in the session above, he pretty much gives away that latched on to the magazine rack movement ('only loose object'), as there was nothing else in the toilet that he could use as an excuse to fire.

Mr Fossil said:

Here is my table of Reeva's GPRS connections with durations. Where the source is 'Phone records' the start time is accurate as is the duration in all but one instance, because Moller read these out or expanded them on the screen. The other start times are calculated from the durations that I have read from the chart. My calculated finish time is 28 seconds out by 13:07:02 (a Moller time) and 2 seconds out by 13:40:54. I realign my calculated time after each Moller time. I'm spot on by 20:04:17 but accept I may have read a 4 for a 6 or vice versa when scraping the durations, but it confirms what I thought. The GPRS durations cover the complete time Reeva's phone is on.

I do note, however, that 'events' seem to trigger a renegotiation of the cell connection. I'm guessing an event would be Reeva bringing the phone out of sleep mode (after entering her Passcode? not sure) as well as when she's on the move when the phone switches cell tower or when the phone manages to negotiate a better signal (e.g. from 2G to 3G). This would often naturally coincide with times that we know she used her phone but not all times. Periods of continuous activity (e.g. multiple calls or WhatsApps, when the phone doesn't sleep) don't trigger any renegotiation of the cell signal.

View attachment 57208

It's possible that Reeva doesn't have Auto Lock enabled on her phone and that she just switches it on and off as she chooses. This would leave the display lit if she forgets, which runs down battery faster, so is not good practise. Anyway, her non-use on the night of 13/14 Feb now becomes more interesting. If waking the phone causes the cell signal to be renegotiated then Reeva doesn't appear to attempt to use the phone (I find it hard to believe the phone was being continuously used from 20:04) and nor does OP. If the Passcode has to be entered to achieve this renegotiation then this isn't proven in his case, but I don't think it does. Any thoughts?

On to OP's GPRS data next ...

Click to expand...

:goodpost:

No… GREAT POST !!!… Impressive work !!!… Many thanks !

… I will look at it in detail and come back to you.