Oscar Pistorius Defense

[AJ_DS]

Thank you!
You were busy like a :bee: ; this was much to work on it! Comprehensible conclusions.

Hi Deutschland,

Thanks… it was… am trying to fit the puzzle pieces !

The closer we get to 3:15AM the less reliable and credible info we have… so it's not easy.

 

[AJ_DS]

~sbm

I think I agree with the conclusions that you draw. I'm interested to know what you think about these two things based on the above:

If she could hear things that happened in the front of the house and heard them less clearly when the door was closed, why did she only hear one side of an argument @ approximately 2 am if the argument happened at the front of the house; and

If she thought she heard a woman arguing at about 2 am and after the "commotion" heard a woman crying but her husband thought it was Oscar, is it possible/likely that the voice she heard at 2 am was Oscar?

I have been interested in the "one-sided" 2 am argument for a while. hmmm...

As per BiB we have 2 possibilities :

1- Oscar does sound like a female or a young little boy when he is upset… and throwing his famous tantrums.

2- Reeva was the one who was upset and yelling.

It's a very good question BUT you'll have to wait for the release of my 3rd timeline to figure out why EDVM only heard a woman arguing loudly between 2AM and 3AM.

;-)

Stay tuned for TIMELINE 21:00 to 2:00

 

[Karmady]

As per BiB we have 2 possibilities :

1- Oscar does sound like a female or a young little boy when he is upset… and throwing his famous tantrums.

2- Reeva was the one who was upset and yelling.

It's a very good question BUT you'll have to wait for the release of my 3rd timeline to figure out why EDVM only heard a woman arguing loudly between 2AM and 3AM.

;-)

Stay tuned for TIMELINE 21:00 to 2:00

haha...no, I'm not waiting on a random "time line" for an answer to the question. If you think you've got the answer, that's great. There are more possibilities than two, obviously. And even the two you've mentioned don't have clear implications. I wish the dude who was in the house would be forced to speak up. Don't know about SA law on point, but it sure seems like they could threaten him with some kind of obstruction/accessory charge. It's like no one wants him involved.

 

[G.bng]

Well. They are talking about other cases now, but I was most disappointed with that. Leading Brit QCs/judge, and they don't seem to think much of Nel's advocacy at all.

However, I think they made themselves look a little foolish. They spoke of how 'it never really happens' in a Brit courtroom that a prosecutor calls a witness a liar.

Today I was posting about the Wycherley murder trial in the UK, where prosecution stated: 'You lied and lied and lied. You lied to everyone.'

It maybe a nuance, but it is a big nuance, and more especially for the solemnity and sense of fair play of a court and its ruling judge, because it's not the same calling a person a "liar" as stating to them that they "lied", albeit this may be difficult for a non native to catch. And, iirc, it was Nel's mocking and ranting tone while repeatedly calling OP a "liar" that caused Judge Masipa to finally pull him up and in no uncertain terms admonish him saying, "You don't call someone a liar in my court".

It's about the, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", principle, and apart from rubbing Judges up the wrong way, for counsel to repeatedly mock and call defendants liars doesn't go down well with juries either, indeed, not even to say a defendant "lied" unless they prove lie/s they are calling them out on. Imo, not the case here as the sequence of calls makes it impossible for Nel to prove BARD whether bats or shots came first with the benefit of any doubt falling on the side of the defendant and in which the case will inexorably reduce to the culpable homicide of a perceived burglar which no doubt even Reeva's mother would prefer as the outcome rather than live with the added horror that OP purposefully, wilfully and premeditatedly shot through cracks in door at a terrified Reeva with the sole intent of killing her. JMHOSNNFS, I, OR.

 

[AJ_DS]

haha...no, I'm not waiting on a random "time line" for an answer to the question. If you think you've got the answer, that's great. There are more possibilities than two, obviously. And even the two you've mentioned don't have clear implications. I wish the dude who was in the house would be forced to speak up. Don't know about SA law on point, but it sure seems like they could threaten him with some kind of obstruction/accessory charge. It's like no one wants him involved.

Hi Kamardy,

I was just teasing because I was writing that timeline when I saw your post inquiring about why EDVM only heard a woman arguing.

It is true that there are more than 2 possibilities…

The sounds coming from the front of Oscar's house are being perceived as coming from Farm Inn in EDVM's bedroom… that is an acoustic anomaly which is not that unusual… acoustic anomalies are, amongst other things, frequency dependent… it is possible that only high-pitch sounds traveled and resonated to EDVM's bedroom.

If you have other possibilities… please share.

As for my personal theory… it's a bit difficult to explain without putting it into a complete context of circumstances… I first believe that one should take witnesses at their word unless something concrete can be put forth that would explain why the statement would not be reliable.

If EDVM says she only heard a woman arguing loudly, that is therefore what was happening : Reeva was pissed off and yelling at Oscar.

Oscar was very much used to the following situation with his girlfriends :

1) Oscar bullies Reeva, picks on her, criticizes her, etc…

2) Reeva takes it and Oscar gets his way.

3) Afterwards, Reeva takes the time to explains her feelings in a long message as to why Oscar's behavior towards her is not ok

4) Oscar then makes all sort of excuses to justify his behavior and apologizes half-heartedly

5) Reeva forgives Oscar

But that night, it was very different… Reeva had had enough… she was not going to take it anymore, she was not going to remain passive and swallow Oscar's abuse, she was going on the offensive, so to speak.

Oscar was taken aback by this novel situation he found himself in… so he went straight to step 4)… but Reeva was not going to accept Oscar's foolish and juvenile excuses this time… she soldiered on giving Oscar a piece of her mind.

That's why EDVM only heard Reeva arguing loudly between 2AM and 3AM… Oscar was on the receiving end of Reeva's exasperation and anger.

What sparked this argument ?

Why Reeva felt she had had enough and lash out at Oscar that night ?

……….Stay tuned for upcoming TIMELINE 21:00 to 2:00

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It maybe a nuance, but it is a big nuance, and more especially for the solemnity and sense of fair play of a court and its ruling judge, because it's not the same calling a person a "liar" as stating to them that they "lied", albeit this may be difficult for a non native to catch. And, iirc, it was Nel's mocking and ranting tone while repeatedly calling OP a "liar" that caused Judge Masipa to finally pull him up and in no uncertain terms admonish him saying, "You don't call someone a liar in my court".

It's about the, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", principle, and apart from rubbing Judges up the wrong way, for counsel to repeatedly mock and call defendants liars doesn't go down well with juries either, indeed, not even to say a defendant "lied" unless they prove lie/s they are calling them out on. Imo, not the case here as the sequence of calls makes it impossible for Nel to prove BARD whether bats or shots came first with the benefit of any doubt falling on the side of the defendant and in which the case will inexorably reduce to the culpable homicide of a perceived burglar which no doubt even Reeva's mother would prefer as the outcome rather than live with the added horror that OP purposefully, wilfully and premeditatedly shot through cracks in door at a terrified Reeva with the sole intent of killing her. JMHOSNNFS, I, OR.

A parent would want the truth no matter how upsetting, Mrs Steenkamp's daughter is dead! How more horrifying can it be? Her death was preventable, it should NEVER have happened. jmho

 

[cottonweaver]

haha...no, I'm not waiting on a random "time line" for an answer to the question. If you think you've got the answer, that's great. There are more possibilities than two, obviously. And even the two you've mentioned don't have clear implications. I wish the dude who was in the house would be forced to speak up. Don't know about SA law on point, but it sure seems like they could threaten him with some kind of obstruction/accessory charge. It's like no one wants him involved.

1) 2am-3am Yelling from someone else nearby that we haven't heard from yet- unlikely

2) ...Yelling by an angry Oscar in a high pitched voice - possible. (EVDM did perceive the scream tests from DT as voices of two men, Roux said it was actually a woman and a man doing test argument but don't know that for sure either.)

3) Yelling by an angry Reeva - possible.

4) Yelling by an angry Frank - unlikely

... further possibilities if you want to add some

EVDM testifed that the voice was angry and it sounded like half of an angry argument so Oscar or Reeva, take your pick- its not a big stumbling block either way.

Clear implications from possibilties 2 & 3 = Oscar lied about the events of that night.

Weight of circumstantial evidence and yet more implications that his testimony cannot be relied on.

 

[cottonweaver]

A parent would want the truth no matter how upsetting, Mrs Steenkamp's daughter is dead! How more horrifying can it be? Her death was preventable, it should NEVER have happened. jmho

Agree with Gbng that it would have been infinitely preferable that this turned out to be a tragic "accident" BUT where Mrs Steenkamp started out with pure grief and questions I guess, after his testimony, she now has grief plus questions plus anger. What she said at the outset regarding forgiveness of OP may no longer hold true either.(Have to await what she might say post conviction/trail.)

Agree with Prime that I doubt she is ever going to be respected enough by OP to be offered the truth. S'pose miracles could happen and he could confess some years down the line.

"And with churches of Dutch Calvinist origin in South Africa losing at least 5% of their members to charismatic churches annually......" he could even change churches and become a TV pastor!!!!?? (Humour intended)

http://blogs.24.com/jeanihess/2013/03/01/calvinism-and-south-african-women-christina-landman-6/

 

[cottonweaver]

 

[Cherwell]

EVDM testifed that the voice was angry and it sounded like half of an angry argument so Oscar or Reeva, take your pick- its not a big stumbling block either way.

At first I did think it slightly odd that she only heard one voice. But on reflection, when two people are having a row it's not unusual for only one of them to be shouting. Some people can be too angry or upset to shout, or they may be trying to placate the other.

 

[G.bng]

I agree as I also noticed how op seemed to include his religion upon the court when explaining his after the events anguish.. I have no doubt that inclusion was for the judges benefit
As if some how he would be presented in a better light..
Let's not forget eye for an eye... My lady!!

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"
Mahatma Ghandi, known also as "Bapu", i.e. "father". The father of India as we know it today.

And let's not forget an "eye for an eye" is not a Christian value.

And let's not forget either that SA is a profoundly Christian country (over 80% take up with just over 5% Catholic) and as often happens with ex-colonies the peoples tend to practice and wear religion much more publicly than the colonisers that took it there in the first place, and OP doesn't exactly flaunt the rosary which is mostly hidden in his hands below the bench.
Furthermore, OP's use of a rosary in court during his trial for prayer and comfort would hardly impress Masipa of all people since as a Catholic herself she is a likely user of rosaries in times of stress too. Indeed, even if Masipa is now non practising or recanted, she would still understand it as the normal practice she grew up with when finding oneself in difficult times, as whether guilty or not of the premeditated murder of Reeva, and even though of his own making, it surely isn't in dispute that these are stressful and emotional times for OP, something Masipa has consistently shown awareness and understanding for just as any impartial and conscientious Judge would and indeed, is by her office obliged to do.

 

[cottonweaver]

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"
Mahatma Ghandi, known also as "Bapu", i.e. "father". The father of India as we know it today.

And let's not forget an "eye for an eye" is not a Christian value.

A

Well said and

agree with you as she may not actually find it suspicious actually (his talking a lot about his faith on stand). I would - but I am not in her shoes thankfully- we can't be sure but agree she certainly appears impartial.

 

[AJ_DS]

Let us take as fact every word from Oscar Pistorius and analyze them disregarding for the moment all witness testimonies and forensics evidence.

We have 3 important times :

3:00AM = Oscar fires 4 shots at the door
3:15AM = Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times
3:19:03AM = Oscar calls Johan Stander

What did Oscar do in the 15 minutes between 3:00AM and 3:15AM ?

– 3:00AM Oscar fires 4 shots at the door
– Oscar retreated backwards to the bedroom and reached the bed (11 meters)
– Oscar lifted himself onto the bed and felt Reeva was not in bed
– Oscar jumped of the other side of the bed but Reeva was not on the floor
– Oscar ran his hand in the curtains to make sure Reeva was not there
– Oscar made his way back to the bathroom (14 meters) and tried to open the toilet door
– Oscar ran to the bedroom (14 meters) where he opened the balcony doors and shouted, “Help! Help! Help!”
– Oscar put on his prosthetic legs
– Oscar ran as fast as he could to the bathroom (14 meters) to shoulder charge and kick the toilet door
– Oscar ran to the bedroom to retrieve the cricket bat at the bedroom door (12 meters)
– Oscar ran back to the bathroom (12 meters)
– 3:15AM Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times

That is very little actions for 15 minutes !!

Oscar walked 25 meters on his stumps, ran 14 meters on his stumps, ran as fast as he could 38 meters on his prosthetics… about 1 minute 15 seconds.

Oscar checked for Reeva : the bed (5 sec.), the floor (5 sec.), the curtains (5 sec.)… about 15 seconds.

Oscar at the toilet door : try to open it once (5 sec.), shoulder charge it once (5 sec.), kick it once (5 sec.)… about 15 seconds.

Oscar at the balcony : open it and shout for help… about 15 seconds.

Oscar put on his prosthetics (30 sec. per limb)… about 1 minute.

TOTAL about 3 minutes… What happened during the remaining 12 minutes ???

That's 4 times the duration of what Oscar says he did that is TOTALLY unaccounted for !!!

What did Oscar do in the 4 minutes between 3:15AM and 3:19:03AM ?

– 3:15AM Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times
– Oscar grabbed a big plank of the door panel with his hands and threw it out into the bathroom
– Oscar leaned over the middle partition of the door to climb into the toilet cubicle
– Oscar saw the key on the floor, he retrieved it, unlocked the door and threw it open
– Oscar sat over Reeva and cried for a while
– Oscar pulled Reeva’s body out of the toilet cubicle and into the bathroom
– Oscar stayed there with Reeva for a while
– Oscar saw Reeva’s iPhone in the toilet cubicle, he tried to use it but couldn’t because it was passcode protected
– Oscar went to bedroom and grabbed both of his phones from the bedside table (12 meters)
– Oscar went back to the bathroom (12 meters)
– 3:19:03 Oscar calls Johan Stander

If this took Oscar 4 minutes, than that begs the question even more : what was he doing during the 15 minutes prior to that ???

Oscar had to achieve 2 crucial elements to make his mistaken identity intruder story even remotely possible :

1- Switch the cricket bat strikes with the gunshots in the timeline of events so as to avoid having to explain the tell-tale evidence of an unmistakable domestic violence crime scene… how could Oscar ever possibly begin to explain why he bashed the toilet door with the cricket bat BEFORE he shot at it.

2- Say that the toilet door was locked from the inside, again this was the ONLY possible avenue available to him to mask the tell-tale evidence of an unmistakable domestic violence crime scene… otherwise, how could Oscar possibly explain the damage to the toilet door… he couldn't… so he broke it down completely, then fetched the toilet key and placed it in the keyhole.

Oscar's story had to be fabricated around these 2 main elements... the resulting scenario is naturally unbelievable and explains why about 12 minutes are obviously impossible to account for.

 

[4MrsB]

Hi Kamardy,

I was just teasing because I was writing that timeline when I saw your post inquiring about why EDVM only heard a woman arguing.

It is true that there are more than 2 possibilities…

The sounds coming from the front of Oscar's house are being perceived as coming from Farm Inn in EDVM's bedroom… that is an acoustic anomaly which is not that unusual… acoustic anomalies are, amongst other things, frequency dependent… it is possible that only high-pitch sounds traveled and resonated to EDVM's bedroom.

If you have other possibilities… please share.

As for my personal theory… it's a bit difficult to explain without putting it into a complete context of circumstances… I first believe that one should take witnesses at their word unless something concrete can be put forth that would explain why the statement would not be reliable.

If EDVM says she only heard a woman arguing loudly, that is therefore what was happening : Reeva was pissed off and yelling at Oscar.

Oscar was very much used to the following situation with his girlfriends :

1) Oscar bullies Reeva, picks on her, criticizes her, etc…

2) Reeva takes it and Oscar gets his way.

3) Afterwards, Reeva takes the time to explains her feelings in a long message as to why Oscar's behavior towards her is not ok

4) Oscar then makes all sort of excuses to justify his behavior and apologizes half-heartedly

5) Reeva forgives Oscar

But that night, it was very different… Reeva had had enough… she was not going to take it anymore, she was not going to remain passive and swallow Oscar's abuse, she was going on the offensive, so to speak.

Oscar was taken aback by this novel situation he found himself in… so he went straight to step 4)… but Reeva was not going to accept Oscar's foolish and juvenile excuses this time… she soldiered on giving Oscar a piece of her mind.

That's why EDVM only heard Reeva arguing loudly between 2AM and 3AM… Oscar was on the receiving end of Reeva's exasperation and anger.

What sparked this argument ?

Why Reeva felt she had had enough and lash out at Oscar that night ?

……….Stay tuned for upcoming TIMELINE 21:00 to 2:00

Thanks AJ for your timelines. I have found them helpful, thought provoking and all very plausible. Thanks for taking the time to be so detailed.

Looking forward to reading your next one (21:00 - 2:00).

Reeva was a class act, very sensitive to other's feelings, including Oscars. Yet she would only take so much before "putting her foot down" and voicing her anger or hurt at OP's self involved ways or treatment towards her...but voicing it in a very carefully crafted & thoughtfully worded way (we only have her texts to OP to go by, but I imagine her calls & face-to-face encounters wi OP were spoken to him much the same. Not with immature, hurtful words. But in a very mature manor, simply trying to communicate her concerns/hurt in a healthy way so relationship could mend, improve and move forward.)

However, the evening of Feb 13th-thru morning hours...this argument & Oscar's quick fuse, escalated into something Reeva never imagined possible.

 

[cottonweaver]

Let us take as fact every word from Oscar Pistorius and analyze them disregarding for the moment all witness testimonies and forensics evidence.

Been waiting for your TL with anticipation!!!

Before I digest it all - the period where he is "feeling" for Reeva, running back and forth is what I've always wanted to see as a CGI animation - was hoping for that in that woeful CBS documentary recently - no such luck.

How are you on CGI?!

 

[G.bng]

Respectfully ✄ to save space and get to my point.

How much evidence has OP presented that supports his life was threatened?

There is absolutely no evidence that supports that OP's life was threatened.

With respect, IMBW but I think you are on the wrong track. OP doesn't need to produce evidence to support "✄... his life was threatened... ✄", which he can't, not least because it wasn't, i.e. there was no intruder so there was no threat, and the reason he is claiming putative self defence for which he only has to show that at the time of shooting he honestly and genuinely believed it was, in respect of which he has given some 6 days and two statements of just that, i.e. "evidence"... in the legal sense not the "proof" sense.

So whether or not you believe OP's "evidence" is credible, possible, reasonable, etc, is a completely different matter to saying "There is absolutely no evidence that supports that OP's life was threatened" not least because when claiming PSD it is unlikely there is any tangible "evidence", so it will be up to the Judge and her assistants to decide whether his testimony to show his state of mind at the time of the shooting and what he thought is believable, (or whether a reasonable doubt exists so that it could be believable, and the more likely the reasons for why he thought his life was in danger up his chances of being believed), by contrasting OP's "evidence" (i.e. statements and testimony) with all the other evidence presented both by the defence and prosecution. JMHOSNNFS, I, OR ☮

 

[4MrsB]

Respectfully snipped for space....

Let us take as fact every word from Oscar Pistorius and analyze them disregarding for the moment all witness testimonies and forensics evidence.

We have 3 important times :

3:00AM = Oscar fires 4 shots at the door
3:15AM = Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times
3:19:03AM = Oscar calls Johan Stander

What did Oscar do in the 15 minutes between 3:00AM and 3:15AM ?

..........Oscar's story had to be fabricated around these 2 main elements... the resulting scenario is naturally unbelievable and explains why about 12 minutes are obviously impossible to account for.

Yes, I agree...when examined step by step and applying reasonable amounts of time needed for each set of movements & actions that OP stated he had completed/attempted, . . . there is a rather HUGE time gap. 12 min (approx) is such a substantial amount of time.

I wish Nel had asked OP these exact questions while on the stand. Laid it out, exactly like this. Although I have no doubt Nel will be laying out much of the improbable OP timeline in a clear fashion, such as this, to the Judge during closing.

I'd also love to know (with regards to "timelines"), what took place during the time before police arrived and after Mr.Stipp left.

 

[AJ_DS]

Been waiting for your TL with anticipation!!!

Before I digest it all - the period where he is "feeling" for Reeva, running back and forth is what I've always wanted to see as a CGI animation - was hoping for that in that woeful CBS documentary recently - no such luck.

How are you on CGI?!

Hi cottonweaver,

Sorry… I took a break from the Timeline… probably will post the 21:00 to 2:00 installment tonight or tomorrow perhaps… it's getting harder because we don't have much to go on…

Are you asking me if I would create a CG animation of Oscar testimony ??

Lol… I'm not that good in CG and I don't have the time for that… sorry.

I suspect that even Roux won't put forth that animation in Court because it will only serve to further demonstrate and crystalize the ridiculousness of Oscar's version event in Masipa's mind !!

 

[cottonweaver]

2- Say that the toilet door was locked from the inside, again this was the ONLY possible avenue available to him to mask the tell-tale evidence of an unmistakable domestic violence crime scene… otherwise, how could Oscar possibly explain the damage to the toilet door… he couldn't… so he broke it down completely, then fetched the toilet key and placed it in the keyhole.

Oscar's story had to be fabricated around these 2 main elements... the resulting scenario is naturally unbelievable and explains why about 12 minutes are obviously impossible to account for.

Before I go back and check all the times etc one thing stood out re toilet key
Can I just ask you:
Are you speculating then that R was holding onto the door handle from inside (instead of her locking self in or indeed him locking her in from outside? Thus he did not have strength to pull it back open with her holding on or simply the door is unlocked and he is just whacking it to scare her as aggressive actions and thus part of the other damage bath panel etc. ( As opposed to whacking it in order to get to her to inflict physical harm/as an expression of his anger at her having locked herself in etc.)

 

[cottonweaver]

Sorry… I took a break from the Timeline… probably will post the 21:00 to 2:00 installment tonight or tomorrow perhaps… it's getting harder because we don't have much to go on…

Are you asking me if I would create a CG animation of Oscar testimony ??

Lol… I'm not that good in CG and I don't have the time for that… sorry.

Don't worry - it was a joke.
Timeline - no pressure - take a break you must be exhausted!