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

[asanque]

<snip>

I wish he would tell him: "I don't want to say too much, because I might remember it wrongly, and then you might accuse me of something based on a mere mistake, not what you would perceive as tailoring my story."

This is why I don't like Nel's methods. He well knows that NO ONE can remember all the details of an event that happens in a flash over a year ago all that well, and that they may well in all innocence state things that never happened if you go into minutae, and so I find his arguments spurious and disingenuous. In the hands of a cunning prosecutor such as Nel, someone as young and relatively naive as OP can be made to look guilty when he really isn't, and it takes a good judge to see through all those theatrics.

Something that always struck me as strange for this trial, is the long winded answers provided by OP.

He would be much better off going with the 'I don't recall' line that most people use.

Its simple and leaves nothing for Nels to cross-examine on.

Surely Roux told him that but maybe its different in South Africa

You make a good point and I would like to agree with you, except for two things I humbly disagree. Firstly if he had outwardly taken responsibility, it would have caused a huge stink in the media because in SA he is a (in fact he is their no 1) celebrity, whereas his friend was unknown by comparison. As OP offered to pay for the damages and paid the bill itself, he effectively did take responsibility to put the matter right. As no one was hurt in the end, it wasn't a case and there was no question of taking responsibility for someone's life. Besides, there's a different between taking responsibility and not wanting to be all over the news. So I can see why he might have sought to have avoided the public glare while still privately making amends.

On the other hand, he didn't seek to avoid responsibility for Reeva's death, so clearly not taking responsibility isn't his issue.

Secondly, Kelly Phelps of CNN pointed out that the defense will not have finished with that issue yet. In OP claiming that he didn't have his finger on the trigger, the defense is merely setting up the skeleton of a future defense perhaps with expert witnesses who will counter Nel's claim that the gun could not have gone off by itself or do something along those lines.

I will withhold further discussion on the above until the Defence presents their case re: gun firing by itself. I think it will be a tough sell though and he should have just pleaded guilty to that charge.

I will just quickly note though that the manager for Tasha's refuted OP's claim that he offered to pay for damages.

Edit: Both the restaurant manager and wife denied OP offered to pay for damages
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-3/

 

[James50]

If I was OP and I was innocent of this, I would be saying: "Are you, Mr. Nel, trying to tell me what happened. I was there, you were not. All you have is a theory and only I know for sure what happened."

That's the kind of theatrics Nel uses, and so OP should give as good as he gets.

 

[kaos]

Regarding the jeans outside the bathroom window (which I find strange that nobody's testified about). It's possible she could have run to the bathroom with the intention of putting them on and it's maybe where a couple of OP's truths could have came into play. He says he shouted to "Get down" and that he heard the window sliding open. I think she could have been screaming out the window when he shouted that and possibly tried waving the jeans outside of the window to get a passer by's attention. I don't think she had her phone with her in the bathroom at all and think that may be the mystery reason of what he was doing upstairs. He's already said to Dr Stippe he thought there was an intruder but goes back up to put the phone in there (that he's taken out of bag = the bag that he never went through).

I haven't figured out why he's put the phone there yet unless he realised her family would know she's never without it = even when she goes to the toilet.

 

[James50]

Something that always struck me as strange for this trial, is the long winded answers provided by OP.

He would be much better off going with the 'I don't recall' line that most people use.

Its simple and leaves nothing for Nels to cross-examine on.

Surely Roux told him that but maybe its different in South Africa

Oh I agree. I don't see why he doesn't just say my memory is going to be too unreliable at this point for me to answer about such detail. The fact that he doesn't do that is evidence that he IS telling the truth because a liar who know how unwise it is to to say too much, whereas a truthful person would want to correct Nel where he believes he has it wrong.

 

[asanque]

Oh I agree. I don't see why he doesn't just say my memory is going to be too unreliable at this point for me to answer about such detail. The fact that he doesn't do that is evidence that he IS telling the truth because a liar who know how unwise it is to to say too much, whereas a truthful person would want to correct Nel where he believes he has it wrong.

I actually think the opposite.

OP is only now just realising the number of holes in his initial bail statement.

Perhaps he is expanding (tailoring his evidence), because he has no choice, because he is screwed based on his initial statements and subsequent prosecution witness testimony.

 

[Carol70]

I agree with Carmelita. I believe the core of his story is true and he has not deviated from it even when it might have served him well to do so. The only thing I see that Oscar Pistorius is truly guilty of so far is poor and hasty judgement. I think events simply went too fast for him and this caused him to make mistakes. He is used to taking it slow on his stumps, and he panicked because he knew his slowness was a disadvatage in a situation in which there might have been an intruder in the house. And he overcompensated for this.
Respectfully snipped
.

I'm (still) in agreement with above.

 

[KarenUK]

I don't know what the argument was about - but I do believe they argued that night and for what ever reason she ran into the bathroom and locked the door to keep OP out and maybe to give her a moment to think about what to do next.
OP then got his gun and shot at the door, I think to show her who was "the boss", I don't know if he thought the first shot would hit her or just scare her, but after the first shot he had to carry on. I think his remorse is genuine, but so was his anger that night

 

[minor4th]

I think the above are great working theories.

I think Theory #2 is more likely (as per my summary above).

The primary reason I think Theory #1 doesn't work is that it required the police to tamper extensively with a crime scene for no reason.

There just hasn't been enough done by the Defence to discredit the initial photos for me to believe that has occurred.

Also, OP's previous lies on other counts plus constant embellishments to his story just don't ring true.

Well, I posted Theory #2 mostly to indicate that I can consider alternatives and that indeed all of those things have crossed my mind. I have actually tried to come up with a theory against Oscar that fits with the evidence, but it can be nothing more than speculation. I hope that my consideration of such a scenario puts an end to any thoughts that I can only view things from one perspective or that my reasoning is clouded by confirmation bias or blind "support" for Oscar. That is not the case, and I have really done everything to think of this from all angles to arrive at a sound conclusion. (based on evidence presented so far.


I actually believe Theory #1 for 2 reasons: 1) That's what the evidence shows, and 2) there's absolutely zero evidence that there was a fight between OP and RS that night (the screaming heard by witnesses could not have been Reeva)

Theory #2 is only possible to conceive if I start with a conclusion that he is guilty and then work backwards to try to make the evidence fit my conclusion, which I think is what the State is doing and has done throughout its investigation. It's pure speculation and conjecture and imagination - which is not what trials are all about.

The fact is - of those who believe OP is guilty, there are numerous and various theories about how it happened. That should indicate that there is not a cohesive and conclusive case for guilt. It there were, we would not be having multiple speculative theories about how he intentionally killed Reeva - there's no evidence to support any one theory, so that leaves the imagination to fill in the blanks.

 

[minor4th]

I'm (still) in agreement with above.

Me too

 

[emmavoberry]

@ RUMPOLE 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.

Unless we discount OP's account, which is one we can not verify, but it's got plenty of holes in it. We have to hold up a willing suspension of disbelief to endorse it.

If we do, and I do, discount OP's self-report, then the proof is in the pudding. Intentional or not so much, OP killed his girlfriend of the moment, Reeva Steenkamp, in what we could describe as an incident amounting to domestic violence. He did violence to her. The context in which he committed violence was a "domestic" one, or to use an alternate terminology, interpersonal.

Th only question that remains for me is would I characterize the shooting as premeditated ( in cold blood too) or more on the spectrum of what we call manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary) in the U.S.

I tend to like theory two as proposed by MINOR. I think anger and fear overtook Oscar and he did not think through the consequences as he shot. In the grip of such emotional intensity, his body and mind reverted to a predatory (reflexively predatory) state. She was no longer his beloved baba, but a threat to be vanquished, yet, rationally, and paradoxically, he lacked true intention. He no longer could form intent.

I'm just conceding to all of the above. I think he would have done well to concede to that much. You brandish a gun in an emotionally impaired state and next thing you know boom, you have just for the first time committed an act of unintentional domestic violence.

They only had eight weeks together. We know he had a history of acting out emotionally when he was jealous. The monster in the basement sometimes comes running up, never having fully revealed himself before, when the stakes are high, when the intimacy is too much. Valentines day for a new relationship, but one in which the pot is growing, could have provoked this struggling couple to confrontation.

There are those without any history of domestic violence who flip out and kill their whole family. There are those who are wife or husband or child beaters who never kill.

 

[James50]

I don't know what the argument was about - but I do believe they argued that night and for what ever reason she ran into the bathroom and locked the door to keep OP out and maybe to give her a moment to think about what to do next.
OP then got his gun and shot at the door, I think to show her who was "the boss", I don't know if he thought the first shot would hit her or just scare her, but after the first shot he had to carry on. I think his remorse is genuine, but so was his anger that night

He has never so much as raised a fist to her or his exes. Now you're trying to suggest he would gun her down in cold blood over some sort of disagreement they had? Not even a bad novel would feature plot like that.

Whenever he was unhappy with a girlfriend, he simply left her.

 

[emmavoberry]

Oh I agree. I don't see why he doesn't just say my memory is going to be too unreliable at this point for me to answer about such detail. The fact that he doesn't do that is evidence that he IS telling the truth because a liar who know how unwise it is to to say too much, whereas a truthful person would want to correct Nel where he believes he has it wrong.

Liars elaborate. SOP.

 

[James50]

Liars elaborate. SOP.

Some do, some don't, but OP had all the time in the world to realise that elaboration would have been a bad strategy had he been lying.

Nel has nothing, he knows it, which is why he had no recourse but to go into minutae (fine detail) in an effort to try to discredit OP's version. He knew that the more minute the detail. the more easy it is to come up with "inconsistencies" which are in reality just lapses in memory. So why did OP go to great lengths to elaborate, unless....he's telling the truth.

 

[Apollo]

He has never so much as raised a fist to her or his exes. Now you're trying to suggest he would gun her down in cold blood over some sort of disagreement they had? Not even a bad novel would feature plot like that.

Whenever he was unhappy with a girlfriend, he simply left her.

"Apparently, there were previously reported incidents of a domestic nature at the Pistorius'
home"

http://www.familylawmks.com/oscar-pistorius-and-domestic-violence/

 

[MsY]

If I was OP and I was innocent of this, I would be saying: "Are you, Mr. Nel, trying to tell me what happened. I was there, you were not. All you have is a theory and only I know for sure what happened."

That's the kind of theatrics Nel uses, and so OP should give as good as he gets.

If he DID lash out like that to Nel he'd be seen as too arrogant. Him showing emotions and reacting to the aftermath of what happened that morning (crying, sobbing, throwing up etc) has been seen as an act. It is very clear that OP's version of events have already been labelled as a lie and/or improbable by the majority of people watching this trial, regardless of the evidence.

Me too

Me three.

 

[James50]

"Apparently, there were previously reported incidents of a domestic nature at the Pistorius'
home"

http://www.familylawmks.com/oscar-pistorius-and-domestic-violence/

I don't see a report there. Only someone stating there were reports and then describing other cases. i.e. hearsay, which is not admissible in court as evidence. If that's a reference to the case of Pistorius asking his neighbour to turn down her music, that matter was amicably resolved and he did not physically threaten her.

 

[James50]

If he DID lash out like that to Nel he'd be seen as too arrogant. Him showing emotions and reacting to the aftermath of what happened that morning (crying, sobbing, throwing up etc) has been seen as an act. It is very clear that OP's version of events have already been labelled as a lie and/or improbable by the majority of people watching this trial, regardless of the evidence.



Me three.

I don't see it as lashing out or arrogant. It's just a fact that he knows what happened and Nel doesn''t. He didn't do that because he's humble. I didn't notice anything fake about his crying. He has grown up with a disability. Peoeple with disabilities are naturally more sensitive than others.

 

[KarenUK]

He has never so much as raised a fist to her or his exes. Now you're trying to suggest he would gun her down in cold blood over some sort of disagreement they had? Not even a bad novel would feature plot like that.

Whenever he was unhappy with a girlfriend, he simply left her.

I beg to differ, and I do an objective mind, I think there can be little worse than being locked up for a crime you didnt commit, so I err towards cautious in most cases I follow.
I know from experience that people can go from 0 to 10 anger, it just takes that one straw to break the camels back. I was with my husband for ten years (from the age of 18, I thought I knew him better than I knew myself), then one day he went from never being violent (even though his temper was short) to choking me until I passed out - over what in retrospect was a silly argument that I can't even remember the details of, and that after years of him never raising a fist at me.

 

[James50]

I beg to differ, and I do an objective mind, I think there can be little worse than being locked up for a crime you didnt commit, so I err towards cautious in most cases I follow.
I know from experience that people can go from 0 to 10 anger, it just takes that one straw to break the camels back. I was with my husband for ten years (from the age of 18, I thought I knew him better than I knew myself), then one day he went from never being violent (even though his temper was short) to choking me until I passed out - over what in retrospect was a silly argument that I can't even remember the details of, and that after years of him never raising a fist at me.

Wow! Really sorry to hear about your experience. I don't dispute that it's possible, but in OP's case, this is just a theory unless we have actual evidence of precedence. As for straws, there was no evidence of any strife in the relationship but rather that they had a lovey dovey relationship in the weeks leading up to V. day. Things must have been going so well, in fact, that she was prompted to make a decision to declare her love for him that morning, and she had planning this for some days or even weeks. So there is strong evidence there that the camel's back was doing fine.

 

[Clutchbag]

he shot her knowingly thats all that happened....simples

He pummelled her body with those lethal black talon bullets to kill her and he did

All the rest is crud

OP is an utter liar and a murderer as has been proven and his crying antics in court are a total joke



RIP Reeva -~~~~~~|

i hope he gets life