Oscar Pistorius Defense

[sleuth-d-]

I haven't read about this but was it regarding the plastic bags, tape and rope? I feel sure OP was going to do something nefarious with those items because plastic bags would be the last thing you'd use to stem bleeding, and why use them anyway if Reeva was already dead. Perhaps he never got an opportunity because Dr Stipp et al started arriving on the scene. If he was planning on giving things to someone, it's unlikely to say the least that he'd go outside with blood all over his body to stash them in his car. You'd then have to assume that he was contemplating giving them to someone he'd called. You'd then have to consider a massive conspiracy. I can't even begin to contemplate disposing of the body. Those plastic bags have been niggling at me for some time.

one of the things op referred to was washing 'hands and face' i believe. but what op 'can't remember* is 'washing his chest'. an odd statement in itself... but when you think he carried the body down the stairs... and had blood on his hands and face...

1. when did he take off the shirt?
2. where is the shirt?
3. if there is no blood on any shirt, there must have been lots of blood on his upper body/torso
4. why was he allowed to wash his upper body before the police 'garage' forensic photos?

which leads to:
5. when did he really start washing blood off his chest?

BBM

 

[toevlugsoord]

I'd love to know what Oscar told Netcare. There's no way in the wide world they would have told HIM to bring her in if he'd told them that she was suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, especially one to the head. It absolutely defies belief IMO. Netcare surely keep records of incoming calls and wouldn't it be interesting to know what Oscar told them. I can't see Roux calling them for the defence. As for OP carrying her downstairs, to be honest it makes me feel quite sick thinking about it. Remember that one of her arms was virtually amputated, and just the thought of it ...

If I recall correctly, there is at least one Netcare person on the Witness List. Let's hope they are indeed called!

 

[shane13]

and he punched a panel from the front door according to ms taylor-memmory's party incident.s

o possibly had a good idea how easy the panels would fall out.

Ghost of Bruce Lee to Oscar: "Panels don't hit back."

 

[shane13]

one of the things op referred to was washing 'hands and face' i believe. but what op 'can't remember* is 'washing his chest'. an odd statement in itself... but when you think he carried the body down the stairs... and had blood on his hands and face...

1. when did he take off the shirt?
2. where is the shirt?
3. if there is no blood on any shirt, there must have been lots of blood on his upper body/torso
4. why was he allowed to wash his upper body before the police 'garage' forensic photos?
which leads to:
5. when did he really start washing blood off his chest?

BBM

IIRC There was another "strange thing" allowed by van Rensburg.
Again IIRC he allowed Op to wash his hands and face from his testimony.

 

[toevlugsoord]

Hello everyone!

I'm newly registered after having read Websleuths for awhile; this court case got me to finally register so I can add in my thoughts. I've watched every minute of this trial and it's safe to say I'm probably obsessed. It's just so fascinating and my family moved from South Africa a year before I was born...due to the violence. So I feel connected to it for that reason too.

I wanted to share a documentary that is FASCINATING.
It was done by Channel 5 and is called "Why Did Oscar Pistorius Kill Our Daughter." Warning -- it's pretty sad and made me cry. You will learn a lot about Reeva.

http://putlocker.bz/watch-why-did-oscar-pistorius-kill-our-daughter-online-free-putlocker.html

I will probably share this link again when the general discussion opens up again!

Edited: oops first wrote Channel 4 but it's Channel 5!

 

[Mr Fossil]

If I recall correctly, there is at least one Netcare person on the Witness List. Let's hope they are indeed called!

Donavan S Jagga and Daniel de Waal Pretorius (both Netcare 911, East Base, Pretoria) appeared on the original prosecution witness list so I guess could be be called by the defence.

 

[homegirl]

I'm pretty sure it was closed too. I haven't been able to find a good close up yet, I just have the following...

The first pic shows the window from outside during the day. It appears as if it's open, but then take a look at the window at night. The frame looks exactly the same.

Also, in the last pic, you can see that the blinds are all the way down. I'm guessing that is how they found them. If she had opened the window, she likely would have raised the blinds.

Thanks Lisa. I looked again at the video of Van Standen's testimony. You are right, the blinds were down. I saw a photo on the court monitor and misread the tiles as part of the window. I do wonder why she didn't open it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Those NPD traits explain why people close to OP soothe him at every opportunity. He could "blow" at any moment.

His close family, in particular, have a lot to answer for. They IMO have been OTT in court with their soothing etc and I imagine it has been like this from day one and is not likely to change.

 

[Carmelita]

I am not going to quote because there are so many people drawing the same conclusion that I would rather address some assertions as a whole so here is MO

The general consensus here seems to be that Oscar maliciously killed Reeva in a fit of rage because he lost his temper do to a fight about (insert choice of cause of fight here). He was in a rage when he killed her seems to be a generally safe assumption to go by if this version is true because if he were not in a rage he who would have realized by brutally murdering his mate of the moment he would have been throwing away his lucrative and beloved running career, throwing away his entire life.

Now we are to assume after he loses his mind in a rage that he then immediately, within minutes or seconds snaps back to reality and starts thinking on a pretty high cognitive level about how to stage the crime scene and salvage his image. So some guess that he didn’t really try to bang in the door with his shoulder that he has the forethought to damage the door to try to get rid of the trajectory evidence of the bullets (even though the bullet holes remained intact), and moved her body to confuse the crime scene (here are three alternative reasons for moving her body that would require less cognitive function and be more emotionally based and in keeping with the event that just occurred; he couldn’t stand seeing her jammed against a toilet, he thought there was still hope that she could live or he is not a monster but a hothead who really believed that there was an intruder in the bathroom and and he just wanted to hold her).

We are also to consider that Oscar in his suddenly highly cognitive and rage free state thought that he would look the grieving hero if he could time his carrying Reeva down the stairs to coincide with when someone arrived (people for whom he left his front door opened) . We are also to surmise that in spite of the racket of Oscar’s screaming, the gun shots and the bat bangs that Oscar thought only Stander would be coming through his door so logically this would also be a moment when Oscar reverted to lower brain activity.

As to not calling an ambulance I believe Netcare would have been on that one.

I have already explained why I think the claim that Oscar could see Reeva is not supported by reason or forensic evidence. Here is a copy and paste;

I don't think that there it is any testimony in which there was ever a pause long enough between gun shots for Oscar to break the panel out of the door and locate Reeva's position, for that to be a forensic possibility Oscar would have had to have broken the panel out assessed Reeva's position moved back to the area from which he fired the other shot(s) and shoot through the door hitting Reeva in the head.

Someone suggested that Oscar took aim and shot Reeva in head 3 times, there were not 3 shots to Reeva’s head.

Oscar claims that his intention was to put himself between Reeva and the intruder. He claims he did so because he was in fear for their lives.

Oscar has not changed his defense he claims that he shot in self-defense when he thought the perceived intruder was coming out of the toilet, he stated he pulled the trigger, he stated he did so to stop the perceived intruder, he claims in the “split second” of pulling the trigger he did so not to kill anyone but as an act of self-preservation and to protect Reeva. His claim is that he felt in that “split second” he had no other option but to defend himself and that meant stopping the percieved intruder from entering further into his home which was his intention.

And at the risk of rambling, I do not find it unusual that Oscar did not scream when he saw Reeva, he was by any variation of events in a highly emotional state, by his version of the events he was screaming and terrified of the “unknown” it dawned on him perhaps Reeva was in the toilet. When he saw her in the toilet room he could have easily been stunned or shocked into silence. Human nature/behavior is far more complex and reactions far more varied than we might like to dictate them to be, norms are not absolutes and the more extreme the situation is the more varied we can expect responses to be.

Human behavior does reveal things, but to think we have a crystal ball into another psyche in an extreme situation is simply not sound reasoning.

I do believe that Oscar does have some narcissistic traits but so do many world class athletes.

 

[wb180]

Ok, let me summarise Carmelita post.

1. OP was scared.
2. You can't question him about this or his behavior because it's highly subjective.
3. Therefore if he says he is sacred, he is.

Add the above with a dash of presumption of innocent and the case of self defense is proven.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Hello everyone!

I'm newly registered after having read Websleuths for awhile; this court case got me to finally register so I can add in my thoughts. I've watched every minute of this trial and it's safe to say I'm probably obsessed. It's just so fascinating and my family moved from South Africa a year before I was born...due to the violence. So I feel connected to it for that reason too.

I wanted to share a documentary that is FASCINATING.
It was done by Channel 5 and is called "Why Did Oscar Pistorius Kill Our Daughter." Warning -- it's pretty sad and made me cry. You will learn a lot about Reeva.

http://putlocker.bz/watch-why-did-oscar-pistorius-kill-our-daughter-online-free-putlocker.html

I will probably share this link again when the general discussion opens up again!

Edited: oops first wrote Channel 4 but it's Channel 5!

hello back
absolutely agree about the addictive nature of the case in itself, add to that the trial being televised, and the amazing range of detail being added and discussed on here...

thanks for the programme link.

i have just read the excerpts from the op [auto]biography - via amazon ... some interesting information even in a few pages there. not sure at this stage about actually buying the book though.

 

[Carmelita]

Ok, let me summarise Carmelita post.

1. OP was scared.
2. You can't question him about this or his behavior because it's highly subjective.
3. Therefore if he says he is sacred, he is.

Add the above with a dash of presumption of innocent and the case of self defense is proven.

No.

But thank you for asking me to clarify.

Oscar claims he was terrified, he can and has been questioned about his behavior. IMO it is it not a reasonable conclusion to draw that a man so infuriated as to purposely shoot an intimate partner who is trapped in a tiny cubicle, for that same "madman" to then immediately begin functioning on a highly cognitive level where he is damaging a door with the intent of destroying forensic evidence within a very short time of being mindlessly out of control.

And Oscar does not have the presumption of innocence the court is demanding that he prove his innocence as he appears guilty "on the face of it" and it is the states responsibility to refute Oscar's evidence of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lithgow1]

No.

But thank you for asking me to clarify.

Oscar claims he was terrified, he can and has been questioned about his behavior. IMO it is it not a reasonable conclusion to draw that a man so infuriated as to purposely shoot an intimate partner who is trapped in a tiny cubicle, for that same "madman" to then immediately begin functioning on a highly cognitive level where he is damaging a door with the intent of destroying forensic evidence within a very short time of being mindlessly out of control.

And Oscar does not have the presumption of innocence the court is demanding that he prove his innocence as he appears guilty "on the face of it" and it is the states responsibility to refute Oscar's evidence of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only person I've seen claim he was 'mindlessly out of control' is Pistorius himself, when he appeared to change his defence. IIRC the predominant consensus here is that he knew exactly what he was doing when he fired those four shots, whether he knew who he was shooting at or not.

 

[BritsKate]

No.

But thank you for asking me to clarify.

Oscar claims he was terrified, he can and has been questioned about his behavior. IMO it is it not a reasonable conclusion to draw that a man so infuriated as to purposely shoot an intimate partner who is trapped in a tiny cubicle, for that same "madman" to then immediately begin functioning on a highly cognitive level where he is damaging a door with the intent of destroying forensic evidence within a very short time of being mindlessly out of control.

'Mindless rages' are often a deliberate, controlled responce intended to intimidate or manipulate someone. It's the same reason I stated Oscar could so quickly and easily calm down after being confronted for driving so fast by June Steenkamp.

Someone who is abusive (and this includes psychological) uses their anger as a weapon or tool against their victim. It keeps a victim doing a headstand, while holding a platter of crystal glasses, on eggshells.

If Oscar were truly 'mindless', even at the height of an argument, I believe we'd see a lot more physical damage, both to his home and himself. Those afflicted with NPD are indeed prone to rages though, usually as a result of narcissistic injury and having experienced those firsthand, I really believe there would be much more evidence to support a 'true' narcissistic rage. I think he was angry, very angry, and knew he needed to silence her to preserve his career and lifestyle.

To me, there is no coincidence the final scream died with the last bang. Just enough shots to silence those screams.

MOO

 

[Carmelita]

The only person I've seen claim he was 'mindlessly out of control' is Pistorius himself, when he appeared to change his defence. IIRC the predominant consensus here is that he knew exactly what he was doing when he fired those four shots, whether he knew who he was shooting at or not.

So it is your opinion that Oscar made a reasoned and thoughtful decision to murder Reeva in cold blood? That it was not a crime of passion and rage over a fight? Please forgive me then as I really thought that most of the people here believed that Oscar was out of control with rage in the midst of a fight with Reeva, snapped and killed her.

Do you have a theory as to why he would knowingly kill her?

 

[lithgow1]

So it is your opinion that Oscar made a reasoned and thoughtful decision to murder Reeva in cold blood? That it was not a crime of passion and rage over a fight? Please forgive me then as I really thought that most of the people here believed that Oscar was out of control with rage in the midst of a fight with Reeva, snapped and killed her.

Do you have a theory as to why he would knowingly kill her?

For me, he made a decision to kill whoever was in the toilet. I believe he knew it was her and it happened after an argument yes, but that is secondary to the fact that he must have known that whoever was in that toilet would die. That is murder IMO.

 

[Carmelita]

'Mindless rages' are often a deliberate, controlled responce intended to intimidate or manipulate someone. It's the same reason I stated Oscar could so quickly and easily calm down after being confronted for driving so fast by June Steenkamp.

Someone who is abusive (and this includes psychological) uses their anger as a weapon or tool against their victim. It keeps a victim doing a headstand, while holding a platter of crystal glasses, on eggshells.

If Oscar were truly 'mindless', even at the height of an argument, I believe we'd see a lot more physical damage, both to his home and himself. Those afflicted with NPD are indeed prone to rages though, usually as a result of narcissistic injury and having experienced those firsthand, I really believe there would be much more evidence to support a 'true' narcissistic rage. I think he was angry, very angry, and knew he needed to silence her to preserve his career and lifestyle.

To me, there is no coincidence the final scream died with the last bang. Just enough shots to silence those screams.

MOO

I think it is important to note that Oscar has not ever been diagnosed with NPD. And should not be by a bunch of strangers on the internet. He has narcissistic traits, he has histrionic traits, that is all that can be stated. Many world class athletes share these traits.

If Oscar was not out of control but manipulating through feigned rage then by virtue of eliminating viable options he would have to have made a conscious choice to brutally murder Reeva and thereby also choose to end his life of luxury and running (his one "true love") as he knew it.

As I said I think Oscar is dull but not an imbecile I cannot imagine him making that conscious choice.

 

[james83]

For me, he made a decision to kill whoever was in the toilet. I believe he knew it was her and it happened after an argument yes, but that is secondary to the fact that he must have known that whoever was in that toilet would die. That is murder IMO.

I agree totally with this, IMO even if his own fairy story was true, as soon as he fired the 2nd shot he went from Culpable homicide to murder.
If anyone disagree's then please tell me how many bullet's would he have had to have fired for it to be murder?.

 

[Nausicaa]

So it is your opinion that Oscar made a reasoned and thoughtful decision to murder Reeva in cold blood? That it was not a crime of passion and rage over a fight? Please forgive me then as I really thought that most of the people here believed that Oscar was out of control with rage in the midst of a fight with Reeva, snapped and killed her.

Do you have a theory as to why he would knowingly kill her?

It's not binary, Carmelita.

Hypotheses of OP's state of mind when firing:
1. So panic-stricken as to be incapable of any rational or volitional act;
2. Very frightened but still responsible for his actions;
3. So angry as to have lost all self-control;
4. Angry but in full control;
5. Calm, deliberate and cold-blooded.

There may be more.

OP himself is arguing for option 1 but it is incompatible with what he says when he forgets his own defence - about avoiding ricochets, about ceasing to scream when screaming has no useful purpose etc.

I was initially inclined to the No 4 option, but on reflection I think there is a strong case that the anger fit was around 3 am and led to an incident from which he calmed down and took a cold-blooded decision to kill in order to avoid the consequences of what he had done at 3 am becoming public. I would now on probability vote for No 5.

Only if he convinces the court of No 1 is he likely to escape conviction for murder.

The burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders and he doesn't like it there. He even finds it inexplicable that he is on trial at all. God help women if lawmakers or the judiciary were to agree with him.

 

[JudgeJudi]

one of the things op referred to was washing 'hands and face' i believe. but what op 'can't remember* is 'washing his chest'. an odd statement in itself... but when you think he carried the body down the stairs... and had blood on his hands and face...

1. when did he take off the shirt?
2. where is the shirt?
3. if there is no blood on any shirt, there must have been lots of blood on his upper body/torso
4. why was he allowed to wash his upper body before the police 'garage' forensic photos?

which leads to:
5. when did he really start washing blood off his chest?

BBM

I guess he'd say he was in bed, hence no shirt. I am surprised though that he was allowed to wash any part of his body before he was photographed. Maybe he washed his chest when he ducked upstairs for a few minutes after Stipp arrived. (When he also did a bit of re-arranging no doubt)

PS Could you please tell me how you quote part only of a post and get that little icon that allows you to read it in its entirety. Secondly, I also have trouble with the smiley icons. If I select one, how do I get it into the text? Thanks.