Oscar Pistorius Defense

[sicknote]

Another thought..
Why, what on earth would make RS run and hide in the toilet, of all places?? I am sure only a very very bad event. Think about it, she was 30 (mature), a Leo (strong traits), was known to stand up for herself... She probably faught back with all her might, right up to the last 15 minutes where she had no other option than to run and take cover in a tiny, cornered in toilet (room within a room no least). Something happened between 2 and 3am, something terrible, that left marks on RS and on the wall above the bed. I think she somehow managed to get away (he is missing parts of his legs which must given her an advantage at some point) ran in bathroom as there was no other option (fight or flight, she was in the flight stage) and once that door slammed shut, she knew she was trapped, and going to die.
Her jeans out the window...that was perhaps a desperate attempt that she hoped would help the no doubt future investigation into her death.
The blood curdling screaming: I'm about to die. Hear me

Maybe he forced her to go into the toilet. He required her to be in there for his intruder story.

 

[swissmonster]

I don't think you meant to quote me here.

Not at all!!

 

[Giles]

As trials unfold we get more and more information to consider. We are all making ongoing decisions about what information is important or definitive and what information must then be explained in some other way. That's reasoning. For example I find these things to be very important:

- there is far more precedent for Oscar overreacting, gun in hand, to perceived threats in his home than there is to him meting out physical violence on a girlfriend

- the relationship was new and mostly good and the were in general very affectionate towards each other; murderous rage is a significant step from even the ugliest of their handful of disagreements

- the evidence very strongly suggests to me that the gunshots and cricket bat strikes came in two discreet groups and that the shots were first; if so this is fatal to the prosecution theory

And to a lesser extent:

- the evidence is consistent with Oscar's version of standing at the entrance to the bathroom and firing into the door as he claims; this is a more credible distance and angle for reacting to an 'intruder' than it is for a direct confrontation with a known target you are in a rage against

- if they hadn't gone to bed that night I would have expected some activity on at least one of their electronic devices that indicated definitive human action, even briefly and even once.

So the pieces of evidence that to my mind are important have me leaning to Oscar's version being fundamentally true. That means I have to find alternate explanations for things which seem to implicate him. Those on the other side of the fence must do it too for potentially exculpatory information. This is not making excuses, it's building a narrative that is internally consistent. So in my case that means things like:

- rejecting the crime scene photographs as completely reliable based on the fact that things are known to have been disturbed and the fact that one of the first cops on the scene was banished and branded and not even here to testify

- accepting that Oscar may indeed have been yelling and screaming in a high pitch at times and that witnesses would have a bias to hearing a high pitch as a female voice; I have to go further and perceive intermingled voices as a construction of memory rather that an actual event. This is where it might be perceived that I am "making excuses", which In a sense I am. But it comes from my belief that the objective evidence indicates that the bat came second which means Reeva could not have been screaming, so there must be an alternate explanation for what the witnesses heard.

- believing that Oscar's inconsistencies are issues with memory, character and personality, fear of conviction and the nature and goals of cross examination rather than an indication that he is lying about targeting Reeva rather than an 'intruder'

And so on. I realize that many of you see this as making excuses or close mindedness or having ones head in sand etc. but it is just the individual nature of thought and experience and reasoning. If challenge and stretching ones mind and capacity for empathy is valued then thought in opposition to our own is far more precious than agreement. The minority opinion is almost always undervalued on discussion boards and its holders often demoralized to the point of withdrawing. I think there is some evidence of that happening in these discussions and I think it has perhaps begun to affect the conversation.

Thanks for this really intelligent post and for being brave enough to share your thoughts. They are appreciated.

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks for this really intelligent post and for being brave enough to share your thoughts. They are appreciated.

Thank you so much for taking a moment to say this. Really appreciated, and by more posters than just me I'm sure.

 

[homegirl]

If I may, I'd like to start with one point that haunts me. I apologise in advance if this is a little out of line (mods?). It's the sex issue. Why is this not something that comes up?

RSBM
I have not seen this text message from Reeva posted. It could be the one which was handed to the judge rather than read aloud in court. Roux said that he didn't want to read it because it might be an embarrassment to Reeva. It is the only small insight into that aspect of their relationship that is in evidence, as far as I know. The sex issue doesn't seem to be at issue in the states case.


On Jan. 9, 2013, Steenkamp jokes about giving Pistorius a lifelike replica of herself to keep him company when he’s lonely.



A combination of text message exchanges between Oscar Pistorius (incoming) and Reeva Steenkamp (outgoing).
“I’ll get a blowup doll that feels just like me. And shouts at u when u grope it,” says Steenkamp.
Pistorius answers with a smiley emoticon and then says, “Very realistic.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...-message-oscar-pistorius-im-scared-you-n60431

 

[crasshopper]

I have been wondering why so much blood is on the cricket bat at all! If he supposedly used it to bash in the door, then what's the blood doing there? I keep wondering if he hit her, hard, in the head at some point, broke skin (wanting to make her ugly) then when she locked herself in the toilet, he broke the door with the handy bat, saw that she was bleeding through the crack, and realised there was only one option left: eliminate her.

I think the police suspected this at first but the blood spatter, IIRC, does not support this scenario.

A bit behind, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

 

[BritsKate]

The link you posted goes to a page which has no source and no author (that I could see).



No one has been able to find who this alleged abuser is.



It wasn't Lahoud (4.5 yr relationship),and I saw a recent video on the life of RS. Revealed the supposed first boyfriend (over 7 years long relationship),who said he still loved her, and their relationship was fine, and it wasn't him. Much that was in the MSM within the first couple of days did not pan out [like your article with the uncle saying there was no indication,when there was.]. I believe June has said there was no such abusive relationship that she knew about [other than Oscar.]

So we don't know for sure...if that is true and who that bf was, if true.

Okay, well, here is another article attributed to two authors that features her notes for the speech, reproduced as written, which state she was in an abusive relationship. This article makes it seem as though she hadn't discussed it publicly before. I know there was a lot of misinformation in the media but assuming these are indeed her notes, I think its difficult to refute what she herself has written.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-previous-abusive-relationship-shooting.html


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[sicknote]

- there is far more precedent for Oscar overreacting, gun in hand, to perceived threats in his home than there is to him meting out physical violence on a girlfriend

- the evidence very strongly suggests to me that the gunshots and cricket bat strikes came in two discreet groups and that the shots were first; if so this is fatal to the prosecution theory

- if they hadn't gone to bed that night I would have expected some activity on at least one of their electronic devices that indicated definitive human action, even briefly and even once.

......snipped

What's his excuse for firing a gun in a restaurant and out of a sunroof?

You honestly believe the neighbours heard a cricket bat hitting the door from close to 200m which woke them up?

You think he shot Reeva and then messed about for 10-15 mins without calling anyone?

Did the police drizzle blood on the duvet to match the blood on the floor after removing it from the bed?

What was going through OP's mind when he was watching *advertiser censored* and possibly masturbating while his girlfriend was making his dinner? How bizarre is that?

Reeva I'm just going to pop upstairs and knock one out.....don't you dare overcook my chicken. How unbelievably strange is that?

 

[jimmy73]

As trials unfold we get more and more information to consider. We are all making ongoing decisions about what information is important or definitive and what information must then be explained in some other way. That's reasoning. For example I find these things to be very important:

- there is far more precedent for Oscar overreacting, gun in hand, to perceived threats in his home than there is to him meting out physical violence on a girlfriend

- the relationship was new and mostly good and the were in general very affectionate towards each other; murderous rage is a significant step from even the ugliest of their handful of disagreements

- the evidence very strongly suggests to me that the gunshots and cricket bat strikes came in two discreet groups and that the shots were first; if so this is fatal to the prosecution theory

And to a lesser extent:

- the evidence is consistent with Oscar's version of standing at the entrance to the bathroom and firing into the door as he claims; this is a more credible distance and angle for reacting to an 'intruder' than it is for a direct confrontation with a known target you are in a rage against

- if they hadn't gone to bed that night I would have expected some activity on at least one of their electronic devices that indicated definitive human action, even briefly and even once.

So the pieces of evidence that to my mind are important have me leaning to Oscar's version being fundamentally true. That means I have to find alternate explanations for things which seem to implicate him. Those on the other side of the fence must do it too for potentially exculpatory information. This is not making excuses, it's building a narrative that is internally consistent. So in my case that means things like:

- rejecting the crime scene photographs as completely reliable based on the fact that things are known to have been disturbed and the fact that one of the first cops on the scene was banished and branded and not even here to testify

- accepting that Oscar may indeed have been yelling and screaming in a high pitch at times and that witnesses would have a bias to hearing a high pitch as a female voice; I have to go further and perceive intermingled voices as a construction of memory rather that an actual event. This is where it might be perceived that I am "making excuses", which In a sense I am. But it comes from my belief that the objective evidence indicates that the bat came second which means Reeva could not have been screaming, so there must be an alternate explanation for what the witnesses heard.

- believing that Oscar's inconsistencies are issues with memory, character and personality, fear of conviction and the nature and goals of cross examination rather than an indication that he is lying about targeting Reeva rather than an 'intruder'

And so on. I realize that many of you see this as making excuses or close mindedness or having ones head in sand etc. but it is just the individual nature of thought and experience and reasoning. If challenge and stretching ones mind and capacity for empathy is valued then thought in opposition to our own is far more precious than agreement. The minority opinion is almost always undervalued on discussion boards and its holders often demoralized to the point of withdrawing. I think there is some evidence of that happening in these discussions and I think it has perhaps begun to affect the conversation.

BBM

There is certainly something to be said for OP's jumpy, intruder fearing gun-nut story and it may seem to fit the bill more simply than sudden intimate homicide scenario. However, intimate homicides, and those that stem from heated arguments, are far more common than the accidental shooting of a loved one presumed to be an intruder, by a scale of 10 to 1 on a quick calc.

(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2,
http://opdv.state.ny.us/statistics/nationaldvdata/nationaldvdata.pdf)

Re the bolding, I just can't see gunshots at ~03:00 and bat at ~03:16 fitting in with OP's testimony of breaking into the toilet, and it seems an unreasonable length time not to have sort medical assistance.

It's also quite possible they went to bed and then didn't sleep or woke and resume a simmering argument at ~02:00, which would explain the downtime in GPRS stuff.

 

[nastasya]

As trials unfold we get more and more information to consider. We are all making ongoing decisions about what information is important or definitive and what information must then be explained in some other way. That's reasoning. For example I find these things to be very important:

- there is far more precedent for Oscar overreacting, gun in hand, to perceived threats in his home than there is to him meting out physical violence on a girlfriend

- the relationship was new and mostly good and the were in general very affectionate towards each other; murderous rage is a significant step from even the ugliest of their handful of disagreements

- the evidence very strongly suggests to me that the gunshots and cricket bat strikes came in two discreet groups and that the shots were first; if so this is fatal to the prosecution theory

And to a lesser extent:

- the evidence is consistent with Oscar's version of standing at the entrance to the bathroom and firing into the door as he claims; this is a more credible distance and angle for reacting to an 'intruder' than it is for a direct confrontation with a known target you are in a rage against

- if they hadn't gone to bed that night I would have expected some activity on at least one of their electronic devices that indicated definitive human action, even briefly and even once.

So the pieces of evidence that to my mind are important have me leaning to Oscar's version being fundamentally true. That means I have to find alternate explanations for things which seem to implicate him. Those on the other side of the fence must do it too for potentially exculpatory information. This is not making excuses, it's building a narrative that is internally consistent. So in my case that means things like:

- rejecting the crime scene photographs as completely reliable based on the fact that things are known to have been disturbed and the fact that one of the first cops on the scene was banished and branded and not even here to testify

- accepting that Oscar may indeed have been yelling and screaming in a high pitch at times and that witnesses would have a bias to hearing a high pitch as a female voice; I have to go further and perceive intermingled voices as a construction of memory rather that an actual event. This is where it might be perceived that I am "making excuses", which In a sense I am. But it comes from my belief that the objective evidence indicates that the bat came second which means Reeva could not have been screaming, so there must be an alternate explanation for what the witnesses heard.

- believing that Oscar's inconsistencies are issues with memory, character and personality, fear of conviction and the nature and goals of cross examination rather than an indication that he is lying about targeting Reeva rather than an 'intruder'

And so on. I realize that many of you see this as making excuses or close mindedness or having ones head in sand etc. but it is just the individual nature of thought and experience and reasoning. If challenge and stretching ones mind and capacity for empathy is valued then thought in opposition to our own is far more precious than agreement. The minority opinion is almost always undervalued on discussion boards and its holders often demoralized to the point of withdrawing. I think there is some evidence of that happening in these discussions and I think it has perhaps begun to affect the conversation.

The minority opinion in this case has been based in large part on misinterpretation or misunderstanding of basic facts, as reflected by your post.

1. The evidence is that the door piece was broken out after the shot, not the "shots came before the cricket bat" that the evidence has been twisted into.

2. The evidence is that every witness testified to hearing a woman screaming, followed by hearing gunshots, followed by hearing silence.

3. The fact is OP substantially changes his version of what happened whenever his previous version is proven to make no sense or is inconsistent with the evidence. Did he feel fer Reeva with his hands or walk over her body? Did he go out on the deck or not? Did he shoot in self-defense, or as he claims now, he didn't intend to shoot the gun?

I believe the minority opinion is being over-valued in this case. Lots of wasted time and discussions about OP's blatantly made up version of events that never happened.

He picked up a gun, walked down two passages after his girlfriend locked herself in the toilet. He then fired four shots at a closed toilet door that never opened, knowing he was going to kill whoever was behind the door. He was never threatened, never in any danger let alone imminent danger, and never made any attempt to secure his own safety or Reeva's.

My conclusion is that the minority opinion her has diminished because the arguments supporting OP's version(s) can be shredded quickly with just the tiniest bit of common sense and pointing out facts.

 

[shane13]

Okay, well, here is another article attributed to two authors that features her notes for the speech, reproduced as written, which state she was in an abusive relationship. This article makes it seem as though she hadn't discussed it publicly before. I know there was a lot of misinformation in the media but assuming these are indeed her notes, I think its difficult to refute what she herself has written.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-previous-abusive-relationship-shooting.html


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

Well that's the Daily Mail which I've seen people here say has the lowest rep or cred.

Your article also says this; "...She was due to reveal that it had been this relationship - and the resultant 'loss of self worth' - which prompted her to move to Johannesburg to rebuild her life..."

In contradistinction, many sources say she moved to Joburg for her modelling career.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ity-show-tropika-island-to-air_n_2694882.html
".. Steenkamp moved to Johannesburg six years ago to pursue her modelling career..."

So I don't know... You would think by now the media would have found this alleged abuser and made him known, wouldn't you?

 

[shane13]

RSBM
I have not seen this text message from Reeva posted. It could be the one which was handed to the judge rather than read aloud in court. Roux said that he didn't want to read it because it might be an embarrassment to Reeva. It is the only small insight into that aspect of their relationship that is in evidence, as far as I know. The sex issue doesn't seem to be at issue in the states case.


On Jan. 9, 2013, Steenkamp jokes about giving Pistorius a lifelike replica of herself to keep him company when he’s lonely.

View attachment 43282

A combination of text message exchanges between Oscar Pistorius (incoming) and Reeva Steenkamp (outgoing).
“I’ll get a blowup doll that feels just like me. And shouts at u when u grope it,” says Steenkamp.
Pistorius answers with a smiley emoticon and then says, “Very realistic.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...-message-oscar-pistorius-im-scared-you-n60431

Now I have posted on this possibility.
This could be nothing here, just some intimacy.

But it could be an indication of what I posted about that Nel brought up.
He asked if OP had dated other "Christians". That was meant in a special way, as I am sure that all or most of the girls/women OP dated were Christian.

So maybe it refers to her not getting into sex till after a long time in a relationship? Her first was some 6-7 years long and Lahoud was 4.5 years. So maybe on Valentine's Day, OP--on the heels of her date with an old BF of 4/5 years [Lahoud]--thought it was time?

And got forceful, and might have imbibed earlier? And this led to him not letting her leave and her arguing for an hour to do just that until she saw it wasn't helping and announced that she was going to call the police--possibly coupled with some initial assault or threat in the bedroom. I have speculated that maybe he got his gun early on and pointed it at her. . Which sealed her fate in his mind. The begining of my scenario. (And speculation.)

 

[PPKik]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That could mean that OP told Mr. Stander that he (OP) would call for an ambulance after they hung up the phone. Mr. Stander believed that OP had called for an ambulance and it was on its way. OP did call Netcare after they hung up, but he says they told him to drive Reeva to the hospital himself. Mr. Stander apparently did not know that, and he saw that Reeva was dead, so he told OP to put her down.




That does not say that Mr. Stander did not believe that OP had called for an ambulance. It says that he (Stander) had not called. Perhaps by that time Mr. Stander was beginning to question whether OP had really called Netcare.



So upon arrival at the house Mr. Stander requested that Baba call for an ambulance and the police! Mr. Stander also requested that Baba keep the driveway clear for the arrival of the ambulance and the police. All of that sounds reasonable and appropriate.

Interesting post. From your post and the quotes, which I am not sure how to bring here, you say "All this sounds reasonable and proper." Does it? The only thing that sounds "reasonable" is keeping the driveway open, but nobody had called an ambulance.

This ambulance business is very confusing. When someone is hurt, even fatally injured, the first person to know calls an ambulance, usually. Or, if they are dealing directly with the emergency, they say to someone (Stander?): "Get help. Call an ambulance." Here we have at least three people that apparently didn't call.

Did anyone actually call and request an ambulance until Dr. Stipp did? There must be records. It seems an ambulance did arrive shortly after Dr. Stipp called. Was this because of his call?

At this point, I am not counting OP's call lasting 66 seconds, during which he was apparently told to "carry" a "mortally wounded" person in his car. I'd love to get to the bottom of that call. Would an emergency operator ever say something like that?

If someone at Netcare really did say that, it explains a lot about OP's behaviour. If they didn't, it changes a lot (for me at least). Are these calls recorded like the 911 calls in the US?

 

[wb180]

Thanks for this really intelligent post and for being brave enough to share your thoughts. They are appreciated.

To me the post just shows the different levels of websleuthers in this forum. The minority is still on websleuth 101. Emotive points but not much factual points regarding OP defense.

 

[Viper]

Now I have posted on this possibility.
This could be nothing here, just some intimacy.

But it could be an indication of what I posted about that Nel brought up.
He asked if OP had dated other "Christians". That was meant in a special way, as I am sure that all or most of the girls/women OP dated were Christian.

So maybe it refers to her not getting into sex till after a long time in a relationship. Her first was some 6-7 years long and Lahoud was 4.5 years. So maybe on Valentine's Day, OP--on the heels of her date with an old Bf of 4/5 years [lahoud]--thought it was time?

And got forceful, might have imbibed earlier? And this led to him not letting her leavea and her arguing for an hour to do ust that until she saw it wasn't helping and announced that she was going to call the police. Which sealed her fate in his mind. The begining of my scenario. (And speculation.)

BIB1 What kind of intimacy are we talking about here? And where did it take place? Was Reeva sleeping in the guest room, or was she sleeping fully clothed in OPs bed with him half naked? Was it before or after her 1:00AM snack? I think we need to work up a timeline on this, and work up a chart to determine just how far intimacy goes before it becomes plain old sex (Bill Clinton did).

BIB2 So how many years does she sleep over at her boyfriend's home and carry on an intimate relationship with him before she actually has sex with a guy? Seems very cruel to me, obnoxious even. I would think that OP would just stop inviting her to share his bed after one or two nights like that, but that's just me.

BIB3 I dont believe that they found ligature marks on her wrists and/or ankles, but he could have threatened her in to submission with his Taurus 9mm parabellum. There were indications of possible forced sex because of the marks on her right thigh, right? She had marks on her left calf too IIRC; do you think he was behind her on top of her using his weight to hold her down while he did what he did?

 

[shane13]

BIB1 What kind of intimacy are we talking about here? And where did it take place? Was Reeva sleeping in the guest room, or was she sleeping fully clothed in OPs bed with him half naked? Was it before or after her 1:00AM snack? I think we need to work up a timeline on this, and work up a chart to determine just how far intimacy goes before it becomes plain old sex (Bill Clinton did).

BIB2 So how many years does she sleep over at her boyfriend's home and carry on an intimate relationship with him before she actually has sex with a guy? Seems very cruel to me, obnoxious even. I would think that OP would just stop inviting her to share his bed after one or two nights like that, but that's just me.

BIB3 I dont believe that they found ligature marks on her wrists and/or ankles, but he could have threatened her in to submission with his Taurus 9mm parabellum. There were indications of possible forced sex because of the marks on her right thigh, right? She had marks on her left calf too IIRC; do you think he was behind her on top of her using his weight to hold her down while he did what he did?

Only needed to lock the bedroom door to hold her captive.

 

[sicknote]

So how many years does she sleep over at her boyfriend's home and carry on an intimate relationship with him before she actually has sex with a guy? Seems very cruel to me, obnoxious even. I would think that OP would just stop inviting her to share his bed after one or two nights like that, but that's just me.

Not at all. With him being a good Christian he just made do with some *advertiser censored*.

 

[kittychi]

Now I have posted on this possibility.
This could be nothing here, just some intimacy.

But it could be an indication of what I posted about that Nel brought up.
He asked if OP had dated other "Christians". That was meant in a special way, as I am sure that all or most of the girls/women OP dated were Christian.

So maybe it refers to her not getting into sex till after a long time in a relationship? Her first was some 6-7 years long and Lahoud was 4.5 years. So maybe on Valentine's Day, OP--on the heels of her date with an old BF of 4/5 years [Lahoud]--thought it was time?

And got forceful, and might have imbibed earlier? And this led to him not letting her leave and her arguing for an hour to do just that until she saw it wasn't helping and announced that she was going to call the police--possibly coupled with some initial assault or threat in the bedroom. I have speculated that maybe he got his gun early on and pointed it at her. . Which sealed her fate in his mind. The begining of my scenario. (And speculation.)

BBM2: My theory is he imbibed and it greatly affected his judgment.

BBM1: If the inside out jeans on the duvet were Reeva's, he could have pulled them off her in a forceful, angry manner. Makes me shudder to think of that.

 

[Viper]

<RSBM>

If the inside out jeans on the duvet were Reeva's, he could have pulled them off her in a forceful, angry manner. Makes me shudder to think of that.

BIB. Only if you think that he raped her.

But if I am to believe that I also have to believe that he would only allow her to dress in his Nike shorts and t-shirt after he did that. What was he going to do with her jeans, keep them as his trophy of his first rape?

 

[Viper]

Maybe he forced her to go into the toilet. He required her to be in there for his intruder story.

BIB. It would have been a lot easier and less complicated to just have her stand anywhere near the bathroom window or hallway and shoot her in the head. Same intruder story but just one accidentally fired bullet. Several men have gotten no jail sentence for doing just that. And he wouldn't even have to replace his WC door.