Oscar Pistorius Defense

[Ncl1968]

[quoteusmajjjj;10585318] questions (Assuming OP's case is fabricated):

1) Why would he need to change his posShhhhh on where he sleeps on the bed, how does that help his version?

2) Why, if lying about police putting the blanket on the floor, doesn't he make up a scenario that he put duvet on the floor when he was looking for Reeva on way back instead? Wouldn't that be more plausible that a policeman moving it?

3) Why doesn't he say that Reeva could have got food while he's sleeping to cover the food problem?

4) Why does he need to add the bit about putting his head in his hands when he wakes up?[/quote]
,......................... . .......................

1...chances are he would have seen her go to the loo from that side of the bed even though her bag and shoes where thatside of the bed... He is covering his *advertiser censored*

2..he uses the quilt as a guide to judge the shape of reeva legs. As if to say she was under the quilt without actually seeing her.
3...simply because they were meant to be a loving couple who went to bed together instead of arguing all night
4...ahh the nail in the coffin his idea of waking talking without actually seeing his beloved
....
Hope this helps you cos in my mind it is just totally unbelievable

 

[lisasalinger]

[quoteusmajjjj;10585318] questions (Assuming OP's case is fabricated):

Snipped by me for space.

I have some other views on this, see below in red:

1) Why would he need to change his posShhhhh on where he sleeps on the bed, how does that help his version?

Three reasons - First, it has to do with the iPads. They were seemingly thrown on the floor on the right side of the bed. Whatever was on those iPads was not good. As we know, he deleted history and synced the two iPads, so I think there are things from them that we'll never know. Second, the holster was found on the left. If he usually kept his gun on the right, how did it end up over on the left? That's still something that we don't know. Obviously, I don't believe that Oscar ever slept that night, nor do I believe his gun was under the bed on the left. Third, there was blood spatter on the wall above the left side. Oscar pawned that off as "cast off" from his hands/arms when he retrieved his phone on the left side to call for help. I am waiting to hear Nel's explanation in closing for why the holster and the blood spatter were on the left hand side. Maybe he'll address it, maybe he won't, but I think there's another reason beyond what Oscar told us.

2) Why, if lying about police putting the blanket on the floor, doesn't he make up a scenario that he put duvet on the floor when he was looking for Reeva on way back instead? Wouldn't that be more plausible that a policeman moving it?

He HAD to lie about the duvet because he cannot run from the bathroom to the balcony (to call for help) with the duvet in that position. He also cannot access the balcony with the fan in the position that it was seen. He gave a story of being all over that side of the room, running around, checking the side of the bed and curtains, etc. The ONLY thing he could say was that the police moved it the next day. The only way his story works is if the duvet is on the bed. This is the problem with lying... with every twist and turn, something is not going to fit.

3) Why doesn't he say that Reeva could have got food while he's sleeping to cover the food problem?

In order to distance himself from any type of fighting (to discredit what van der Mewre heard at 1:56am), and also to solidify his story of the bedroom being locked with the cricket bat wedged in the doorway, he needs her to stay put in that room! Her being up during the night at any time leaves open suspicion that they were not sleeping and that the bedroom door was not secure.

4) Why does he need to add the bit about putting his head in his hands when he wakes up

He has to keep explaining to the court why he didn't see her at all at 3am, therefore he can't even remotely be looking her way. Face has to be covered, room has to be pitch black, there has to be no two way talking whatsoever. As Nel kept pushing him on how ridiculous his story is, Oscar just keeps blabbing and blabbing. The hands over the face, needed to push covers to the side that weren't even on him before getting up conversation was a total fail! He was so mixed up in a jam during this testimony that he sounded like a fool.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-07072000-13570015/unrestricted/THESISetd.PDF


A COMPARISON OF DEPRESSED AND NONDEPRESSED MALE
PERPETRATORS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

This study supported previous research in finding a relationship between male batterers
level of depression and their alcohol use, anger, anxiety, marital satisfaction and level of
psychological and physical violence. In a
addition, I found that depressed batterers were more
angry, more anxious, more dissatisfied in their marriages, and more psychologically and
physically violent than nondepressed male batterers.

I haven't read all 77 pages but find the study very interesting and applicable to OP, IMO.

 

[eimajjjj]

Snipped by me for space.

I have some other views on this, see below in red:

1) Why would he need to change his posShhhhh on where he sleeps on the bed, how does that help his version?

Three reasons - First, it has to do with the iPads. They were seemingly thrown on the floor on the right side of the bed. Whatever was on those iPads was not good. As we know, he deleted history and synced the two iPads, so I think there are things from them that we'll never know. Second, the holster was found on the left. If he usually kept his gun on the right, how did it end up over on the left? That's still something that we don't know. Obviously, I don't believe that Oscar ever slept that night, nor do I believe his gun was under the bed on the left. Third, there was blood spatter on the wall above the left side. Oscar pawned that off as "cast off" from his hands/arms when he retrieved his phone on the left side to call for help. I am waiting to hear Nel's explanation in closing for why the holster and the blood spatter were on the left hand side. Maybe he'll address it, maybe he won't, but I think there's another reason beyond what Oscar told us.

2) Why, if lying about police putting the blanket on the floor, doesn't he make up a scenario that he put duvet on the floor when he was looking for Reeva on way back instead? Wouldn't that be more plausible that a policeman moving it?

He HAD to lie about the duvet because he cannot run from the bathroom to the balcony (to call for help) with the duvet in that position. He also cannot access the balcony with the fan in the position that it was seen. He gave a story of being all over that side of the room, running around, checking the side of the bed and curtains, etc. The ONLY thing he could say was that the police moved it the next day. The only way his story works is if the duvet is on the bed. This is the problem with lying... with every twist and turn, something is not going to fit.

3) Why doesn't he say that Reeva could have got food while he's sleeping to cover the food problem?

In order to distance himself from any type of fighting (to discredit what van der Mewre heard at 1:56am), and also to solidify his story of the bedroom being locked with the cricket bat wedged in the doorway, he needs her to stay put in that room! Her being up during the night at any time leaves open suspicion that they were not sleeping and that the bedroom door was not secure.

4) Why does he need to add the bit about putting his head in his hands when he wakes up

He has to keep explaining to the court why he didn't see her at all at 3am, therefore he can't even remotely be looking her way. Face has to be covered, room has to be pitch black, there has to be no two way talking whatsoever. As Nel kept pushing him on how ridiculous his story is, Oscar just keeps blabbing and blabbing. The hands over the face, needed to push covers to the side that weren't even on him before getting up conversation was a total fail! He was so mixed up in a jam during this testimony that he sounded like a fool.

hmm, thanks for your answers but i have answers to your answers!

1) I thought he said he was sleeping on the left anyway (as you face the bed) and the ipads were on the right so better for him to say he slept on the right no?

2) but he could say he put the duvet on the floor when he first came back to check for reeva and then that would explain the blood and it being there, he could just run over it now and then

3) her just sneaking down for a sandwich at 1am wouldn't be so implausible or necessary imply an argument, not sure why he doesn't suggest that as a possibility to save the food findings

4) he can say he saw her in bed when he got up surely, doesn't stop her leaving while he's closing the curtains, plus he said he saw her anyway undert the duvet

 

[MsMarple]

This whole thing about Reeva and OP switching sides for the night is confounding. I get that OP had a bum shoulder (he even referenced it in a text) and I get why it's important for Reeva to be farther away from his gun. But the physical evidence doesn't support OP's story.

OP's habit was to keep his gun on the low table beside him during the night, yet on that night he said he put it under the bed, on the left side when he went upstairs to wash up. That means he and Reeva had already decided to switch sides that night.

Reeva's slippers/flip-flops were on the left side of the bed. After dinner she brought up drinks for them, presumably barefooted, otherwise the shoes would have been parked on the right side of the bed. OP's legs were on the right side of the bed* (to air out), opposite to where he was sleeping.

So... on top of a series of bizarre coincidences – hearing the noise in the bathroom right after he moved away from the noisy fans, not seeing the bed because the curtains were closed, covering his face etc. - he also broke three long-standing habits. He placed his gun under the bed, switched his normal sleeping side and moved his legs to a place where he didn't have easy access to them.

Coincidences happen but in this case OP also had to deviate from his normal behavior not once but three times to make his scenario work. That's atypical of other cases I've seen of mistaken identity - in those cases it was the victim deviating from their normal behavior that confused the shooter, not the shooter changing his own behavior.

People here have pointed out that individual discrepancies and oddities don't mean much until you start trying to fit them all together and put them into context. Looking at the lists y'all have come up with so far really drives the point home: OP's ever-evolving story doesn't hold up under scrutiny. What's that saying... oh yeah, “The Devil's in the details.” :devil:

* He may have said they were at the right end of the bed. Either way they weren't close to him.

 

[lisasalinger]

hmm, thanks for your answers but i have answers to your answers!

Snipped by me.

To make sure we are on the same page, the sides of the bed that I am referring to are from the vantage point of standing at the foot of the bed and looking at it. The right side is closest to the balcony, the left is closest to the sofa.

My responses are in blue:

1) I thought he said he was sleeping on the left anyway (as you face the bed) and the ipads were on the right so better for him to say he slept on the right no?

No, not better for him to be sleeping on the right! He gave very few details of what they actually did that night but went to great pains to detail how he and Reeva were looking at their phones/iPads in bed to view photos. He stated that he was tired, was laying on her stomach, then fell asleep, leaving open the window that Reeva was the last to use the devices, hence the one to throw them on the right side of the bed because she's sleeping on the right.

But I believe the biggest reason why he said he was on the left was because the holster and blood spatter were found on the left side. He claims he retrieved his gun from under the bed on the left that night (hence the holster being on the left nightstand) and retrieved his phone from the left night stand to call for help (hence the cast off blood on the wall above the left nightstand). If he was sleeping on the right, as he normally did, the holster and blood should have been on the right side, not the left. He had no choice but to lie about the side of the bed he was on to explain those things.

2) but he could say he put the duvet on the floor when he first came back to check for reeva and then that would explain the blood and it being there, he could just run over it now and then

No that doesn't explain the blood. How would there be blood on the duvet if he hasn't found Reeva yet? That makes no sense.

Respectfully, I think you may be ignoring some of the testimony and photos. I included a photo below to outline my thoughts here.

OP claims to be on stumps while he is trying to find Reeva in the bed, hopping off on the right hand side, feeling the curtains, and is also running back and forth in the bedroom, all on his stumps PRIOR to find Reeva in the toilet room.

Look at the items on the right side of the bed. The clippers are still in their upright standing position, there are iPads on the floor along with wires and an extension cord. He would have fallen over that stuff and the clippers certainly would not be upright.

He would not have been able to get thru that area with the duvet on the ground and the fan directly in front of the door. A man on stumps, in the pitch dark, would be tripping on that duvet and fan. He did not claim that at all... Although, he did say to Nel, when corned with the fact that the small fan was not plugged in, that "maybe" he tripped on the fan and pulled the cord out of the wall but he doesn't recall that.

I'm sorry, but being on stumps, in the pitch dark, tripping over a cord hard enough to yank it out of the wall would have sent him tumbling over to the ground. He would have remembered that! It was another lame attempt to explain why something was not where he claimed it to be.

When Nel put it to Oscar that the duvet being on the floor is a big problem for his story, he conceded it was. But he HAD to say it was on the bed. He had no choice but to lie about it because he could not be running around the room doing the things he was doing with those items in the way. Even OP concedes that.

The definitive trail of blood that goes over the duvet, on the jeans and on to the floor are all further proof that those items were in that position during the night and OP carried Reeva out of the bathroom and cast the blood across them. Hence, OP lied.

3) her just sneaking down for a sandwich at 1am wouldn't be so implausible or necessary imply an argument, not sure why he doesn't suggest that as a possibility to save the food findings

For accuracy sake, she did not eat a sandwich. She ate vegetables with a white-ish substance as clearly testified to by the medical examiner. If she snuck downstairs and had something to eat, then it leaves open the possibility that she was awake at 1:56am when Mrs. van der Mewre heard the loud woman voice arguing. He cannot leave that possibility open!

But I think you also missed the testimony about the locked bedroom door and the alarm, and the significance of it. OP tried to make it seem like he had no idea if Reeva knew how to use the alarm remote, which is a farce, because she had previously stayed at his house without him being there. She knew how to use the alarm and he knows that.

Part of OP's defense is that he chose to go toward the danger with a gun, instead of run out of the bedroom to safety because: a) he was on stumps b) the bedroom door was locked. He goes one step further to say the cricket bat is wedged up against the door for further safety.

Reeva having the ability to be up and about and get out of the room quickly greatly hurts him because it further supports that his choice to go racing after a phantom intruder on stumps and with a gun is incredibly ridiculous when they can simply go out the door.

One further item - OP says that it dawned on him that Reeva may have been in the toilet as soon as he got to the bed. Why would he make that assumption when it's pitch dark and he hasn't even looked for her yet? Makes no sense. Nel asks OP why he didn't look to see if Reeva had run out of the bedroom during the gunfire. Because that would be the LOGICAL thing that anybody would do. His unbelievably awful answer was because the shooting had occurred in the bathroom so why look outside the bedroom??? Huh??? He knows d@mn well that Reeva didn't run out of the bedroom because he knows d@mn well she's in the toilet.

4) he can say he saw her in bed when he got up surely, doesn't stop her leaving while he's closing the curtains, plus he said he saw her anyway undert the duvet

If you believe this, then you also believe that he moved both fans that were still on (even though only one was plugged in) in front of the bed with his back to the bed the entire time preventing him from seeing her while the door was still open and the BALCONY LIGHT ON.

 

[lisasalinger]

This whole thing about Reeva and OP switching sides for the night is confounding. I get that OP had a bum shoulder (he even referenced it in a text) and I get why it's important for Reeva to be farther away from his gun. But the physical evidence doesn't support OP's story.

OP's habit was to keep his gun on the low table beside him during the night, yet on that night he said he put it under the bed, on the left side when he went upstairs to wash up. That means he and Reeva had already decided to switch sides that night.

Reeva's slippers/flip-flops were on the left side of the bed. After dinner she brought up drinks for them, presumably barefooted, otherwise the shoes would have been parked on the right side of the bed. OP's legs were on the right side of the bed* (to air out), opposite to where he was sleeping.

So... on top of a series of bizarre coincidences – hearing the noise in the bathroom right after he moved away from the noisy fans, not seeing the bed because the curtains were closed, covering his face etc. - he also broke three long-standing habits. He placed his gun under the bed, switched his normal sleeping side and moved his legs to a place where he didn't have easy access to them.

Coincidences happen but in this case OP also had to deviate from his normal behavior not once but three times to make his scenario work. That's atypical of other cases I've seen of mistaken identity - in those cases it was the victim deviating from their normal behavior that confused the shooter, not the shooter changing his own behavior.

People here have pointed out that individual discrepancies and oddities don't mean much until you start trying to fit them all together and put them into context. Looking at the lists y'all have come up with so far really drives the point home: OP's ever-evolving story doesn't hold up under scrutiny. What's that saying... oh yeah, “The Devil's in the details.” :devil:

* He may have said they were at the right end of the bed. Either way they weren't close to him.

BBM

Very well said, MsMarple!! The devil is in the details, indeed.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Snipped by me.

To make sure we are on the same page, the sides of the bed that I am referring to are from the vantage point of standing at the foot of the bed and looking at it. The right side is closest to the balcony, the left is closest to the sofa.

My responses are in blue:

1) I thought he said he was sleeping on the left anyway (as you face the bed) and the ipads were on the right so better for him to say he slept on the right no?

No, not better for him to be sleeping on the right! He gave very few details of what they actually did that night but went to great pains to detail how he and Reeva were looking at their phones/iPads in bed to view photos. He stated that he was tired, was laying on her stomach, then fell asleep, leaving open the window that Reeva was the last to use the devices, hence the one to throw them on the right side of the bed because she's sleeping on the right.

But I believe the biggest reason why he said he was on the left was because the holster and blood spatter were found on the left side. He claims he retrieved his gun from under the bed on the left that night (hence the holster being on the left nightstand) and retrieved his phone from the left night stand to call for help (hence the cast off blood on the wall above the left nightstand). If he was sleeping on the right, as he normally did, the holster and blood should have been on the right side, not the left. He had no choice but to lie about the side of the bed he was on to explain those things.

2) but he could say he put the duvet on the floor when he first came back to check for reeva and then that would explain the blood and it being there, he could just run over it now and then

No that doesn't explain the blood. How would there be blood on the duvet if he hasn't found Reeva yet? That makes no sense.

Respectfully, I think you may be ignoring some of the testimony and photos. I included a photo below to outline my thoughts here.

OP claims to be on stumps while he is trying to find Reeva in the bed, hopping off on the right hand side, feeling the curtains, and is also running back and forth in the bedroom, all on his stumps PRIOR to find Reeva in the toilet room.

Look at the items on the right side of the bed. The clippers are still in their upright standing position, there are iPads on the floor along with wires and an extension cord. He would have fallen over that stuff and the clippers certainly would not be upright.

He would not have been able to get thru that area with the duvet on the ground and the fan directly in front of the door. A man on stumps, in the pitch dark, would be tripping on that duvet and fan. He did not claim that at all... Although, he did say to Nel, when corned with the fact that the small fan was not plugged in, that "maybe" he tripped on the fan and pulled the cord out of the wall but he doesn't recall that.

I'm sorry, but being on stumps, in the pitch dark, tripping over a cord hard enough to yank it out of the wall would have sent him tumbling over to the ground. He would have remembered that! It was another lame attempt to explain why something was not where he claimed it to be.

When Nel put it to Oscar that the duvet being on the floor is a big problem for his story, he conceded it was. But he HAD to say it was on the bed. He had no choice but to lie about it because he could not be running around the room doing the things he was doing with those items in the way. Even OP concedes that.

The definitive trail of blood that goes over the duvet, on the jeans and on to the floor are all further proof that those items were in that position during the night and OP carried Reeva out of the bathroom and cast the blood across them. Hence, OP lied.

3) her just sneaking down for a sandwich at 1am wouldn't be so implausible or necessary imply an argument, not sure why he doesn't suggest that as a possibility to save the food findings

For accuracy sake, she did not eat a sandwich. She ate vegetables with a white-ish substance as clearly testified to by the medical examiner. If she snuck downstairs and had something to eat, then it leaves open the possibility that she was awake at 1:56am when Mrs. van der Mewre heard the loud woman voice arguing. He cannot leave that possibility open!

But I think you also missed the testimony about the locked bedroom door and the alarm, and the significance of it. OP tried to make it seem like he had no idea if Reeva knew how to use the alarm remote, which is a farce, because she had previously stayed at his house without him being there. She knew how to use the alarm and he knows that.

Part of OP's defense is that he chose to go toward the danger with a gun, instead of run out of the bedroom to safety because: a) he was on stumps b) the bedroom door was locked. He goes one step further to say the cricket bat is wedged up against the door for further safety.

Reeva having the ability to be up and about and get out of the room quickly greatly hurts him because it further supports that his choice to go racing after a phantom intruder on stumps and with a gun is incredibly ridiculous when they can simply go out the door.

One further item - OP says that it dawned on him that Reeva may have been in the toilet as soon as he got to the bed. Why would he make that assumption when it's pitch dark and he hasn't even looked for her yet? Makes no sense. Nel asks OP why he didn't look to see if Reeva had run out of the bedroom during the gunfire. Because that would be the LOGICAL thing that anybody would do. His unbelievably awful answer was because the shooting had occurred in the bathroom so why look outside the bedroom??? Huh??? He knows d@mn well that Reeva didn't run out of the bedroom because he knows d@mn well she's in the toilet.

4) he can say he saw her in bed when he got up surely, doesn't stop her leaving while he's closing the curtains, plus he said he saw her anyway undert the duvet

If you believe this, then you also believe that he moved both fans that were still on (even though only one was plugged in) in front of the bed with his back to the bed the entire time preventing him from seeing her while the door was still open and the BALCONY LIGHT ON.

A couple of queries Lisa (same para numbers) so that I can get things straight in my mind. BTW I'm totally on board with the bat first, shots second scenario.

1) I thought that the reason he said he slept on the left was to increase the implausibility that he could have missed Reeva getting up and therefore support his conclusion that the noise in the bathroom must have been an intruder. Your other reasons make sense to me too.

2) Could you point me to where evidence was given that blood was found on the jeans (as well as the duvet and carpet). I wish I had heard this as it's even more damning.

3) Other evidence supports the fact that Reeva could work the alarm but OP also contradicts himself on this point, both accepting that she could work it in cross examination and saying he didn't know when asked later.

4) Didn't OP say that the curtain was wrapped around the fan, hence obscuring the light from the balcony?

Love your blog!

 

[lisasalinger]

I don't think there is any excuse for firing a gun in a restaurant or out a sunroof? I expect he will be convicted on those charges and sentenced appropriately.

It was not intuitive to any of us that bat strikes might sound uncannily like gunshots. But that is what the evidence seems to suggest. And nobody claims to have been awoken by bat strikes or the sounds that Oscar claims were bat strikes...right?

I think he shot through his bathroom door. From there there was time lost to figuring out and confirming what he had done. Too much time? Maybe. It does give me some pause, but not enough to change the basic events in my mind.

I don't think anybody has given much of a satisfying account of why there is blood in the bedroom anywhere. That Oscar can't explain why the duvet was on the floor is not at this time a big thing for me.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely odd to me about a 26 year old man looking at *advertiser censored* in an extended private moment. Some men might wait until their girlfriend was not in the house but many are just great compartmentalizers who would wade right in. I don't think the *advertiser censored* viewing is relevant to anything, including his character or his feelings for Reeva.

BBM.... It should be a big thing for you! It's a huge indication that Oscar's account of events in that room are not at all possible.

See my post #1166 above.

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM.... It should be a big thing for you! It's a huge indication that Oscar's account of events in that room are not at all possible.

See my post #1166 above.

I completely disagree. It's an indication that Oscar's recounting of events does not match that element of the crime scene. Your suggestion is of course one possibility. That the crime scene was altered through carelessness is another. Still another is that Oscar was traumatized and doesn't accurately remember events or elements that would have put the duvet on the floor or over the edge of the jeans. Memory is WAY more fragile and malleable than people often credit. It is, to me, a small detail that doesn't produce truly valuable information to the same degree that other pieces of evidence do in this case.

 

[lisasalinger]

A couple of queries Lisa (same para numbers) so that I can get things straight in my mind. BTW I'm totally on board with the bat first, shots second scenario.

1) I thought that the reason he said he slept on the left was to increase the implausibility that he could have missed Reeva getting up and therefore support his conclusion that the noise in the bathroom must have been an intruder. Your other reasons make sense to me too.

2) Could you point me to where evidence was given that blood was found on the jeans (as well as the duvet and carpet). I wish I had heard this as it's even more damning.

3) Other evidence supports the fact that Reeva could work the alarm but OP also contradicts himself on this point, both accepting that she could work it in cross examination and saying he didn't know when asked later.

4) Didn't OP say that the curtain was wrapped around the fan, hence obscuring the light from the balcony?

Love your blog!

Hey Mr. Fossil, thanks :seeya:

1) Actually, Reeva sleeping on the right makes it less plausible that he missed her getting up. That's why I don't agree with that theory that I have seen by some. It has everything to do with that gun holster and the blood spatter. OP never used to keep his gun under the bed and he didn't usually sleep on the left, according to evidence, but he did that night. He had to say that because of holster and blood spatter. I stand by that one as the most plausible reason to place himself there.

2) Go here to check out the portion of testimony about the blood spatter across the items on the floor - you can find it about 1/4 of the way down the page. http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/oscar-trial-day-21-oscar/

3) I agree that OP's account of Reeva and the alarm are inconsistent. There is no reason for him to say anything other than, "yes, she knows how to use it" unless he is trying to cover something up. Red flag there.

4) Yes, he did carefully explain how the curtain was wrapped around the fan (another ridiculous story). BUT, think about his sequence... He moved the fans from the doorway to in front of the bed. He would have done that BEFORE the door was closed, locked and curtains fully drawn. There would have been some portion of the curtains cracked, and the balcony light was on. Plus, how could he position the fans in front of the bed with it being pitch dark. He wouldn't be able to see what he was doing, and would be tripping all over those wires on his stumps. Really try to picture a man on his stumps, in the pitch dark, positioning fans in front of the bed with his back to the bed the whole time, wires and extension cords in the way. Who does that?? Nobody!!

 

[lisasalinger]

I completely disagree. It's an indication that Oscar's recounting of events does not match that element of the crime scene. Your suggestion is of course one possibility. That the crime scene was altered through carelessness is another. Still another is that Oscar was traumatized and doesn't accurately remember events or elements that would have put the duvet on the floor or over the edge of the jeans. Memory is WAY more fragile and malleable than people often credit. It is, to me, a small detail that doesn't produce truly valuable information to the same degree that other pieces of evidence do in this case.

The "memory" issue is laughable. I'm not directing that at you, I direct it at OP and his Defense. He has no problem whatsoever remembering every single detail of how he positioned his fans, how he tried to cover a tiny blue light with jeans, how he retrieved his gun, how he removed the holster and the safety, how he creeped his way to the bathroom, what he yelled, what he considered, but can't possibly remember pressing the trigger.

But then magically his memory kicks in again... he knows exactly how he broke down the door, where the key was, how Reeva was draped on his shoulder. He remembers calling Stander and he remembers calling Netcare, but he doesn't remember AT ALL talking to security exactly two minutes later.

Again, magic... the memory appears again as he is carrying Reeva down the stairs, asking for the Standers to put her in the car.

Come on now. Think very carefully about the parts of the night that he CHOOSES not to remember. They are very telling!

 

[james83]

The "memory" issue is laughable. I'm not directing that at you, I direct it at OP and his Defense. He has no problem whatsoever remembering every single detail of how he positioned his fans, how he tried to cover a tiny blue light with jeans, how he retrieved his gun, how he removed the holster and the safety, how he creeped his way to the bathroom, what he yelled, what he considered, but can't possibly remember pressing the trigger.

But then magically his memory kicks in again... he knows exactly how he broke down the door, where the key was, how Reeva was draped on his shoulder. He remembers calling Stander and he remembers calling Netcare, but he doesn't remember AT ALL talking to security exactly two minutes later.

Again, magic... the memory appears again as he is carrying Reeva down the stairs, asking for the Standers to put her in the car.

Come on now. Think very carefully about the parts of the night that he CHOOSES not to remember. They are very telling!

Pretty sure he will be tested for NIMD whilst at Weskoppies-
Non Incriminating Memory Disorder.

 

[james83]

Oscar remembers every damn second of what happened that night, all of it, he will never forget a second of the night HIS life was ruined forever.

 

[jay-jay]

I completely disagree. It's an indication that Oscar's recounting of events does not match that element of the crime scene. Your suggestion is of course one possibility. That the crime scene was altered through carelessness is another. Still another is that Oscar was traumatized and doesn't accurately remember events or elements that would have put the duvet on the floor or over the edge of the jeans. Memory is WAY more fragile and malleable than people often credit. It is, to me, a small detail that doesn't produce truly valuable information to the same degree that other pieces of evidence do in this case.

But the point is that the forensics proves that the duvet was on the floor, because of the way that the blood trail goes across the carpet in a continuous line up onto the duvet, and the jeans overlap the duvet, but it's the blood trail that confirms that the crime scene has not been altered one bit by careless police (or even deliberately so by them, as OP kept insisting it was).

.. and if the duvet has been proved to have been there all along, then the fans could not have been in the place that OP said they were .. the whole of his story falls down because the forensics have proved this. This isn't just my opinion, this is actual fact.

 

[james83]

I mean he claims he doesn't remember either calling or later speaking to Baba, Really?, LOL.

 

[james83]

RE Estelle Van Der Merwe hearing a woman's voice in what she believe's sounded like an argumentative tone, i'm leaning towards the theory that Reeva locked herself in the bedroom and they were arguing with each other through the door, hence Van Der Merwe only hearing Reeva, then at some point Oscar forced his way through hence the damage to the door and the event's that followed.
JMO.

 

[eimajjjj]

My responses are in blue:

1) I thought he said he was sleeping on the left anyway (as you face the bed) and the ipads were on the right so better for him to say he slept on the right no?

No, not better for him to be sleeping on the right! He gave very few details of what they actually did that night but went to great pains to detail how he and Reeva were looking at their phones/iPads in bed to view photos. He stated that he was tired, was laying on her stomach, then fell asleep, leaving open the window that Reeva was the last to use the devices, hence the one to throw them on the right side of the bed because she's sleeping on the right.

But I believe the biggest reason why he said he was on the left was because the holster and blood spatter were found on the left side. He claims he retrieved his gun from under the bed on the left that night (hence the holster being on the left nightstand) and retrieved his phone from the left night stand to call for help (hence the cast off blood on the wall above the left nightstand). If he was sleeping on the right, as he normally did, the holster and blood should have been on the right side, not the left. He had no choice but to lie about the side of the bed he was on to explain those things.

2) but he could say he put the duvet on the floor when he first came back to check for reeva and then that would explain the blood and it being there, he could just run over it now and then

No that doesn't explain the blood. How would there be blood on the duvet if he hasn't found Reeva yet? That makes no sense.

Respectfully, I think you may be ignoring some of the testimony and photos. I included a photo below to outline my thoughts here.

OP claims to be on stumps while he is trying to find Reeva in the bed, hopping off on the right hand side, feeling the curtains, and is also running back and forth in the bedroom, all on his stumps PRIOR to find Reeva in the toilet room.

Look at the items on the right side of the bed. The clippers are still in their upright standing position, there are iPads on the floor along with wires and an extension cord. He would have fallen over that stuff and the clippers certainly would not be upright.

He would not have been able to get thru that area with the duvet on the ground and the fan directly in front of the door. A man on stumps, in the pitch dark, would be tripping on that duvet and fan. He did not claim that at all... Although, he did say to Nel, when corned with the fact that the small fan was not plugged in, that "maybe" he tripped on the fan and pulled the cord out of the wall but he doesn't recall that.

I'm sorry, but being on stumps, in the pitch dark, tripping over a cord hard enough to yank it out of the wall would have sent him tumbling over to the ground. He would have remembered that! It was another lame attempt to explain why something was not where he claimed it to be.

When Nel put it to Oscar that the duvet being on the floor is a big problem for his story, he conceded it was. But he HAD to say it was on the bed. He had no choice but to lie about it because he could not be running around the room doing the things he was doing with those items in the way. Even OP concedes that.

The definitive trail of blood that goes over the duvet, on the jeans and on to the floor are all further proof that those items were in that position during the night and OP carried Reeva out of the bathroom and cast the blood across them. Hence, OP lied.

3) her just sneaking down for a sandwich at 1am wouldn't be so implausible or necessary imply an argument, not sure why he doesn't suggest that as a possibility to save the food findings

For accuracy sake, she did not eat a sandwich. She ate vegetables with a white-ish substance as clearly testified to by the medical examiner. If she snuck downstairs and had something to eat, then it leaves open the possibility that she was awake at 1:56am when Mrs. van der Mewre heard the loud woman voice arguing. He cannot leave that possibility open!

But I think you also missed the testimony about the locked bedroom door and the alarm, and the significance of it. OP tried to make it seem like he had no idea if Reeva knew how to use the alarm remote, which is a farce, because she had previously stayed at his house without him being there. She knew how to use the alarm and he knows that.

Part of OP's defense is that he chose to go toward the danger with a gun, instead of run out of the bedroom to safety because: a) he was on stumps b) the bedroom door was locked. He goes one step further to say the cricket bat is wedged up against the door for further safety.

Reeva having the ability to be up and about and get out of the room quickly greatly hurts him because it further supports that his choice to go racing after a phantom intruder on stumps and with a gun is incredibly ridiculous when they can simply go out the door.

One further item - OP says that it dawned on him that Reeva may have been in the toilet as soon as he got to the bed. Why would he make that assumption when it's pitch dark and he hasn't even looked for her yet? Makes no sense. Nel asks OP why he didn't look to see if Reeva had run out of the bedroom during the gunfire. Because that would be the LOGICAL thing that anybody would do. His unbelievably awful answer was because the shooting had occurred in the bathroom so why look outside the bedroom??? Huh??? He knows d@mn well that Reeva didn't run out of the bedroom because he knows d@mn well she's in the toilet.

4) he can say he saw her in bed when he got up surely, doesn't stop her leaving while he's closing the curtains, plus he said he saw her anyway undert the duvet

If you believe this, then you also believe that he moved both fans that were still on (even though only one was plugged in) in front of the bed with his back to the bed the entire time preventing him from seeing her while the door was still open and the BALCONY LIGHT ON.

OK..I think..

1) OK, makes sense, thanks! (although if the blood splatter/holster WAS found on the left, doesn't that imply he WAS sleeping on the left? Sorry if I'm confused here..

2) There still could be blood on the duvet if OP said that after he returned to the bedroom and looked for Reeva, he pulled the duvet onto the floor to find her...then, when he did finally see her and got covered in blood, the blood would splatter on the duvet when he returned...then all he has to explain is how he walked over the duvet which is easier than pretending it was moved there

3) I missed that OP said door was locked and Reeva couldn't use the alarm although he does at one point say there was a 'possibility' she went down to eat but doesn't stick with it

4) my point is that he doesn't have to pretend he didn't see Reeva until he walks past the foot of the bed and she could get out once he's past her, no need for holding eyes when he wakes up...

AND FOR A NEW BONUS NO.5! - why is it so hard to find out who the first person who went to that room was and whether they saw the blanket on the floor etc..??

 

[cottonweaver]

Still another is that Oscar was traumatized and doesn't accurately remember events or elements that would have put the duvet on the floor or over the edge of the jeans. Memory is WAY more fragile and malleable than people often credit. It is, to me, a small detail that doesn't produce truly valuable information to the same degree that other pieces of evidence do in this case.

Whilst I agree that memory of traumatic events (whether you caused them or not) is often inaccurate and arbitrary, I really do not think this is the case with OP.
Now- with the delay for mental evaluation- is a great time to watch again some of the trial days, especially his testimony.
His account of his memory of his actions are really quite fascinating - if it wasn't such a horrific matter.

His flexible memory ( plus his ever changing Defence) has to be the key reason the DT risked throwing in the last minute Dr Vorster gambit at that point. OP had lost all credibility during cross x. When they're laughing at what you say in the gallery - you know you have a problem.
Eg. public laughed along with Nel when OP couldn't remember who told him that Fresco & Taylor had been communicating to incriminate him. (And OP certainly wasn't in a state of PTSD re Fresco & Taylor evidence.)
Even Masipa has probably been having to suck her own cheeks to stop herself -when she is not busy being silently appalled. (Ok that's poss going too far but you get my drift.)

 

[jay-jay]

3) Why doesn't he say that Reeva could have got food while he's sleeping to cover the food problem?

In order to distance himself from any type of fighting (to discredit what van der Mewre heard at 1:56am), and also to solidify his story of the bedroom being locked with the cricket bat wedged in the doorway, he needs her to stay put in that room! Her being up during the night at any time leaves open suspicion that they were not sleeping and that the bedroom door was not secure.

~snipped~

One thing that mystifies me about the food problem/Reeva's stomach contents is that I don't understand why, if OP and Reeva were arguing, she would be having a snack at some point from the kitchen .. I know from experience that anything like that is the furthest thing from your mind if you are having one of those 'all nighter' type arguments. I can only think she must've gone down there during a lull in a disagreement that started earlier that evening and before it all kicked off again big time in the early hours of Feb 14th, but I don't think she would've been snacking at the time Van der Mewre claimed to have heard a woman voice arguing, I think she would've had that snack before that argument took place (about half an hour to an hour before) .. possibly might even be something which caused an argument (or caused it to flare up again) if her getting up and going downstairs to the kitchen in the middle of the night was something which annoyed OP.

ETA: .. also I think that vegetables and cheese is an odd type of midnight snack to have, but then that's just me, I would probably have something much more unhealthy like a bag of crisps!