Sounds

[lisasalinger]

I'm re-listening to the earlier ear witness testimony to see what I can pick up the second time around... You know what's interesting...

During Estelle van der Mewre's testimony (on direct) she states that she heard 4 gunshots around 3am. Not exactly at 3am, but around 3am. She is speaking in Afrikaans and the interpreter translated her words as "gunshots". Roux stood up and objected to that.

Nel agrees and says the word that she used should have been translated to something more like "explosions". Roux still objects and disagrees. He wanted to make sure that they did not say gunshots or explosions.

After some more questioning by Nel, he is able to get her to act out what they sounded like and she said "bang bang". She went on to say that they were one right after the other.

When I initially heard this way back in the beginning of the trial, it didn't mean anything to me.

In hindsight, it's very telling!!

Why would Roux object to that when their version is that the gunshots were closer to 3am, not closer to 3:17?

Most people assume Estelle heard them at 3am because she said "around 3am". BUT...

To summarize... Estelle then reports silence after the shots. Then crying (identified as Oscar by her husband) and shortly after, cars arriving on the scene. She heard the 3:17 shots!

The reason that Roux did NOT want "gunshots" or "explosions" to be on the record is because he knows that she heard the last set of bangs (gunshots) and the court will figure that out when they consider the totality of what she heard afterwards. She did not hear blood-curdling screaming. She only heard crying and then all of the cars started arriving.

 

[Jake18]

Lisa, I agree with your opinion above. I've always assumed she heard the gunshots, mainly because if I'm awake at 3:05, 3:10, 3:15 or whatever I'll recall it the next day as "I'm tired be because I woke around 3". For me, if i wake in the night it's all about the hour of waking, not the exact time. The times being similar but not exactly the same make the ear witnesses testimony more powerful, IMO as it allows for sleep befuddlement and small variations in the various time keepers. None of the clocks in my house are exactly the same.

In spite of Roux trying to obfuscate the issue we're still left with screaming Reeva, followed by gunshots followed by crying/wailing Oscar. Not a single ear witness, for either the defence or the state heard something that doesn't fit on that "sound timeline".

 

[lisasalinger]

Lisa, I agree with your opinion above. I've always assumed she heard the gunshots, mainly because if I'm awake at 3:05, 3:10, 3:15 or whatever I'll recall it the next day as "I'm tired be because I woke around 3". For me, if i wake in the night it's all about the hour of waking, not the exact time. The times being similar but not exactly the same make the ear witnesses testimony more powerful, IMO as it allows for sleep befuddlement and small variations in the various time keepers. None of the clocks in my house are exactly the same.

In spite of Roux trying to obfuscate the issue we're still left with screaming Reeva, followed by gunshots followed by crying/wailing Oscar. Not a single ear witness, for either the defence or the state heard something that doesn't fit on that "sound timeline".

For so long we have all been fixated on:

3:00am vs. 3:17am (first bangs vs. second bangs)

When in reality, the main thing to focus on is:

screams vs. crying

That is the only difference in who was awake before the shots, and who was awake after. That's it, pretty simple.

It was kind of an epiphany moment for me today. For the first time since the beginning of this trial, I realized that the initial bangs heard by the Stipps are pretty irrelevant to the actual shooting itself.

Don't misunderstand, I have always thought the seconds bags were the gunshots... I've just been stuck on what the first sounds were. All of a sudden, they're not really important to me anymore. Kind of hard to explain, just one of those light bulb moments.

Yes, the initial banging noise somehow precipitated Reeva screaming in fear, which then escalated in to everything else. It probably is what sent her running in to the toilet room, whatever it was.

I finally understand why Nel seemingly hasn't given much time to them at all during trial. Because does it really matter what they were, other than to satisfy our curiosity? All that matters is the gunshots came after that.

(P.S. everyone should ignore my post #96 from yesterday on this thread. I had a temporary moment of insanity with that nutty sound theory) :doh:

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

For so long we have all been fixated on:

3:00am vs. 3:17am (first bangs vs. second bangs)

When in reality, the main thing to focus on is:

screams vs. crying

That is the only difference in who was awake before the shots, and who was awake after. That's it, pretty simple.

It was kind of an epiphany moment for me today. For the first time since the beginning of this trial, I realized that the initial bangs heard by the Stipps are pretty irrelevant to the actual shooting itself.

Don't misunderstand, I have always thought the seconds bags were the gunshots... I've just been stuck on what the first sounds were. All of a sudden, they're not really important to me anymore. Kind of hard to explain, just one of those light bulb moments.

Yes, the initial banging noise somehow precipitated Reeva screaming in fear, which then escalated in to everything else. It probably is what sent her running in to the toilet room, whatever it was.

I finally understand why Nel seemingly hasn't given much time to them at all during trial. Because does it really matter what they were, other than to satisfy our curiosity? All that matters is the gunshots came after that.

(P.S. everyone should ignore my post #96 from yesterday on this thread. I had a temporary moment of insanity with that nutty sound theory) :doh:

I think you are right Lisa - Nel has had to leave some of the things that happened after the shooting well alone, otherwise it opens a can of worms he will never get closed.

For example -

Just what was the content of the call to Netcare?
Why call Stander first?
Is the court really expected to believe moving a wounded person was the best thing to do?
What were OP's real intentions with the Tape & Plastic Bags.
Pistorius washing blood off himself - is there a reason?
Just what was Frank doing all this time.
Where did the second mobile phone go? Who held it until it was handed over to the Police?
When Police found the illegal ammunition, why did OP say it was his Fathers, then say he hadn't spoken to him for years (the timeline has it before OP moved into Silverwoods - meaning OP is lying when he says his Dad put the ammo there?

I could go on, but the worms are getting everywhere…...

BTW - love your blog Lisa - I have that bookmarked as well as this one. It must take you ages to put it together. Keep up the good work.

 

[4MrsB]

Hi all...I am new to Websleuths, so please bare with me if this topic has already been discussed and answered.
With regards to SOUND, I have this concern that I have not heard discussed or brought up during testimony (although it may have, as I haven't viewed all the youtube videos of testimony yet). I have just recently discovered they're available, and recently discovered this website. Prior to that most of my coverage has been from the different journalist blogs being posted, which are very abbreviated versions of all that is covered in court.

My question regarding SOUND deals with the flushing or not-flushing of the toilet. Specifically....WHERE IS THE URINE? (I say this not to sound flippant or crude, I am really puzzled by where it went.) Let me elaborate on what is puzzling to me (of course I have a slew of things that "puzzle me" about this case and OP's version specifically, but this one pertains to the topic SOUND).

FACT:
We know Reeva's autopsy revealed she had very tiny about of urine in her bladder at time of death. So where did the urine go? If she felt the need to climb out of bed and use toilet at 3am or so, where is that urine?

She either flushed the toilet or during all the commotion, it was left in the toilet bowl. Because it was no longer in her bladder based on the autopsy.

IF SHE FLUSHED THE TOILET:
RS would have had to flush toilet BEFORE she opened the window, otherwise OP would have definitely heard this additional sound. Once he heard window open, he was "all ears" on high alert listening for exactly where and what intruder was doing. However, I do NOT believe it was possible for RS to use toilet BEFORE opening window, based on OP's order of events. (See below for order of OP's. events prior to hearing window open.)

IF SHE DID NOT FLUSH TOILET:
If RS was using toilet after opening window and all this commotion erupted, and therefore did NOT flush toilet, there would be evidence of her urine resting in the toilet bowl. If so, certainly the defense would have tested the liquid in the bowl looking for levels of urine, in an effort to support OP's version that she truly did go to bathroom to relieve herself.

I believe that there absolutely is not enough time for her to have made it to the bathroom, used the toilet and then opened window. All in the few short seconds it would have taken OP to do what he said he did before hearing window open.

TO USE TOILET FIRST she would have had to....
Get out of bed AFTER OP's back turned to address fans.
Walk in pitch darkness (according to OP) to passage and down passage into bathroom, enter toilet area, dropped shorts, relieve herself, pulled up shorts, flush toilet, exit toilet and then walk over to bathroom window and open it. (I'm NOT saying this takes 10 min, but it takes more than a few seconds, especially carefully walking in pitch darkness AND timing her leaving the bed just right, after his back is turned & he's over by the fans.)

OP's ACCOUNT OF WHAT HE DID PRIOR TO HEARING WINDOW SOUND (from point where his back is turned) .....
With back to bed & passage way (near balcony doorway opening), OP picked up (says he didn't even need to bend as was on his stumps) small fan (resting between tall fan) and move it a few feet to right. But NOT too far over OR he would have view of passage and see RS. Then grab 2nd fan and move it few feet to right (where he claims duvet was not at that point in time) and close doors. He pulled drapes closed but previously he said it was so dark he held onto foot of bed to get to fans because so dark as curtains pulled tight and draped around fans to keep light and balcony light from streaming in. So basically just pulling drapes a few inches tighter after locking doors. After that he immediately reaches for jeans, and that is when he hears the window slamming against the frame and goes into "high alert" mode. I mimicked his version of actions (and I'm no Olympic athlete - - just a little humor) and it took less than 30 sec. In reality, I doubt RS would even have had the time to make it down the passage way and around the corner out of sight in OP's version, before he turned toward jeans & heard sound, much less also use the bathroom facilities.

SO IF RS OPENED WINDOW FIRST, THEN USED TOILET....
OP would have heard the toilet flush as he was listening intently for any and all sounds in this pitch darkness.
AND IF SHE DIDN'T FLUSH TOILET....
The defense would have had someone testify to the amounts of urine left resting in the bowl, supporting OP's version of events.

So I'm puzzled . . . what happened to the urine?

(I apologize for lengthy post, and if this has already been discussed. Thanks for insight re this issue.)

 

[JuneBug67]

I think the lack of evidence on the urine forces us to make it a non issue. As the production of urine is a constant process Reeva voided her bladder at some point very close to her death, that much seems safe to assume. We have no evidence of either the presence or absense of urine either in the toilet or on her clothing and no evidence of the presence or absence of toilet tissue either. An equal argument could be that the prosecution would have conducted testing to prove that a lack of urine in both Reeva's body and the toilet suggests that Oscar must have heard a flush. That neither side have presented evidence suggests that it is either unavailable or too ambiguous to help either side.

As I see it if Oscar is fundamentally telling the truth the possibilities include Reeva going to the toilet and flushing before Oscar woke up (perhaps that what woke him?) and then returning there for some other reason when Oscar was getting the fans. Maybe she forgot her phone in the bathroom, or maybe Oscar was short with her when he woke up about the fans not being in and the doors not closed and locked (as he claimed he asked her to do this before falling asleep) and she went there hurt and to get a moment away from him alone. That might include opening a window and standing there to get fresh air. Alternatively maybe she just went in and opened the window and then went to the toilet cubicle to pee closing the door for privacy by habit or to look at her phone. Would that have been enough to dampen the sound of urinating if Oscar's focus was elsewhere or if he was already beginning to shout? She may have been just finishing when the commotion started (that timing would work) causing her to quickly pull up her shorts possibly without using tissue and almost certainly without flushing. Might explain the tiny bit left in her bladder as well.

It's a lot of speculation of course, but I don't think we can draw any sound conclusions given the possibilities and the lack of much information.

 

[lisasalinger]

Hi all...I am new to Websleuths, so please bare with me if this topic has already been discussed and answered.

Snipped by me for space.

Welcome, 4MrsB!

Here is a clip from the end of Nel's cross-examination of Professor Botha (the Defense's medical examiner) in regards to the urine in Reeva's bladder:

As far as the bladder is concerned, Botha restates that an average person accumulates 60ml of urine per hour. Having found 5ml of urine in the bladder, Nel wants to know if he can rule out that Reeva had gone to the bathroom 15 minutes before her death and he says no.

The urine is something used by the Defense to get everybody off track. It doesn't play a role, as all of the other details GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true.

 

[JuneBug67]

Snipped by me for space.

<rsbm>

The urine is something used by the Defense to get everybody off track. It doesn't play a role, as all of the other details GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true.

How is the urine being 'used by the defense'? It is a potentially key fact of the case (or not) that does support the idea that she was in the bathroom to use the bathroom. Would you expect it not to be 'used by the defense'? The whole of the evidence is challenging and sometimes ambiguous and this is certainly not a done deal or a crystal clear sequence of events and testimony that convicts Oscar in the mind of any thinking human being. People continue to repeat sentiments like 'GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true' but it's a lot more wishful thinking than either fair or accurate.

 

[lisasalinger]

How is the urine being 'used by the defense'? It is a potentially key fact of the case (or not) that does support the idea that she was in the bathroom to use the bathroom. Would you expect it not to be 'used by the defense'? The whole of the evidence is challenging and sometimes ambiguous and this is certainly not a done deal or a crystal clear sequence of events and testimony that convicts Oscar in the mind of any thinking human being. People continue to repeat sentiments like 'GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true' but it's a lot more wishful thinking than either fair or accurate.

Well, I just wildly disagree!

In my opinion, to quote your note above "a thinking human being" does not find it plausible to be roaming around in the pitch dark, shooting 4 times, through doors when you are sharing a room with somebody else and you don't have confirmation of where they are, especially when you have talked to them and they have not replied.

Nor do they find it plausible that somebody could retrieve their gun from underneath a bed, remove a holster, remove the safety, approach and scream at a person.... and then claim they had no intention of firing at anybody, even though their gun went off 4 times, accidentally, while their finger was on the trigger, intentionally, but not fully intending to pull it, whilst having no memory of it.

Nor do they find it plausible that this very same man screams like a woman, so loudly that it can be heard 170+ meters away and he also can apparently maneuver around in the pitch dark on stumps, seemingly able to leap over cords, fans, and duvets in the way.

As for the urine. Yes the Defense used it, and no I don't blame them for using it. I will agree with you that it was something that needed to be covered, and it was. Reeva did likely go to the bathroom at some point within a 15 minute time frame prior to her death, as solidified by Nel on cross-examination with Botha.

There is no proof that she was going to the bathroom at the moment of her death. To the contrary, the fact that her shorts were pulled up and that she was standing up, facing the door, apparently locked in a dark toilet room tell a very different story!

 

[4MrsB]

I think the lack of evidence on the urine forces us to make it a non issue. As the production of urine is a constant process Reeva voided her bladder at some point very close to her death, that much seems safe to assume. We have no evidence of either the presence or absense of urine either in the toilet or on her clothing and no evidence of the presence or absence of toilet tissue either. An equal argument could be that the prosecution would have conducted testing to prove that a lack of urine in both Reeva's body and the toilet suggests that Oscar must have heard a flush. That neither side have presented evidence suggests that it is either unavailable or too ambiguous to help either side.

As I see it if Oscar is fundamentally telling the truth the possibilities include Reeva going to the toilet and flushing before Oscar woke up (perhaps that what woke him?) and then returning there for some other reason when Oscar was getting the fans. Maybe she forgot her phone in the bathroom, or maybe Oscar was short with her when he woke up about the fans not being in and the doors not closed and locked (as he claimed he asked her to do this before falling asleep) and she went there hurt and to get a moment away from him alone. That might include opening a window and standing there to get fresh air. Alternatively maybe she just went in and opened the window and then went to the toilet cubicle to pee closing the door for privacy by habit or to look at her phone. Would that have been enough to dampen the sound of urinating if Oscar's focus was elsewhere or if he was already beginning to shout? She may have been just finishing when the commotion started (that timing would work) causing her to quickly pull up her shorts possibly without using tissue and almost certainly without flushing. Might explain the tiny bit left in her bladder as well.

It's a lot of speculation of course, but I don't think we can draw any sound conclusions given the possibilities and the lack of much information.

Thanks JB67 . . . I totally agree that this "piece of the puzzle" is not something to be argued in court or to carry any weight in a courtroom (based on limited info we have). I was just suggesting, in my mind, I felt Reeva must have opened window on way to use toilet and therefore (if that were true), OP would have heard the flush OR the toilet would have measurable levels left in the bowl as proof. This is ONLY based on OP's version. That she was in bed, no arguing and then while back turned she got up and headed to bathroom.

Your suggestion that she could have woken before, and perhaps left her phone in there was a scenario I hadn't thought of and would work with OP's version as well. Clever thinking.

It is however, hard to keep making allowances for all these "unusually" exceptions and coincidences with timing etc, to allow OP's version to work. (i.e. - She didn't talk to him when he moved fans, or as she left for toilet. She timed it perfectly within few seconds of his back turned. He didn't see her, not even out of the corner of his eyes while walking down long passageway or see light from a cell phone since pitch black. She didn't yell or talk to him from behind door. He didn't check window to even see if ladder there or intruder climbing up/down, etc etc. )

But you are correct...this is definitely not an issue for the courtroom (not based on the limited topic I was simply speculating on). Just throwing out a little "food for thought".

 

[4MrsB]

Snipped by me for space.

Welcome, 4MrsB!

Here is a clip from the end of Nel's cross-examination of Professor Botha (the Defense's medical examiner) in regards to the urine in Reeva's bladder:

As far as the bladder is concerned, Botha restates that an average person accumulates 60ml of urine per hour. Having found 5ml of urine in the bladder, Nel wants to know if he can rule out that Reeva had gone to the bathroom 15 minutes before her death and he says no.

The urine is something used by the Defense to get everybody off track. It doesn't play a role, as all of the other details GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true.

Thanks L . . . I will look that testimony up on youtube with Botha. I would love to watch that in it's entirety. As I mentioned before, I had only recently discovered the testimony on youtube. Had previously read abbreviated notes from journalist. Thanks

 

[PrimeSuspect]

respectfully snipped

Hi all...I am new to Websleuths

:welcome6:

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

I checked in this evening to see if thee were some new posts. Unfortunately, the conversation is around whether or not Reeva voided her bladder.... Especially as the Post Mortem showed a small amount of urine in her Bladder...

How can I put this....

When you die... no matter how it happens... those organs that keep stuff in ... stop working... Essentially,..... you leak... Reeva would have 'leaked' after being shot.... The Autopsy is a Red Herring... The shorts she was wearing would have been stained in the moments after she was mortally wounded.....


Whatever liquid was found in her bowel during her Post Mortem, 11 hours after her death, is never going to have an influence on Fact.....

 

[cottonweaver]

Vaal river boating accident

I was looking again at pathologist Botha's evidence in respect of urine, which led me to read the whole of that days evidence including OP's first day under Roux. Here's another lie/contradiction again, this time regarding alcohol:

"Over Christmas and New Years he typically goes away with friends and family and he will have alcohol during that time. From January through September he does not consume any alcohol." from Lisa's blog
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/oscar-trial-day-16-dr-botha-oscar/
The You tube recording from that day backs it up. It is 3.17 mins in , until 5.10 in the following footage. ( Poor visuals, sound is fine. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iac95PKlBfw

When Roux asks him had he had a drink the day of the boating accident he says yes. When you look up the date of the accident...

The Vaal river wipe-out occurred 21 February 2009
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-22-did-oscar-pistorius-lie-on-the-stand/#.U4zcts25aeY

I was previously aware that the drinking on the boat had probably been covered up in 2009 and that in 2014, as the above link shows, it looks he lied regarding the sun in his eyes/submerged pier etc BUT i hadn't seen this other contradiction in his testimony. (One in a very long line of course)
Reeva was also killed in february - his so-called non-drinking period.....I'm not saying drink HAD to be involved on 14th Feb but that his testimony cannot be relied on.
Of course it's good on WS that some people are keeping the faith with Oscar - we all need Devil's Advocates - but there are so many contradictions from his own mouth it would take me a long time to add them all up.

 

[Val1]

Snipped by me for space.

Welcome, 4MrsB!

Here is a clip from the end of Nel's cross-examination of Professor Botha (the Defense's medical examiner) in regards to the urine in Reeva's bladder:

As far as the bladder is concerned, Botha restates that an average person accumulates 60ml of urine per hour. Having found 5ml of urine in the bladder, Nel wants to know if he can rule out that Reeva had gone to the bathroom 15 minutes before her death and he says no.

The urine is something used by the Defense to get everybody off track. It doesn't play a role, as all of the other details GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true.

Hmm, whatever happened to that piece of RS' clothing that the PT had said would help show their case? Could it be a detailed report quietly handed to the judge on any body fluids found on her clothing(same with any semen/rape kit results)? I've often wondered about how diluted some of the blood appears both on the toilet and bathroom floors, could she have been involuntarily voiding starting with that hip shot and while OP "sat over her" and cried for he doesn't know how long?

Note: the diluted look of the blood, could be it had separated(plasma or whatever) but to me it looks more like possible urine loss. http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/10.jpg

 

[lisasalinger]

Hmm, whatever happened to that piece of RS' clothing that the PT had said would help show their case? Could it be a detailed report quietly handed to the judge on any body fluids found on her clothing(same with any semen/rape kit results)? I've often wondered about how diluted some of the blood appears both on the toilet and bathroom floors, could she have been involuntarily voiding starting with that hip shot and while OP "sat over her" and cried for he doesn't know how long?

Note: the diluted look of the blood, could be it had separated(plasma or whatever) but to me it looks more like possible urine loss. http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/10.jpg

I'm guessing it was the defect (hole) that was found in the waist band of Reeva's shorts. Unfortunately we have never seen a photo of them.

That hole lined up with the hip wound and was proof that her shorts were pulled up and she was standing at the time of the gunshots, not sitting on the toilet and going to the bathroom. That was a pretty big revelation when we found that out.

 

[cottonweaver]

Hmm, whatever happened to that piece of RS' clothing that the PT had said would help show their case? Could it be a detailed report quietly handed to the judge on any body fluids found on her clothing(same with any semen/rape kit results)? I've often wondered about how diluted some of the blood appears both on the toilet and bathroom floors, could she have been involuntarily voiding starting with that hip shot and while OP "sat over her" and cried for he doesn't know how long?

Note: the diluted look of the blood, could be it had separated(plasma or whatever) but to me it looks more like possible urine loss. http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/10.jpg

I agree we need to see a photo of the shorts for the sake of "transparency."

Don't agree that the blood looks diluted - BUT if it was diluted the DT team would have pounced on that....so let's just accept that it isn't? That would be one of their strongest defence points- scientifically provable evidence instead of their other threadbare issues.

Third - if I had been locked voluntarily or involuntarily in a toilet for 15 mins or more, was scared stiff and needed to use loo right next to me -instead of wetting myself- would I do it? Yes very likely. And I would be likely to still flush due to force of habit.
But in the end, beware trying to fit into Oscar's timeline of exactly when she went into the toilet - he has shown himself to be unreliable!

 

[lisasalinger]

I agree we need to see a photo of the shorts for the sake of "transparency."

Don't agree that the blood looks diluted - BUT if it was diluted the DT team would have pounced on that....so let's just accept that it isn't? That would be one of their strongest defence points- scientifically provable evidence instead of their other threadbare issues.

Third - if I had been locked voluntarily or involuntarily in a toilet for 15 mins or more, was scared stiff and needed to use loo right next to me -instead of wetting myself- would I do it? Yes very likely. And I would be likely to still flush due to force of habit.
But in the end, beware trying to fit into Oscar's timeline of exactly when she went into the toilet - he has shown himself to be unreliable!

Although I would love to see every photo in those albums, I don't necessarily think that we "have" to see everything for transparency sake. When I said "unfortunately we haven't seen them", I just meant that from a curiosity perspective.

If all parties agree to the fact as common cause then you can be rest assured that the hole exists.

As for the urine, I agree with Hoosen Fenger (a few posts above) that the urine is a red herring.

 

[Hope4More]

Hi Mrs4B....welcome!

Hope you take the advice of WS's who have been here for years who say....in any trial you need to watch and read ORIGINAL testimony and documents to decide for yourself what you believe to be true. As others have posted, opinions can easily be confused for facts here which can get very confusing.

If links to actual evidence aren't provided in a post you should look up the evidence yourself for yourself. Most trial threads have easy to follow links to relevant info...just look on page one of the thread!

Welcome again!

 

[Hope4More]

Snipped by me for space.

Welcome, 4MrsB!

Here is a clip from the end of Nel's cross-examination of Professor Botha (the Defense's medical examiner) in regards to the urine in Reeva's bladder:

As far as the bladder is concerned, Botha restates that an average person accumulates 60ml of urine per hour. Having found 5ml of urine in the bladder, Nel wants to know if he can rule out that Reeva had gone to the bathroom 15 minutes before her death and he says no.

The urine is something used by the Defense to get everybody off track. It doesn't play a role, as all of the other details GREATLY prove that Oscar's story is not true.

Who is "everybody" ?