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

[Cherwell]

Hello to all of you. I haven't found any info concerning to what happened to #50. Anybody has? If not, is this thread here the "replacement" actually?
I feel a bit lost...
Thank you.

We are continuing the discussion here, because it's as good a place as any.
I doubt that Thread 50 will ever be re-opened, as that stage of the trial has finished.

 

[Cherwell]

If OP's story was true, why did their STAR forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal, who was hired early enough for him to attend Reeva's autopsy, refuse to testify?

Also their ballistics expert, Jannie van der Westhuizen. Wonder why he never showed up.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Also their ballistics expert, Jannie van der Westhuizen. Wonder why he never showed up.

And the fact that so much of the so-called expert testimony that was presented was prepared only days / weeks before taking the stand because OP's version had turned into a moving target.

 

[kittychi]

And the fact that so much of the so-called expert testimony that was presented was prepared only days / weeks before taking the stand because OP's version had turned into a moving target.

Such an excellent point, Mr Fossil...they had months to firm up the story and get their ducks in a row. I have read here many times that to a defense team, OP would be the "client from he!!" and I believe he was. Moving target, indeed.

In a trial this important, I would guess...no assume, that the DT would have done a mock trial with their client to practice how certain questions would be answered, find holes in the story, etc. They certainly had time to do so. My money would be on OP refusing to do it because he didn't think it was necessary, i.e. "I'm skilled at lying and I always get away with things, so I think I will get off anyways."

With some practice, he could have actually been a better witness for himself.

 

[808]

Such an excellent point, Mr Fossil...they had months to firm up the story and get their ducks in a row. I have read here many times that to a defense team, OP would be the "client from he!!" and I believe he was. Moving target, indeed.

In a trial this important, I would guess...no assume, that the DT would have done a mock trial with their client to practice how certain questions would be answered, find holes in the story, etc. They certainly had time to do so. My money would be on OP refusing to do it because he didn't think it was necessary, i.e. "I'm skilled at lying and I always get away with things, so I think I will get off anyways."

With some practice, he could have actually been a better witness for himself.

You are not the only one ...

Op's imploding defence

Oscar in the driving seat?
Judging by Oscar's frantic scribbling of notes and shoving them forward to his team at the most inopportune moments, apparently giving instructions, one wonders whether the erratic and sometimes self-defeating defence case could be explained by Oscar imposing his own wishes and commands on his team, rather than accepting expert legal advice.

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscars-defence-continues-to-implode-20140702

 

[DebinGA]

If OP's story was true, why did their STAR forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal, who was hired early enough for him to attend Reeva's autopsy, refuse to testify?

I think Perumal was ready and willing ... to support Dr. Saayman's conclusions. It was Roux who refused to call him. I think that's also why Roux called Dixon/Wolmarans, but not the DT's forensics expert Jannie van der Westhuizen whose website emphasizes the importance of impartiality when viewing evidence.

 

[sjtw12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the UK at least, a defence barrister cannot rehearse possible answers to questions from the prosecution with their client.

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC Roux told the court he'd produce an OP screams like a woman test. OP admitted to Nel that he'd participated in such a test conducted at Uncle Arnold's house. There was testimony regarding another DT test conducted at Silver Lakes involving voices of a man and woman. M'lady heard all this first hand, and I hope will note the only logical reason for why the results of those defense tests weren't presented to her.

 

[DebinGA]

And the fact that so much of the so-called expert testimony that was presented was prepared only days / weeks before taking the stand because OP's version had turned into a moving target.

And even worse, SA law allows the defense to withhold the experts' conclusions/tests/notes from the PT up to the moment they walk by them on the way to the stand. That's unbelievably unfair and detrimental to justice imo.

 

[808]

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014/08/13/pistorius-the-procedure-the-judge-will-follow/

Very informative :behindbar

 

[Val1]

Why, Thank You very much, Lisasalinger!

(I love reading Juror13 - you've done such a thorough, concise, outstanding job in covering the entire trial. Amazingly great work! After OP's done, can't wait for the Next Big Trial! )

I agree completely, without the pics, concise and orderly presentation, as well as some of the very insightful comments to it, I know I'd be lost without such a great resource tool.

ie. for anyone that hasn't followed the comments on lisasalinger's blog, here's a reference to one that was brought to my attention and is worth reviewing, thanks Mr Fossil

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?242350-Do-you-think-the-prosecutor-proved-the-case&p=10849138#post10849138

 

[lisasalinger]

I agree completely, without the pics, concise and orderly presentation, as well as some of the very insightful comments to it, I know I'd be lost without such a great resource tool.

ie. for anyone that hasn't followed the comments on lisasalinger's blog, here's a reference to one that was brought to my attention and is worth reviewing, thanks Mr Fossil

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?242350-Do-you-think-the-prosecutor-proved-the-case&p=10849138#post10849138

You guys rock, thank you I really enjoy hearing from everybody commenting along the way... some very thought-provoking discussions from cool peeps.

Unfortunately my real life work has prevented me from spending a lot of time on the blog lately, as well as participating here, but I'm trying to figure out a way to juggle it all. I do plan to cover the Jodi Arias debacle starting in September, as well as a few others that I have my eye on.

Have a good day, guys! :seeya:

 

[steveml]

Respectfully, you are mistaken.

You seem to say that when a side states something that isn't challenged by the opposing side that statement becomes "fact" and the Judge must consider it as such… that is incorrect

Nope, I did not say this at all. Your suggestion that I 'seem to say' is exactly what it is.

 

[lisasalinger]

Thanks for this. It interviews Nick van Der Leek. Whilst it's all speculation, he gives his take on how the argument probably started. I bought one of his e books a couple of weeks ago to read his motives scenario. The book account is very plausible and definitely worth the 80 pence or so.

I'm not sure about Nick's explanation of Shot A being aimed at the phone in her right hand to stop her calling the cops- how could OP be sure it was held at that height in her right hand?
However IT IS perfectly plausible that she was indeed threatening to call the police, this is why he armed himself but she didn't manage to carry that out.... or indeed hesitated.*

But if Nick's right I speculate that she would not have known that her telling him she was about to call would be the worst thing she could say to a man like OP, the hair trigger for him that would send him over-the-edge.

Whilst she thought "I'll call the police" would make him stop, she did not know him well enough to know that brand protection/covering up the real OP had been an over-riding 'neurosis' for OP for many years.
I suggest if you warn someone ur calling the police it's cause you think u have a chance to try to just calm the situation down, otherwise you just call them and say nothing.

*hesitation: it's just before her new reality show aired and she is on the verge of a new exciting career - there's no way she would want the cops and publicity IF it could,at all, be avoided. Don't misunderstand me - obviously she'd rather call the cops, risk the bad publicity than be assaulted by this lunatic.

His books are definitely worth reading! They're on Amazon. Resurrection (the 3rd one) has some super interesting insight in to Oscar, and his whole plight to be in the Olympics. Revelations (the 4th one) tackles some broader topics, and includes a final narrative of how the incident may have gone down. Between the two books, he ties together the possible motive and the incident itself.

I've been in touch with Nick, and he quoted some of my stuff in book 4. He's an interesting and credible guy, definitely on the side of investigating the truth. Check out his books if you get a chance!

 

[steveml]

2 points which are intertwined & relate to your entire post. Firstly, Dixon being called was detrimental to the defence as he was trying to present himself as an Expert in fields that he had no right to (he is a Geologist for crying out loud!) This led to him being discredited & I believe is a big blow to the defence.

Secondly, on the 'who was called, who was not etc,' consider this.

You are Barry Roux, sat in your office, saying "Right, I can get you off this my lad, all I need are enough Experts to testify and you will be off the hook."

He then sends his juniors off to find the said 'Experts', and the only ones prepared to make themselves look stupid on the stand & stretch credibility, are the Motley Crew Nel ripped to shreds.

Picture Roux, with is head in his hands, uttering the words, "We are Goosed!"

With no credible Experts, Roux has had to suggest that the people that could have done a better job than the ones they had, didn't want to testify. It is probably one of the most ridiculous things that he said in the entire trial.

I'm in agreement with regard to Dixon damaging the DT's case - not sure what the issue is there?

I don't believe that additional expert witnesses for the DT would have been that beneficial. The state ballistics expert and bat-man didn't exactly damage the defendants case, and in some areas it strengthened it. The ability to hear sound at a specific level that morning has been covered fully, so the majority of things which may not have been covered are those which have been threaded into 'theories' on here, which are merely speculative. Inferences will not be drawn from speculation, so from the judge and her assessors perspective none of this will matter when reaching a decision.

My take on the idea of reproducing a scream the same as it was in such a situation is that it's impossible, whether male or female. For that reason I would never expect somebody to attempt this. I don't understand why Roux suggested that OP was going to replicate this in court (I'm assuming he meant OP and wasn't referring to the neighbour) but I certainly wouldn't expect or advise anyone to try this. If he did scream that morning and could not achieve a reproduction of that anguish then he would have unwittingly incriminated himself, even if he was telling the truth. You'd be a fool to take such a gamble. If you are genuinely innocent regarding an aspect of the case, you should never ever gamble to prove your innocence.

I believe the judge will take a similar view with regard to the replication of a scream, and as much as some may have liked this to happen for a bit of 'good TV' I don't think this will be essential towards the outcome.

 

[JuneBug67]

Shooting somebody to death seems an unusual approach to avoiding negative attention and police involvement in your life.

 

[4MrsB]

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014/08/13/pistorius-the-procedure-the-judge-will-follow/

Very informative :behindbar

Thank you 808 for this link. You're correct, it is very informative.

After reading this, my thoughts are that OP should have argued "crime of passion". Although it would still be murder, but murder "without malice aforethought" (I think it said 15 yrs max sentence). It can be considered when anger, rage take over and you act without thought. Which is what I believe took place (at least during part of it - except OP knew exactly what he was doing). OP went ballistic, terrifying her with cricket bat welding - breaking tiles, metal plate on tub, etc. And then when RS threatened calling police (as cottonweaver suggested), he really lost it and decided he had to end this now, as "his life" would be irreparably damaged otherwise.

Of course, OP would NEVER want to "settle" for 15 years, or any murder conviction. As his Uncle stated after closing arguments, he is eager for OP to be exonerated and "get back training for the Olympics". (I have no words for this righteous family). I am guessing the "worse case scenario" Uncle A is predicting is CH - but with no jail time, as Oscar has been traumatized enough by the loss of his loved one Reeva, and therefore jail time not necessary as he is suffering terribly already.

 

[lisasalinger]

Shooting somebody to death seems an unusual approach to avoiding negative attention and police involvement in your life.

On the surface, I totally understand that argument. But I think it's a lot more complex than that. If you look at some of the cycles in OP's life, especially in those last 6 months prior to the killing, many of his actions were detrimental to a positive, public image but that didn't stop him from acting inappropriately. He just covered up his actions with the help of his team and people around him.

I think he is a man with serious demons that get the best of him. I personally believe that there were a number of issues brewing before that night and many things snowballed in to this horrific incident.

 

[AJ_DS]

Nope, I did not say this at all. Your suggestion that I 'seem to say' is exactly what it is.

I can accept that I may have misunderstood your intended meaning… BUT just pointing out my mistake without clarifying your point of view is rather pointless and non-constructive to the discussion, IMO.

You had written : " As I have said previously, the Netcare call is a non-issue. Nel hasn't contested it, and as such any referral to it by Roux would be completely pointless. Judge Masipa and the assessors cannot draw any negative inference from the contents relayed in this call, as it has not been challenged by the state. Whether you agree with what happened or not is an entirely different matter. From a legal perspective it's irrelevant, and would have been a waste of time. As such the DT acted in entirely the correct manner regarding this issue. "

English is not my first language… perhaps it is not your first language either… BUT the BiB does seem to suggest exactly what I disagreed with in my previous reply :

" You seem to say that when a side states something that isn't challenged by the opposing side that statement becomes "fact" and the Judge must consider it as such… that is incorrect

Only common cause evidence is considered that way. "

Masipa and the assessors can draw from the Netcare evidence whichever inference (positive or negative) they choose… and also consider peripheral evidence to come to a decision on the inference to be made.

… Masipa and the assessors can also disregard the Netcare evidence all together if they find it is irrelevant or non-probative to the facts in dispute… they are NOT bound by what the State as challenged or not.

 

[LemonMousse]

I'm in agreement with regard to Dixon damaging the DT's case - not sure what the issue is there?

I don't believe that additional expert witnesses for the DT would have been that beneficial. The state ballistics expert and bat-man didn't exactly damage the defendants case, and in some areas it strengthened it. The ability to hear sound at a specific level that morning has been covered fully, so the majority of things which may not have been covered are those which have been threaded into 'theories' on here, which are merely speculative. Inferences will not be drawn from speculation, so from the judge and her assessors perspective none of this will matter when reaching a decision.

My take on the idea of reproducing a scream the same as it was in such a situation is that it's impossible, whether male or female. For that reason I would never expect somebody to attempt this. I don't understand why Roux suggested that OP was going to replicate this in court (I'm assuming he meant OP and wasn't referring to the neighbour) but I certainly wouldn't expect or advise anyone to try this. If he did scream that morning and could not achieve a reproduction of that anguish then he would have unwittingly incriminated himself, even if he was telling the truth. You'd be a fool to take such a gamble. If you are genuinely innocent regarding an aspect of the case, you should never ever gamble to prove your innocence.

I believe the judge will take a similar view with regard to the replication of a scream, and as much as some may have liked this to happen for a bit of 'good TV' I don't think this will be essential towards the outcome.

You're missing the point re: the screams. He may not have been able to replicate the "anguish" but he could certainly replicate the sounds......unless he's had a vocal cords transplant in the meantime? Either his voice can go that high, or it can't. Quite obviously, it can't. And that,s to be expected, there are physiological differences between the way men and women produce sound, that's why 99 times out of 100 we can tell the difference.

But I have to say that you do seem to take the view that if OP says it, and it seems vaguely possible, then that's good enough for reasonable doubt.....and good enough for you.

The simple fact of this is that a woman heard an argument just at about the time Reeva can be expected to be awake based on her stomach contents. By coincidence, four separate, independent witnesses heard a woman screaming at roughly the time a woman was shot dead by her boyfriend.

If four people hear a woman screaming it's probable that it was a woman screaming. Sorry, but that's a simple fact. It's not impossible that it could have been a man, but it's really quite improbable. Add to this that it sounded to the witnesses as if a woman's life was in danger, at exactly the same time as a woman's life, in fact, WAS in danger and she ended up being murdered.

It's also probable that Reeva ate much later that 7pm, and it's also probable that the woman heard arguing was Reeva - based on, if nothing else, the simple fact that no other woman (out of the few it could have been) has been identified as doing the arguing.

So, all of these probabilities come together to form the overwhelming probability that the witnesses heard what they thought they did - a woman screaming in terror and then getting shot. This is not a "theory", this is the most likely explanation based on the probabilities.

"Oh, but Oscar can scream like a woman, just not when he's being recorded" is, well, a bit lame, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that Milady won't fall for that.

But you seem to want to believe him innocent, and good luck to you. I'd prefer to see Reeva get justice. She deserves it.