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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
IndianSummer said:
Grossly insensitive of BR considering the obvious photos/ description of Reeva post Oscar KILLING HER.
Click to expand...

Roux didn't tweet that. It's a parody account.

She should be embarrassed that she retweeted a parody account thinking it was actually OP's attorney though.
 
cottonweaver said:
I know it's twisted but I was just thinking - ooh I wish Lois Pistorius would join WS! Anyway just had a glance at her Twitter account out of pure nosiness and found this.....

https://twitter.com/loispistorius
Barry Roux re-tweet
"If you think its your alarm clock that wakes you every morning, try putting it next to a corpse and understand
the Grace of GOD"

Can anyone explain that?:facepalm:

https://twitter.com/MrBarryRoux/status/499777767693901824
edit : SORRY FOLKS, for some reason she has retweeted form the BR parody account. Weird.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think that Aunt Lois does not understand the concept of a PARODY twitter account. :lol:

All she saw was "Grace of GOD" and "MrBarryRoux", thought the actual Roux was defending her angelic nephew and couldn't re-tweet fast enough! Sad. So very sad. * falls on floor LOL *

Apparently she totally missed the "B*tch Don't Kill My Vibe." in "MrBarryRoux" profile!

(Psst ... Do you think we should break it to her that MrBarryRoux is not on her side?)

Nah. :D
 
pandax81 said:
The Importance of the Bail Affidavit (my emphasis and numbering)



Interpretation

Remember, OP is a stickler for precision and detail. He and Roux say the above is truthful. Roux confirmed in reference to the balcony and the noise that he preserves exact sequence and timeline in his draftings. Roux has gone over state witness statements in microscopic detail and held them to earlier versions saying later discrepancies must be the untruths.

There is only one reasonable interpretation of the bail application: OP did not believe he was in immediate danger, under attack or imminent attack. The thought of an intruder merely being inside the toilet caused him to fire intentionally in a pre-emptive strike. He can’t possibly have thought a deadly attack was inevitable, even more so after the perceived intruder had fled to the toilet. We know he knows the law. In my opinion, his bail application amounts to murder. (And even with a perceived intruder, all forms of murder including pre-meditated, directus, eventualis are on the table - we must decide if he wanted to kill the intruder, if so at what point in time, and what we think constitutes pre-meditation?)

Later fabrications and tailoring (see numbers from bail application):

1) He thought they might be on a ladder outside the window instead and had to cover two points of attack (adding to his fear, vulnerability, switching attention and most crucially, making a noise from the toilet something potentially startling, rather than just confirmation of what he already knew.)

2) He thought he heard the toilet door opening. (I noticed during his testimony he even started to tailor away from a sound inside the toilet, to a sound in the bathroom)

3) He thought they were opening the door coming out to attack him and this caused him fear

4) He fired unintentionally without thinking. (There is clear intention, purpose and thinking - in fact, a whole paragraph of well-defined thinking and emotions).

Implications

The bail application destroys his 1st line defence (involuntary reflex). And it destroys the crucial aspects of the version of his 2nd line defence presented in court (putative self defence.) Most importantly, it shows he will serve up anything to the court in order to get off the charges and this destroys his credibility totally.

Even if you are at the stage of considering putative self defence, I think the bail application seals the fate and leaves no room to escape a guilty verdict of murder (I will be very surprised if the judge finds him not guilty of murder).

There are also enough questions that a judge can confidently convict on premeditated murder of Reeva, should she wish to do so (Im not sure she will though). Why did he think the simple sound of a window opening must have been an intruder in the first place? Why was he certain it couldn’t have been Reeva at this point? He thought in detail at lots of points about Reeva: why did it never once cross his mind that it might simply be Reeva using their bathroom? Why did Reeva lock herself in the toilet? Why did he think the person in the toilet was attacking or about to attack him? Why did he think he had to fire 4 shots? The whole picture, the whole mosaic, cannot be explained without recourse to unreasonable speculation in my opinion - even pistorius own best attempt at it fails.

On analysis, the closed door started out as OP’s blessing - he could present the intruder story. It rapidly turns into his curse however. Why was it closed? Because Reeva did it when I screamed and shouted as I came down the passageway. Why did you do that? Because I wasn’t investigating, I was confronting, I was 100% convinced it was an intruder. Why didn’t you think it may be Reeva? Because it never once crossed my mind. (This is so unreasonable that it cannot reasonably possibly be true. In one word, it’s unbelievable.) Why did you think it was an intruder not Reeva initially? Because I was bringing the fan(s) in, I had just spoken to her on the bed in the middle of a normal night with the duvet on her which I saw, I didn’t think she could have gone to the bathroom unnoticed. (The duvet, jeans and aligned blood splatter on the floor make this unbelievable).

We also have the paradox of the Pistorius defence. He wants to try and convince the court that it would have easily been possible for Reeva to have gone to the bathroom unnoticed when you consider his first-hand witness account of having his back turned, noisy fans, pitch darkness etc. Simultaneously, he wants the court to believe that despite him being the witness in question at the time it never once crossed his mind that it could have been possible, to the point he never hesitated to proceed with the deadly action he took.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT post, Panda! I will be shocked if he doesn't get murder and even more shocked if he doesn't get CH.

His twisted little tale is pure sci-fi.

At the very bare minimum, SA gun law, his certified knowledge of those gun laws and the evidence should be an automatic CH conviction.

I've twisted this thing six ways to Sunday and I cannot for the life of me see Masipa letting him walk free. Ain't gonna happen.
 
Can someone please tell me when Judge Masipa is supposed to make her ruling on this trial? TIA.
 
LemonMousse said:
Fantastic post, Panda.

It is really clear from the bail statement, isn't it, that what he's really saying is "I knew there was someone in the toilet because I heard them move, so I shot them before they could come out and shoot me".

A world away from his "startle" and "accident" nonsense on the stand.
Click to expand...

Yes! Especially since OP told the “intruder” to “Get the f##k out of my house!” He never gave them a chance - one tends to do that when one wants to murder someone.

A close, thoughtful reading of his Bail Statement does indeed damn him - especially after all the evidence and PT witnesses. The day I first read it I thought then, OP is flaming, freaking TOAST.

Geezus, he really is pathetic - he sounds like a panicked six year old trying to blame the dog (Yorkie), his sister (6 months old in her crib) and Grandpa, who’s on an oxygen tank and walker and can’t go to the bathroom without stopping for a nap - for all the missing cookies in the jar on the third shelf.
 
Aunt Lois, @MrBarryRoux is NOT your twitter friend. :lol:

Bet you won't RT this tweet of his. LOL

https://twitter.com/MrBarryRoux/status/498155870803738625/photo/1

BunOHE_CYAAZ2Hr.jpg



p.s. Yes, I know it's probably silly, but I so wish the verdict was not on 9/11. sigh

p.p.s. Aunt Lois might also wanna UN-follow @UlrichRoux. This SA defense attorney thinks OP is guilty of murder!
Poor Lois. The PR people might want to talk to her. :lol:
 
Lois Pistorius @loispistorius · Aug 23
Your frame of referance influence your perspective . That's why I feel sorry for people who doesn't believe in Oscar and Reeva's accident.

WTF???

Since when did this become "Oscar and Reeva's accident"?!!!!

Reeva certainly did not have an "accident"!

Seriously, Auntie Lois needs to stop twittering. NOW.

The whole freakin family is deluded.
 
Lux et Veritas said:
Lois Pistorius @loispistorius · Aug 23
Your frame of referance influence your perspective . That's why I feel sorry for people who doesn't believe in Oscar and Reeva's accident.

WTF???

Since when did this become "Oscar and Reeva's accident"?!!!!

Reeva certainly did not have an "accident"!

Seriously, Auntie Lois needs to stop twittering. NOW.

The whole freakin family is deluded.
Click to expand...

Are you sure her account isn't a parody too?
 
Lux et Veritas said:
Lois Pistorius @loispistorius · Aug 23
Your frame of referance influence your perspective . That's why I feel sorry for people who doesn't believe in Oscar and Reeva's accident.

WTF???

Since when did this become "Oscar and Reeva's accident"?!!!!

Reeva certainly did not have an "accident"!

Seriously, Auntie Lois needs to stop twittering. NOW.

The whole freakin family is deluded.
Click to expand...

Yes she needs to stop tweeting as that just sums her up. Arrogance.
She is saying that those like myself (and a million others) are beneath her for not believing Oscar. How magnanimous of her to offer her sympathy to non-believers.
My "frame of reference" (plus that of a million others) doesn't include killers in my own family or regular brushes with the law.

When you're in the bottom of the whole stop digging.

She and her husband effectively raised Oscar after his mother's death - a little introspection and less tweeting is a good idea. (No, I don't normally subscribe to the "sins of the father..."etc. but in this case you can see the root of some of his problems.)

At least Aimee has the sense to keep quiet.
 
"...That's why I feel sorry for people who doesn't believe in Oscar and Reeva's accident."


:thud: :thud: :thud: :thud: :thud:
 
I'm not sure how Twitter works, tbh. Can they delete replies that they don't like, because I see very few that aren't ingratiating.

I sent OP a nice Biblical quote to match his the other day, but I can't see it among the replies.

When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. (Psalm 109.7)
 
Lux et Veritas said:
Lois Pistorius @loispistorius · Aug 23
Your frame of referance influence your perspective . That's why I feel sorry for people who doesn't believe in Oscar and Reeva's accident.

WTF???

Since when did this become "Oscar and Reeva's accident"?!!!!

Reeva certainly did not have an "accident"!

Seriously, Auntie Lois needs to stop twittering. NOW.

The whole freakin family is deluded.
Click to expand...

Looks like OP isn't the only loose cannon in the family. Aunty L is even magnanimous enough to allocate part ownership of the 'accident' to Reeva...You couldn't make it up...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 141 more.
Total: 433 (members: 142, guests: 291)

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
291
Total visitors
433
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,895
Messages
18,247,230
Members
234,488
Latest member
jamn19
Back
Top