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

[Mr Fossil]

:goodpost:

No… GREAT POST !!!… Impressive work !!!… Many thanks !

… I will look at it in detail and come back to you.

Here's a version with her other activities (calls, WhatApps and text messages) included. Let me know if you see anything missing or incorrect. There are obviously at least 100 WhapsApp messages missing but I'm not sure if they'll be important.

 

[Sherbert]

OP realised he couldn't say he heard the door opening / wood abrasion as the door was locked, and there would have been a sound of the door being unlocked first before the door could move.

There's more discussion here (Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 1) regarding the wood 'movement'.

Yes, and, of course, the door needed to stay locked from the inside to justify his bashing it with a cricket bat.

Here is a link to an opinion on the wording of his evidence:

http://truthsleuth.com/blog/92-is-oscar-pistorius-telling-the-truth.html

A few of us have commented that his discovery of the key on the floor inside didn't ring true.

 

[Sherbert]

Yes I get what you are saying… and I agree on principal.

However, the legal arena examines an actionable offense where intent always precedes conduct.

In legal terminology it is mens rea and actus reus : actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea simply means that mens rea (guilty mind) must be present in addition to actus reus for there to be criminal liability.

However, in the case of genuine self defence, we don't even have actus reus because there is no unlawful killing.

So, had there been an intruder in OP's bathroom, the Court would have needed to look first at the reasonableness and proportionality of OP's response in order to determine if the killing was unlawful.

Only if the killing was considered unlawful would the Court need to start examining his intent.

So, the consideration of actus reus comes before intent. In theory, at least.

MOO

 

[Mr Fossil]

Yes, and, of course, the door needed to stay locked from the inside to justify his bashing it with a cricket bat.

Here is a link to an opinion on the wording of his evidence:

http://truthsleuth.com/blog/92-is-oscar-pistorius-telling-the-truth.html

A few of us have commented that his discovery of the key on the floor inside didn't ring true.

Not sure how accurate their analysis is. To quote: 'Also, from his account it appears that he knew the door was locked. He stated, "I saw the key, so I took it and I unlocked the door" never saying that he tried to open the door and the door was locked'

However, OP states in his EIC "I made my way back to inside the ... inside the bathroom and I walked up to the ... up to the bathroom door. I tried to grab the handle and rip open the door and push the door open and it was locked."

 

[sleuth-d-]

Here's a version with her other activities (calls, WhatApps and text messages) included. Let me know if you see anything missing or incorrect. There are obviously at least 100 WhapsApp messages missing but I'm not sure if they'll be important.

View attachment 57214

your record appears to show that all the time she was in the toilet [4mins or maybe more ... being attacked by cricket bat; screaming for her life] she didn't access the phone. which to me says the phone was not with her inside the toilet...

also, op said he tried to use her phone but found it was locked [i believe]... would an attempt to wake/unlock her phone show up on this record, or not?

 

[AJ_DS]

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea simply means that mens rea (guilty mind) must be present in addition to actus reus for there to be criminal liability.

However, in the case of genuine self defence, we don't even have actus reus because there is no unlawful killing.

So, had there been an intruder in OP's bathroom, the Court would have needed to look first at the reasonableness and proportionality of OP's response in order to determine if the killing was unlawful.

Only if the killing was considered unlawful would the Court need to start examining his intent.

So, the consideration of actus reus comes before intent. In theory, at least.

MOO

Probably could not write anything better than wikipedia… so I will paraphrase

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea : "an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in thought and action.

As I understand the Law, when a human being kills another human being, it's a crime (unless at war)… whether it's a criminally liable crime depends on circumstances : the death may be the result of a lawful conduct (self-defense) or a unlawful conduct (negligence, murder, etc)

In order for an actus reus to be committed there has to have been an act… the intent always precedes an act… one cannot act without intent… if you do something you must have had a reason to do it… one cannot construct an intent post-facto (unless lying)… and action always precedes result.

So it goes in this order : 1) intent… 2) action based on intent… 3) result of action

In your scenario in which an intruder would have been found behind the toilet door instead of Reeva… OP's intent would not have changed, OP's action would not have been different and the result of OP's actions would not have been different : the death of a human being.

That's why Nel insisted on this point in closing arguments… it does not really matter whether Reeva, an intruder or a child was behind that toilet door… in all cases it is murder… either directus or eventualis… and if, additionally, OP knew it was Reeva behind the toilet door, then there is also a finding of premeditation which will be an aggravating factor at sentencing.

That's just my humble and limited understanding… I welcome further discussion on this subject with you Sherbert and/or any other posters who may want to weigh in.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I don't think it follows that honest belief equates to lawful intent.

For example, OP is stating that he honestly believed that there was an intruder, but we know from his evidence that he was aware from his firearms training that he had no legal entitlement to open fire.

So, in the example you provide AJ, I don't believe the Judge would find lawful intent leading to unlawful action - both the intent and the action were unlawful.
- Sherbert

Perfect, concise argument, Sherbert! “Belief” and “intent” are two entirely different things (as is “motive&#8221. OP’s gun training and certification may be the very thing that convicts him!

Based on SA gun law, “attack” is the key issue around which this entire case revolves, without which a claim of self-defense cannot be successful. Absent a genuine attack (either imminent or in progress), OP’s story and self-defense claim completely disintegrate. Every time I think about OP’s pathetic testimony I laugh. Surely vague, nondescript “noises” attacked him?! :lol: Did a “sound” attack him - a vicious window opening or a murderous toilet door slamming?! WTF? If that’s how reality works, then we’re ALL entitled to commit murder whenever we get “scared”!

Oh, he heard endless sounds, noises and movements alright but it was no “attack” - it was Reeva ... that was the real threat against him. That’s why he “neutralized” the “threat” (weren’t those Derman’s words?).

OP’s story lacks the one key, crucial factor that would back up his claim of self-defense - a genuine attack. That’s why he tried so hard to equate “noises”, “sounds” and “movements” with “attack”, however fuzzy, distorted and impossible. He had NOTHING.

“Perception” of an alleged “attack” (with zero evidence, both hard and circumstantial) counts for less than nothing under the SA PPD defense. A bonafide attack is the lynchpin from which PD and PPD flows. OP tried to dress up his toxic fairytale as truth but lacking that one critical element - ATTACK - he’s simply a cold-blooded murderer.

Once again, I can see no logical, rational way for Judge Masipa to acquit - all roads, however twisted and tangled, lead to cold, hard murder.

 

[Mr Fossil]

your record appears to show that all the time she was in the toilet [4mins or maybe more ... being attacked by cricket bat; screaming for her life] she didn't access the phone. which to me says the phone was not with her inside the toilet...

also, op said he tried to use her phone but found it was locked [i believe]... would an attempt to wake/unlock her phone show up on this record, or not?

My thoughts entirely but I need to do a bit more research to be certain how Reeva's phone works. It could simply be that the renegotiation of cells has coincidentally occurred just before certain activities and that it therefore tells us nothing. She certainly didn't call or SMS.

I'm now working on OP's phones and will be posting similar tables in a day or so. It may shed more light on Reeva's usage profile too. The profile of 4949 is different and it would seem that OP only turns it on when he wants to use it. 0020 is different again because it seems to have non-contiguous GPRS connections. Probably a difference in the way they are configured but I haven't finished gathering and analysing the data yet.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Theoretically, if OP’s story was 100% true (ha ha) how many people in their right minds would now ever want to be around him - especially in the dead of night (does his family LOCK him in his bedroom at night? LOL) ... especially when he’s drinking?

Mr. Big Bad Sports Hero with a 9MM paints himself as an anxious, vulnerable, puking, wailing wuss with a hair-trigger personality. Great for his “career”, social and love lives, huh? (Seriously, what kind of a dumb-as-a-rock female would you have to be to date OP?)

The only career I can now picture OP with is a telecommute job from home, answering the phone in one of Uncle Arnie’s companies. Who the hell else would have him? Guilty or acquitted, he is POISON, if for nothing more than bad PR by association.

 

[AJ_DS]

Perfect, concise argument, Sherbert! “Belief” and “intent” are two entirely different things (as is “motive&#8221. OP’s gun training and certification may be the very thing that convicts him!

Based on SA gun law, “attack” is the key issue around which this entire case revolves, without which a claim of self-defense cannot be successful. Absent a genuine attack (either imminent or in progress), OP’s story and self-defense claim completely disintegrate. Every time I think about OP’s pathetic testimony I laugh. Surely vague, nondescript “noises” attacked him?! :lol: Did a “sound” attack him - a vicious window opening or a murderous toilet door slamming?! WTF? If that’s how reality works, then we’re ALL entitled to commit murder whenever we get “scared”!

Oh, he heard endless sounds, noises and movements alright but it was no “attack” - it was Reeva ... that was the real threat against him. That’s why he “neutralized” the “threat” (weren’t those Derman’s words?).

OP’s story lacks the one key, crucial factor that would back up his claim of self-defense - a genuine attack. That’s why he tried so hard to equate “noises”, “sounds” and “movements” with “attack”, however fuzzy, distorted and impossible. He had NOTHING.

“Perception” of an alleged “attack” (with zero evidence, both hard and circumstantial) counts for less than nothing under the SA PPD defense. A bonafide attack is the lynchpin from which PD and PPD flows. OP tried to dress up his toxic fairytale as truth but lacking that one critical element - ATTACK - he’s simply a cold-blooded murderer.

Once again, I can see no logical, rational way for Judge Masipa to acquit - all roads, however twisted and tangled, lead to cold, hard murder.

BiB…

Belief is not the same as intent… naturally… but one forms intent based on belief… then one acts based on intent.

The accused held a genuine and honest belief that (&#8230 : this means the Judge finds the accused is credible when he relates his beliefs at the time of the crime… based on the finding of truthfulness in the accused's beliefs, the Judge determines that the accused's intent was lawful…

… this does not mean that the accused was objectively reasonable or correct in forming those beliefs and therefore that the resulting intent was legally acceptable… it just means that the Judge believes the accused's story as he has described it… that the accused did not harbor an unlawful intent such as revenge, theft, etc… no nefarious intent animated his conduct.

Furthermore, a finding of lawful intent does not equate to a finding of lawful conduct.

One must always remember that no one can be criminally liable for intent alone… only the conduct is criminally liable and it's in conjuncture with intent that the Judge reaches a verdict as per the extent of the liability.

So it goes : 1) beliefs... 2) intent based on beliefs... 3) action based on intent... 4) result of action

 

[Lux et Veritas]

~snipped for brevity~ and just tagging on to your post to ask for clarification on something I still cannot get my head around (well, seeing as it's all lies, that's not really surprising!)

Anyway, my question is .. why did OP suddenly change the 'sound of wood moving', which I originally thought he had said somewhere or another was because of the toilet door fitting tightly and it rubbing against the door frame, to that of being the magazine rack? I was absolutely gobsmacked during his CE when Nel questionned him on this 'wood moving' noise and where I thought he was going to say that (because of the tightly fitting door) he thought someone was opening the door and it made a sound as they did so. I still cannot get the reason why he suddenly changed this sound to 'the magazine rack' .. it doesn't make an ounce of sense to me (yes, I know it won't! .. but I'm just trying to understand the lie that OP was weaving and what he was trying to make fit that lie by saying this).

My guess is that OP quickly realized that had he stuck with the tight-fitting-door-opens-omg-attack! scenario, this would have killed his whole story - an opened toilet door would have revealed REEVA.

He was forced to keep that door CLOSED (just like he kept the bedroom drapes CLOSED to achieve “pitch blackness”) by changing his wood movement story to the magazine rack, the only other wood available.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Have to say i would never have guessed OP would try to create an entirely new state of mind in which one fires a gun: neither accidental nor deliberate; neither directed nor undirected; neither in self-defense nor by mistake; neither without thinking nor with thinking. Why can the man not say he fired the gun at the burglar in self-defense and be done with it! At least stick to the story for goodness sake, not all this legal twisting and turning of the words.
- Daniel King youtube

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Why did Pistorius retreat from the bathroom door? He presumably had more rounds in his gun. If it were so important to stop the intruder, why would he retreat before he knew the job was done? How did he know that the intruder wasn't just lying low on the floor, meaning that said intruder could emerge from the door after he retreated and execute whatever evil deed Oscar expected from him/her. Pistorius must have been confident that he had killed whoever was behind the door, and, by his own admission, at this point he still did not suspect that the intruder was Reeva. That only dawned on him later. Is the answer that whoever (from his point of view) was behind the door had ceased to shout/scream/talk? If so, then we now know that the only voice he could have heard from behind the door was the voice of Reeva. Otherwise he seriously jeopardised the safety of both himself and Reeva by retreating before he was sure that the job was done.
- Gary Courtney youtube


EXCELLENT point!

We know from multiple ear witnesses that the female screams stopped immediately after the gunshots stopped.

Unless you physically confirm that the “attacker” is indeed either dead or 100% incapacitated, why on god’s green earth would you simply leave the “danger” area?

Under his fairytale version, OP could not have possibly known if he had killed or even hit the attacker without opening the door!

After firing four shots, why didn’t aggressive, gung-ho “hero” OP (whose nature is to “fight” danger, not flee LOL) boldly approach the door, shoot open the lock and make sure the job was finished - thereby guaranteeing 100% safety for Reeva and himself?

No, of course not ... he had to go through his entire melodramatic charade of retreating to the bedroom to desperately search in the freakin DARK for his “beloved” Reeva. *sniff*

It was all about the grand pathos and drama - I’m such a tragic hero, the victim of cruel circumstance! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Only a murderer would want to get away with it, if he had really shot the woman he loved by mistake he'd of done a plea bargain. He would do some time but a lot less than the murder charge. He would be seen to take responsibility for his actions & he would stand more of a chance of rehabilitating himself with the Steenkamp family & the public. He also would have the chance of having some kind of a life afterwards. But he doesn't care about any of that he just wants to get away with murder. His tears are for Oscar, nobody else matters to Oscar but Oscar. For me he comes over as a selfish, cruel & heartless man. I find his behavior on the stand loathsome. Guilty as charged, take him down.
- Sean Nicholson youtube


I must agree. The true picture of Oscar Pistorius started emerging with his aggressive challenge to his Bail conditions - that did not say humility and mourning. It screamed I’m special, entitled - I don’t like rules and restrictions of any kind, I can do whatever I want (remember his very angry altercation with the cop about his gun?).

Despite all his wailing, howling, praying-with-rosaries and puking, true, gut-level remorse is the one thing totally missing in OP’s performance. What I’ve gotten from the very start is panic and desperation for himself - not genuine grief and contrition.

Even on the stand, OP could not rein in flashes of his total control issues, his anger and aggression, his sense of superiority. No matter how hard he tries to hide it, his indignant arrogance is subtly ever-present, simmering just under the surface.

An honestly innocent man who honestly made a horrific mistake and killed his love would not testify with such barely-concealed contempt and anger. (I f##king can’t believe I’m on trial for murder! I’m Oscar Pistorius! The Blade Runner! Has Nike or Oakley or anyone called yet?! Uncle Arnie, do something!).

The problem with Oscar is that he’s an astoundingly bad liar.

Hey, I gotta hand it to Roux - he did the best he could with his obnoxious, traitorous, rogue-client from hell. He’s earned every single Rand. LOL

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Here's a version with her other activities (calls, WhatApps and text messages) included. Let me know if you see anything missing or incorrect. There are obviously at least 100 WhapsApp messages missing but I'm not sure if they'll be important.

View attachment 57214

OUTSTANDING job, Mr Fossil!! Your dedication and hard work are truly impressive!

(btw, where are you getting the raw data from? thank you. )

 

[Mr Fossil]

OUTSTANDING job, Mr Fossil!! Your dedication and hard work are truly impressive!

(btw, where are you getting the raw data from? thank you. )

Thanks. I'm gathering the data from the screens displayed during the evidence. Not sure if it will get me anywhere though! We'll see.

 

[44ALLAN]

Just in case anyone missed this..................................

Youtube Trial Day 20 Part 3 starting at 4 minutes 10seconds.

Nel......" In that passage you screamed and shouted? ".
OP......" Yes M'lady".
Nel....." Then close to the entrance,where the tiles start, you stayed silent? ".
OP....." ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING NOW M'LADY ? "

Well I'm confused why Nel didn't pick up on that ..............if not immediately at least later after it was pointed out to him by one of his team who must have heard it and recorded it?.
OP gave it up there about Reeva screaming IMO.

 

[kittychi]

Just in case anyone missed this..................................

Youtube Trial Day 20 Part 3 starting at 4 minutes 10seconds.

Nel......" In that passage you screamed and shouted? ".
OP......" Yes M'lady".
Nel....." Then close to the entrance,where the tiles start, you stayed silent? ".
OP....." ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING NOW M'LADY ? "

Well I'm confused why Nel didn't pick up on that ..............if not immediately at least later after it was pointed out to him by one of his team who must have heard it and recorded it?.
OP gave it up there about Reeva screaming IMO.

I must have missed something, 44Allan. I have read your dialogue over and over and am missing how OP gave it up there about Reeva screaming.

Is there something abstract that I'm not picking up? Can you re-explain it for me please?

Thank you!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Here's a version with her other activities (calls, WhatApps and text messages) included. Let me know if you see anything missing or incorrect. There are obviously at least 100 WhapsApp messages missing but I'm not sure if they'll be important.

View attachment 57214

I just noticed that phone calls were on OP (0020) AND OP (4949).

I thought (4949) was his work phone?

What additional personal communications with Reeva are on OP (4949)?!!

 

[44ALLAN]

I must have missed something, 44Allan. I have read your dialogue over and over and am missing how OP gave it up there about Reeva screaming.

Is there something abstract that I'm not picking up? Can you re-explain it for me please?

Thank you!

Hi Kittychi.................think about it logically.
OP said there was only 2 people in the house that night..............yes?
Then Nel asks him 2 questions...............you screamed and shouted..............OP says YES.
then Nel asks...............you stayed silent...............OP asked 'Are we talking about what I'm doing now M'lady".

The only other person OP could have been inquiring about was Reeva.

So he gave away that Reeva was screaming because there was no one else there except the 2 of them.