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

[Exchange973]

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.

Right. Reading posts like this over the last few days makes me so grateful a Judge is making this decision, rather than a jury. Some people seem to be desperate to find OP guilty.

 

[44ALLAN]

Right. Reading posts like this over the last few days makes me so grateful a Judge is making this decision, rather than a jury. Some people seem to be desperate to find OP guilty.

'Are we talking about what I'm doing now M'lady"................OP quote.

What did OP mean by this answer to Nel asking him if he stayed silent then?
Who else would OP be talking about?
If I interpreted it wrong then please elaborate...............TIA.

 

[Exchange973]

'Are we talking about what I'm doing now M'lady"................OP quote.

What did OP mean by this answer to Nel asking him if he stayed silent then?

If I interpreted it wrong then please elaborate...............TIA.

He meant, as you say, did Nel mean what he was doing at this point, or what was Reeva doing. Not sure why this automatically means that Reeva was screaming.

I think the fact that people are talking about minor minor minor quibbles and details like this, the fan chord, the inside out jeans, means that really there is no fundamental flaw in OP's story of what happened. The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

This forum will be in for a shock on 11th September. Can't see the Judge finding OP intended to kill Reeva (not to say that a murder conviction isn't still likely/probable)

 

[Sherbert]

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.

Ok, AJ. Let's continue

Here is an example of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in play:

I go to the supermarket, pick up a bottle of wine and walk out without paying. I fully intend to pay, but I am so engrossed in scrolling to the latest post on the Websleuths Theory thread on my iphone that I completely forget.

In this case, the actus reus is present, but not the mens rea. Hence, there is no crime.

It doesn't matter that I had the intent to walk out of the supermarket. The intent needed for the crime is the intent to deprive the shopkeeper of his takings.

If I kill someone in self defence and my actions are justified, there is no actus reus. It is not a crime to kill someone in self defence, provided that my actions are proportionate to an immediate threat. And, if there is no crime, there is no mens rea. It doesn't matter what my private thoughts and intentions may have been.

If OP had killed an armed intruder in his toilet, whether or not his conduct was lawful would depend on whether or not Milady & Co consider his actions to have been reasonable in the circumstances. If his actions were considered to be unreasonable, the killing becomes unlawful, and we'd be looking at a verdict of murder or culpable homicide, depending on intent.

I don't think that the intent to kill an intruder is the same as the intent to kill Reeva, the difference being that Reeva did not pose any threat to OP's safety, so if Milady finds that OP knew it was her, it follows that he had mens rea and there need be no discussion of proportionality of response, etc.




Moo

 

[44ALLAN]

He meant, as you say, did Nel mean what he was doing at this point, or what was Reeva doing. Not sure why this automatically means that Reeva was screaming.

I think the fact that people are talking about minor minor minor quibbles and details like this, the fan chord, the inside out jeans, means that really there is no fundamental flaw in OP's story of what happened. The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

This forum will be in for a shock on 11th September. Can't see the Judge finding OP intended to kill Reeva (not to say that a murder conviction isn't still likely/probable)

This is not a minor minor minor quibble with all due respect.

Nels inference is very real and concrete.

You shouted and screamed.................YES said OP.
Then you were silent...............are you talking about me said OP !!!!
Erm....................yes................who else was there?
Pretty obvious to me that Nel ( and everyone on the planet) knew Reeva was screaming and not OP but I accept your opinion.

btw.

The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

In answer to your quote above.
I don't 'need' anything.......the ear witness statements are substantial enough IMO but we shall see.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

... 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. ...

Exactly, AJ. It really is stunningly cut and dried.

I’ve scrambled my brains to figure out how My Lady could rationally, logically ever come up with an acquittal.

I simply cannot do it.

Should she do so, she’ll have a mess of world-class, heavy-duty explaining to do!

Allowing OP to walk free - a reckless man who virtually ignored his extensive gun training and strict SA gun law to shoot blind through a closed door, when he was NEVER under threat or attack - would open the floodgates to copycat killers.

I can see SA courts inundated with “Oscar-Killers”.

Precedent can be a very dangerous thing.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

He meant, as you say, did Nel mean what he was doing at this point, or what was Reeva doing. Not sure why this automatically means that Reeva was screaming.

I think the fact that people are talking about minor minor minor quibbles and details like this, the fan chord, the inside out jeans, means that really there is no fundamental flaw in OP's story of what happened. The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

This forum will be in for a shock on 11th September. Can't see the Judge finding OP intended to kill Reeva (not to say that a murder conviction isn't still likely/probable)

Not too sure about that. Just to compare some of the common cause facts from Defence & State.

. OP found his gun in the dark.
. He un-holstered it & then made it ready to fire.
. He walked towards the bathroom.
. He approached the toilet cubicle.
. He fired four shots into it.

OP's defence - The above Bullet points completed in total darkness AND without any response from Reeva before & during being shot.
States Case - The above Bullet points taking place against a background of events other than that to which OP claims, plus contradicting evidence from a Pathologist & ear witness testimony.

As the only other person in the room, one needs to test OP on the bullet points. Give him the opportunity to explain his actions.

That has been done at his bail hearing, his Evidence in Chief & Cross Examination. The inconsistencies, changes, additions & credibility stretching details have undermined his version, without the contradiction of ear witness testimony & a Pathologist.

Given the above, let's concentrate on the shots.

One shot through a door? Not Guilty.
Two shots through a door? Not guilty.
Three shots?? Hang on, it is in the balance but you can have the benefit of the doubt.
Four shots through a door, hitting the person standing facing you, during which you moved firing positions.... Hmmmmm.... Hang on a minute.....

If you think a Judge can find him Not Guilty of Premeditated Murder, then whilst I respect your opinion, it relies on a Judge not doing her job properly, which I find to be highly unlikely.

 

[Exchange973]

Not too sure about that. Just to compare some of the common cause facts from Defence & State.

. OP found his gun in the dark.
. He un-holstered it & then made it ready to fire.
. He walked towards the bathroom.
. He approached the toilet cubicle.
. He fired four shots into it.

OP's defence - The above Bullet points completed in total darkness AND without any response from Reeva before & during being shot.
States Case - The above Bullet points taking place against a background of events other than that to which OP claims, plus contradicting evidence from a Pathologist & ear witness testimony.

As the only other person in the room, one needs to test OP on the bullet points. Give him the opportunity to explain his actions.

That has been done at his bail hearing, his Evidence in Chief & Cross Examination. The inconsistencies, changes, additions & credibility stretching details have undermined his version, without the contradiction of ear witness testimony & a Pathologist.

Given the above, let's concentrate on the shots.

One shot through a door? Not Guilty.
Two shots through a door? Not guilty.
Three shots?? Hang on, it is in the balance but you can have the benefit of the doubt.
Four shots through a door, hitting the person standing facing you, during which you moved firing positions.... Hmmmmm.... Hang on a minute.....

If you think a Judge can find him Not Guilty of Premeditated Murder, then whilst I respect your opinion, it relies on a Judge not doing her job properly, which I find to be highly unlikely.

I'm much more ambivalent on whether OP is guilty of murder on the basis that he believed that there was an intruder behind the door. On balance I suspect he shot a person be believed to be an intruder, and not in self defence - that is murder in my book and why I don't think he will/should be acquitted.

But the question of whether he believed it was Reeva is, in my view, not established beyond reasonable doubt; far from it.

There are significant problem's in the STATE's case. For example, the evidence that a male voice was heard screaming for help before the “shots” heard at 3:17. This is dismissed as OP “taunting” Reeva before he shot her. Why on EARTH would OP scream for help so loud that residents many hundreds of metres away could hear him, just before he shot his girlfriend. It doesn’t make sense. The only explanation is that the female sounding screams heard by the neighbours were in fact OP, and that they happened after the shots.

Once you take away the screams, the State’s case is reduced to arguments about the length of a fan cord. There really is very little evidence at all to show that OP intended to kill Reeva, knowing it was her behind the door.

Its for this reason that people seem to rely on the supposed inconsistencies etc in OP's evidence. But what actually are these? "whispered" vs "spoke quietly", the blue LED light, the fan cord debate etc. Are these really such strong inconsistencies on which to base a pre-meditated murder conviction. I don't think so.

 

[Jake18]

He meant, as you say, did Nel mean what he was doing at this point, or what was Reeva doing. Not sure why this automatically means that Reeva was screaming.

I think the fact that people are talking about minor minor minor quibbles and details like this, the fan chord, the inside out jeans, means that really there is no fundamental flaw in OP's story of what happened. The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

This forum will be in for a shock on 11th September. Can't see the Judge finding OP intended to kill Reeva (not to say that a murder conviction isn't still likely/probable)

BIB : Or maybe "a slap on the wrist?" I may be wrong but if I recall correctly it was you who raised this possibility at one stage.

 

[Greater Than]

I'm much more ambivalent on whether OP is guilty of murder on the basis that he believed that there was an intruder behind the door. On balance I suspect he shot a person be believed to be an intruder, and not in self defence - that is murder in my book and why I don't think he will/should be acquitted.

But the question of whether he believed it was Reeva is, in my view, not established beyond reasonable doubt; far from it.

There are significant problem's in the STATE's case. For example, the evidence that a male voice was heard screaming for help before the “shots” heard at 3:17. This is dismissed as OP “taunting” Reeva before he shot her. Why on EARTH would OP scream for help so loud that residents many hundreds of metres away could hear him, just before he shot his girlfriend. It doesn’t make sense. The only explanation is that the female sounding screams heard by the neighbours were in fact OP, and that they happened after the shots.

Once you take away the screams, the State’s case is reduced to arguments about the length of a fan cord. There really is very little evidence at all to show that OP intended to kill Reeva, knowing it was her behind the door.

Its for this reason that people seem to rely on the supposed inconsistencies etc in OP's evidence. But what actually are these? "whispered" vs "spoke quietly", the blue LED light, the fan cord debate etc. Are these really such strong inconsistencies on which to base a pre-meditated murder conviction. I don't think so.

BIB - As much as you'd like for those screams to go away, they are here to stay. Four independent testimonies of a woman screaming in fear for her life is damning evidence against OP's version. And for the umpteenth time, Roux said on record over and over again that the DT would submit evidence that OP screams like a woman and then failed to provide said evidence.

Reeva screamed, OP shot her.

She screamed again, he readjusted his aim, and then shot three more times.

There is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that he knew damn well who was behind that door.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

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

Credible. Honest. Truthful. Consistent.

I’d say OP is totally screwed. :lol:

My Lady needs ask herself only one simple question:

If OP is so anxious, so vulnerable, so terrified of strange sounds and sudden noises (Derman testified that poor OP cowered in abject fear of fireworks! ... I'm still waiting for the leaked video LOL), why didn’t he shoot his washing machine?

(Or Sam Taylor?)

(Or Dexter Azzi?)

(Or anyone else who’s ever stayed at his house ... including athlete Martyn Rooney, who was a houseguest with OP and Reeva up till a few days before the shooting?!!)

Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius 27 Nov 2012
Nothing like getting home to hear the washing machine on and thinking its an intruder to go into full combat recon mode into the pantry! waa

Reeva Steenkamp @reevasteenkamp 9 Feb 2013
It's the last supper with @MartynRooney I think @OscarPistorius and I will kidnap you forever!!!!

Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius 10 Feb 2013
Finished watching the 8pm movie on @mnetmovies to end the weekend but the house is way to quiet without @MartynRooney! #homealoneblues

 

[eimajjjj]

based on the finding of truthfulness in the accused's beliefs, the Judge determines that the accused's intent was lawful…

What about believing you've had an affair with my wife and thus I now intend to kill you? Just because my belief becomes true, that doesn't make my intent lawful. I think belief and intent are very much separate.

One must always remember that no one can be criminally liable for intent alone… only the conduct is criminally liable

What about intention to bomb a place or intent to carry out a bank heist? Intent can be criminally liable. Thought crime obviously not but intent without conduct can be in many cases be unlawful.

 

[AJ_DS]

He meant, as you say, did Nel mean what he was doing at this point, or what was Reeva doing. Not sure why this automatically means that Reeva was screaming.

I think the fact that people are talking about minor minor minor quibbles and details like this, the fan chord, the inside out jeans, means that really there is no fundamental flaw in OP's story of what happened. The reality is you need something substantial to find that OP intended to kill Reeva.

This forum will be in for a shock on 11th September. Can't see the Judge finding OP intended to kill Reeva (not to say that a murder conviction isn't still likely/probable)

I find your interpretation quite bizarre… correct if I'm mistaken but :

- Isn't it OP's version that Reeva's first, last and ONLY sound was when OP woke up and she asked him "can't you sleep baba" ?

- Isn't it OP's version that he NEVER saw Reeva after he got out of bed ?

… these 2 elements are the crux of OP's version and of the case against him… OP did NOT hear or see Reeva at all.

… so how can OP be confused about Nel's question ?

As per his own version OP could never state what Reeva was doing because he doesn't know.

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 ? "

Not only is Nel's line of questions chronological and step-by-step… not only is Nel going over OP's own testimony as he had expressed in chief... but he specifically says "you"… confusion is not possible…

… unless OP's mind is overly active, thinking about where Nel is going with his questions and trying to anticipate a "trap".

 

[AJ_DS]

Ok, AJ. Let's continue

Here is an example of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in play:

I go to the supermarket, pick up a bottle of wine and walk out without paying. I fully intend to pay, but I am so engrossed in scrolling to the latest post on the Websleuths Theory thread on my iphone that I completely forget.

In this case, the actus reus is present, but not the mens rea. Hence, there is no crime.

It doesn't matter that I had the intent to walk out of the supermarket. The intent needed for the crime is the intent to deprive the shopkeeper of his takings.

If I kill someone in self defence and my actions are justified, there is no actus reus. It is not a crime to kill someone in self defence, provided that my actions are proportionate to an immediate threat. And, if there is no crime, there is no mens rea. It doesn't matter what my private thoughts and intentions may have been.

If OP had killed an armed intruder in his toilet, whether or not his conduct was lawful would depend on whether or not Milady & Co consider his actions to have been reasonable in the circumstances. If his actions were considered to be unreasonable, the killing becomes unlawful, and we'd be looking at a verdict of murder or culpable homicide, depending on intent.

I don't think that the intent to kill an intruder is the same as the intent to kill Reeva, the difference being that Reeva did not pose any threat to OP's safety, so if Milady finds that OP knew it was her, it follows that he had mens rea and there need be no discussion of proportionality of response, etc.

Moo

BiB… I believe we differ on this point… If I kill someone, there will always be actus reus because it is a crime for which I may be found not liable if it is deemed as being the result of lawful conduct such as in the case of genuine self-defense.

 

[AJ_DS]

1. What about believing you've had an affair with my wife and thus I now intend to kill you? Just because my belief becomes true, that doesn't make my intent lawful. I think belief and intent are very much separate.

2. What about intention to bomb a place or intent to carry out a bank heist? Intent can be criminally liable. Thought crime obviously not but intent without conduct can be in many cases be unlawful.

1. No, no, no… first of all the fact that you want to kill me because I slept with your wife is NOT a lawful intent… it's jealousy and revenge… so it's murder.

Yes, belief and intent are very separate things… but you form intent on beliefs…

My example was based on self-defense… let us take OP's case as an example :

Consider that we could be 100% certain that OP's version was the Truth (I know it's a stretch, but bear with me)…

… this means that OP's belief that intruders had invaded his home was genuine and honest
… this means that OP's belief that his life was in danger was genuine and honest

… therefore, OP's intent to confront these intruders with a gun to save his life was a lawful intent… because he held a genuine belief that he was in danger

2. Not sure about that… if I just talk about bombing a place, I'm not liable… If I have explosive and pipe-bombs in my basement, I'm criminally liable.

As you pointed out belief is distinct from intent… If I'm thinking about killing someone, there is no criminal liability… If I'm pointing a loaded gun at someone, it will be deemed that I had an intent to shoot and kill… but if I don't shoot or kill, the most I could get is attempted murder… the least negligence with a firearm.

… frankly, these are all difficult legal questions which are outside my competencies

 

[eimajjjj]

I'm much more ambivalent on whether OP is guilty of murder on the basis that he believed that there was an intruder behind the door. On balance I suspect he shot a person be believed to be an intruder, and not in self defence - that is murder in my book and why I don't think he will/should be acquitted.

But the question of whether he believed it was Reeva is, in my view, not established beyond reasonable doubt; far from it.

There are significant problem's in the STATE's case. For example, the evidence that a male voice was heard screaming for help before the “shots” heard at 3:17. This is dismissed as OP “taunting” Reeva before he shot her. Why on EARTH would OP scream for help so loud that residents many hundreds of metres away could hear him, just before he shot his girlfriend. It doesn’t make sense. The only explanation is that the female sounding screams heard by the neighbours were in fact OP, and that they happened after the shots.

Once you take away the screams, the State’s case is reduced to arguments about the length of a fan cord. There really is very little evidence at all to show that OP intended to kill Reeva, knowing it was her behind the door.

Its for this reason that people seem to rely on the supposed inconsistencies etc in OP's evidence. But what actually are these? "whispered" vs "spoke quietly", the blue LED light, the fan cord debate etc. Are these really such strong inconsistencies on which to base a pre-meditated murder conviction. I don't think so.

Yes, just reduced to a fan cord....

Oh, and:

- a neighbour hearing arguing.
- a contradictory position of a fan
- a contradictory position of the duvet on the floor with a trail of blood from the carpet.
- a contradictory position of the jeans.
- a contradictory position of the curtains.
- two witnesses to the above contradictions being true.
- an impossibility of how fans were plugged in.
- a disproportionate amount of food in the deceased stomach to when she apparently ate.
- the accused contradicting himself numerous times in testimony.
- the accused expecting the court to accept impossibilities (gun going off in tashas)
- the accused blaming his legal team for potholes in his story not being challenged.
- the accused blaming others for making up stories about him that just happen to match on the fundamentals with no evidence of malice.
- multiple contradictions in the accused's bail affidavit and his testimony.
- an improbable timeline.
- improbable/bizarre behaviours including and not limited to: sleeping on the the other side of the bed when ALL his stuff is the other side and Reeva's slippers are on 'his' side pointing outwards, rubbing his eyes and not seeing Reeva but then seeing Reeva before pushing the duvet away from him that wasn't actually on him, screaming like a maniac up only until he sees the corpse of his loved one, retreating from the bathroom when he doesn't know if he's killed the intruder yet or not, calling a mate first after killing your girlfriend, saying 'everything is fine' to a witness, disappearing upstairs for a bit to plug your phone in or do whatever else while your girlfriend bleeds on the floor below you, deactivating an alarm on the way out of the bedroom while holding a dead woman in your arms.

And..

- 4 witnesses. Independent of one another. All hearing a woman scream.

But yes, you want us to set aside the last point for some reason. Or discredit them all based on "a man screamed for help".

I agree, I'm glad it's a judge, not a jury. You might get someone like you in the latter and justice takes a backseat.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Right. Reading posts like this over the last few days makes me so grateful a Judge is making this decision, rather than a jury. Some people seem to be desperate to find OP guilty.

Can't you see yourself on the jury, why is it only 'other' people? lol

I'm much more ambivalent on whether OP is guilty of murder on the basis that he believed that there was an intruder behind the door. On balance I suspect he shot a person be believed to be an intruder, and not in self defence - that is murder in my book and why I don't think he will/should be acquitted.

But the question of whether he believed it was Reeva is, in my view, not established beyond reasonable doubt; far from it.

There are significant problem's in the STATE's case. For example, the evidence that a male voice was heard screaming for help before the “shots” heard at 3:17. This is dismissed as OP “taunting” Reeva before he shot her. Why on EARTH would OP scream for help so loud that residents many hundreds of metres away could hear him, just before he shot his girlfriend. It doesn’t make sense. The only explanation is that the female sounding screams heard by the neighbours were in fact OP, and that they happened after the shots.

Once you take away the screams, the State’s case is reduced to arguments about the length of a fan cord. There really is very little evidence at all to show that OP intended to kill Reeva, knowing it was her behind the door.

Its for this reason that people seem to rely on the supposed inconsistencies etc in OP's evidence. But what actually are these? "whispered" vs "spoke quietly", the blue LED light, the fan cord debate etc. Are these really such strong inconsistencies on which to base a pre-meditated murder conviction. I don't think so.

When you combine everything together as in the baker's dozen, all the inconsistencies make OP's story unbelievable. But as you say, it is up to Judge Masipa and her assessors to make a decision of what, or if, he is charged.

The 13 inconsistencies -

1. What is a "zombie stopper"? When asked in court, Mr Pistorius said he had "no idea", despite being on video using the term.

2. Did he go on to the balcony? In his bail application, Mr Pistorius said he had heard a noise from the bathroom while bringing in a fan from his balcony, but he later disputed this and blamed the discrepancy on his legal team.

3. How many fans? Mr Pistorius' bail application says one, but his plea explanation says more than one. Mr Nel says the athlete added a second fan to give Ms Steenkamp time to walk into the bathroom and make a noise in his version of events.

4. Where were the fans? Mr Pistorius says he placed fans at the end of the bed, but they were found by the balcony door. If there were suspicions of tampering, why did the defence not bring this up in their questioning of police officers, Mr Nel asks.

5. What about the duvet? That was found at the end of the bed, where Mr Pistorius said the fans should have been. This led him to create another version of events, says Mr Nel.

6. Did the police tamper with evidence? Mr Pistorius alleged that officers had moved two fans, the duvet and curtains but his lawyer again failed to raise this issue with officers, Mr Nel says, adding that blood spatter on the objects adds more doubt to the athlete's version of events.

7. This alleged tampering led Mr Pistorius to claim that the duvet had been on the bed at the time of the incident, despite being photographed on the floor by police. This led to him contradicting himself about when he last saw Ms Steenkamp, according to Mr Nel.

8. Pitch black or illuminated? Mr Nel accuses the Paralympian of saying he could not see anything when he got up, before changing his line to say that he saw the duvet over Ms Steenkamp's legs.

9. Irritating light? In order to explain how he failed to see his girlfriend leave the bed, Mr Nel says the athlete made up the story of keeping his back to the bed while trying to cover up a blue LED light emitting from an amplifier near the bed. Mr Pistorius says he did this using a pair of Ms Steenkamp's jeans.

10. Where were the jeans? Mr Nel says it is impossible that Ms Steenkamp's jeans, which Mr Pistorius says he was holding, would have ended up on top of the duvet on the floor if the duvet was not already on the floor.

11. No conversation? It is inconceivable that Mr Pistorius would not have spoken to Ms Steenkamp if he believed an intruder was in the bathroom, Mr Nel argues. He says a later conversation that Mr Pistorius cited must have been fabricated because it wasn't mentioned in his bail application, despite its importance.

12. A whisper? Mr Nel highlights Mr Pistorius first saying that he "whispered" to Ms Steenkamp, but then changed it to spoke in a "soft manner" after, Mr Nel argues, he realised "whisper" would suggest that he was in close proximity to his girlfriend.

13. Why deactivate the alarm? Mr Pistorius said he deactivated the alarm after the shooting, which Mr Nel says shows he was either calm in the aftermath or lying about the alarm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28686756

 

[AJ_DS]

As I understand it :

If I hold a genuine belief that my life is being threatened and I form an intent to protect my life from said threat : I have a lawful intent.

It does not matter if the threat is objectively real or it is imagined… If I am genuinely proceeding on good faith to protect my life, my intent is lawful because the Law allows me to defend myself against an unlawful attack against my person.

Once a Judge determines that I have testified honestly and truthfully about what was going on inside my head, the Judge must determine if my beliefs that formed my lawful intent were reasonable.

One could genuinely and honestly believe that their life is being threatened by a mere shadow or sound and form a lawful intent to defend themselves… but that would not be a reasonable belief.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I didn't know this. Maybe Uncle Arnold is worried about him living in the family mansion. I know I'd be worried. In fact I'd be scared s***less.

"Arnold Pistorius is the patriarch of the family.
The wealthy businessman paid most of the R1-million bail to secure Oscar’s release after his arrest for shooting model Reeva Steenkamp (29) in February last year. He then offered the Olympic athlete a safe refuge, allowing him to move into his family mansion in Waterkloof, Pretoria. Oscar (27) is apparently still living in a cottage on the property and Arnold has had a gym built for him so he can train in private."

http://you.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-an-a-z-guide/

I think it'd be a great idea for OP to move into the big house ... all practice for moving into the real big house.

 

[JudgeJudi]

OP’s bail restrictions

The original restrictions include supervision by a probation officer, alongside compulsory drug and alcohol testing. Magistrate Desmond Nair also imposed travel restrictions, both within and beyond South Africa’s borders, prohibiting Pistorius from returning to the his Silver Woods estate home where the shooting took place. Nair expressed concerns that Pistorius would interfere with potential witnesses – and the investigation.

Pistorius reportedly wants all of these conditions relaxed, claiming they are unwarranted and unfair. eNCA reported that the Paralympian wants to be able to travel abroad with police permission, given that during his bail application Magistrate Nair found that he was not a proven flight risk, sparking speculation that he may want to re-enter the competitive athletic circuit.

Pistorius’ agent Peet van Zyl said he was unaware of any such move, especially the suggestion the Paralympian may want to travel abroad.

“He’s been withdrawn from all international competitions,” he told The Independent, “And I haven’t re-entered him into any of those. He’s not even training.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-fight-stringent-bail-conditions-8527228.html


Read this excellent article re the above

http://undertheburningbridge.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/the-odious-arrogance-of-oscar-pistorius.html