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

[JudgeJudi]

I think Prof Derman got it wrong about there being three startle responses. There is in fact a fourth startle response and rather than explain it, OP will demonstrate it himself immediately Masipa delivers her verdict.

“My Lady, would it be in order to arrange for a green bucket? And perhaps some for his family? As the court pleases”.

 

[JudgeJudi]

For the few who are unaware of how just how wealthy the Pistorius clan is, you might like to read this:
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/theyre-rolling-in-it/

And look at this:
http://www.twincity.co.za/about.html

 

[Exchange973]

[/B]

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.

You are wrong. I've always said that OP is probably guilty of murder but not premeditated murder of Reeva - a nuance that OP haters who see the world in black and white (or just black) can't seem to get their heads around.

 

[JudgeJudi]

For those who aren’t aware of the possible sentences …

http://www.health24.com/News/Possible-outcomes-of-the-Oscar-Pistorius-trail-20140808

Masipa, you go girl. We're all counting on you.

 

[Exchange973]

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



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

I'm sorry but the bakers dozen does not even begin to establish that OP lied. You want to convict someone based on the difference between a whisper and speaking softly. Please. It's the screams or nothing and there is significant doubt over those screams. No one has satisfactorily explained why OP screamed for help just before he shot Reeva. That to me is more significant than debates about an led light. I suspect the judge will agree.

 

[Mr Fossil]

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)?!!

Yes, although we only get to see OP's phone data from 17:15 on the 13 Feb, we get Reeva's from midday that day, and it shows two of the calls he made to her were from the 4949 'business' phone. She doesn't call him on that number at all. It looks to me like OP switches the business phone off outside what he considers to be business hours. His phone log suggests this and the evidence shows that calls and texts to it were not reaching it overnight because it is switched off.

Sam Taylor testifies that he normally kept this phone downstairs in the kitchen on charge overnight. This is where I believe it was on that night and he switched it with the 0020 phone to buy time. It's the 0020 phone that Nel refers to being on charge in the kitchen. Why would OP take a phone that is switched off to the bathroom? And why did he need 2 phones? In fact, OP slips slightly when telling the court about fetching his "phone ... both my phones" from the bedroom. He often makes these little slips.

OP only uses the 0020 phone that night and I think initially the 4949 phone is in the kitchen as usual. So why swap it? My guess is that this is key to what happened. The 0020 phone mysteriously disappears and isn't handed back to police until 25 Feb. OP needed to get it out of the house and away from the police. No chain of custody and nothing is read out from that phone's data (just billing records) in court. But the judge has sight of what, or what was not, on it. Was it tampered with? If so, I'd expect some legal action to follow this case.

Following this line of thought, what could be incriminating on the phone that had to be removed? Evidence of someone else?

OP was asleep. Reeva was up (another OP slip perhaps in his EIC when he states twice that he asked Reeva to close curtains etc. "when you come, when you fall asleep". e.g. when you come up/come to bed). At some point she sees something on his phone, maybe something to do with the usage at around 22:30-midnight. At 01:48 she confronts OP about it (5 mins usage on phone). At 01:56 EvdM hears arguing for an hour. Reeva is shouting at OP. She tells him she is leaving. Perhaps what she finds on his phone is damaging to brand Pistorius? We may never know. The result is as we know and it costs Reeva her life.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm sorry but the bakers dozen does not even begin to establish that OP lied. You want to convict someone based on the difference between a whisper and speaking softly. Please. It's the screams or nothing and there is significant doubt over those screams. No one has satisfactorily explained why OP screamed for help just before he shot Reeva. That to me is more significant than debates about an led light. I suspect the judge will agree.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I'm sorry but the bakers dozen does not even begin to establish that OP lied. You want to convict someone based on the difference between a whisper and speaking softly. Please. It's the screams or nothing and there is significant doubt over those screams. No one has satisfactorily explained why OP screamed for help just before he shot Reeva. That to me is more significant than debates about an led light. I suspect the judge will agree.

Re. the fans.

OP says in his EIC that when he wakes on the 14th "I noticed that the fans were still running". That's a strange thing to say unless you expected them to have been switched off.

Also "I took the small fan, the floor fan. I placed it, umm, pretty much just inside the room". Just inside the room. He's changed his story to 2 fans by this point but hasn't realised the significance of where they will be standing. When Nel cross examines, the fans have to move.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Oscar Pistorius and his Tinker Bell defence

Clap hands if you believe in fairies! Health 24's CyberShrink, Professor Michael Simpson, reflects on a lot of scientific hogwash presented during the Oscar Pistorius trial.

A good article with lots of links, and links within those links.

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscar-Pistorius-and-the-Tinker-Bell-defence-20140811

 

[jay-jay]

You are wrong. I've always said that OP is probably guilty of murder but not premeditated murder of Reeva - a nuance that OP haters who see the world in black and white (or just black) can't seem to get their heads around.

I don't understand the term 'OP haters' .. I couldn't give a FIG about OP one way or the other .. Reeva is the one who matters, and Reeva is the one who deserves justice, justice which means full punishment (i.e a long prison sentence) for her killer (i.e. Oscar Pistorius), the same punishment that any other killer would get in the circumstances where they had blasted their girlfriend to bits with three black talon bullets, after an argument that was witnessed by neighbours hearing raised voices and a woman screaming. You'd have to be pretty thick not to be able to see what went on that night, or to see why OP is so desperate for people to believe his 'intruder' story.

 

[44ALLAN]

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".

Thank you kindly that was my point exactly
You put it over far better than me though:clap:

 

[jay-jay]

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'.

OK, thanks for this and for your other posts on this .. and thanks to Sherbert and Lux for their posts, too .. OK, got it. Blimey, he really tied himself up in knots with that one, didn't he .. well, not unlike the rest of his fairy story really! This is where you are soo wrong about these seemingly small points, exchange .. each one may appear insignificant to you, but there are so many of them that as a whole, none of them actually add up .. and this is exactly what happens when you start off with a lie and then keep on adding things, and trying to make them fit .. no sooner have you got one thing sorted then another thing pops out and you've got to try and make that fit as well, and then it puts something else out. The whole of OP's 'version' is in complete disarray now, because absolutely none of it fits together now.

 

[eimajjjj]

I'm sorry but the bakers dozen does not even begin to establish that OP lied. You want to convict someone based on the difference between a whisper and speaking softly. Please. It's the screams or nothing and there is significant doubt over those screams. No one has satisfactorily explained why OP screamed for help just before he shot Reeva. That to me is more significant than debates about an led light. I suspect the judge will agree.

If you're trolling, which I think quite likely, this is quite a sick topic to troll on. I see you haven't addressed my post listing several things that 'establish OP lying' and also things that have not 'been satisfactorily explained' by OP either. I'm not going to list them again but something tells me you're on a wind-up. If not, then again, I reiterate it's lucky we have a judge on this and not a jury.

 

[Exchange973]

If you're trolling, which I think quite likely, this is quite a sick topic to troll on. I see you haven't addressed my post listing several things that 'establish OP lying' and also things that have not 'been satisfactorily explained' by OP either. I'm not going to list them again but something tells me you're on a wind-up. If not, then again, I reiterate it's lucky we have a judge on this and not a jury.

I don't see why I'm being accused of a troll. I'm just disagreeing with you about what happened that evening. People here seem to get very defensive whenever anyone does that. This is a forum to discuss what happened that evening. I happen to disagree with you, I happen to think that OP didn't argue with Reeva and shoot her out of anger. I can't see why that makes me sick. As for your post, I can go through them one by one if you'd like (and actually listen), but overall I don't think that they come close to showing that someone is lying. People do give slightly inconsistent accounts, that is a fact. Many of the prosecution witnesses have given internally contradictory accounts of what happened that evening. I don't think that means that they are lying. What it shows though is that it is normal to not give 100% consistent evidence (whispered vs. spoke softly etc etc). Does that make someone a liar: not in my book.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I don't see why I'm being accused of a troll. I'm just disagreeing with you about what happened that evening. People here seem to get very defensive whenever anyone does that. This is a forum to discuss what happened that evening. I happen to disagree with you, I happen to think that OP didn't argue with Reeva and shoot her out of anger. I can't see why that makes me sick. As for your post, I can go through them one by one if you'd like (and actually listen), but overall I don't think that they come close to showing that someone is lying. People do give slightly inconsistent accounts, that is a fact. Many of the prosecution witnesses have given internally contradictory accounts of what happened that evening. I don't think that means that they are lying. What it shows though is that it is normal to not give 100% consistent evidence (whispered vs. spoke softly etc etc). Does that make someone a liar: not in my book.

But why do you choose only one inconsistency, why not go through them all and explain them away, that would be a better solution than calling everyone OP haters.

People here are spending a good deal of their time coming up with theories and timelines, going over and over the trial records and testimonies with a fine tooth comb just like the prosecution team have yet, you're just stating OP story makes sense to you, everyone else are OP haters and basically awful people, shouldn't even be on a jury. :shame:

Great, so if Judge Masipa goes along with you, you will be really chuffed, lol. :clap: Me, I just move on to the next case which I'm currently doing, as most others are too. Some do have a special connection to just this case, they want justice for Reeva, and no Bladerunner heart throb is going to get away with it, even in South Africa. I would be disappointed if OP gets any less than murder and I am really interested in Judge Masipa's reasoning behind her verdict. Waiting with bated breath.

JMO

 

[eimajjjj]

I don't see why I'm being accused of a troll. I'm just disagreeing with you about what happened that evening. People here seem to get very defensive whenever anyone does that. This is a forum to discuss what happened that evening. I happen to disagree with you, I happen to think that OP didn't argue with Reeva and shoot her out of anger. I can't see why that makes me sick. As for your post, I can go through them one by one if you'd like (and actually listen), but overall I don't think that they come close to showing that someone is lying. People do give slightly inconsistent accounts, that is a fact. Many of the prosecution witnesses have given internally contradictory accounts of what happened that evening. I don't think that means that they are lying. What it shows though is that it is normal to not give 100% consistent evidence (whispered vs. spoke softly etc etc). Does that make someone a liar: not in my book.

Well I find it even more worrying if you're not on a wind-up then. It's not simple disagreement, it's the bizarre logic of you using one thing that can't be explained in your eyes outweighing dozens and dozens of contradictions and pieces of circumstantial evidence that cant be explained. In fact, not only does your 'lack of an explanation for a man shouting for help' trump all the other lacks of explanations but it also trumps four independent witnesses' testimony as well. It's like this incrediblE trump card dipped in water from the holy grail that nothing can beat. And the bizarre thing is that it's easier thinking of an explanation for that than it is for nearly all the other points that need desperate explanation.

The crux is that you're happy to suggest explanations for ALL the other evidence presented before you that imply they shouldn't be taken on face value yet you're not willing to do the same on your piece of 'evidence'. We must take his shouts for help as they come: they MUST be a man in danger, not a mockery, not a man covering his tracks, not anything. However, we must NOT take any of the other evidence as it comes as there must be other explanations for that!

And course you're allowed your opinion. But my opinion remains the same: you're obviously bored.

 

[Jake18]

You are wrong. I've always said that OP is probably guilty of murder but not premeditated murder of Reeva - a nuance that OP haters who see the world in black and white (or just black) can't seem to get their heads around.

BIB : To be fair, most of the people who believe Op guilty are also in agreement with the basic time line laid out by Nel of :
- signs of relationship difficulties
- an argument on the night of the 13th
- Reeva screaming
- 4 gunshots
- Reeva dying.

If this is "black and white" - all the speculation around and about the details of the above notwithstanding - so be it. It may well take non "black and white" thinkers (grey thinkers?) to believe OP, given the cr*p that Roux and co would have you swallow. Some of the explanations I've seen the "OP non haters" (OP lovers?) come up with are, at best, disingenuous and downright silly at worst. Does anyone remember the comment about how OP charged at the door because he was behaving like a member of the military? Or, at the time the photos of the damage to OP's bathroom were revealed, the comment from an OP fan that the broken tiles looked like unfinished repair work and the crime scene photographer had captured OP's home renovations in progress?

 

[Exchange973]

But why do you choose only one inconsistency, why not go through them all and explain them away, that would be a better solution than calling everyone OP haters.

People here are spending a good deal of their time coming up with theories and timelines, going over and over the trial records and testimonies with a fine tooth comb just like the prosecution team have yet, you're just stating OP story makes sense to you, everyone else are OP haters and basically awful people, shouldn't even be on a jury. :shame:

Great, so if Judge Masipa goes along with you, you will be really chuffed, lol. :clap: Me, I just move on to the next case which I'm currently doing, as most others are too. Some do have a special connection to just this case, they want justice for Reeva, and no Bladerunner heart throb is going to get away with it, even in South Africa. I would be disappointed if OP gets any less than murder and I am really interested in Judge Masipa's reasoning behind her verdict. Waiting with bated breath.

JMO

I've gone through your inconsistencies:

- a neighbour hearing arguing

Only one neighbour. She initially thought it was coming from another house completely - not proven that from OP's house.


- 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.

We can't be satisfied that the police did not move these items, for the reasons set out in the Defence's head of argument. In any event, I personally don't think the fact that the duvet was on the floor, or that the fan was where it was photographed, proves that OP's account cannot reasonably be true

- a disproportionate amount of food in the deceased stomach to when she apparently ate.

You know as well as I do that the science behind this is dubious. No reason why should couldn't have gone downstairs and made herself some food. As the Assessor was keen to establish, she may have been able to turn the alarm off herself (this one question from the assessor at the end of OP's testimony gives you a real insight into where the Court is going with its thinking

- the accused contradicting himself numerous times in testimony.

The Baker's dozen?! I've dealt with this. People do contradict themselves. None of the contradictions are material

- the accused expecting the court to accept impossibilities (gun going off in pashas)

This goes to character, not evidence of murder. Not all bad and arrogant people are guilty of murder

- the accused blaming his legal team for potholes in his story not being challenged.

See above, we are not judging OP's character

- the accused blaming others for making up stories about him that just happen to match on the fundamentals with no evidence of malice.

Not sure what is means, or if it adds anything to the above

- multiple contradictions in the accused's bail affidavit and his testimony.

You're going to have to list them. Is this the Baker's dozen again?

- an improbable timeline.

More improbable than a man with no history of dv suddenly shooting his girlfriend dead after an argument. Anyway it is the State's case that has an improbable timeline - with there being a gap of only a few minutes between the shooting and OP carrying Reeva downstairs

- 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.

All of these have been explained. I don't find them bizarre. Certainly not enough to found a conviction.

I appreciate people are devoting a lot of time to this, and that is great. Its just a shame that those who have also spent time considering the case, but have reached the opposite conclusion are branded sick trolls.

 

[AJ_DS]

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.

Uncle put his nephew in the cottage so OP could have the required privacy for his "amorous escapades" with his iPad !!

:shame:

 

[AJ_DS]

You are wrong. I've always said that OP is probably guilty of murder but not premeditated murder of Reeva - a nuance that OP haters who see the world in black and white (or just black) can't seem to get their heads around.

IIRC, there is no such thing as a verdict a premeditated murder in SA law… only a verdict of murder (Directus or Eventualis)… there can be a finding of premeditation which would be an aggravated factor at sentencing.

Please do maintain decorum and respect towards fellow posters… it will greatly facilitate a friendly and constructive exchange of ideas.