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

[Exchange973]

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.

I will follow your lead

 

[AJ_DS]

I've gone through your inconsistencies:

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

- One neighbor is still evidence and it wasn't challenged has being a non credible or not-reliable witness.

- Not from another house… from Farm Inn a nature reserve… perhaps a hyena was arguing with a giraffe ??

… as for the rest of your points, I could argue each and everyone of them, but it's not really necessary… each of them in isolation is probably not sufficient, BUT all of them together do paint a portrait of OP being a totally non-credible witness that fabricated his version of events to cover up the fact that, with full knowledge of who was in the toilet, murdered Reeva.

 

[Jake18]

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.

BIB : I'm sure Exchange knows this as s/he is a lawyer after all.

 

[AJ_DS]

I will follow your lead

LOL… probably not the most wise of decisions for I am certainly NOT a role-model !

So… do you believe OP is guilty of Directus or Eventualis ?

 

[Exchange973]

BIB : I'm sure Exchange knows this as s/he is a lawyer after all.

He, and I've said quite honestly that I'm not a criminal lawyer, nor do I have any knowledge at all of South African criminal law

 

[eimajjjj]

Go on then. I'll bite. Once.

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.

Yes, 'only' one neighbour. One. Whole. Witness. And she looked in the same direction of OP's house both times, including when there were tests at the house. Plus, it hasn't been 'proven' that anyone else was arguing at that time at night by the defense either when there are only a few houses to look in. You don't think they would have asked every house to check if anyone else was arguing that night in order to refute it was OP and Reeva? It was valentine's evening as well, not like people would forget that!

- 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

And I'm afraid if the duvet was on the floor and the fan was where it is it means he was lying. Several times. Intentionally. But you can ignore that if you want.

You mean you can't be satisfied the police didn't move them. There is no evidence to suggest they did move them nor were the witnesses who said they found the scene like that refuted with any evidence. Anything else is mere speculation, the same speculation you won't allow regarding OP's cries for help.

- 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

Even OP said himself she didn't go downstairs. So you're taking the position of 'well the science is most likely wrong on this even though it dicates that it's most likely right (if you consider the experience of Saayman and the norm) but just in case it's right, I'll speculate again that maybe she went downstairs even though the accused says it's unlikely'. So you'd rather take two unlikely positions than the more likley one.

- 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

I doubt you've 'dealt' with it if your replies were anything like the above. Plus there were probably far too many too many to even keep a record of.

- 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

But ones that lie under oath on the stand are more likely to be have their entire testimony questioned. Including their plea.

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

See above, we are not judging OP's character

Oh I am. And so is Masipa, you can be assured of that.

- 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

OP accused Taylor and Fresco of lying with no evidence to support it.

- 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?

I don't have to list them again. If you're not open to seeing the whole picture, then how can your opinion be respected?

- 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

Murder isn't improbable when evidence dictates it so. And now you want to bring in character evidence to support his innocence but discard it when it supports his guilt?

- 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.

No they haven't. And they alone do not warrant a conviction, but how many lies, improbabilities, inconsistencies or witnesses do you need? Far more than I can offer you it seems.

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.

Only by me.

 

[Exchange973]

[snipped]

Go on then. I'll bite. Once.

No they haven't. And they alone do not warrant a conviction, but how many lies, improbabilities, inconsistencies or witnesses do you need? Far more than I can offer you it seems.


Only by me.

Let me ask you this. Do you accept that Burger lied on the stand. She said at the beginning of her evidence that she heard a man screaming for help, and then later changed her evidence and said he shouted in a "subdued" way. This is a much greater inconsistency than OP's purported inconsistencies. So I'll ask you: do you accept that she lied?

 

[eimajjjj]

Let me ask you this. Do you accept that Burger lied on the stand. She said at the beginning of her evidence that she heard a man screaming for help, and then later changed her evidence and said he shouted in a "subdued" way. This is a much greater inconsistency than OP's purported inconsistencies. So I'll ask you: do you accept that she lied?

Absolutely shocking comparison. Shocking. I'm not trying to be offensive with these words, but find your arguments illogical, irrational and bizarre.

And unfortunately, I said I'd bite just once so shame that's all you could come back with. So with reluctance, I'll leave it now. Hopefully someone else will address the above.

 

[Exchange973]

Absolutely shocking comparison. Shocking. I'm not trying to be offensive with these words, but find your arguments illogical, irrational and bizarre.

And unfortunately, I said I'd bite just once so shame that's all you could come back with. So with reluctance, I'll leave it now. Hopefully someone else will address the above.

If you find the logic irrational and bizarre that is exactly my point: this is the logic you are using to attack OP. People are using inconsistencies and differences between OP's evidence and his bail affidavit etc to say he is lying. I'm making the point that slight differences in the evidence, even multiple slight differences, are commonplace in trials. But yes, as you say, hopefully someone else will address what I say.

 

[Jake18]

Let me ask you this. Do you accept that Burger lied on the stand. She said at the beginning of her evidence that she heard a man screaming for help, and then later changed her evidence and said he shouted in a "subdued" way. This is a much greater inconsistency than OP's purported inconsistencies. So I'll ask you: do you accept that she lied?

I'm going to interject and say that I found the ear witnesses to be honest and straightforward and generally trying to be helpful. Some issues were confused by difficulties with translation yet their true meanings seemed very clear to me. This is in contrast to the DT's "experts" who did all sorts of sneaky things like make a kneeling man shorter than Op would have been on his stumps etc. Interestingly, some posters here also misrepresented Op's height - another example of the "OP fans'" open minds and critical thinking.

 

[jimmy73]

As others have said Exchange, I expect you're on the wind-up but if not, do you think all the following are true/reasonable (if Pistorius is to be believed):

1. No reply, conversation, questions or outbursts at all from Steenkamp after OP says get down and call the police.
2. Blood splatter (lined up with matching splatter on carpet) and jeans, both on top of duvet that Pistorius said had been on the bed is due to Police tampering.
3. Pistorius would hear the window not just slam but slide at the other end of the hallway when standing next to a tripod fan at the other end of the bedroom.
4. Food contents in Steenkamp's stomach were from 7 hours before, or that Steenkamp got up and went downstairs to eat whilst Pistorius slept.
5. Ear witnesses, (notably without exception) who independently identified a women's terrified screams, interspersed with a man's were all mistaken.


Re. the ear witnesses, here's their testimony that the Judge will have to reconcile with Pistorius' version:

Mrs Van der Merwe testimony (paraphrased)
Woke up around 1:56am in the morning (irritated by the woman's voice)
[Her elaboration: It was a woman's voice]
Sounded like someone was involved in fight, people talking in loud voices
[Her elaboration: The person was talking / stopping, it wasn't continuous. It sounded like two people in an argument but I couldn't hear the other person's voice]
It lasted about an hour. I couldn't hear what the person was saying, or in what language the person was talking
I fell asleep again
At some stage I woke up and tried to see if there was something I could see. I couldn't see anything.
Around about 3am in the morning, I heard 4 shots/bangs..
[Her elaboration: bangs were shortly one after another]
[Her elaboration: I didn't hear another other sounds (gunshots)]
After hearing the 4 sounds, there was total silence.
Her husband woke up and said that it was a firearm.
Her husband then called security
Can't remember how long after that I heard someone crying out loud.
I asked my husband who it was and he said it was Oscar
[Her elaboration: I didn't hear any screams]


Dr. Stipps' testimony (paraphrased)
Awakened by 3 loud bangs
Got out of bed, walked to balcony
Heard female screaming (3 or four times, moments later) (could have heard another voice, lower pitch, not included in statement)
Looked out and light was on in Pistorius' bathroom.
Went inside to phone security (no answer)
Heard another 3 loud bangs.
Got through to security (3:15:51am), said they would send someone.
Went outside whilst waiting
Heard man shouting "Help help help"
Security arrived, spoke to them from balcony
Went out to other balcony to watch them and looked at where noises came from and noticed someone moving right to left through the bathroom.


Mrs Stipps' testimony (paraphrased)
3:02am (2:59am?) woke up feeling fluish
Heard 3 loud bangs like gunshots
[Her elaboration: After the first set of shots, there was definitely a female screaming for quite a period]
Could see the light was on at Pistorius' bathroom window from her bed.
Went onto the balcony and could hear a lady's terrified screaming (continuing as they walked out)
At one stage, it sounded as though the screaming was coming closer
She went inside, looked at the clock it was 03:17am (likely 3:14/3:15am as her clock was fast)
[Her elaboration: Just before the second set of shots, there was a male voice in between, you could definitely hear two different voices.]
At this time she heard 3 or 4 more shots
...Could still hear woman screaming up until the 2nd set of shots
After the shots it became quiet.


Ms Burger testimony (paraphrased)
Just after 3am woke up from a woman's terrible screams
Husband also woke up from the screams.
Still sitting in the bed and heard her screams.
She screamed terribly and yelled for help.
Also heard a man scream "help, help, help"
Husband called security, relayed account to 2nd person..
Husband went back to balcony
Was still in bed and heard her screams again, worse, it was more intense
She was very scared, it was a climax
[Her elaboration: it was very traumatic, you could hear it was blood curdling screams, it leaves you cold, the anxiousness in her voice]
Just after her screaming, I heard four shots, gunshots (bang....bang, bang, bang)
After he screamed for help, we did not hear him again.

 

[Sherbert]

Does anyone follow why, having spoken softly to Reeva, OP might be going in and out of stealth mode by intermittently shouting and screaming as he approached the bathroom? Even though I'm convinced he's guilty, I have tried to see things from his perspective - I can even understand his covering the LED light - but I can't get my head around this. On the numerous occasions I've been checking for an intruder, I've crept around silently, checking behind doors, etc - the last thing I'd do would be to scream my head off, losing the advantage to be gained from silence.

 

[Val1]

As others have said Exchange, I expect you're on the wind-up but if not, do you think all the following are true/reasonable (if Pistorius is to be believed):

1. No reply, conversation, questions or outbursts at all from Steenkamp after OP says get down and call the police.
2. Blood splatter (lined up with matching splatter on carpet) and jeans, both on top of duvet that Pistorius said had been on the bed is due to Police tampering.
3. Pistorius would hear the window not just slam but slide at the other end of the hallway when standing next to a tripod fan at the other end of the bedroom.
4. Food contents in Steenkamp's stomach were from 7 hours before, or that Steenkamp got up and went downstairs to eat whilst Pistorius slept.
5. Ear witnesses, (notably without exception) who independently identified a women's terrified screams, interspersed with a man's were all mistaken.


Re. the ear witnesses, here's their testimony that the Judge will have to reconcile with Pistorius' version:

Mrs Van der Merwe testimony (paraphrased)
Woke up around 1:56am in the morning (irritated by the woman's voice)
[Her elaboration: It was a woman's voice]
Sounded like someone was involved in fight, people talking in loud voices
[Her elaboration: The person was talking / stopping, it wasn't continuous. It sounded like two people in an argument but I couldn't hear the other person's voice]
It lasted about an hour. I couldn't hear what the person was saying, or in what language the person was talking
I fell asleep again
At some stage I woke up and tried to see if there was something I could see. I couldn't see anything.
Around about 3am in the morning, I heard 4 shots/bangs..
[Her elaboration: bangs were shortly one after another]
[Her elaboration: I didn't hear another other sounds (gunshots)]
After hearing the 4 sounds, there was total silence.
Her husband woke up and said that it was a firearm.
Her husband then called security
Can't remember how long after that I heard someone crying out loud.
I asked my husband who it was and he said it was Oscar
[Her elaboration: I didn't hear any screams]


Dr. Stipps' testimony (paraphrased)
Awakened by 3 loud bangs
Got out of bed, walked to balcony
Heard female screaming (3 or four times, moments later) (could have heard another voice, lower pitch, not included in statement)
Looked out and light was on in Pistorius' bathroom.
Went inside to phone security (no answer)
Heard another 3 loud bangs.
Got through to security (3:15:51am), said they would send someone.
Went outside whilst waiting
Heard man shouting "Help help help"
Security arrived, spoke to them from balcony
Went out to other balcony to watch them and looked at where noises came from and noticed someone moving right to left through the bathroom.


Mrs Stipps' testimony (paraphrased)
3:02am (2:59am?) woke up feeling fluish
Heard 3 loud bangs like gunshots
[Her elaboration: After the first set of shots, there was definitely a female screaming for quite a period]
Could see the light was on at Pistorius' bathroom window from her bed.
Went onto the balcony and could hear a lady's terrified screaming (continuing as they walked out)
At one stage, it sounded as though the screaming was coming closer
She went inside, looked at the clock it was 03:17am (likely 3:14/3:15am as her clock was fast)
[Her elaboration: Just before the second set of shots, there was a male voice in between, you could definitely hear two different voices.]
At this time she heard 3 or 4 more shots
...Could still hear woman screaming up until the 2nd set of shots
After the shots it became quiet.


Ms Burger testimony (paraphrased)
Just after 3am woke up from a woman's terrible screams
Husband also woke up from the screams.
Still sitting in the bed and heard her screams.
She screamed terribly and yelled for help.
Also heard a man scream "help, help, help"
Husband called security, relayed account to 2nd person..
Husband went back to balcony
Was still in bed and heard her screams again, worse, it was more intense
She was very scared, it was a climax
[Her elaboration: it was very traumatic, you could hear it was blood curdling screams, it leaves you cold, the anxiousness in her voice]
Just after her screaming, I heard four shots, gunshots (bang....bang, bang, bang)
After he screamed for help, we did not hear him again.

Just to add to this topic before this thread also gets shut down like #50 did, liesbeth had posted in http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?252572-Trial-Discussion-Thread-50-14-08-8-Day-40-final-arguments-continue&p=10841434#post10841434

In Afrikaans Dr Burger said the man "het om hulp geskree" which means the man called for help. The interpreter incorrectly uses the word "scream" so at 45:50 Dr Burger corrects the interpreter who then corrects the translation and says the man yelled for help.

 

[Jake18]

You know, I don't understand the obsession with the "help, help help" (strangely this exact obsession is also shared by another "OP fan" poster although admittedly not one who is also a lawyer and who has only joined WS last week) at all. It doesn't negate Reeva's screams or wipe out the ear witness testimonies so it doesn't exonerate him. I've personally never murdered anyone but maybe, just maybe, it's not someone's most logical, or coherent moment. Or:
- he was mocking her
- he knew he was going to shoot her and was creating an alibi
- he was shouting/screaming/whatevering out of rage and fury and fear at what he was going to do and so happened to repeat what she said
- he was shouting/screaming to his god to stop him from murdering her.

He could have shouted. "There's a purple elephant with pink spots on the roof!" and it'd be no more or less relevant given that four ear witnesses heard Reeva scream.

 

[Sherbert]

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.

Ok. But do bear in mind that the actus reus for murder is not killing but unlawful killing.

I fully accept that, in practice, the Judge will look at the reasonableness of the Accused's alleged beliefs, as well as his demeanour, in order to determine honesty.

If the Accused is found to have had an honest intent but to have acted unreasonably, the killing is unlawful and we are probably looking at culpable homicide, not murder.

 

[Exchange973]

You know, I don't understand the obsession with the "help, help help" (strangely this exact obsession is also shared by another "OP fan" poster although admittedly not one who is also a lawyer and who has only joined WS last week) at all. It doesn't negate Reeva's screams or wipe out the ear witness testimonies so it doesn't exonerate him. I've personally never murdered anyone but maybe, just maybe, it's not someone's most logical, or coherent moment. Or:
- he was mocking her
- he knew he was going to shoot her and was creating an alibi
- he was shouting/screaming/whatevering out of rage and fury and fear at what he was going to do and so happened to repeat what she said
- he was shouting/screaming to his god to stop him from murdering her.

He could have shouted. "There's a purple elephant with pink spots on the roof!" and it'd be no more or less relevant given that four ear witnesses heard Reeva scream.

He "was creating an alibi". Are you trolling? I don't think you're being serious, but in case you are I'll humour you. The reason the help help help is so significant (and the reason so many people get annoyed when it is brought up) is because it strongly suggests that the screams heard were all OP and not Reeva. There are two competing arguments: either the screams were the sounds of a fight/Reeva's terror before she was shot, or they were OP's screams of horror after he realised he had shot her. OP screaming for help is inconsistent with the former interpretation and completely consistent with the latter. That is why they are so important. It means that the screams that are central to the State's case were not Reeva - or at least gives more than reasonable doubt.

 

[Jake18]

He "was creating an alibi". Are you trolling? I don't think you're being serious, but in case you are I'll humour you. The reason the help help help is so significant (and the reason so many people get annoyed when it is brought up) is because it strongly suggests that the screams heard were all OP and not Reeva. There are two competing arguments: either the screams were the sounds of a fight/Reeva's terror before she was shot, or they were OP's screams of horror after he realised he had shot her. OP screaming for help is inconsistent with the former interpretation and completely consistent with the latter. That is why they are so important. It means that the screams that are central to the State's case were not Reeva - or at least gives more than reasonable doubt.

No it doesn't. OP doesn't scream like a woman.

 

[Sherbert]

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.

BBM

Yes, in order to determine if I am guilty of culpable homicide.

In OP's case, we know from the evidence of Sean Rens that OP knew very well that he was not at liberty to fire, which is why he tried to claim that he lacked the necessary intent for murder and for culpable homicide because he didn't fire deliberately.

 

[Jake18]

He "was creating an alibi". Are you trolling? I don't think you're being serious, but in case you are I'll humour you. The reason the help help help is so significant (and the reason so many people get annoyed when it is brought up) is because it strongly suggests that the screams heard were all OP and not Reeva. There are two competing arguments: either the screams were the sounds of a fight/Reeva's terror before she was shot, or they were OP's screams of horror after he realised he had shot her. OP screaming for help is inconsistent with the former interpretation and completely consistent with the latter. That is why they are so important. It means that the screams that are central to the State's case were not Reeva - or at least gives more than reasonable doubt.

No, I think I get it. Because "help help help" is an implausible thing for OP to shout out before he murders someone then all of the ear witnesses who identified a screaming woman are wrong. Is there a list of things that would be "normal" to call out before you shoot your girlfriend? That would also allow all four ear witnesses who clearly identified a woman's screams to also be right?

 

[Exchange973]

No, I think I get it. Because "help help help" is an implausible thing for OP to shout out before he murders someone then all of the ear witnesses who identified a screaming woman are wrong. Is there a list of things that would be "normal" to call out before you shoot your girlfriend? That would also allow all four ear witnesses who clearly identified a woman's screams to also be right?

I don't have my copy of the list, but I'm pretty sure screaming for help isn't on it. Maybe he wanted back-up/reinforcements? who knows....I'm sure its not important ;-)