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

[Mr Fossil]

There's something wrong about his version concerning dinner. He said when he arrived home Reeva was preparing dinner. There's only 2 of them, so just how long does it take to cut chicken into strips and slice vegetables. 15-20 minutes would be more than enough, and stir-fries only take a few minutes to cook. I would have thought dinner would have been on the table by 7.30 or thereabouts. But OP says they ate dinner just after 7.00 and finished 20 or 30 minutes later. How long can it take to eat a stir-fry, everything's already cut in strips or pieces. According to his timeline they must have eaten a stone cold dinner. I don't think they ate dinner at all and that's why Reeva ate something later, possibly a salad with cheese or tofu.

The problem here is that he tells so many lies that you just have to question everything that comes out of his mouth. So much of it just doesn't make sense.

I guess you could read OP's testimony as saying she was preparing dinner, he went for a bath/shower, then she cooked it (very quick, as you say) when he came down at about 7pm. They sat at the table for an hour eating, talking and discussing Reeva's new contract. The testimony makes a fascinating read ...

OP I arrived home and Reeva was preparing dinner in the kitchen. I chatted to her for a short time.

I went upstairs then, I was ... I wanted to get out of the clothes I’d been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I got changed into my pyjamas and then I think around 7 o’clock I went downstairs and ...

[Cut for brevity]

OP From the time I arrived home ... Reeva was preparing dinner, I was talking to her and on my iPad. I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day to have a look at and, when I went upstairs, as I was drawing the bath I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while. I can’t remember if I was on it then and then as I got out of bed for a short time thereafter I was on it. And when we went down to dinner I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.

[I've cut the bit where Roux waffles about Exhibit WW at this point]

Roux What time did you eat?

OP I started dinner ... we started dinner shortly after 7 my lady. 7pm.

Roux I will come back to that, but we know once we go to the website activity, we will see there was an open period from about 10 past 7 until 8 o’clock.

OP That sounds about right, my lady.

Roux Was that the time that you were having dinner?

OP That, that would be correct m’lady

Roux And after dinner?

OP After dinner we sat at the dinner ... well, we ate and we sat at the dining room table for a while and we chatted about my day and we chatted about Reeva’s contract that she was in the process of signing with the new management company. She had it up on her computer and so ...

[Cut]

OP We sat at the dining room table after dinner and Reeva had her work that she was busy with during the day on, on the table. She asked me to go through one of her contracts, a contract that she had been working on during the day which she was in the process of finalising and about to sign. I went through the contract and I made some changes for her on things that I didn’t think were applicable or things which could be binding for her in a negative way.

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg&feature=youtu.be&t=34m50s

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Sorry, I'm reviewing some of the links I had bookmarked and now that the trial is done a few things are popping out for me.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oscar-pistorius-charming-but-with-a-fiery-temper/story-fnb64oi6-1226578627685?nk=268c1567d72f747f29344406c9a96684


Hmm first off, 3am seems to be OP's witching hour, second, nasty arguments seems not to be uncommon with him, also we never heard any evidence about his "serious crash", did he sustain a head injury, broken bones, was it before or after his 2009 boat wreck, etc.?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278774/Oscar-Pistorius-complex-love-life-girlfriend-Vicky-Miles-Samantha-Taylor-Russian-model.html






So, not that I blame him for dating more than one person after another, I don't really respect that he "appears" to want to play the starring role of boyfriend to more than one at a time to the point that he had the balls to threaten someone for daring to go on a holiday with one of the ex-girlfriends, if in fact she really had been the girlfriend(ST appears to have doubts over that too and if he was also still seeing VM and JE, perhaps others as well, during their 18 month relationship no wonder), while he was already dating his next one. The other thing that sticks out is that only JE came forward to defend him.

VM 2006-2012
JE 2008-2012
MR ?
CP ?
ST 2010?-2012
RS 2012-2013

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-nearly-died-car-1740073

Killer Oscar Pistorius nearly died when he crashed his car while *driving 400 miles through the night to settle a “blistering row” with an ex-girlfriend.


In his book Pistorius admits he has a fiery side which manifests itself in arguments and fights. He writes about the time he nodded off at the wheel after *setting off for Vicky’s house, 400 miles from his, at 3am after they’d had a row.

“I woke up as my car ploughed into the guardrail. One side of the vehicle was completely destroyed. My behaviour was unforgivably stupid and I regret it to this day,” he wrote.

 

[Giles]

"Pistorius witnesses 'trampled and exhausted' by courtroom maulings"

There is a little bit more here about the witnesses experiences - even a little quote by Roger Dixon:

Roger Dixon, an expert witness for the defence with 18 years of experience in trials, said: "For the layman, it can be very traumatic to stand up there. You're not just getting questioned on your personal knowledge but on yourself. The system we have tries to break down your evidence and, if it can't do that, it tries to break you. After six days in the box, you could see how Oscar Pistorius himself was getting confused."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/25/oscar-pistorius-witness-court-south-africa

 

[katydid23]

So why did this brilliant group of mental health professionals say he did not have any anger issues?

 

[DILLIGAF]

What will Oscar do when he is convicted?

1) Apply for bail and await appeal.

2) Flee.

3) Commit suicide.

4) Commit some “crazy”, outrageous, frightening stunt to get admitted for real to Westkoppies, be declared insane / mentally ill, get treated and “rehabbed”, then quietly get released as “cured” - a free man.

I'd say (1) will be his first course of action, but he'll resort to (2) if his appeal even smells like it might be unsuccessful.
It will be outrageous if the judge grants him bail if she has even the smallest inkling that he may be a flight risk imo.

 

[sleuth-d-]

The reason being that if sentenced to prison for any of the firearm offences (highly unlikely as a first offender but maybe possible re Tashas), they'll run concurrently with the murder conviction after it's gone on appeal. This is normal procedure and wouldn't be special treatment for OP. Sorry, I don't like it either.

then why bother with the other charges at all in this particular case?

and, if this is the case, then surely a better course of action - from the prosecution point of view - would have been to have prosecuted the smaller gun charges separately, and first.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Count 4: Illegal possession of ammunition

OP said his father asked if he could keep the .38 ammo in OP’s safe for safekeeping. OP was not there when his father put it in the safe. However they haven’t had any communication for many years. He has spoken to him. There hasn’t been any communication, no relationship. (In my world speaking to someone is communication) His father’s ammo was in OP’s safe that several people had access to!!!

N: Are you telling me that Mr Roux told you, you were allowed to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe if you’re not the licence holder of the .38? Did he say that?
OP: He did not say that.
N: Good. Now, I asked you when we started – your understanding of the law, did you discuss it with your legal team and you said yes. If it wasn’t Mr Roux, who did you discuss it with?
OP: It was Mr Roux I discussed it with, My Lady.
N: Are you telling me that he said on that charge that you are allowed to keep that ammunition of your father in your safe? Please think carefully.
OP: I, I, I don’t follow the question, My Lady.
N: The question is, did he tell you that you’re allowed to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe?
OP: Yes.
N: It can’t be.
OP: I said to him that that was my understanding and he confirmed it, My Lady.
N: No, it can’t be. Mr Roux would not do that. You see, it’s the third occasion that you blame your legal team because you don’t want to take responsibility. Mr Roux would not have said to you that it’s in order for you to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe. He would not have done it, I put it to you.

Nel goes on to say that he doesn't understand how OP could plead not guilty. OP repeats again for the umpteenth time that it's his understand blah, blah, blah. Nel tells him he doesn't want to take responsibility.

This exchange is a typical example of OP's obfuscating all the way through the trial. It just makes me want to gnash my teeth together.

covering his own answer very quickly. so easy to spot when written down. the judge and the assessors will have pages and pages of instances like this.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I still do not understand the logic here. Assuming he was sentenced to prison for any of the firearm offences, he would have to do the time in jail regardless of the outcome of any appeal on the murder charge.

So assuming his appeal failed and the sentences were to run concurrently - the time already spent in jail could just be deducted from the sentence for murder. Same as happens when a prisoner has been remanded in custody.

It makes no sense to me that he would be allowed to defer his jail time because of a completely separate charge.

i have the same opinion.

equally, if he gets life for the main charge, by going out on bail in lieu of an appeal, he would already be commuting his sentence.

 

[JudgeJudi]

OP screaming like a woman

14 April Session 2, 1:20:30

N: So they heard a woman but it was you?
OP: That’s correct My lady.
N: Now, have you had your voice tested?
OP: I have My lady.
N: And could you listen to your voice?
OP: Yes. I haven’t listened to my voice but I’ve watched, I’ve watched interviews where I’ve been on fields playing football with people and I’ve shouted out and screamed out and I told – I haven’t watched or listened to the recording but from the recording that was done, my voice can be of a high pitch.
N: So you have a recording where your voice is of high pitch?
OP: I don’t have a recording like that My Lady. I know that there were …
N: Do your legal team have (inaudible)?
OP: I’m not sure My Lady.
N: No, you have to be sure. Are you telling me that you don’t know if your legal team is in possession of a recording where you’re screaming high-pitch, with a high-pitched voice?
OP: Yes, they do have a recording like that My Lady. I don’t have it though.
N: Now do you have any idea why that was never played to the witnesses to identify your voice?
OP: I’m not sure My Lady. There might be a specialist that that will come and testify to that.
N: No, that’s not the question. That’s not the question. The question is, do you know why that recording was never played to the witnesses so they could say if that’s what they heard or not?
OP: I don’t, I don’t – that was never done My Lady.
N: But where you’re sitting, wouldn’t that be the best thing to do? They’ve heard a woman. If you can scream like a woman, to play it to them so they can say if that’s what they heard?
OP: My Lady, my counsel, what they decide to ask and what they don’t decide to ask is up to them. I think they’ve got far better things to look at. They’ve got people a lot closer that weren’t 170 metres away that heard completely different things. My Lady, there were many statements that said they didn’t hear that.
N: I’m not going to take you on on that. Even if you say that those people will come and give evidence, we know what everybody heard, for you, don’t you think it would be prudent to play the recording so the witnesses can say if that’s what they heard or not? You, just you, not anybody else?
OP: I don’t know My Lady.
N: Why don’t you know? You must have a view.
OP: I’m not an attorney My Lady.
N: No, I know, but you must have a view.
OP: I’ve got a …
N: If people can hear and listen and …

Masipa: Mr Nel, if he doesn’t have a view about this, he doesn’t have a view. Is it not up to the legal representative to do that?

N: Yes My Lady. I will not pursue it further but I’ve asked him what his view was and he’s giving instructions to his legal team and that’s my angle.

If pigs had wings they would fly. We just knew that tape was never going to be played. Screaming like a woman is one thing, but a woman's blood-curdling scream intermingled with a man's voice is something else again. I’d pay a lot to hear that.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I see this situation rather differently. In court they were too anxious and had very worried expressions, especially Aimee. I think they suspect he may not be telling the whole truth. These two will know OP very well and have no doubt witnessed some of his anger. That won't stop them from wanting their brother, by hook or by crook, to be found not guilty. The Pistorius's must never lose - just like OP. I see it in Uncle and his father who, IMO is of a very similar disposition to OP. Although I cannot write about him here, it does not take much effort to find out how he has conducted his life.

does anyone else think that his siblings are absolutely the best placed to know whether he is lying or not, as they will have witnessed similar behaviour [covering for an event with lies] multiple times in the past [if, as i believe, he is to greater/lesser degree a compulsive liar].

i wonder if op has a 'tell'.

 

[JudgeJudi]

So why did this brilliant group of mental health professionals say he did not have any anger issues?

Because they don't know him like we do. We may not be legal or medical professionals but we're experts at digging things up, and we never stop.

 

[Mr Fossil]

does anyone else think that his siblings are absolutely the best placed to know whether he is lying or not, as they will have witnessed similar behaviour [covering for an event with lies] multiple times in the past [if, as i believe, he is to greater/lesser degree a compulsive liar].

i wonder if op has a 'tell'.

When he opens his mouth? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Seriously, I've heard it mentioned that he gets quieter when he's tailoring his evidence. I've also noticed long pauses at times, for no apparent reason. I'll have to take more notice of whether these coincide with what I believe to be fabrication.

 

[atthelake]

"On and off for five years". Sounds like he's just kept her dangling for the occasional booty call when he was at a loose end.

:ditto: ... low "emotional involvement" relationship :moo:

 

[atthelake]

When asked by Roux if he got Reeva a Valentine's gift, he tells Roux about a bracelet with a couple of "trinklets" on, or was it bracelets, that he bought Reeva earlier in the year. Umm, that wasn't the question! He was so keen to cover the ground about what he had bought her. I think we must assume that he wants us to understand that the bracelet(s) was/were an early Valentine's gift. But if so, just why they were to meet at the jewellery store? If it was to pick up the bracelets (e.g. they were being made or had been ordered) then this would be provable. It wasn't a very satisfactory answer.

Roux Was there any Valentine’s gift for you for the next day?

OP Umm, I had bought Reeva a bracelet from a designer that she liked, err, earlier in the year and, umm, I hadn’t made plans for the 14th.

Roux Could you speak up a little

OP I beg your pardon.

Umm, I hadn’t made any plans on the 14th. I had a dentist appointment on the 14th in the morning. Reeva wasn’t going to stay at my house, so our plans were that, umm, I meet her in Johannesburg at this jewellery store that I got her the bracelet from. And, umm, the bracelet had a couple of trinklets or charms on it. There were two bracelets I bought her. And so I said to her, umm, we both kind of made a thing about not making a big thing out of Valentine’s Day. Umm, we were just going to have dinner ... I think for us that was a nice evening, just being alone and being at home, making dinner.

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg&feature=youtu.be&t=55m20s

Uh huh... yeah... I'm going to give you your valentines present AT THE STORE, but you have to go there to get it, and I will not pick it up and present it to you wrapped at a later time. Makes no sense to me.

 

[IndianSummer]

Uh huh... yeah... I'm going to give you your valentines present AT THE STORE, but you have to go there to get it, and I will not pick it up and present it to you wrapped at a later time. Makes no sense to me.

I guess they were going to pick her card out together also

 

[atthelake]

I guess they were going to pick her card out together also

:floorlaugh:

ETA: What was the court scheduled date for verdict? :thinking:

TIA

 

[Mr Fossil]

:floorlaugh:

ETA: What was the court scheduled date for verdict? :thinking:

TIA

11 Sep @ 09:30 SA time

 

[soozieqtips]

Uh huh... yeah... I'm going to give you your valentines present AT THE STORE, but you have to go there to get it, and I will not pick it up and present it to you wrapped at a later time. Makes no sense to me.

I wish Nel had asked for the name of the jewellers and checked up to see if the bracelet purchase was true. I, for one, believe it was yet another of OP's lies to try and make out he cared more about Reeva than he actually did. It could have been proved one way or another.

 

[AJ_DS]

Yet another professor of law who totally disproves your claim

Hi AJ, thanks for your post. However, I fail to see the relevance of your question - if I were to be unkind, it looks like you are ducking the important issue at hand!

Amazingly, I have quoted and provided the links to supreme court judges, respected legal counsel, professor of criminal law - they all disprove your claim, but you ignore this. How can we all be wrong? The fact is, one can act in putative private defence and still be found guilty of culpable homicide because it is not a requirement in putative private defence for ones belief and conduct to be objectively reasonable based on what a reasonable person would have done. This accords with reason and logic too. I have explained in detail the reasoning, and given extensive legal references that prove it. If you read to the end of my previous post I do give a very brief example that may further explain this.

Pierre de Vos, Professor of Law SA, “Oscar Pistorius: Criminal Law 101”, http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/tag/oscar-pistorius/

"If this defence of putative private defence succeeds, that would not, however, be the end of the matter. A court could still find that a reasonable person would have foreseen that his actions would have caused the death of a person and would not have proceeded with his actions despite foreseeing the consequences. In such a case the accused can be convicted of culpable homicide. In other words if a court finds that a reasonable person would not have proceeded with the conduct, then he would be found guilty of culpable homicide." bbm

To answer your question anyway

"One acts lawfully in private defence if one uses force to repel an unlawful human attack, which has commenced or is imminently threatening, upon one’s or somebody else’s life, bodily integrity, property or other legally protectable interest, provided the defensive act is necessary to protect the interest threatened, is directed against the attacker and is reasonably proportionate to the attack (Burchell and Milton Principles of criminal law 230; Snyman Criminal law 103 whose definition was accepted by Satchwell J in S v Engelbrecht 2005 2 SACR 41 (W) par 228)."

Professor Le Roux, Jolandi, Private Defence: Strict Conditions to Be Satisfied (May 3, 2010). Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law, Vol. 73, p. 328, 2010.

How to proceed usefully

I am happy to continue answering your Qs working our way from the beginning if you still don’t understand the definition and use of the term putative private defence, maybe eventually we will get to the bottom of it. I know your belief is honestly held, so there must be something in your understanding that is making you disagree with all the judges, case law, professors of law. What that exactly is, I'm still really not sure.

At the moment, I am reminded of the man driving the wrong way up a busy highway. The emergency call centre lit up immediately, and someone very concerned said “Please, you’ve got to get down here straight away! There are about 50 cars here and every single one is driving the wrong way down this road!”

Bit in blue…

I am very much aware that one can be found to have acted in PPD and still be found guilty of culpable homicide… I have stated as much on numerous occasions.

When I refer to the requirements for PPD, I am referring to the requirements for a 'successful' case of PDD which includes :

A) beliefs held by the accused about the perceived threat at the time of the events were genuine and honest

AND

B) reasonableness assessment of threat, escape, response, etc…


When YOU refer to the requirements for PPD, you are solely referring to the beliefs held by the accused about the perceived threat at the time of the events were genuine and honest… which, on it's own, does not guarantee a verdict of acquittal.


There has NEVER been an accused indicted for private defence (PD) or putative private defence (PPD).

There has NEVER been an accused that has been found guilty of PD or PPD.

A PD or PPD case is ALWAYS put forth as a Defence in response to a charge by the State… and the result is invariably, either acquittal or guilty of something else.

… In my vernacular, when a case of PD or PPD succeeds, both requirements A) and B) are successfully met... the accused is found to have acted within the legal bounds of self-defense… the accused is found to be not criminally liable and therefore, the accused is acquitted.


Bit in red…

If I were to be unkind, it looks like you are being condescending in a passive-agressive manner.

… I don't know the reason for these unnecessary comments… perhaps there is no benefit for either of us in continuing this conversation.

Cheers

 

[AJ_DS]

I certainly have doubts and that is enough. I think the help help help that witnesses heard at this point introduces reasonable doubt.

As an attorney and an officer of the Court, I would hope you are not inadvertently proffering advice to would-be murderers on how to successfully escape Justice.

You seem to be suggesting that shouting "Help! Help! Help!" before shooting and killing someone is sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt as to one's intent.

Naturally, I am not as erudite as you in these matters, but I suspect reasonable doubt does not work that way.