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

[Lux et Veritas]

"convoluted mish-mash" indeed !! Hey... you missed this one: "I lay on my bed and took off my suit." Lord help him... he's worse at expressing himself than I am!! ROFLOL

Exactly, Fox! Who has to lay on their bed to take off their suit?!

If only his words worked as well as his running blades.

Well, I guess not even OP can have it all - or HAD it all. LOL

(Mmm ... he was wearing a SUIT ... even more reason to believe his meeting on the 13th was with lawyers regarding the CMT lawsuit/settlement!)

 

[JudgeJudi]

14 April, Session 3 at 5:50

N: When you fired the shots, could you just indicate to the Court where your gun was? Where did you hold your gun?
OP: I held my gun up like this My Lady.
N: Now you’ve got your arm in a normal shooting position.
OP: I don’t think that’s a normal shooting position at all My Lady.
N: (Holding his arm fully extended) Is that not a normal shooting position? But it’s at least shoulder height?
OP: It was probably about shoulder height. I remember that.
N: So it wasn’t next to you? You didn’t shoot from the hip?
OP: No My Lady. The normal shooting position doesn’t have anything to do with the height of the firearm. You can hold the gun with your elbow completely bent at shoulder height or you can have you arm extremely extended at shoulder height. So it has nothing to do with the height.
N: How did you have it?
OP: As I indicated My Lady, like this.
N: At shoulder height but your arm’s not extended?
OP: That’s correct My Lady.

I can’t believe anyone trained in the use of firearms who went to a firing range on a regular basis, who has been shown on video shooting with his arm fully extended in a normal shooting position and who had just recently passed his competency test, would use his gun with a bent elbow at shoulder height.

Neither can I believe anyone would arm themselves with a loaded gun, release the double safety mechanism and then have the audacity to say that they never intended to shoot anyone. So, if faced with an intruder he was going to say, “Bang, bang, you’re dead”? Give me a break.

 

[Chelly]

Or....as Juan Martinez put it to Jodi Arias, "What were you going to do with the gun, throw it at him?"

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I just stumbled upon this--it is a video taken recently of Oscar's empty house. While carrying a camera, the operator re-traced the steps of OP toward the bathroom and then back through his room and down the steps while carrying Reeva.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/22/exclusive-in-oscar-s-footsteps

One thing that is interesting to me is that there was some distance that OP had to go with Reeva's body...around corners, down hallways, before he got to the steps, and then down the steps. A fair distance to carry a body, IMO. I have always wondered why he moved her in the first place.

Thanks kittychi, that was pretty cool.

OP moved her because Netcare told him too. Can you believe it? I hope Judge Masipa has access to everything like recordings and such that we haven't heard because Netcare asking him to bring Reeva to the hospital is just outrageous!!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Or....as Juan Martinez put it to Jodi Arias, "What were you going to do with the gun, throw it at him?"

Yep these narcissists really think the average person is stupid. Arias, Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson, GBC, OP, the list goes on. Like MrsGNorris puts so perfectly, lying liars that lie. :giggle: JMHO

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I just stumbled upon this--it is a video taken recently of Oscar's empty house. While carrying a camera, the operator re-traced the steps of OP toward the bathroom and then back through his room and down the steps while carrying Reeva.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/22/exclusive-in-oscar-s-footsteps

One thing that is interesting to me is that there was some distance that OP had to go with Reeva's body...around corners, down hallways, before he got to the steps, and then down the steps. A fair distance to carry a body, IMO. I have always wondered why he moved her in the first place.

Wow, Kitty, what a great find. Thank you. I get eery chills watching it. What an empty, lifeless, tainted house.

Geez, this video shows just how far OP had to carry her - it really was quite a distance, so many twists and turns, to carry a dead body.

And the amazing thing - he dramatically, tragically descended the stairs just as Stander arrived and opened the door.

But I'm sure that was pure coincidence - right, Oz?

IMO, he moved Reeva for two reasons:

1) To prevent any police photos of her in that tiny, bloody deathtrap - he certainly didn't want color photos of her gruesome, grotesquely positioned body to be part of the evidence against him. Just imagine how much more damning the case against him as a whole would be with those kinds of photos?

2) Carrying her downstairs in full view of his singular, chosen, trusted first witness, Stander (and Carice, as chance would have it) and then trying to heroically “save” her was all part of his tragic “intruder” story; he had to make Reeva his tragic, lost love - not left upstairs, a gruesome, executed murder victim in a tiny, dark, terrifying toilet.

There would have been a third reason, but Stander and Carice thwarted his plan to immediately take her to the hospital (they knew she was already dead - that’s why Stander was standing outside even before Dr. Stipps arrived!), which would have successfully removed both Reeva and himself away from the crime scene entirely. Unfortunately for OP, that part of his plan failed. Crime scene photos showed a dead Reeva in his house and himself, standing in his garage, drenched in her blood - exactly what he was trying to avoid.

At all points, OP was desperately trying to put as much time and distance between himself and the horrific crime scene as possible.

 

[jimmy73]

I agree.

If I remember correctly Ms Burger said 'the only thing I can wonder is that it was a mockery', she didn't even forcefully claim that it sounded anything like. I'd be amazed if an advocate would have led with such a suggestion due to its incredulity. This was simply an off-the-cuff witness comment - nothing more.

I disagree. That she made that statement is telling and suggests to me that she cannot reconcile Steenkamp's terrified screams with Pistorius'.

It is another example of the difficulty of fitting 4 witnesses who heard a female's screams with Pistorius' account. It doesn't work and when it is put to the witness, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Is it your contention that OP preempted the possibility of forensics finding DNA or some other proof Reeva slept on the left-hand side of the bed which would contradict OP's version that he switched sides ?

Not sure what to make of it at the moment. Until I'd heard this I'd thought that when OP said he had slept on the right hand side of the bed at times (whilst he had a bad shoulder) he meant when Reeva wasn't there e.g. it was his 'normal' side of the bed. He says also that he wanted to lay so that he faced her. So why didn't he want to face her the previous night?

In OP's version, sleeping on the left (and then fetching the fans in on her side) makes it less likely that he would have missed Reeva getting up and therefore, if it wasn't Reeva in the toilet, it must be someone else. What surprises me in his version is that he constantly talks about having his back to the bed (and therefore this must be how he missed her) but he never says "I'm amazed / I can't believe / understand how I missed her getting up" or words to that effect. He's too concerned with the construction of a plausible story.

 

[Mr Fossil]

"convoluted mish-mash" indeed !! Hey... you missed this one: "I lay on my bed and took off my suit." Lord help him... he's worse at expressing himself than I am!! ROFLOL

Or this "Reeva asked me if I’d like to, if she’d like me to cook us dinner."

 

[pandax81]

Hi AJ.

I know you keep saying that you fully agree with me:

Quote Originally Posted by AJ_DS
I am very much aware that one can be found to have acted in PPD and still be found guilty of culpable homicide…

But it makes no sense, because you simultaneously make comments - lots and lots of them - that fundamentally disagree. Can you explain it?

Quote Originally Posted by AJ_DS
You seem to suggest that an accused could be found as having acted unreasonably in PD or PPD… that does not make sense… if unreasonable, then it's culpable homicide. …I welcome any information you can find that would refute what I'm stating.

I thought the following was your explanation. It wasn't obvious why you meant because you never once mention putative private defence - the content of the disagreement, but I tried to make sense of it:

The confusion rested on the difference between :

A) a finding of having acted in self-defense

B) a finding of self-defense

Point A) refers only to intent… i.e. the accused genuinely and honestly held the belief his life was being threatened.

Point B) refers to both intent and conduct… i.e. the accused genuinely and honestly held the belief his life was being threatened and he acted within the legal bounds of self-defense.

… I can fully appreciate how this subtle but crucial distinction was the source of our disagreement… and I can see how I may have been responsible for not being clear about what I meant.

For me at least, self-defense which is deemed unreasonable can no longer be referred to as self-defense… the same reasoning would apply to reasonable murder : it could no longer be referred to as murder.

Aren't you claiming that in putative private defence where one is negligent, one acts in putative private defence, but it is not correctly in fact putative private defence? Aren't you claiming it is analogous to where one exceeds the bounds of private defence and it is not correctly in fact private defence? If this isn't what your saying, then what on earth are you saying and how does it explain the source of the disagreement?

I was saying that no, this is not the point we are all making. We are saying that in putative private defence where one is negligent, this is correctly in fact putative private defence. It is analogous to where one did in fact act in private defence where all the requirements were met. In my previous post, this was my point - that example B2 where he is negligent is in fact putative private defence. I thought this is where you disagree.

It looks like you are maintaining your original contention - that the true and proper definition of a case of putative private defence is one that is objectively reasonable and excludes culpable homicide? Aren't you saying the definition we all work to (me, judges, professors etc) is not a true and proper definition of putative private defence, but if you want to call it acting in putative private defence, then you do not disagree (even though you do clearly disagree in quote 2)? Aren't you saying that putative private defence which was negligent makes no sense, it is like saying private defence where the force was unnecessary, and it is like saying nonsense like a 'reasonable murder'?

What is putative private defence? Can you define it? A case of 'True', 'Proper', putative private defence. It appears to me, your understanding of what putative private defence is, is very different to the one we all have and apply.

 

[pandax81]

do you agree with the following...

For an accused (who shot and killed someone) to be found to have acted in PPD and be acquitted these requirements must be met :

1. The accused is found to have genuinely and honestly held the belief that his life was being threatened

2. The mistake is deemed reasonable

3. The conduct of the accused as per no possibility of escaping, response to threat, etc… is also deemed reasonable.

… If 1, 2, 3 is met successfully the accused is acquitted

The subjective assessment ONLY applies to the mistaken perception of the threat…

When it comes to no possibility of escaping and response to threat, the assessment is ALWAYS objective.

No, I do not agree, because it is not so.

Putative private defence is where there wasn't an actual threat, but one mistakenly believed one was acting fully in lawful private defence where one was in fact not. It is that simple.

If one knows the law, then subjectively one must have believed the requirements of private defence were being met, including the force was necessary and proportionate. The response to the threat is therefore assessed subjectively. Eg If one knew he could just close his front door and protect himself from what he thought was a charging attacker outside, but instead chose to shoot him, then on a subjective assessment of his response, he did not in fact act in putative private defence. The subjective assessment may mean he intended to unlawfully kill, and may well be guilty of murder. If this assessment was only ever objective as you contend then he could never be found guilty of murder. It should be noted that putative private defence can even in theory be a mistake in knowledge and understanding of the law relating to private defence, so the listed absolute and specific requirements are not necessarily so. Even knowing the law, one can kill in putative or actual private defence even if one did not believe one's life was being threatened, e.g. you thought you were going to be raped and the force you took was necessary and proportionate to ward off that attack. Your formulation and descriptions of the strict requirements for private defence aren't exactly correct, e.g. what i just said, e.g. 'no possibility of escaping' - case law shows you don't have to flee your own home. The true descriptions are contained in my previous post from 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. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?241098-Theory-Thread-What-happened-at-Pistorius-house-on-the-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10892008#post10892008

To be found not guilty of murder in a case of actual putative private defence, one must not have recognised and accepted the risk that one may not in fact be acting in lawful private defence.

To also be found not guilty of culpable homicide in a case of actual putative private defence, one's beliefs and conduct in relation to the killing must also have been objectively reasonable based on what a reasonable person might have done.

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes. For me, the main reason he said he was sleeping on the left was because that's where the gun holster was found.

If he'd admitted sleeping in the right, his usual place, then there's no way to explain a) how the gun holster ended up on the opposite side of the bed from where it should have been and b) how he had not noticed Reeva was missing from that side of the bed when he bent down to get the gun.

He had no option but to claim he was sleeping on the left and Reeva on the right.....in spite of the evidence of her "slops" and his ipad, legs and clothes that suggest exactly the opposite.

Wish they'd DNA'd the cups to see who'd drank out of which. That would have nailed it.

EDIT: A reply to Mr Fossil, btw.

 

[jay-jay]

Wish they'd DNA'd the cups to see who'd drank out of which. That would have nailed it.

.. maybe they have done, I guess we will just have to wait and see. I suppose the problem is that OP didn't come up with his full fairytale until such a long time after, that things like that may have seemed insignificant at the time, although if they haven't actually forensically tested a lot more things than we actually know about, I will be fairly disappointed because from what I saw during the court case, there seemed to be so many things missing that could've been tested and which could've proved certain things. I can't make out if it's just that this info has been passed directly to Masipa, or that it was never done in the first place .. or that they just think that what they have on him already is so overwhelming, they don't actually need anything else to make the conviction. In fact, I think that shows their confidence that he will be convicted of her murder, the fact that (from what we've seen) the PT have not even felt the need to present every single tiny piece of information in court.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes. For me, the main reason he said he was sleeping on the left was because that's where the gun holster was found.

If he'd admitted sleeping in the right, his usual place, then there's no way to explain a) how the gun holster ended up on the opposite side of the bed from where it should have been and b) how he had not noticed Reeva was missing from that side of the bed when he bent down to get the gun.

He had no option but to claim he was sleeping on the left and Reeva on the right.....in spite of the evidence of her "slops" and his ipad, legs and clothes that suggest exactly the opposite.

Wish they'd DNA'd the cups to see who'd drank out of which. That would have nailed it.

EDIT: A reply to Mr Fossil, btw.

I have always felt he placed his holster there after the event. That might explain the blood spatters just above the bedhead on that side. At some stage OP washed his hands - was this to enable him to adjust the scene; I think so. He may have had clean hands (ie leaving no blood stains on the holster) but the rest of his body was blood soaked and while placing the holster spatters could have been deposited on the wall above the bed from his arm. PT team didn't offer an explanation for those spatters.

 

[LemonMousse]

I have always felt he placed his holster there after the event. That might explain the blood spatters just above the bedhead on that side. At some stage OP washed his hands - was this to enable him to adjust the scene; I think so. He may have had clean hands (ie leaving no blood stains on the holster) but the rest of his body was blood soaked and while placing the holster spatters could have been deposited on the wall above the bed from his arm. PT team didn't offer an explanation for those spatters.

Yes...that could make sense. I don't believe he was getting his phones, because I don't believe they would have been on that side. (And I think the one he used to call Stander was always downstairs).

Given where it was found, it looks like the holster was chucked onto the table, so his movement could well have caused blood spatter.

Hmmm. So, do you think he took the holster with the gun into the bathroom?

 

[DILLIGAF]

This is a RE-POST - I had to correct a couple of links...

Here are some links to audio recordings of discussion with legal experts:

Legal Round Table discussion of the State’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof Stephen Tuson, Cliff Alexander and Riaan Louw (35mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO

Legal Round Table discussion of the Defence’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof James Grant, Michael Motsoeneng Bill and Marius Du Toit (30mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Prof James Grant on Channel 199 with David O’ Sullivan after conclusion of Arguments (9mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/james-grant/s-cDpRf

Attorney Tyrone Maseko on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (18mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/tyrone-maseko/s-llHGA

Criminal Law Expert William Booth on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (20mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/william-booth/s-opVSS

Thanks so much for those links Giles, :clap:

When South African legal eagles concur that OP is in big trouble, it says it all for me.

Really interesting to hear the part about Roux failing to prove OP screams like a woman. Roux made a number of claims that defence experts would prove this and that but never followed through. Quite telling imo.

If the DT cannot refute that four ear witnesses heard a woman scream, then their evidence should be accepted should it not?

 

[AJ_DS]

Hi AJ.

I know you keep saying that you fully agree with me:


But it makes no sense, because you simultaneously make comments - lots and lots of them - that fundamentally disagree. Can you explain it?


I thought the following was your explanation. It wasn't obvious why you meant because you never once mention putative private defence - the content of the disagreement, but I tried to make sense of it:


Aren't you claiming that in putative private defence where one is negligent, one acts in putative private defence, but it is not correctly in fact putative private defence? Aren't you claiming it is analogous to where one exceeds the bounds of private defence and it is not correctly in fact private defence? If this isn't what your saying, then what on earth are you saying and how does it explain the source of the disagreement?

I was saying that no, this is not the point we are all making. We are saying that in putative private defence where one is negligent, this is correctly in fact putative private defence. It is analogous to where one did in fact act in private defence where all the requirements were met. In my previous post, this was my point - that example B2 where he is negligent is in fact putative private defence. I thought this is where you disagree.

It looks like you are maintaining your original contention - that the true and proper definition of a case of putative private defence is one that is objectively reasonable and excludes culpable homicide? Aren't you saying the definition we all work to (me, judges, professors etc) is not a true and proper definition of putative private defence, but if you want to call it acting in putative private defence, then you do not disagree (even though you do clearly disagree in quote 2)? Aren't you saying that putative private defence which was negligent makes no sense, it is like saying private defence where the force was unnecessary, and it is like saying nonsense like a 'reasonable murder'?

What is putative private defence? Can you define it? A case of 'True', 'Proper', putative private defence. It appears to me, your understanding of what putative private defence is, is very different to the one we all have and apply.

Hi Pandax…

I'm sorry but I'm growing weary from this bogged down conversation…

I may have some difficulty of properly expressing my thoughts but I get the distinct impression you are not reading my posts attentively and are just interested in repeating the same thing over and over... and over…

I was trying to figure out which element of YOUR post you believe I do not agree with…

I asked you : "Perhaps you could point out which elements of your post you believe I would not agree with."

Instead, you quoted MY posts and restated YOUR position for the umpteen time.

 

[AJ_DS]

No, I do not agree, because it is not so.

Putative private defence is where there wasn't an actual threat, but one mistakenly believed one was acting fully in lawful private defence where one was in fact not. It is that simple.

If one knows the law, then subjectively one must have believed the requirements of private defence were being met, including the force was necessary and proportionate. The response to the threat is therefore assessed subjectively. Eg If one knew he could just close his front door and protect himself from what he thought was a charging attacker outside, but instead chose to shoot him, then on a subjective assessment of his response, he did not in fact act in putative private defence. The subjective assessment may mean he intended to unlawfully kill, and may well be guilty of murder. If this assessment was only ever objective as you contend then he could never be found guilty of murder. It should be noted that putative private defence can even in theory be a mistake in knowledge and understanding of the law relating to private defence, so the listed absolute and specific requirements are not necessarily so. Even knowing the law, one can kill in putative or actual private defence even if one did not believe one's life was being threatened, e.g. you thought you were going to be raped and the force you took was necessary and proportionate to ward off that attack. Your formulation and descriptions of the strict requirements for private defence aren't exactly correct, e.g. what i just said, e.g. 'no possibility of escaping' - case law shows you don't have to flee your own home. The true descriptions are contained in my previous post from 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. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?241098-Theory-Thread-What-happened-at-Pistorius-house-on-the-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10892008#post10892008

To be found not guilty of murder in a case of actual putative private defence, one must not have recognised and accepted the risk that one may not in fact be acting in lawful private defence.

To also be found not guilty of culpable homicide in a case of actual putative private defence, one's beliefs and conduct in relation to the killing must also have been objectively reasonable based on what a reasonable person might have done.

… again not reading my posts properly and repeating your POV

I asked you a simple question which you failed to answer directly… instead you gave much examples about other scenarios :

For an accused (who shot and killed someone) to be found to have acted in PPD and be acquitted these requirements must be met :

1. The accused is found to have genuinely and honestly held the belief that his life was being threatened

2. The mistake is deemed reasonable

3. The conduct of the accused as per no possibility of escaping, response to threat, etc… is also deemed reasonable.

Like I said, I'm sorry but I'm growing weary from this stale conversation… so I'm done

:deadhorse:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes...that could make sense. I don't believe he was getting his phones, because I don't believe they would have been on that side. (And I think the one he used to call Stander was always downstairs).

Given where it was found, it looks like the holster was chucked onto the table, so his movement could well have caused blood spatter.

Hmmm. So, do you think he took the holster with the gun into the bathroom?

No. I think the holster was with everything else on the right side of the bed. He needed to move it to the left once he started to think up his alibi. He must have realised very quickly that he had to set a scene and moving the holster to the left was easy and quick to do. If he had retrieved his gun from under the bed I would have thought he would probably have left the holster on the floor (where he left almost everything else lying around on the right side). Hence the need to move it to the left after the event and creating blood spatter on that side.

 

[Giles]

"A profile of Thokozile Masipa, the ground breaking female judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial by BBC's Southern Africa Correspondent Nomsa Maseko."

It is at the beginning of this BBC radio programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fcrdh

It will be available for U.K listeners. If you are unable to access it elsewhere, let me know and I will try to make a recording available.

ETA: Judgejudi has transcribed the relevant bits a couple of posts below:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10900902#post10900902