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

[JudgeJudi]

"Pistorius claimed in a magazine interview to have owned a house in Gemona in Italy, where he trained. This was exposed as a lie when he told his bail hearing he did not own property in other countries".

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...ied-about-reputation-after-altercations-reeva

The list just keeps on growing, and growing, just like OP's nose. :liar:

 

[JudgeJudi]

"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.

Here's a transcript of all the relevant parts of the interview:

"It is expected the judgment will take at least 2 days to be delivered. It’s expected to be a long and intense judgment as Masipa is known to be thorough. She’ll go through all the evidence and testimony of the 37 witnesses. She’ll have to give reasons whether their evidence is accepted after having looked at their credibility and then decide whether the burden of proof has been discharged by the State on who the onus rests.

She gives everybody a fair hearing. She’s quite polite and she does play hardball when she has to. A number of lawyers who have presented cases in front of her, and whether that lawyer has lost or the other one has won, they all say that nobody ever walks out of Judge Masipa’s courtroom feeling that they were not given a fair hearing or a fair trial because she is a good listener, she is thorough and she does apply the law.

She also has been seen as a person who has given OP quite a fair hearing. Others were saying that she looked a bit lenient towards him particularly at stages where he felt ill in court and was crying and was made to look at the photographs of the crime scene, and she would adjourn the case and say that OP would need to be given a chance to compose himself and then the trial would continue a few minutes after that. So a lot of people were saying “Why is she doing this?” She doesn’t want any comebacks. No judge would want any comebacks because if OP were to be found guilty for example, he would appeal the case and another judge would have to look at that on appeal and say whether or not he was given a fair trial in court, and that is why Masipa has been acting the way she has been.

The trial has highlighted domestic violence issues in SA, particularly the number of women who are killed by their intimate male partners".

 

[JudgeJudi]

AJ and Pandax,

It's been a very long illowfight2: You've both been :banghead: and :deadhorse:

Time for you two to call a :truce: and :blowkiss:

I have spoken. :judge:

 

[Suthrnqt]

AJ and Pandax,

It's been a very long illowfight2: You've both been :banghead: and :deadhorse:

Time for you two to call a :truce: and :blowkiss:

I have spoken. :judge:

Thanks for that!! I've been wanting to speak out, but I was :scared:.

 

[sleuth-d-]

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.

this seems unlikely to me, as... if the blood spatter was created by putting the holster onto the left side. then surely blood spatter would have also have been created on the right hand side when retrieving said holster from the right hand side.

 

[Mr Fossil]

What would happen if a new piece of material objective evidence, which would have a significant bearing on the outcome of the case, became available to the either the prosecution or defence at this stage e.g. pre-judgement? Is there anything they can do with it? I know that the defence could wait to appeal a verdict but, as I understand it, the prosecution can't. But what about in this pre-judgement window?

 

[AJ_DS]

AJ and Pandax,

It's been a very long illowfight2: You've both been :banghead: and :deadhorse:

Time for you two to call a :truce: and :blowkiss:

I have spoken. :judge:

Thanks for that!! I've been wanting to speak out, but I was :scared:.

:hilarious:

I agree… No worries, I'm quite done !!

 

[AJ_DS]

What would happen if a new piece of material objective evidence, which would have a significant bearing on the outcome of the case, became available to the either the prosecution or defence at this stage e.g. pre-judgement? Is there anything they can do with it? I know that the defence could wait to appeal a verdict but, as I understand it, the prosecution can't. But what about is this pre-judgement window?

Don't be coy… what have you found ?

 

[geevee]

this seems unlikely to me, as... if the blood spatter was created by putting the holster onto the left side. then surely blood spatter would have also have been created on the right hand side when retrieving said holster from the right hand side.

Could that be the spatter on the carpet and duvet? I've been wondering how what seems to be watered-down spatter got there. OP says he went and put his legs on that were on that side but hadn't washed up at that point but I thought the blood there had a light, watery look to it.

Something else occurred to me, when OP was going through his gyrations about bringing in the fans and putting them where the duvet cover was found, wonder why Nel didn't nail him that if he actually had put them at the end of the bed, he'd have to be facing the room and couldn't have missed seeing Reeva either getting up or at least not in bed? No way he could have his back to the room if he was putting the fans at the corner of the bed.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Don't be coy… what have you found ?

Nothing new I'm afraid. It was a serious question.

 

[sleuth-d-]

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.

agreed. he is a gun enthusiast. and has been trained in the use of firearms. this cannot be emphasised enough imo.

in addition, imagine him with a gun outstretched at shoulder height... why then are the 4 shots all following a similar tragectory - high to low. this for me is a strong indication of 'aiming'

put another way... if shooting [from op's shoulder height] at a perceived intruder behind the door, why aim downwards to hip height?

to me this shows not only that op was 'aiming' the shots, but if you look at the bullet path, shot 1 was aimed towards the toilet seat.

maybe rs, had been sitting on the toilet during that last stage of the argument... and when he went back to the bedroom for his gun, she used the hiatus to get up and stand right by the door - to look through the small gap created by the bat strikes - as one maybe would to try to see where op had gone/what he was going to do next.

when he returned with the gun, he aimed shot 1 at the toilet seat area - rs's last known position [to him].

 

[sleuth-d-]

Could that be the spatter on the carpet and duvet? I've been wondering how what seems to be watered-down spatter got there. OP says he went and put his legs on that were on that side but hadn't washed up at that point but I thought the blood there had a light, watery look to it.

Something else occurred to me, when OP was going through his gyrations about bringing in the fans and putting them where the duvet cover was found, wonder why Nel didn't nail him that if he actually had put them at the end of the bed, he'd have to be facing the room and couldn't have missed seeing Reeva either getting up or at least not in bed? No way he could have his back to the room if he was putting the fans at the corner of the bed.

yes, i wondered about that blood too... whether it was more like drips than spray. i wonder if experts can tell the difference, in the individual spot/drip shape?

just saying that if op had retrieved the holster from the area near the right hand bedside table [near the clippers and all the plugs], surely there would be blood there too.

on the topic of the duvet, i spent some time looking at the central shape created in the duvet as it appeared lying there at the foot of the bed - probably nothing, but the two similar, central peaks looked unusual to me.

 

[AJ_DS]

Could that be the spatter on the carpet and duvet? I've been wondering how what seems to be watered-down spatter got there. OP says he went and put his legs on that were on that side but hadn't washed up at that point but I thought the blood there had a light, watery look to it.

Something else occurred to me, when OP was going through his gyrations about bringing in the fans and putting them where the duvet cover was found, wonder why Nel didn't nail him that if he actually had put them at the end of the bed, he'd have to be facing the room and couldn't have missed seeing Reeva either getting up or at least not in bed? No way he could have his back to the room if he was putting the fans at the corner of the bed.

We should be careful in not pursuing specious analysis/reasoning… let me elaborate

I agree that the holster being found behind the left-hand side nightstand does not conform to OP's version of events.

We have 2 options :

1. OP is telling the truth about what happened AND we are missing some explanation as to how the holster ended up there

2. OP has fabricated his version of events

If one subscribes to option 2, it makes little sense to analyze/reason how the holster ended up there based on OP's version because too many elements in the fabricated version never happened…

… Who knows where OP slept or even if he went to bed… Who knows where the gun was… Who knows when, why and in what circumstances he grabbed his gun

If one subscribes to option 1, even if one considers that the details about the holster's location was an innocent omission, OP's version would have provided the elements for an obvious and reasonable inferred explanation as to how and why the holster ended up where it did…

… But from his own account, one would expect the holster to be found on the floor near the bed in plain view, not behind the bedside table.

The switching of sides because of shoulder injury could simply be a fabrication whose purpose was to explain where the holster was found and not the other way round…

Considering OP's version is a fabrication, what possible benefits would OP reap by alleging that he switched sides with Reeva ?

Keeping the habitual sides would make a lot more sense considering the objective evidence :

- All of OP's 'junk' on the right
- Reeva's bag and flip-flops on the left
- Easier for Reeva to get out of bed to go to the bathroom from the left side of the bed
- OP's prosthetics located on the right, next to where he slept
- OP's t-shirt located on the right, next to where he slept

… the ONLY thing that does not fit is the holster located on the left !!!

 

[AJ_DS]

Nothing new I'm afraid. It was a serious question.

Augh… too bad… was really hoping for something cool !!

 

[Interested Bystander]

this seems unlikely to me, as... if the blood spatter was created by putting the holster onto the left side. then surely blood spatter would have also have been created on the right hand side when retrieving said holster from the right hand side.

I am not sure that necessarily follows. He might have had to bend down to pick up the holster on the right side but this would not necessarily created spatter but when he placed it at the back of the table by the bed head it looks as though it may have been tossed there. It certainly wasn't neatly placed. If he tossed it there, there could have been associated spatter from arm movement.

However, as the powers that be don't seem to know how it got there and didn't bring it up, it is only one of many possible reasons why the blood was on the wall just above the bedhead on the left side. I have wondered why he would have been in that area at all after the event, unless it was to do something very necessary for his alibi. There was actually no need for him to go near the bed on the left as far as I can see unless it was to create evidence. I am a firm believer that he never slept on the left. He needed the gun holster to be there to strengthen his alibi. It might have been better if he had moved his iPads and t-shirt instead and it would have been more convincing. He didn't sleep on the left the night before, as we know, so his excuse that it was because of his shoulder was a little feeble IMO as his shoulder had been bad for two weeks or so.

EDIT What I forgot to say was this would mean that OP at least wiped, if not washed his hands before going back into the bedroom. He did ask to wash his hands later but that may have not been the first time but we will never know and is only an aggravating factor for me as the blood spatter above the headboard was never explained away satisfactorily.

Here is a photo taken of the spatter (encircled by white ring) (photo thanks to Lisa' blog - Juror 13) and it will be clearly seen the holster would have been directly below. I find it quite hard to dissociate the two.

 

[sleuth-d-]

We should be careful in not pursuing specious analysis/reasoning… let me elaborate

I agree that the holster being found behind the left-hand side nightstand does not conform to OP's version of events.

We have 2 options :

1. OP is telling the truth about what happened AND we are missing some explanation as to how the holster ended up there

2. OP has fabricated his version of events

If one subscribes to option 2, it makes little sense to analyze/reason how the holster ended up there based on OP's version because too many elements in the fabricated version never happened…

… Who knows where OP slept or even if he went to bed… Who knows where the gun was… Who knows when, why and in what circumstances he grabbed his gun

If one subscribes to option 1, even if one considers that the details about the holster's location was an innocent omission, OP's version would have provided the elements for an obvious and reasonable inferred explanation as to how and why the holster ended up where it did…

… But from his own account, one would expect the holster to be found on the floor near the bed in plain view, not behind the bedside table.

The switching of sides because of shoulder injury could simply be a fabrication whose purpose was to explain where the holster was found and not the other way round…

Considering OP's version is a fabrication, what possible benefits would OP reap by alleging that he switched sides with Reeva ?

Keeping the habitual sides would make a lot more sense considering the objective evidence :

- All of OP's 'junk' on the right
- Reeva's bag and flip-flops on the left
- Easier for Reeva to get out of bed to go to the bathroom from the left side of the bed
- OP's prosthetics located on the right, next to where he slept
- OP's t-shirt located on the right, next to where he slept

… the ONLY thing that does not fit is the holster located on the left !!!

your list is telling isn't it. the obvious inference being that they slept on the opposite sides to op's version.

a bit like the list of people hearing a woman scream/argued. op says it was him. obvious inference - a woman screamed/argued.

i do think it is possible that he has deliberately 'swapped' many elements of the events to create confusion and doubt, as a tactic to mask the true events?

and as he had no way of knowing which elements were the most important to 'swap', he may have swapped too many, and even some that were not at all relevant/important/incriminating.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

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

His first version was that she asked him if SHE could cook dinner. LOL

I guess that’s what happens when you try to piece together a mosaic (hi, Nel!) of lies with duct tape. :lol:

You can’t possibly remember all your lies, keep them straight and everything comes out wrong because it is wrong.

 

[pandax81]

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.

With respect, maybe we just don't understand each other.

I DID answer your question directly. It is untrue to say I did not - in fact my whole post was an answer to your question!

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.

If I'm asked to point out where I think there is a disagreement, I think it is perfectly normal to quote posts from both parties?? I was explaining how I formed the idea that you disagree and where exactly, that was your question wasn't it?

 

[Suthrnqt]

AJ and Pandax,

It's been a very long illowfight2: You've both been :banghead: and :deadhorse:

Time for you two to call a :truce: and :blowkiss:

I have spoken. :judge:

Bumping!

 

[pandax81]

… 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:

With respect, this accusation is nonsense, and untrue, as anyone reading my post can see: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10900589#post10900589

I answered your question directly. I explained what it means to have in fact acted in putative private defence, and how in such a case one can be fully acquitted of murder and culpable homicide. I highlighted my specific disagreements with your statements and explained with example. For some reason you take issue with this and accuse me of not answering your question?

Obviously this conversation is over for all our sanities. I think the points have been made, lol. Sorry guys and gals, me and AJ pursued this with honest intentions I'm sure as we both found the discussion interesting for ourselves, but probably not for anyone else!