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

[Mr Fossil]

Could it be Justin Divaris because OP did ring him.

Justin Divaris is shown as the penultimate line at the bottom of the phone usage chart. The security mobile number was allocated against whatever the name was in OP's Contacts. It doesn't say anything obvious like "Security" so I'm guessing it's could be the name of whoever was in charge of security when he first arrived at Silverwoods and he hadn't changed it. For it to be called by mistake (if it was), it needs to be close / next to another name alphabetically that he meant to dial. As has been suggested, second word could be Pretoria, which would also make sense.

 

[jay-jay]

No one will ever convince me that there wasn’t a physical altercation between OP and Reeva that night.

In my view, it’s illogical and highly improbable that the evening went from discussing contracts at the dinner table, yoga and cars directly to bloody murder in a tiny toilet. Something obviously happened in between, a whole lot of increasingly tense, hostile somethings - a dangerous discovery? accusations? angry confessions?

Domestic violence normally follows a sad, predictable pattern - it almost always escalates in steps from the “minor” to “serious” to sometimes lethal.


It all freakin fits.

I believe any marks on Reeva’s body not directly caused by the bullets were a result of assault by OP - this would explain both the bashed bedroom door and the fine blood spatter on the wall over the bed, as well as the spatter on the carpet and duvet. SOMETHING terrible happened in that bedroom FIRST.

He may have struck her head with a hard object, his fist or even his open hand (he's an extremely powerful man), which may have caused fine blood spatter; such an initial head wound may have been forever hidden under the massive bullet hole wounds.

The physical fight could have started downstairs and worked its way upstairs - Estelle van der Merwe did testify to hearing the argument come and go, get louder, softer, etc. (as did Mrs. Stipp, I believe) ... that’s indicative of people moving around (and much of what’s heard/not heard depends on any open doors/windows, of which OP's house had many that hot night).

.. have snipped quite a bit out of your post Lux, so as to shorten the quote .. but I absolutely, 100%, believe that to be the case .. that the fight (which I also believe 100% was caused by him not having anything for her on VD .. I think they had both been up all night, she couldn't wait to give him her card and gift so she did this just after midnight as soon as VD arrived .. and then absolutely Jack all back from him, she got upset and it escalated into an argument ) and it got so out of hand he ended up physically assualting her, probably not even with the cricket bat but with his hands/fists but it could also have involved the bat (and as you say, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Reeva would've fought back)*, but whichever it was, once he had assaulted her he realised just what he had done and that his career was over once this got out and once people saw the photos of Reeva bruised and battered, so I believe it was at *this* point where he decided he would have to finish the job off and shoot her dead, in order for it not to get out and that he dreamt up his intruder cover story on the spot (remember how quickly these 'types' can think up lies, they can do it in a FLASH), thinking he would get away with it, Reeva would be forgotten and he would just carry on with his life and career as before.

It's TEXT BOOK domestic violence, especially when you put it together with the WhatsApp messages .. those are absolutely, 100%, text book, too.


* up to the asterisk, this is *exactly* what happened to me with previous abusive/violent partner on Valentines Day, and it was the first time I ever had to call the police out <<-- which reminds me, for anyone wondering why there was no call from Reeva to the police, if anyone has ever been in a DV situation trying to call the police, it's not as easy as it sounds as the perpetrator will do everything they can to stop you from making that call, they will take the phone from you, smash it on the ground, etc, etc .. that particular night, I managed to get out of the house and make a call from my mobile as my house phone had been smashed up.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Yes, you are quite right. It would have made much more sense for him to have stuck to his normal side. I think my brain went AWOL for a while there. On his BH affidavit, in his Pretrial Statement and on the stand he said he was closing the doors, curtains and/or was placing the jeans over the blue light when he heard a sound in the bathroom. The statements differing and his evidence changing yet again when on the stand. How anyone can believe anything he said is beyond me. I think "I shot at her four times" is about as far as the truth goes.

bbm red

:yeahthat:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Perhaps she didn't hear enough to add support to the case for Prosecution.

Perhaps she had same reasons as our loved Frankie ...??

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Quite some distance to carry dead weight! I reckon he moved her because he didn't want anyone going upstairs apart from people that would help him "fix" things. He knew the Standers were on their way and he wanted them to take Reeva from him to the hospital without having to go up the stairs to get her. Once they were out of the house with Reeva he could get rid of anything that could implicate him. JMO

Perhaps he knew he wasn't able any longer to create crying, mourning (he didn't know why - so he testified) and in this situation with bleeding dying Reeva behind/upon the WC, he didn't want to show anyone. Too unpleasant, too embarrassed, too treasonable ... that coward.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

BIB.

I think Roux is doing everything possible to defend OP to the best of his ability. Snipped by me for space.
.[/I]

You are correct on that opening line Vansleuths, Roux is doing everything possible and his response is predictable. However, it is very telling that he talks about witnesses who were not called, in his HOA. Think about it for a second, what is he actually saying? In my mind, he is saying,

"There were other people that the State should of called that would would have helped the defence, because I could have cross examined them and made them seem unreliable."

The reason I am surprised it is in his HOA, is because this is the rhetoric of an appeal. Putting this in the HOA is inferring the trial has gone badly and Roux is expecting a Guilty verdict. In other words, he is getting his excuses in early.

Remember the Spat over whether or not Nel was going to call State Psychiatrist Carla Kotze. (Oldwage gave one of the longest objections I have seen, and argued the DT might call theirs if she was called, but Nel needed to tell the Court first?) Well the upshot was that Judge Masipa agreed with Nel that the DT could not hold the Court to ransom, and they should wait & see.

In essence, Roux is doing something similar. He is saying to the Court, "This was not a fair trial and if you find OP Guilty, then I will appeal because of these reasons."

That does not sound like the positioning of a confident lawyer. It is one last throw of the dice for his client, who he must know, is going to be found Guilty. Roux is experienced enough to weigh the evidence himself and work out what he needs to do. (An example of that is his attempts to discredit the Stipps. He knows how damaging they are for OP's case.)

Roux is fighting a losing battle, but fighting it very well given the position he has been put in by OP. It must be nigh on impossible to weave together a coherent HOA, given that your biggest challenge has been your client changing his story & tailoring his evidence.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Last night I had a dream that seemed so real I had to write about it. It doesn't make any sense to the facts, I think it's just a mish mash of what I've read from here late into the night.

In my dream there was a scenario of Reeva and Oscar in the kitchen upset because Oscar didn't seem to have had anything for her so she was kinda fishing and joking around trying to see if he was going to do anything with her maybe the next day. When it became evident that no plans had been made she got a little upset but didn't say anything. The table was set and food put down and they started to eat but she wasn't very hungry so left it. Sometime later she called him out on it saying that it was their first VD together and he hadn't put any effort into celebrating it. She went upstairs and left him downstairs eating his food.

There must have been a break in my sleep because the next scenario I remember is where she said something that he didn't like and then it escalated into into a tit for tat type argument. It got worse and accusations were being thrown around about her supposed infidelities, he accused of her sleeping with her ex and also of having relationships with guys from Tropika (whatever that programme was called) especially accusing her of having an affair with Da LES whom he got really personal about. She started defending this guy and Oscar got more and more angry and began calling her derogatory names, she was horrified and then got off the bed and went to pack up her things and they were still arguing whilst she was doing that. She went to get the jeans that had been drying in the bathroom and went to put them on but he dragged them out of her hand and told her she wasn't leaving.

A fight broke out and he she reached for the cricket back for protection and held it as though she was going to hit him. She picked up her phone from the side of the bed and said that she was going to call the police if he didn't let her go. He lunged for her knocking her phone out of her hand, she swung the bat and hit the side of his head then threw it and ran for the door. He was raging at this point and went for his gun. She opened the bathroom window to try to escape but saw him coming with the gun so she ran into the toilet. He was coming after her shouting for her to get out of his house and get out of the toilet. She tried to calm him down but he was beyond furious. From there they were arguing through the door and he was shouting and asking her why she was going to call the police, what was she going to say. He told her that no-one would believe anything she said anyway because he was Oscar and no-one ever gets anything to stick, that the police wouldn't believe her. He said that even if he shot her now, no-one would believe her, that he could say that he thought it was an intruder and that would be it. He told her that he would carry on his life and everyone would just forget that she existed. She heard him take the safety catch off the gun and began to panic, she shouted for help and he just said that no-one could hear her, no-one could help her, she cried for help again and he just laughed, he said you need to shout louder than that if you want help and he started shouting it himself. "maybe someone would hear you if you shouted that loud, but still noone would come to help you". At this point she was beside herself and starting backing up to hide but realised there was nowhere to hide, she was begging him she was screaming really loudly, he was telling her to shut up or he'll shoot but she just kept screaming, ...................
In the next scene I remember, he was shouting for her to get down or he'll shoot, she got down from the toilet seat and slipped and her foot kicked the magazine rack slightly, he thought she was opening the window to escape and he instantly shot, he heard more really loud screaming and then what he thought was a click on the window he kept shooting and then he heard nothing more and he stopped. He stood quiet for a while and it was silent, he wondered if she had escaped out of the window so ran to the balcony so he could check. He looked for a while but saw nothing, he went back to the bathroom and realised that Reeva must still be in there, that's when he realised what he had done and started screaming and shouting for help and praying etc. He kicked at the door and I woke up...

And here I am again reading this forum... dear Lord what will I dream tonight! I don't want another like last night as I woke up way too panicked and scared.

I'm thinking: that dream wasn't a dream only but maybe 90% the truth?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Comic relief

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23iwd5_oscar-on-his-way_fun

Comic relief please don't watch if offended by poor pick-up artistry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxjNa5xRubQ&list=PLpXh_xMZwi7PbsDjY5lQFYitUGxSwvEVA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfTcz9p9_J8&index=72&list=PLpXh_xMZwi7PbsDjY5lQFYitUGxSwvEVA

Orange is the new bullcrap!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x24a9db_accidental-killers-anonymous_fun



I love these Puppet Nation clips:clap:

Great!! Thank you!

 

[Sherbert]

Great observation, Sherbert - it never occurred to me that Reeva may have read his autobiography.

Now that I think about it, there's a good chance she did read it.

I know if I was dating an international sports icon and SA's national hero, I'd want to know everything I could about him - what better source than his own bio?

If she did read it, I feel terribly, horribly sad that she no doubt was expecting something wonderful on Valentine’s day from the guy she loved - and he proved himself not only a selfish, thoughtless b#stard but a murderous one as well.

Previously, I had not really given the murder date a second thought, but the more we talk about Valentine’s Day possibly being the catalyst (or at least a partial catalyst), the more I’m totally convinced it was the spark that set off an escalating chain reaction to horrific tragedy.

Thanks Lux. If a female is already feeling unappreciated, that highly volatile combination - Valentine's Day neglect and disappointment - is very likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back...

In that situation, personally, I would bottle my hurt for as long as I could and then there'd be a trigger - probably some additional demonstration of lack of sensitivity - and then my grievances would all come spilling out, one after the other...

I feel that the trouble started pretty soon after OP got home and that it escalated over the course of the evening.

And I definitely think there was some incriminating evidence on his phone that he had to - and did - get rid of.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Jason Pretorius? though I don't know who that might be... that's what it looks like to me

How about "Johan Pretorius"?

My theory goes something like this ...

OP moved to Silverwoods in 2008. He met Johan Stander on 9 May 2009, when he helped JS move in. Johan Stander was a member of the management committee until he resigned in January 2013. Perhaps until that time and in that capacity he carried the estate mobile? OP stored it in his phone as "Johan Pretorius" (he also at some point adds JS's personal mobile as "Johan Silverwoods"). When JS resigns, he hands his phone back and it's reallocated to security. On the night, after he had called NetCare, it's just over 2 minutes since he finished his call to Stander and wants to chase him up. He incorrectly selects the old entry or even thinks that it is the right entry and hasn't realised that the phone has been handed back. Both entries would be next to each other in Contacts.

So why Pretorius? It would appear that some people know the area as being part of Pretorius Park, including estate agents (which it isn't as far as I can see) e.g. https://www.myroof.co.za/MR111917-Land-in-Pretorius-Park-Pretoria-East-Gauteng

 

[AJ_DS]

BIB.

I think Roux is doing everything possible to defend OP to the best of his ability. I haven't finished reading the defence's full heads of arguments, but in terms of lacking credibility, Roux does reference case law regarding the responsibilities of the PT so he does have some backing to his arguments.

Below is just a small snippet from the heads of arguments on this subject and Hilton Botha

It is also significant that the State was very selective in calling witnesses,
so as to endeavour to avoid known conflicts in the State&#8217;s case. This
was contrary to the principle that the State must act without fear, favour
or prejudice. Rather than promote the interests of justice, it did a
disservice to that which should have served the interests of justice.

It is unfair to expect the Accused to call police witnesses, who made
statements as State witnesses, as in such event, the Accused will be
forced to assume the risk that such witnesses may accommodate the
State in cross-examination.
54. An adverse inference may be drawn if a witness is available and
relevant, and he/she is not called. In this instance, where witnesses were
available and able to elucidate the facts for the State, which was
absolutely necessary in view of the conflicts in the State&#8217;s case, the
State&#8217;s failure to call those witnesses justifies the inference concerning a
fear that such evidence might expose facts unfavourable to or might
even damage the State&#8217;s case1
.
55. The law is clear. The party on whom the onus rests (the State) may find
that a failure to call a witness creates the risk that the onus will become
decisive2
in which event the State, bearing the onus, might not be able to convince a Court that it has discharged the onus3
.

I believe Roux is attempting much novel interpretations of the Law, as seen during Trial and in HOA

I do not believe that "the State must act without fear, favour or prejudice" is intended to mean that the State must bring forward contradictory evidence in its own case.

"It is unfair to expect the Accused to call police witnesses, who made statements as State witnesses"&#8230; now Roux is claiming that the proceedings were unfair&#8230; why would that be so ? Roux could have called these police witnesses and confront them to their previous statements as he did with other witnesses.

"the risk that such witnesses may accommodate the State in cross-examination"&#8230; this is how it works for both parties&#8230; that's why one can enter previous statements into the record and demonstrate lack of credibility and/or reliability&#8230;

"which was absolutely necessary in view of the conflicts in the State&#8217;s case, the State&#8217;s failure to call those witnesses justifies the inference concerning a fear that such evidence might expose facts unfavourable to or might even damage the State&#8217;s case"&#8230; Roux's argument is based on his opinion on the existence of a conflict in the State's case&#8230; Roux is attempting to build a circumstantial case against the State based on inferences that exculpatory evidence may exist&#8230; (now the State is on Trial)... but it is unfair for the Court to expect the Defence to bring such evidence into the light of Trial&#8230; better for the Court (and the Defence) to assume that such evidence exist and also assume that said evidence would be exculpatory !!&#8230; Roux also wants the Court to interpret that the meaning of "fear" is in relation to the State's fear of loosing the case which is NOT at all its intended meaning IMO&#8230; this is like saying that "Justice is blind" intended meaning is that a Trial's fairness is predicated on the Judge having very poor eyesight !!

"a failure to call a witness creates the risk that the onus will become decisive"&#8230; again a creative interpretation by Roux&#8230; the onus is to prove the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt&#8230; yes the choice by the State not to call upon a witness may lead to a risk that their onus will not be met&#8230; BUT that does NOT mean that the fact that the witness is not called upon can be used to make inferences favorable to the Defence and therefore introduce reasonable doubt.

&#8230; I believe Nel adequately addressed these points in closing arguments&#8230; Roux is simply employing smoke and mirrors to purposefully complicate the case hoping that the Court will be distracted from the crux of the case&#8230; and possibly open a few doors for the inevitable appeal Roux will file.

 

[soozieqtips]

Comic relief

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23iwd5_oscar-on-his-way_fun

Comic relief please don't watch if offended by poor pick-up artistry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxjNa5xRubQ&list=PLpXh_xMZwi7PbsDjY5lQFYitUGxSwvEVA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfTcz9p9_J8&index=72&list=PLpXh_xMZwi7PbsDjY5lQFYitUGxSwvEVA

Orange is the new bullcrap!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x24a9db_accidental-killers-anonymous_fun



I love these Puppet Nation clips:clap:

Very very funny, and the voice is spot on!

 

[eimajjjj]

Just a thought: there are actually numerous times where OP says he told his legal team something and they left it out or got it wrong (e.g. Reason why door slamming isn't in bail affadavit or the double-tap error). Thus, why would it not be allowed for lawyers themselves to be subpoenaed to the stand to give evidence under oath. I know it sounds absurd, but shouldn't truth and justice be the primary motivation for any trial?

 

[Val1]

I believe Roux is attempting much novel interpretations of the Law, as seen during Trial and in HOA

I do not believe that "the State must act without fear, favour or prejudice" is intended to mean that the State must bring forward contradictory evidence in its own case.

"It is unfair to expect the Accused to call police witnesses, who made statements as State witnesses"… now Roux is claiming that the proceedings were unfair… why would that be so ? Roux could have called these police witnesses and confront them to their previous statements as he did with other witnesses.

"the risk that such witnesses may accommodate the State in cross-examination"… this is how it works for both parties… that's why one can enter previous statements into the record and demonstrate lack of credibility and/or reliability…

"which was absolutely necessary in view of the conflicts in the State’s case, the State’s failure to call those witnesses justifies the inference concerning a fear that such evidence might expose facts unfavourable to or might even damage the State’s case"… Roux's argument is based on his opinion on the existence of a conflict in the State's case… Roux is attempting to build a circumstantial case against the State based on inferences that exculpatory evidence may exist… (now the State is on Trial)... but it is unfair for the Court to expect the Defence to bring such evidence into the light of Trial… better for the Court (and the Defence) to assume that such evidence exist and also assume that said evidence would be exculpatory !!… Roux also wants the Court to interpret that the meaning of "fear" is in relation to the State's fear of loosing the case which is NOT at all its intended meaning IMO… this is like saying that "Justice is blind" intended meaning is that a Trial's fairness is predicated on the Judge having very poor eyesight !!

"a failure to call a witness creates the risk that the onus will become decisive"… again a creative interpretation by Roux… the onus is to prove the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt… yes the choice by the State not to call upon a witness may lead to a risk that their onus will not be met… BUT that does NOT mean that the fact that the witness is not called upon can be used to make inferences favorable to the Defence and therefore introduce reasonable doubt.

… I believe Nel adequately addressed these points in closing arguments… Roux is simply employing smoke and mirrors to purposefully complicate the case hoping that the Court will be distracted from the crux of the case… and possibly open a few doors for the inevitable appeal Roux will file.

Actually, I read all that as Roux QQing about not being given the opportunity to denigrate HB again. I really think that Roux had planned most of his case on being able to cast doubt over the whole investigation because of HB and his alleged rush to judgement in charging OP with murder. When it comes right down to it, I believe HB had seen enough in his career to know what he saw that early morning and it wasn't an "accident".

 

[jimmy73]

Thanks Lux. If a female is already feeling unappreciated, that highly volatile combination - Valentine's Day neglect and disappointment - is very likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back...

In that situation, personally, I would bottle my hurt for as long as I could and then there'd be a trigger - probably some additional demonstration of lack of sensitivity - and then my grievances would all come spilling out, one after the other...

I feel that the trouble started pretty soon after OP got home and that it escalated over the course of the evening.

And I definitely think there was some incriminating evidence on his phone that he had to - and did - get rid of.

This may be pure conjecture on my part, and I mean no disrespect to Reeva Steenkamp or indeed anyone with a disability whatsoever but has anyone wondered whether in the heat of an argument Reeva could have insulted Pistorius about his disability in some way and he completely lost control?

 

[AJ_DS]

Actually, I read all that as Roux QQing about not being given the opportunity to denigrate HB again. I really think that Roux had planned most of his case on being able to cast doubt over the whole investigation because of HB and his alleged rush to judgement in charging OP with murder. When it comes right down to it, I believe HB had seen enough in his career to know what he saw that early morning and it wasn't an "accident".

Yes, I agree&#8230; Roux would have loooooved to grill Botha under cross-examination.

Botha did not indict or charge OP with murder, the State prosecutor did, after analyzing the evidence presented to them by a group of police investigators which Botha was a part of.

If Botha rushed his judgment about OP and the crime scene&#8230; so what ?&#8230; detectives often do that and it doesn't alter the merits of the State's case in any way.

Personal subjective assessment of a situation is a crucial component of an investigation : it leads detectives to use their experience to follow possible avenues of evidence&#8230; but it cannot produce objective material evidence if none exists to begin with.

Roux's arguments about State witnesses not being called remains ludicrous, IMO.

 

[AJ_DS]

Just a thought: there are actually numerous times where OP says he told his legal team something and they left it out or got it wrong (e.g. Reason why door slamming isn't in bail affadavit or the double-tap error). Thus, why would it not be allowed for lawyers themselves to be subpoenaed to the stand to give evidence under oath. I know it sounds absurd, but shouldn't truth and justice be the primary motivation for any trial?

Attorney-Client privilege prevents this&#8230; and for good reason.

 

[AJ_DS]

This may be pure conjecture on my part, and I mean no disrespect to Reeva Steenkamp or indeed anyone with a disability whatsoever but has anyone wondered whether in the heat of an argument Reeva could have insulted Pistorius about his disability in some way and he completely lost control?

Sure, why not ?&#8230; something like "Oscar, you are but half a man, in more ways than one"

In a heated argument, hurtful things can be said.

 

[Scand]

This may be pure conjecture on my part, and I mean no disrespect to Reeva Steenkamp or indeed anyone with a disability whatsoever but has anyone wondered whether in the heat of an argument Reeva could have insulted Pistorius about his disability in some way and he completely lost control?

I have had the same thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jilly]

Sure, why not ?&#8230; something like "Oscar, you are but half a man, in more ways than one"

In a heated argument, hurtful things can be said.

Nope. Can't believe that Reeva would do something like that after all I've read about her.