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

[Deleted member 102539]

http://africartoons.com/cartoon/14209?filter=2387

 

[Jake18]

I don't envy Judge Masipa and her accessors who have to wade through the defence's heads of arguments.

The prosecutions version was easy to follow and to the point, but wow, did the defence ever do a number on this. The level of detail and timing of events is incredible. As a layman, I can just glance over the "dull" parts, but Masipa will need to wade through all of this in order to give her explanation of her ruling.

Throughout the document, it said that the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt while the defence only has to show reasonable doubt and that the evidence could show an alternative series of events which would raise reasonable doubt. I really wonder if they have managed to do just that....perhaps not an acquittal but maybe CH.

BIB : I think where Op is in genuine trouble is that the evidence didn't really show an alternative series of events. None of his "experts" advanced his cause at all, leaving things pretty much exactly where he started, with the earwitnesses plus a lot of inexplicable evidence such as the photographs depicting the damage to the bathroom, the blood trail over the duvet, the position of the fans etc. Roux's had to do a lot of fiddling to get that timeline - using Johnson's "rough" notes which Johnson himself said were unreliable, rounding time estimates to suit his case, asking the court to discard earwitness evidence that doesn't suit his timeline, turning Dr Stipp's (0 second, likely an error) call to security into a conversation that the doctor had at his home yet at a time when Dr Stipp had actually arrived at OP's house but also suggesting that Dr Stipp's evidence was biased and should be rejected etc.

Having said that though he argues so convincingly and so well that if this was a jury trial I think OP would be in a better position. I am assuming that the Judge and her assessors will closely evaluate the presented evidence themselves and not rely on Roux's interpretation of it and that Nel, in knowing the strength of the State's earwitnesses, doesn't need to jump up and down telling the court what they need to infer. I am also assuming that, being trained in such matters, the Judge and assessors will be skilled at weighing up all the evidence and thus will not make a decision based on a single factor about the case ("help help help", or OP's disability=vulnerability argument) which would have been a potential problem with a jury, who, as we have seen on here, may well have contained a member who simply can't see past a single point to look at the wider picture. Because of the complexity of the case with OP's disability and his own high profile I would be a lot less confidant if this was to be decided by a jury. Although having said that I'm sure Nel's presentation and explanation of the facts would be very different if this were the case.

The other factor which makes me confidant is that the vast majority of posters here immediately saw Roux's trickery in skewing the timeline and also all of the other "cheap DT tricks" - OP's supposed puking, wailing "remorse", his memory lapses on the stand, the inconsistencies in his testimony, his shocking and sometimes frankly biased defence witnesses, lack of expert witness note taking, the late reports, the wailing of female ear witnesses imitating the crying that they knew was from a man etc. I'm sure we're a clever bunch but I'm equally sure that when it comes to criminal law and criminal defence, things that raise our "bull waste" hackles will also be noted by the Judge and assessors who are, I'm sure, able to more than match the cleverest of us intellectually and who will leave us all for dust when it comes to their knowledge of South African criminal law.

 

[LemonMousse]

:jawdrop:Barry Roux: addressing future lawyers at the University of Witwatersrand

http://citizen.co.za/235061/psbarryz/


http://witsvuvuzela.com/2014/08/28/oscars-lawyer-says-sas-legal-system-lacks-certainty/

On Wednesday, Roux spoke to a group of potential future lawyers at the University of Witwatersrand. Roux's speech was said to have focused on the corrupt S.A. police force. He blamed 80% of those in the police force. (how convenient, knowing the verdict is due in 2 weeks)

Roux also said, the biggest problem in South Africa was that people who committed crimes did so knowing “there’s a fair chance they won’t get caught – or if arrested, won’t get tried”. . . . Gee, does this sound like the mindset of his own client, Oscar?

He went on to speak about witnesses who claimed they “don’t remember” events when testifying on the witness stand . . . . "much to the delight of his audience".

I would imagine Roux making this point would get a few chuckles from the audience. After all, I'm sure as future lawyers, they have been following the trial closely and are fully aware of Oscar's convenient lack of memory on the stand. (in contrast to his extremely detailed memory of so many other minute details.)

In all fairness, it sounds like this was the topic the University wanted him to speak about.

My favorite.....
Roux then posed a question to the students, "how they were going to get it right and fix the justice system". . . . seems strange for that question to be coming from Roux. What exactly is HE doing to "fix" the S.A. justice system? Seems to me he seeks out the weakest links in it & exploits it. I think Nel would take issue with hearing Roux address this concern with future law students.

I think that's unfair to Roux, to be honest. It's not up to him to fix the justice system and he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Without defence lawyers, criminal justice would not work. Someone has to stand up for the accused, whoever it is, and make the best possible case they can. Yes, he's played around with the timeline, given certain things more emphasis than they deserve and so on, but he has not been actively dishonest, or lied - he's just been clever.

OP sold his house to pay for this defence & Roux owes him the best possible chance he can get for him.

Frustrating for us, of course, as we can see that OP is as guilty as they come and we hope Masipa will see that too....but Roux is doing his job, and he's doing it very well indeed. Unfortunately!

Nel is also exceptionally good at his job, so let's keep calm and trust in Gerrie Nel!

 

[soozieqtips]

I think that's unfair to Roux, to be honest. It's not up to him to fix the justice system and he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Without defence lawyers, criminal justice would not work. Someone has to stand up for the accused, whoever it is, and make the best possible case they can. Yes, he's played around with the timeline, given certain things more emphasis than they deserve and so on, but he has not been actively dishonest, or lied - he's just been clever.

OP sold his house to pay for this defence & Roux owes him the best possible chance he can get for him.

Frustrating for us, of course, as we can see that OP is as guilty as they come and we hope Masipa will see that too....but Roux is doing his job, and he's doing it very well indeed. Unfortunately!

Nel is also exceptionally good at his job, so let's keep calm and trust in Gerrie Nel!

BBM - do you not think it was his idea for Dixon to use a model that was shorter by 20cm to try and discredit Dr Stipp's evidence of seeing OP walking across the bathroom after the shooting? I think it was actively dishonest to deliberately alter the facts in order to 'prove' witnesses were lying. I don't know how much influence Roux has over his own witnesses, but he must have known that Dixon used a shorter model and did not reconstruct the scene with any accuracy at all.

 

[LemonMousse]

BBM - do you not think it was his idea for Dixon to use a model that was shorter by 20cm to try and discredit Dr Stipp's evidence of seeing OP walking across the bathroom after the shooting? I think it was actively dishonest to deliberately alter the facts in order to 'prove' witnesses were lying. I don't know how much influence Roux has over his own witnesses, but he must have known that Dixon used a shorter model and did not reconstruct the scene with any accuracy at all.

"Dishonest" as in "lying"? No. Sorry. They presented their pictures and hoped that no one would notice the height difference. Inept and clueless, rather than actively deceitful. Lying would be digitally altering the pics to make it look like something it wasn't. They didn't do that.

The sound recording was dodgy, as the volume had been increased to make the bat strikes louder....but they weren't using it as loudness comparisons, just whether the sound was similar. So, again, I think this was careless stupidity rather than outright dishonesty.

One of the reasons I think the defence has been so abysmal is because they are mostly an honest bunch and none of them prepared to actively lie. Except perhaps Derman, who I do not trust one little bit.

But I think it's always a mistake to go after the defence lawyers in situations like this. They are doing an important job and we can't blame them for doing it well.

JMO.

 

[Cherwell]

OP sold his house to pay for this defence & Roux owes him the best possible chance he can get for him.

And now he's utterly destitute, poor thing. :violin:

I think we all know where the money is coming from.

 

[4MrsB]

I think that's unfair to Roux, to be honest. It's not up to him to fix the justice system and he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Without defence lawyers, criminal justice would not work. Someone has to stand up for the accused, whoever it is, and make the best possible case they can. Yes, he's played around with the timeline, given certain things more emphasis than they deserve and so on, but he has not been actively dishonest, or lied - he's just been clever.

OP sold his house to pay for this defence & Roux owes him the best possible chance he can get for him.

Frustrating for us, of course, as we can see that OP is as guilty as they come and we hope Masipa will see that too....but Roux is doing his job, and he's doing it very well indeed. Unfortunately!

Nel is also exceptionally good at his job, so let's keep calm and trust in Gerrie Nel!

My point was not that it's up to Barry Roux to fix the justice system (or to suggest he has done anything wrong) ...it was that Barry Roux took it upon himself to tell this room full of young lawyers (future lawyers) that:
A) here is what is wrong with the justice system
and
B) as young lawyers, what are EACH of YOU going to do to fix it?

I implied that this made Roux seem like a hypocrite. As Roux, a very prominent & influential lawyer, is NOT concerned nor doing anything to fix what's wrong with the justice system. In fact he is making a very lucrative living by exploiting the weak links that are broken in their justice system. Certainly he has a 100% right to do this. I however, found it ironic that he would suggest to all these future lawyers that THEY needed to "fix" this & should think about how THEY can go about doing so. He doesn't! So why is he asking them to? .....that was my point.

I agree that everyone has the right to a defense. I disagree that at all costs, defense lawyers have a right to use "trickery", to get their clients off "Scott free" if they feel their client is truly guilty of the crime. The justice system is about seeking justice. It does NOT mean that you can commit murder, then with the right defense team, $$ & "trickery", you can hope to just walk away a free man. (FYI: I am NOT suggesting that you have implied this in your reply. No, not at all. I am just stating this as a concern that I have.)

I do not have the same respect for all defense teams (or prosecutions) when they try to "win at all costs". That is not justice regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

I would also NOT use the terms "inept & clueless" to describe Barry Roux's team. They are the complete opposite of that. They are not clueless in the least and they are definitely not inept, they are extremely skillful, seasoned & talented lawyers. "Careless Stupidity" . . . not this team, no way, IMO.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar Pistorius and Alex Zanardi at Venice Marathon
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xazm2c_oscar-pistorius-and-alex-zanardi-at_sport

OP in much happier times.

Hard to believe this laughing, smiling, happy, carefree guy could put four Black Talons through a closed, locked door to kill a woman.

Maybe he was a nice person at one time.

WTF happened?

Does sudden fame, fortune and power steal your soul?

Or was Oscar Pistorius always just slick smoke and mirrors?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

And now he's utterly destitute, poor thing. :violin:

I think we all know where the money is coming from.

Agreed, Cherwell. Selling his house was as much a strategic move as a financial one.

The sale was “good” PR (poor Oscar *sniff*) and it permanently removed him from the tainted crime scene.

Even if he was acquitted, how could he ever live in that house, even if he wanted to?

He’s already a social pariah. He’d never have another girlfriend as long as he lived. LOL

 

[jay-jay]

Oscar Pistorius and Alex Zanardi at Venice Marathon
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xazm2c_oscar-pistorius-and-alex-zanardi-at_sport

OP in much happier times.

Hard to believe this laughing, smiling, happy, carefree guy could put four Black Talons through a closed, locked door to kill a woman.

Maybe he was a nice person at one time.

WTF happened?

Does sudden fame, fortune and power steal your soul?

Or was Oscar Pistorius always just slick smoke and mirrors?

I personally don't think fame and money had/has anything to do with it .. there are plenty of ordinary Joe Bloggs out there who are exactly the same as him .. they are just Jekyll and Hyde characters, that's all, and they seem to be born like it. The nice side of them is just really nice (not necessarily in a smarmy, creepy way .. but just a natural way, just like how you see Pistorius in that vid there) and it is what attracts you to them .. you can see exactly why Reeva would've been attracted to him, and in his 'nice' mode, I think he's absolutely gorgeous .. but when he (or people like him) turn then you'd better watch out because they are nasty as hell, but of course, by then it's too late, you're already under their spell ..

 

[Lux et Veritas]

The #1 contention in this entire trial, the most crucial factor is Reeva’s screams.

Four credible ear witnesses testified to hearing a woman’s (blood-curdling) screams.
One credible ear witness testifies to hearing lengthy arguing.

Defense abysmally failed to disprove the accounts of these five witnesses.

Worst of all, Defense totally failed to even attempt to prove that OP screams like a woman - despite their contention that it was OP screaming that night, not Reeva. This claim was the very heart of their defense!

The fact that certain witnesses may have heard little to nothing cannot neutralize multiple witness accounts of a woman screaming. (There are many reasons for not hearing or not hearing well - OP should understand this concept well, after firing four shots that night and becoming temporarily deaf.)

One must put forth superior evidence and reason to refute the opposition - Roux utterly FAILED to do this on all counts regarding the screams.

He could not and did not present audio evidence of OP screaming like a woman because OP does NOT scream like a woman. (His pathetic, desperate “evidence” was having his female witnesses attempt to scream like OP screaming like a woman. Why didn’t Roux have Oscar demonstrate in court?! Because he knows it’s a flat-out LIE. LOL)

This is the fatal flaw in Defense’s case and Roux knows it.

This is why Roux has gone so very hard after "police tampering", "missing electrical cord", "GAD" :lol: and OP's allegedly lifelong, debilitating "disability" (which seemed to have cropped up only after Feb. 14, 2013. He's simply got NOTHING. LOL

The ONLY way Judge Masipa can discount the State’s very strong evidence of Reeva’s screams (and an argument) is to weigh in favor of the Defense’s more credible evidence proving otherwise - of which there was none.

I tell you, Reeva’s screams will take Oscar down.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Pistorius deserves a second chance: Africa Unite
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/d8bdb...serves-a-second-chance:-Africa-Unite-20140307

Members of the newly-registered political party, Africa Unite, say Oscar Pistorius should be given a second chance in life. The party stands for victims and families of gun crimes.

The party believes Pistorius could turn over a new leaf if placed under a good rehabilitation programme, should he go to jail.
Africa Unite's Robin Denton was speaking as he hoisted some party banners near the entrance of the court.

"We are just here to support justice and victims of violence basically, whether they are black or white, we try to reduce violence and gun crime and things like that. Personally I believe that he is a nice guy but just lost his self-control and I don't think it was premeditated but never the less he must be accountable for his actions."

Seriously?!!!

 

[Suthrnqt]

Pistorius deserves a second chance: Africa Unite
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/d8bdb...serves-a-second-chance:-Africa-Unite-20140307

Members of the newly-registered political party, Africa Unite, say Oscar Pistorius should be given a second chance in life. The party stands for victims and families of gun crimes.

The party believes Pistorius could turn over a new leaf if placed under a good rehabilitation programme, should he go to jail.
Africa Unite's Robin Denton was speaking as he hoisted some party banners near the entrance of the court.

"We are just here to support justice and victims of violence basically, whether they are black or white, we try to reduce violence and gun crime and things like that. Personally I believe that he is a nice guy but just lost his self-control and I don't think it was premeditated but never the less he must be accountable for his actions."

Seriously?!!!

:waitasec: The party is for victims of gun crime.....which would be Reeva. :thinking:

 

[jay-jay]

Here's a novel idea .. how about people learn to take control of their actions, and just not kill someone else in the heat of the moment, in the first place Should we just give the green light for men (or indeed women, but it's mainly men) to just go killing their wives, girlfriends, willy nilly in a fit of pique and for there to be no consequences for that? Men (and some women) need to know that there is a price to be paid for what they do (it may not stop them, but you can rest assured there would be even more deaths than there already are, if there wasn't any comeuppance for it).

 

[Val1]

I personally don't think fame and money had/has anything to do with it .. there are plenty of ordinary Joe Bloggs out there who are exactly the same as him .. they are just Jekyll and Hyde characters, that's all, and they seem to be born like it. The nice side of them is just really nice (not necessarily in a smarmy, creepy way .. but just a natural way, just like how you see Pistorius in that vid there) and it is what attracts you to them .. you can see exactly why Reeva would've been attracted to him, and in his 'nice' mode, I think he's absolutely gorgeous .. but when he (or people like him) turn then you'd better watch out because they are nasty as hell, but of course, by then it's too late, you're already under their spell ..

Agreed, that's also why it's so easy, especially at the beginning, to believe them when they tell you that it's your fault that they got upset(perhaps not even in so many words but you get the message). After all, you know they had had a bad day and still you wouldn't stop talking about your day, or you had the tv turned up too loud, or you didn't cook supper the way they liked it, or you wore the wrong fragrance or you stroked their neck, or breathed near them, etc.. Of course they are sooo sorry for overreacting and try to make it up with you all luvvy duvvy with gifts, flowers, dinners out, vacations(that your head tells you not to go alone with them on) and you get lulled back into believing that it won't happen again, until it does.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

BIB : I think where Op is in genuine trouble is that the evidence didn't really show an alternative series of events. None of his "experts" advanced his cause at all, leaving things pretty much exactly where he started, with the earwitnesses plus a lot of inexplicable evidence such as the photographs depicting the damage to the bathroom, the blood trail over the duvet, the position of the fans etc. Roux's had to do a lot of fiddling to get that timeline - using Johnson's "rough" notes which Johnson himself said were unreliable, rounding time estimates to suit his case, asking the court to discard earwitness evidence that doesn't suit his timeline, turning Dr Stipp's (0 second, likely an error) call to security into a conversation that the doctor had at his home yet at a time when Dr Stipp had actually arrived at OP's house but also suggesting that Dr Stipp's evidence was biased and should be rejected etc.

Having said that though he argues so convincingly and so well that if this was a jury trial I think OP would be in a better position. I am assuming that the Judge and her assessors will closely evaluate the presented evidence themselves and not rely on Roux's interpretation of it and that Nel, in knowing the strength of the State's earwitnesses, doesn't need to jump up and down telling the court what they need to infer. I am also assuming that, being trained in such matters, the Judge and assessors will be skilled at weighing up all the evidence and thus will not make a decision based on a single factor about the case ("help help help", or OP's disability=vulnerability argument) which would have been a potential problem with a jury, who, as we have seen on here, may well have contained a member who simply can't see past a single point to look at the wider picture. Because of the complexity of the case with OP's disability and his own high profile I would be a lot less confidant if this was to be decided by a jury. Although having said that I'm sure Nel's presentation and explanation of the facts would be very different if this were the case.

The other factor which makes me confidant is that the vast majority of posters here immediately saw Roux's trickery in skewing the timeline and also all of the other "cheap DT tricks" - OP's supposed puking, wailing "remorse", his memory lapses on the stand, the inconsistencies in his testimony, his shocking and sometimes frankly biased defence witnesses, lack of expert witness note taking, the late reports, the wailing of female ear witnesses imitating the crying that they knew was from a man etc. I'm sure we're a clever bunch but I'm equally sure that when it comes to criminal law and criminal defence, things that raise our "bull waste" hackles will also be noted by the Judge and assessors who are, I'm sure, able to more than match the cleverest of us intellectually and who will leave us all for dust when it comes to their knowledge of South African criminal law.

That is a great post Jake. Balanced, considered & well written. Nice one.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

"The man almost sounded embarrassed in calling for help... That is the impression I got, it's what struck me," Charl Johnson said to questioning from Barry Roux, for Pistorius. This emerged as Roux was questioning Johnson about notes he had made about the screams and gunshots he heard from his townhouse in the early morning hours of February 14 last year. He made the notes on March 6 that year. He previously testified that he heard both a woman and a man screaming.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/c6e4e.../Screaming-man-sounded-'embarrassed'-20140306

Speaking of screams . . .

Johnson’s testimony certainly jammed Roux in between a rock and another rock. LOL

Johnson states he heard BOTH a woman AND a man screaming. This at once tosses Defense’s claim that only OP screamed totally out the window and not only strongly supports the State’s case that Reeva did scream but that there was indeed a raging argument.

In which case, OP’s “intruder” story and “mistaken identity” are completely shot to hell.

As to Johnson’s description of the man’s calls for help as “embarrassed”, would this not actually support the theory that OP was indeed mocking Reeva’s terrified screams for help?

Why would someone be “embarrassed” to yell for help in a dire crisis like that? They wouldn’t!

Perhaps “embarrassed” was the only word Johnson could adequately come up with to describe the strange “Help. Help. Help.” he heard - he very likely never contemplated that a merciless killer was actually mocking his victim’s cries for help.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

There’s very good reason Gerrie Nel is called the “Bull Dog”.

... Nel is no stranger to pressure and intimidation. During the Selebi trial, he was ARRESTED at his home in the early hours of January 8, 2008, in what appeared to be a bid to disrupt the investigation against the former top cop.

Taken into custody by 20 POLICE OFFICERS in front of his wife and children, the alleged fraud charges were later dropped. Two years later, he secured a corruption conviction against Selebi* who was jailed for 15 years in the High Court in Johannesburg in 2010. ...

PROFILE: Gerrie Nel - a prosecutor with the 'golden touch'
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/6580b...a-prosecutor-with-the-'golden-touch'-20140227

* Notorious Jackie Selebi, ex-National Commissioner of South African Police Services and ex-President of INTERPOL. Yes, Nel brings down the big game.

 

[fox1lady]

Agreed, that's also why it's so easy, especially at the beginning, to believe them when they tell you that it's your fault that they got upset(perhaps not even in so many words but you get the message). After all, you know they had had a bad day and still you wouldn't stop talking about your day, or you had the tv turned up too loud, or you didn't cook supper the way they liked it, or you wore the wrong fragrance or you stroked their neck, or breathed near them, etc.. Of course they are sooo sorry for overreacting and try to make it up with you all luvvy duvvy with gifts, flowers, dinners out, vacations(that your head tells you not to go alone with them on) and you get lulled back into believing that it won't happen again, until it does.

Very good assessment! Reeva was pretty much saying all of this in her whatsapp message. Besides the parts where she says that she is scared of him sometimes, she said "I try my best not to rock the boat with you", clearly she cannot be herself for fear of him going mad at her. I can bet that her accents and voices were part of her personality and she had a very fun side to her personality that drew people to her... these things are the things (and others) that he criticised her about. Most victims go through that process of trying to change to make the abuser happy "I do everything to try and make you happy"... text book abusive relationship!

 

[OneBlessedMommy]

I personally don't think fame and money had/has anything to do with it .. there are plenty of ordinary Joe Bloggs out there who are exactly the same as him .. they are just Jekyll and Hyde characters, that's all, and they seem to be born like it. The nice side of them is just really nice (not necessarily in a smarmy, creepy way .. but just a natural way, just like how you see Pistorius in that vid there) and it is what attracts you to them .. you can see exactly why Reeva would've been attracted to him, and in his 'nice' mode, I think he's absolutely gorgeous .. but when he (or people like him) turn then you'd better watch out because they are nasty as hell, but of course, by then it's too late, you're already under their spell ..

I was literally nodding while reading this, very well said!!!![emoji4]

Love Kills