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

[vansleuths]

I know this has been discussed many times but has there ever been any consensus on this?

If OP is found guilty of murder and/or the weapons charges and ends up with jail time, will he go to jail while he appeals the verdict or will he be out on bail during this time?

Thank you

 

[Interested Bystander]

An article by Nick van der Leek where he discusses this issue with Ulrich Roux and David Dadic, both SA lawyers of some renown. I don’t think it has been posted before but apologies if that is incorrect.

Pistorius: If guilty, can he appeal? Would he win it?

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

 

[foxbluff]

“Mr Rens read out a competency questionnaire and examination that Mr Pistorius, a South African Paralympic athlete, had completed before he could be issued with a firearm.

He scored top marks in these tests, which included questions about the rules on when you are legally allowed to shoot intruders.

One question was: "Explain the legal requirements when using a firearm for private use", to which Mr Pistorius answered: "Attack must be against you, it must be unlawful, it must be against persons."

The final question on the importance of target identification elicited this answer from Mr Pistorius: "Always know your target and what lies behind."

And he did. The target was Reeva.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26608368

With Sept. 11 finally drawing near, today I've started getting butterflies in my tummy. It's reassuring to revisit OP's gun questionnaire. Ty.

IIRC OP had previously applied for a gun license and gotten turned down. Does anybody know why?

Hmm... I just realized that Sept. 11 lands on a Thurs. Could this be an indication that the Judge expects the verdict to take two days?

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thank you MrFos for finding and bringing this link back onboard. Sooo, as it turns out, Mrs. Stipp was interviewed by the SA NPA rather than the media as I had first thought even though the idea of her going to the media seemed out of character.

I totally agree with the sentiment expressed in the first para of the quote below. And I don't limit that to just South Africans. Also, in addition to the "mauling" Mrs. Stipp had to endure during her testimony, the privacy and quiet enjoyment of her home was invaded more than once. Wouldn't we love to know what choice words she spoke from the balcony to the "sound testers" in her garden at 3AM.

Do any of you have any ideas on how the NPA report got leaked to the media?


[QUOTE Snipped] Pistorius witnesses 'trampled and exhausted' by courtroom maulings.
Harsh examinations seen on TV could make South Africans reluctant to help in future high-profile trials, warns report <snipped>
[Mrs.] Stipp was subsequently interviewed for a research paper by South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority. She described giving evidence, and the aftermath, as "emotional, daunting and exhausting", according to the country's Times newspaper, which has seen the research. Stipp felt as if she were being personally attacked and was not sure that she would go through it again. [Quote Snipped]

The closest I can get is that the author, Karen Tewson, spoke on the subject on 14 August, where the paper was presented. The media were present.

Day 1: Thursday 14 August 2014
15h45 &#8211; 17h15 EMPATHIC JUSTICE
Chair: Lauren Tracey, Researcher, Institute for Security Studies, South Africa
&#8226; Unsustainable and unjust: criminal justice policy and remand detention
in South Africa since 1994
Ms Jean Redpath, Senior Researcher, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative,
South Africa
&#8226; Scared and out of control: a crisis in the participation of victims and
witnesses in criminal proceedings
Ms Karen Tewson, Deputy Director and National Coordinator, Court
Preparation, National Prosecuting Authority, South Africa
&#8226; Offering hope to survivors of gender-based violence in the eastern
Free*State
Ms &#8217;Mapule Maema, Sekwele Centre for Social Reflection, South Africa

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/5th-crime-conference-Booklet-FINAL.pdf

 

[Interested Bystander]

With Sept. 11 finally drawing near, today I've started getting butterflies in my tummy. It's reassuring to revisit OP's gun questionnaire. Ty.

IIRC OP had previously applied for a gun license and gotten turned down. Does anybody know why?

Hmm... I just realized that Sept. 11 lands on a Thurs. Could this be an indication that the Judge expects the verdict to take two days?

I am sure I read somewhere he had taken the test twice. I am not sure there was any reason given but failure seems to be the most likely.

EDIT: It seems there are several parts to the examination for competency to hold a firearm licence. I think OP had to pass all parts but I am not sure he ever completed all the tests. Here is Sean Rens on the stand. I haven't listened to all of it so am not sure of the outcome, ie whether OP did in fact ever pass all the tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-GdlIaRucI

 

[sleuth-d-]

With Sept. 11 finally drawing near, today I've started getting butterflies in my tummy. It's reassuring to revisit OP's gun questionnaire. Ty.

IIRC OP had previously applied for a gun license and gotten turned down. Does anybody know why?

Hmm... I just realized that Sept. 11 lands on a Thurs. Could this be an indication that the Judge expects the verdict to take two days?

not sure about reassuring, but revisiting the op cross-examination is also eye-opening... duvet; whispers; fans; curtains; blue amp light; wooden sounds; position of magazine rack; all that running back and forth with a loaded, cocked gun... the particular points at which he 'can't remember', when compared to the many points where he can remember in fine detail.

 

[foxbluff]

Yes. It's a shame Nel didn't get him to detail the sequence more precisely. I don't believe there is time for all this to happen when he says, if you compare it to the call times and him picking Reeva up and carrying her halfway downstairs, at which point the Standers arrive. Add to this: grab keys from on top of speaker, unlock bedroom door, and also switch kitchen light on. The latter because Johan Stander testifies that the kitchen light is on when they arrive. And if we accept that, then he must have gone to the kitchen for a reason.

BBM - Yes indeed!! Imo OP anticipated that if the police got involved they might take the cell phone he appeared to be using that night (the personal one with damaging data on it), so he made a trip to the kitchen to pocket his business (benign) phone which was charging there, and place his personal phone on charge... he's thinking there's no reason for police to take the phone on charge as it wouldn't be applicable to the case.

P.S. @Mr.Fos, you couldn't have chosen a better article to post that answered my Q regarding The Judge. That was one of the best profiles I have ever read on anybody. I knew she was well-respected and held in high regard, but I had no idea just how remarkable she is. I'm in awe of her now and feeling more secure about the verdict she'll render. Thank you.

 

[Mr Fossil]

BBM - Yes indeed!! Imo OP anticipated that if the police got involved they might take the cell phone he appeared to be using that night (the personal one with damaging data on it), so he made a trip to the kitchen to pocket his business (benign) phone which was charging there, and place his personal phone on charge... he's thinking there's no reason for police to take the phone on charge as it wouldn't be applicable to the case.

P.S. @Mr.Fos, you couldn't have chosen a better article to post that answered my Q regarding The Judge. That was one of the best profiles I have ever read on anybody. I knew she was well-respected and held in high regard, but I had no idea just how remarkable she is. I'm in awe of her now and feeling more secure about the verdict she'll render. Thank you.

BIB I'd go as far as suggesting that the police might have believed it was Carice's phone, since she was doing much of the work on it.

 

[IndianSummer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...as-told-to-back-off-from-Reeva-Steenkamp.html
"She told me he pushed her a bit into a corner.
She felt caged in. I told her I would talk to him.
I told him not to force himself on her. Back off."
"He agreed, but his face showed me what he was thinking: 'Oh, this guy is talking nonsense'."

 

[Val1]

BIB I'd go as far as suggesting that the police might have believed it was Carice's phone, since she was doing much of the work on it.

Just like they would have thought it was OP's sister's purse and not RS's... :/ That's why I think there was more than just OP's phone to have gone missing from that crime scene, noone was ever searched other than the police themselves and didn't van Rensburg(imo he was helping the defence, right from the start, shall we say starstruck?) say that there wasn't an inventory taken, though exactly what he was referring to I have no idea.
Some quotes from this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10702136/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial-March-14-as-it-happened.html

Van Rensburg, the head of police who took charge of the crime scene, of course stepped down in December.

How convenient.

Van Rensburg tells the court that he summoned all the police team to search their bags, as well as searching the cars of all police present and opening a case of theft.

Van Rensburg then gave the remaining six watches to Pistorius personally. However, no full inventory was made of items in the house.

So when did he give OP these remaining watches? Shouldn't they have been kept as evidence, if not for the murder charge re the blood splatter how about the case for theft? As for no inventory of the house items, is that really different than any other crime scene? Isn't inventory usually just for what is removed for evidence?

Van Rensburg is keen to emphasise how angry he was at sub-standard actions within the force, and how he introduced stricter measures upon arriving at the scene

He doth protest too much?

Van Rensburg is now addressing the rather bizarre claim that the door was taken from the house in a body bag and taken to his own office for storage.

When was that top scuff that Batman could barely reach first noticed... the official photos? after the door was brought out and reconstructed? or perhaps not until it was brought to court?

closing on asking Van Rensburg what he has been doing since leaving the police force.

"I'm coaching sports, and sports is my life", he tells the court, with some emotion.

How many years on the force before he could begin his life with his new career? What qualifications for coaching did he have, who is he coaching and who is paying his salary now? Yea yea, call me cynical.

Roux is questioning the witness on the initial moments of his arrival at the crime scene.
Van Rensburg is asked to describe Pistorius's emotional state:
Quote [Pistorius] was very emotional, stable but very emotional. He was crying...
He didn't say he was overcome by emotions. He didn't talk to me at all. I observed that.
My deduction was that as a result of his emotional state he was not able to answer.

Stable and no puking and yet a seasoned police officer couldn't deduct that the crying was quite possibly a ploy not to answer questions?

Shortly before, Roux managed to get witness van Rensburg to admit that he did not notice that there was a lavatory window on his initial investigation of the scene.

Where's the distinction between the bathroom window and the toilet room window? It was the toilet room window that Van Rensburg apparently didn't notice because he had looked out the bathroom window and determined there was no way anyone could have come through it, yet this seasoned vet didn't raise that point, simply let Roux have his way?

A recap of the morning so far.

Van Rensburg, under questioning from both prosecution and defence, has painted a picture of a hugely incompetent or corruption police force.

I rest my case, I believe the defence had him in their pocket.

That's part of why I find these claims of police corruption almost amusing, because it's most often imo because the person accused of the crime has tried and succeeded in buying them off. Certainly the state doesn't pay them enough to buy them off.

 

[vansleuths]

With Sept. 11 finally drawing near, today I've started getting butterflies in my tummy. It's reassuring to revisit OP's gun questionnaire. Ty.

IIRC OP had previously applied for a gun license and gotten turned down. Does anybody know why?

Hmm... I just realized that Sept. 11 lands on a Thurs. Could this be an indication that the Judge expects the verdict to take two days?

Good catch, perhaps it will only be two days.

If the verdict was to come on Friday, here's another interesting point. Managers at work are told never to give staff bad news at the end of the week and that layoff notices, downsizing and outsourcing should all be done early in the week so that staff don't mull around at home over the weekend.

 

[44ALLAN]

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.

You forgot about the 4 independent witnesses that heard Reeva screaming before OP blew her brains out...............M'Lady Misapa cannot discard that evidence because the defence never refuted it once.

 

[Cherwell]

An article by Nick van der Leek where he discusses this issue with Ulrich Roux and David Dadic, both SA lawyers of some renown. I don’t think it has been posted before but apologies if that is incorrect.

Pistorius: If guilty, can he appeal? Would he win it?

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

This Dadic fellow states as a fact that bail will be extended. He gives no reason or explanation and makes no reference to the other charges, so I'm surprised that this wasn't questioned.

David Dadic: I agree I believe an appeal must be applied for as it is common that trial judgments and sentences are overturned/ reduced at the appeals courts. Moreover his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal.

(my B and U)

 

[44ALLAN]

That is absolutely correct. Years ago I asked a leading counsel this very question. His reply was if counsel truly believe their client is guilty, their main aim is to ensure that they get a fair trial. It is up to the judge or jury to make a decision as to guilt.

Thanks for that Jj.....................that makes total sense to the 'ill-informed' ignorant people like myself who cannot understand a lawyer representing a person they know is guilty.
I'm now enlightened and really appreciate your post...............thankyou :clap:

 

[Lux et Veritas]

&#8220;Reeva was slumped over but alive.&#8221; - Bail Statement

&#8220;I checked if she was breathing. She wasn&#8217;t. ... At a point, I heard her breathing.&#8221; - OP testimony

&#8220;I checked to see if she was breathing, and she wasn't. And I put my arms underneath her shoulders, and I pulled her weight on to me, and I sat there crying for -- for some time. I had her head on my -- on my left shoulder, and I could -- I could feel the blood was running down on me.&#8221;
- OP testimony

&#8220;It was about five minutes before I hit the door with the cricket bat that I fired my weapon.&#8221;
- Oscar Pistorius, testimony April 9 2014

On OP&#8217;s version, of course she was &#8220;alive&#8221; - she had to be for his tragic story to work.

How did he &#8220;check&#8221; if she was breathing - poke her with the cricket bat?

She wasn&#8217;t breathing? But he previously said she was alive!

At what &#8220;point&#8221; did he hear her breathing? How many times did he actually hear her breathe? When he decided she had to stay &#8220;alive&#8221; long enough for her to &#8220;die in his arms&#8221; at the bottom of the stairs.

OP&#8217;s &#8220;at a point&#8221; phrase is key to the truth - what he heard was NOT normal breathing but final death throes (agonal respiration, paroxysmal distress), i.e. imminent death.

&#8220;breathing through mouth very slow...with pauses of 20-50 seconds between breaths&#8221;
http://www.amitabhahospice.org/public/helpful_info/signs_of_dying.php

&#8220;the agonal stage (sometimes called the "death throes" because of violent muscular spasms and noises such as gurgles, rasps that occur as the body is shutting down&#8221;
Jessica Pierce, Ph.D
http://www.howtolearn.com/2011/12/what-exactly-is-death-is-it-obvious/

Saayman testified that after the head shot, at most Reeva took only a couple of breaths before dying - she was already dead before OP called anyone. (However, OP testified that it was FIVE MINUTES from the time he shot till the time he hit the door with the bat. WTF was he doing for five minutes?!!) The only way he could have seen her breathe was if his Five Minutes story was a total lie; the more likely scenario is that immediately after shooting, still in a red, murderous rage, he ripped open the door and actually witnessed her last gasps (seconds? a minute or two?).

He knew full well she was dead in the toilet but carried on with his charade of wanting to race to the hospital - even Stander could see Reeva was dead - hence, he told OP to put her down.

So the lying, scummy f##k "sat and cried for some time&#8221; (the tragic hero sympathy card *sniff*), felt her blood running down him - but it never occurred to him to stop the bleeding?! That was his strategy: Five Minutes + Cry for Some Time = let her bleed out.

Speaking of blood ... where exactly did it "run down" him? If her head was on his left shoulder, he should have been covered with more blood on his shoulder, upper arm, back, torso and neck/head/face (if he was hugging her close, as I&#8217;m sure he wants us to believe). Nope - not a speck!

The only blood we see on OP is his shorts, legs and left forearm. It&#8217;s clear that "sad" Oscar never got even remotely close to "cry" over his &#8220;love&#8221; in that toilet.

Blood - of lack thereof - doesn&#8217;t lie ... and it proves he&#8217;s a stone-cold LIAR.

 

[Val1]

This Dadic fellow states as a fact that bail will be extended. He gives no reason or explanation and makes no reference to the other charges, so I'm surprised that this wasn't questioned.


(my B and U)

I could be wrong but from other interviews/statements he's made, it sounds to me like he's on the Pistorian's side of the fence so I tend to take his words with that in mind.

 

[Greater Than]

Count down 10 days to go. I just have a gut feeling he walks. His family seems to be able to buy anything. Hope that does not happen and the family see's justice done for their daughter, and Who-You-Are does not matter.

There is absolutely no way he'll walk.

The facts and circumstances of this case, the law, and his highly publicized trial will prevent him from doing so.

He will be found guilty IMO. I just hope Milady throws the book at him and sentences him the maximum.

Justice for Reeva.

 

[Cherwell]

I just hope Milady throws the book at him

Why not make it this one

 

[soozieqtips]

I could be wrong but from other interviews/statements he's made, it sounds to me like he's on the Pistorian's side of the fence so I tend to take his words with that in mind.

He spoke as if his word was fact. If OP is convicted of murder, I can't see that his existing bail conditions would be valid anymore, yet Dadic glosses over that and says he will get bail

Having a convicted trigger-happy murderer with extremely lax bail conditions on the loose doesn't sound right. Surely his conditions would have to be reviewed? Anyway, if Masipa jails him for the gun charges (and there's no reason why she shouldn't), then it's all moot.

 

[eimajjjj]

An article by Nick van der Leek where he discusses this issue with Ulrich Roux and David Dadic, both SA lawyers of some renown. I don&#8217;t think it has been posted before but apologies if that is incorrect.

Pistorius: If guilty, can he appeal? Would he win it?

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

Yes, this is the article I referred to that has been posted a lot and people are using as their basis for OP bail. However, that doesn't seem to be correct as I found with a bit more digging (My post on last page, hope below link works):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10917196#post10917196