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

[Val1]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...car-pistoriuss-fate-in-her-hands-9715986.html

Apologies if this has already been posted. The Judge is a woman who's grown up in poverty and had a number of siblings die as children. The affluent, entitled and indulged OP's physical differences are unlikely to tug too hard at her heartstrings.

Roux tried his hardest with his "Imagine a boy growing up with no legs..." saga but I'm confident she'll see the adult OP for who he is - a murderer.

Especially when OP has legs, he even showed them to the judge, in the courtroom no less. I just hope she saw that video clip of him "running", he can certainly move faster than she!

 

[eimajjjj]

Part of me wonders how a defence team ever manages to defend a guilty client successfully when you're up against a judge and two assessors like this. I could actually understand if one or two of a jury were fooled by Roux's tactics , but legal boffs like Masipa and co. must surely see the games they're playing and what they're up to. To be honest, I thought the tactics employed when you're up against a judge would just be aiming for legal loopholes that they couldn't deny the validity of rather than this sneaky manipulation apt for the layman.

 

[Cherwell]

Why wasn't this brilliant article published before the trial? It would have saved lots of :lookingitup:
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ing-tried-for-murder-in-South-Africa-20140516

(edited for brevity)

O/T, but am I the only one who finds that the use of the feminine personal pronoun in that article grates? By all means use "him/her" and "s/he" if you feel strongly about gender equality, but this is worse than using "he" etc.
Since we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English, I've never been offended by the time-honoured default use of the male personal pronoun, but this very self-conscious usage does offend me, tbh.

Just wanted to have a little rant :tantrum:

 

[Interested Bystander]

(edited for brevity)

O/T, but am I the only one who finds that the use of the feminine personal pronoun in that article grates? By all means use "him/her" and "s/he" if you feel strongly about gender equality, but this is worse than using "he" etc.
Since we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English, I've never been offended by the time-honoured default use of the male personal pronoun, but this very self-conscious usage does offend me, tbh.

Just wanted to have a little rant :tantrum:

LOL I suppose we do have an impersonal pronoun that could be used but it does always sound a tad stuffy. In the UK one tends to be mocked when one uses it. We tend to use it to avoid placing ownership on a comment/deed.

“beyond reasonable doubt” that one is guilty.

It is rather ugly though or maybe I have used it incorrectly.

 

[Cherwell]

LOL I suppose we do have an impersonal pronoun that could be used but it does always sound a tad stuffy. In the UK one tends to be mocked when one uses it. We tend to use it to avoid placing ownership on a comment/deed.

“beyond reasonable doubt” that one is guilty.


It is rather ugly though or maybe I have incorrectly used it. Now there is another impersonal pronoun, lol, how about IT! We use that with respect to many things, including animals, but not normally humans.

"One" doesn't sound very grammatical though

Where the accused has been convicted by a single judge of the High Court, she may seek leave to appeal against her conviction or sentence (or both) by applying to the same judge who convicted her.

Where the accused has been convicted by a single judge of the High Court, one may seek leave to appeal against one's conviction or sentence (or both) by applying to the same judge who convicted one.

I must admit, I tend to use "they, them" etc. Probably ungrammatical though!

 

[Interested Bystander]

"One" doesn't sound very grammatical though

Where the accused has been convicted by a single judge of the High Court, she may seek leave to appeal against her conviction or sentence (or both) by applying to the same judge who convicted her.

Where the accused has been convicted by a single judge of the High Court, one may seek leave to appeal against one's conviction or sentence (or both) by applying to the same judge who convicted one.

I must admit, I tend to use "they, them" etc. Probably ungrammatical though!

I agree. One is an indefinite pronoun so I probably used it incorrectly anyway.

 

[JudgeJudi]

(edited for brevity)

O/T, but am I the only one who finds that the use of the feminine personal pronoun in that article grates? By all means use "him/her" and "s/he" if you feel strongly about gender equality, but this is worse than using "he" etc.
Since we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English, I've never been offended by the time-honoured default use of the male personal pronoun, but this very self-conscious usage does offend me, tbh.

Just wanted to have a little rant :tantrum:

In fact I'd go so far as to say I've never seen the feminine personal pronoun used like that before, ever. I had to stop each time it was used for some reason. Just another example of political correctness gone mad. People are just overly-sensitive about everything these days. Next you won't be able to order a black coffee ... "How would you like your coffee m'am?" ... "Cimmerian thank you". :floorlaugh:

 

[JudgeJudi]

Botha, who was controversially removed from the case, also claims the high-profile nature of the crime has scared off two potential key witnesses.

Botha claimed that he knew of two people who had changed their minds about talking to police.

“At that stage I had witnesses who I wanted to keep on my side,” Botha said. “There were witnesses I’d heard of that I wanted to get statements from but then they changed their minds.

“It sounds to me like someone spoke to them and they don’t want to get involved.”

And I bet one of these was Frank.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-detective-hilton-1926756

 

[JudgeJudi]

Only :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: to go.

 

[vansleuths]

Part of me wonders how a defence team ever manages to defend a guilty client successfully when you're up against a judge and two assessors like this. I could actually understand if one or two of a jury were fooled by Roux's tactics , but legal boffs like Masipa and co. must surely see the games they're playing and what they're up to. To be honest, I thought the tactics employed when you're up against a judge would just be aiming for legal loopholes that they couldn't deny the validity of rather than this sneaky manipulation apt for the layman.

Having had a chance to see this trial in SA, I wonder if their system of judge and two assessors is better than the jury system?

With the jury system, a defendant is heard by a jury of his peers but so often people have made up their minds even before the trial begins that I wonder if you can really have an unbiased jury. Juries are also more prone to being swayed by theatrics.

With the SA system, the case before the judge and assessors is just one case out of so many that they will hear and they are more likely to bring a conclusion to a case based upon the evidence rather then theatrics.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

(edited for brevity)

O/T, but am I the only one who finds that the use of the feminine personal pronoun in that article grates? By all means use "him/her" and "s/he" if you feel strongly about gender equality, but this is worse than using "he" etc.
Since we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English, I've never been offended by the time-honoured default use of the male personal pronoun, but this very self-conscious usage does offend me, tbh.

Just wanted to have a little rant :tantrum:

Angy Peter murder trial = Judge male
Oscar Pistorius = Judge female

Best to say "it"? :giggle:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

In fact I'd go so far as to say I've never seen the feminine personal pronoun used like that before, ever. I had to stop each time it was used for some reason. Just another example of political correctness gone mad. People are just overly-sensitive about everything these days. Next you won't be able to order a black coffee ... "How would you like your coffee m'am?" ... "Cimmerian thank you". :floorlaugh:

We always order a "strongly pigmented" coffee ....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Should OP be convicted of murder/CH and actually sent to prison (if he doesn’t disappear first), it’s almost guaranteed he would be housed in a separate area*, away from the general population. This really would be a requirement to guarantee his safety. Life in SA prisons is brutal enough - without his legs (how long do you think he could keep them in general?), he really would be the easiest of targets; his life would no doubt be very short. What hardened inmate wouldn’t want to make a name for himself, to claim OSCAR PISTORIUS on his belt?

* No doubt Uncle Arnold and Auntie Lois would generously “gift” the SA prison system with a brand new, special annex - part of it , OP’s own little prison paradise, complete with gym and track.

bbm= nice word choice! (My smilies don't work, sigh.)

 

[Interested Bystander]

Having had a chance to see this trial in SA, I wonder if their system of judge and two assessors is better than the jury system?

With the jury system, a defendant is heard by a jury of his peers but so often people have made up their minds even before the trial begins that I wonder if you can really have an unbiased jury. Juries are also more prone to being swayed by theatrics.

With the SA system, the case before the judge and assessors is just one case out of so many that they will hear and they are more likely to bring a conclusion to a case based upon the evidence rather then theatrics.

BiB

If I were innocent I would like a Judge to try me. However, if I knew I was guilty I think I would have a better chance of getting off with a jury based trial. There is always a chance that one can sway a jury but a Judge would be a completely different story.

 

[kittychi]

BIB

I really do understand OP's rationale for minimizing his disability. I have a disability myself but no one outside of my family knows about it. I can go to work day in and day out and present myself as "normal", but it's when I get home and surrounded by loved ones that I can let my guard down.

I don't excuse OP's actions because of his disability, I'm only saying I can believe that he would be afraid when he is alone at home. Also, yes a gun is a tremendous equalizer, but there's always that fear when you're alone in the dark and hear a noise and I suspect this is even more so in SA.

BBM: I can believe that he would be afraid also if he did not spend the previous 2 hours arguing with his "intruder."

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Several things about the bloody bat have bothered me for months.

- Why did the bat have so much smeared blood on the end - is that how he checked to see if she was alive?

- Did he use it as a weapon at any point (unexplained bruises)?

- After shooting her (still hearing her breaths), did he use it make sure she was dead? (After bashing down the door, he couldn’t very well shoot her again.)

- See those multiple, very fine blood lines? My immediate thought was the bat touched or ran through HAIR. How did that happen? Fine blood lines are found nowhere else except the toilet lid/seat (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

- Is there blood spatter on the floor UNDER the bat? If yes, why was the bat used/repositioned after Reeva was removed?

- If OP only used the (clean) bat to break down the door, then threw it on the bathroom floor near the sinks, why does it have blood on BOTH sides, as described above?

 

[4MrsB]

I enjoyed reading this, thank you. If you added three more points, we could take a quote out of Nel's HOA and call it 4MrsB's bakers dozen.

LOL...actually vansleuths, I do have my own "baker's dozen" list. For fun (since you mentioned it, haha) I will post "1/2 my baker's dozen" list. Might be fun for others to share their's as well (hard to leave 1/2 off, but I don't want to hog too much room on the board)

I would welcome other's here on the board to share THEIR "1/2 Baker's Dozen", top 5-6 points/elements they would want to draw Judge Masipa's attention to during closing (H of A).

MrsB's "1/2 Baker's Dozen": (items I believe Judge Masipa needs to give great weight to)

1. Oscar fired 4 gun shots (using black talon bullets, for max damage) into a closed bathroom door, aware there was a person inside (knowing area behind door quite small). This is fact. Prior to firing the 4 shots, OP did NOT ask intruder to identify them self or warn intruder he had gun pointed at door & would fire if exited. Nothing, just fired until coincidently, screaming stopped. Not 1 shot, due to startle. Not 6 shots until gun emptied. Exactly 4 shots that stopped at exactly same time woman's horrifying screams stopped (collaborated by testimony of 4 diff witnesses).

2. OP did not 1st call 911/ambulance or medical assistance. Instead, he 1st called a friend, "Oom" (Uncle) Stander. His reason for this - he needed help getting her to hospital. He hasn't called NetCare yet, so he didn't know yet (according to his version) that they would suggest taking her to hospital in his car & not wait for emergency help. Why would OP think "moving Reeva" was his No. 1 priority? Wouldn't your immediate thought be to notify emergency services for ambulance/911 & seeking aid over phone? Wouldn't they assist him in trying CPR measures until ambulance personnel arrived? (They certainly would not be telling him to stick his finger in her mouth)

3. OP NEVER warned Reeva there was an intruder, or why she was to call police. When he screamed at her the 2nd time to call police, wouldn't he have instead asked/screamed IF she called? IF she reached police? Were they on their way? ...something like that? (Why would he think she wouldn't have called amist all this drama & shouting "get the f out of my house"). OP's omission that he warned Reeva there was an intruder in bathroom (to better protector her from the situation unfolding) or say something as to why he was instructing her in low/whispering voice - "call the police" is a very telling omission. And not addressing her the 2nd time as if he assumed she'd called - asking "are they on their way? "Did you reach them?" etc, is more reasonable. I feel this "odd" dialogue with Reeva is very telling and one Nel should have emphasized with judge.

4. OP never looked out bathroom window. The window he claimed his eyes darted back & forth between toilet door/window. Never looked to see if intruder hiding out of sight below window ledge or additional intruder perched out there. Not even after firing shots into toilet door. Why? He was only a few steps away. Wouldn't he want to be certain intruder hadn't climbed back out window, slamming door only as a trick. Perhaps ready to pop up his head & begin firing at OP? I don't believe anyone so certain that intruder entered home through bathroom window, would not at some point look out that window 2ft away. See the ladder to confirm all that was transpiring was so.

5. Oscar said he retrieved Reeva's phone from toilet area. If this is true, why wasn't there a call placed to 911/security/police? If so scared she locked herself inside toilet, why wouldn't she use phone to call police like Oscar screamed for her to do? She certainly had time, since he started screaming at hallway entrance - long before he fired the 4 shots. Wouldn't this be her #1 priority to help both her & Oscar?

6. Lights already on during "blood curdling" screams from woman. Testified to by both Mr & Mrs Stipp. Immediately after hearing 1st bang, looked out towards direction of noise & noticed OP's bathroom lights were on. This is in direct contrast to what OP claims & completely destroys his version entirely.

The above points are very telling, each independently on their own. Together they destroy any validity to OP's claims of what took place that morning.

Oh no...I left off points about "woman's scream" & "people arguing". Oh, and eating within 2 hrs of her death. "1/2 Baker's Dozen" is hard!!!!

 

[4MrsB]

LUX (re cricket bat blood):
Answer to your questions: Because OP is lying about what took place that morning.

Your suggestion that the thin lines of blood might be from Reeva's hair is an excellent observation. It sure sounds like a highly probable answer to me. Nice catch!!! Wish I knew more how it happened. But sadly, we never will.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

LOL...actually vansleuths, I do have my own "baker's dozen" list. For fun (since you mentioned it, haha) I will post "1/2 my baker's dozen" list. Might be fun for others to share their's as well (hard to leave 1/2 off, but I don't want to hog too much room on the board)

I would welcome other's here on the board to share THEIR "1/2 Baker's Dozen", top 5-6 points/elements they would want to draw Judge Masipa's attention to during closing (H of A).

MrsB's "1/2 Baker's Dozen": (items I believe Judge Masipa needs to give great weight to)

1. Oscar fired 4 gun shots (using black talon bullets, for max damage) into a closed bathroom door, aware there was a person inside (knowing area behind door quite small). This is fact. Prior to firing the 4 shots, OP did NOT ask intruder to identify them self or warn intruder he had gun pointed at door & would fire if exited. Nothing, just fired until coincidently, screaming stopped. Not 1 shot, due to startle. Not 6 shots until gun emptied. Exactly 4 shots that stopped at exactly same time woman's horrifying screams stopped (collaborated by testimony of 4 diff witnesses).

2. OP did not 1st call 911/ambulance or medical assistance. Instead, he 1st called a friend, "Oom" (Uncle) Stander. His reason for this - he needed help getting her to hospital. He hasn't called NetCare yet, so he didn't know yet (according to his version) that they would suggest taking her to hospital in his car & not wait for emergency help. Why would OP think "moving Reeva" was his No. 1 priority? Wouldn't your immediate thought be to notify emergency services for ambulance/911 & seeking aid over phone? Wouldn't they assist him in trying CPR measures until ambulance personnel arrived? (They certainly would not be telling him to stick his finger in her mouth)

3. OP NEVER warned Reeva there was an intruder, or why she was to call police. When he screamed at her the 2nd time to call police, wouldn't he have instead asked/screamed IF she called? IF she reached police? Were they on their way? ...something like that? (Why would he think she wouldn't have called amist all this drama & shouting "get the f out of my house"). OP's omission that he warned Reeva there was an intruder in bathroom (to better protector her from the situation unfolding) or say something as to why he was instructing her in low/whispering voice - "call the police" is a very telling omission. And not addressing her the 2nd time as if he assumed she'd called - asking "are they on their way? "Did you reach them?" etc, is more reasonable. I feel this "odd" dialogue with Reeva is very telling and one Nel should have emphasized with judge.

4. OP never looked out bathroom window. The window he claimed his eyes darted back & forth between toilet door/window. Never looked to see if intruder hiding out of sight below window ledge or additional intruder perched out there. Not even after firing shots into toilet door. Why? He was only a few steps away. Wouldn't he want to be certain intruder hadn't climbed back out window, slamming door only as a trick. Perhaps ready to pop up his head & begin firing at OP? I don't believe anyone so certain that intruder entered home through bathroom window, would not at some point look out that window 2ft away. See the ladder to confirm all that was transpiring was so.

5. Oscar said he retrieved Reeva's phone from toilet area. If this is true, why wasn't there a call placed to 911/security/police? If so scared she locked herself inside toilet, why wouldn't she use phone to call police like Oscar screamed for her to do? She certainly had time, since he started screaming at hallway entrance - long before he fired the 4 shots. Wouldn't this be her #1 priority to help both her & Oscar?

6. Lights already on during "blood curdling" screams from woman. Testified to by both Mr & Mrs Stipp. Immediately after hearing 1st bang, looked out towards direction of noise & noticed OP's bathroom lights were on. This is in direct contrast to what OP claims & completely destroys his version entirely.

The above points are very telling, each independently on their own. Together they destroy any validity to OP's claims of what took place that morning.

Oh no...I left off points about "woman's scream" & "people arguing". Oh, and eating within 2 hrs of her death. "1/2 Baker's Dozen" is hard!!!!

EXCELLENT list, 4MrsB!!

Looking forward to your other Baker's Half!

Roux has valiantly been trying to roll a massive boulder uphill since Day 1 - but his stupid, out-of-control client keeps tripping him up by zipping 'round and 'round, maniacally wailing and puking and lying and blaming and endlessly changing the "version"! LOL

(I wonder how many times Roux has seriously wanted to punch OP out? :lol: )

The State's case is overwhelming.

If My Lady and her assessors are as sharp as everyone here at WS (and they have full access to all the evidence!), there's no way OP will walk free.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I wonder how quickly his voice will return to its normal pitch after he's convicted? His whingy, whiny tones whilst in the court room were, IMO, partially a byproduct of trying to sound more like a woman when he talked (and thus make it seem more possible that he also screams like a woman).
- Jake18

Oz really is a terrifically lousy actor, isn’t he? LOL

Mr. Macho Blade Runner’s image certainly has taken a severe triple hit. First, murdering a trapped, defenseless woman; allegedly screaming like a woman; incessantly wailing, whining and puking into a green bucket like a six year old. He’s forever branded himself - even if he’s acquitted, he will never, ever recover from this epic fall from grace. Whatever Masipa’s verdict, he is now a toxic pariah, persona non grata. All the high-octane PR in the world can never repair his tainted reputation and former glory. All the Pistorius wealth and power can’t save him from himself.

Like Reeva, his life was OVER the second he pulled the trigger. Not only is he paying a catastrophic price to satisfy one brutal moment of rage, everyone around him is, too. From Reeva to both extended families, hundreds of friends and associates, witnesses, down to terrified AWOL Frank ... their lives will never be the same. (Even his sweet dogs - where are they?)

Poor Uncle Arnold and family really don’t know what they’ve truly taken on with Oscar; I’m afraid this is just the beginning of their grief, humiliation, expenses and legal troubles. People like Oscar Pistorius simply do not quietly fade into the background. He’s a ‘malignant narcissist’. He craves the limelight, the adulation, the power and control ... and he’ll get it one way or another, good or bad.