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

[808]

Hey all - when is Masipa expected to reach a decision?

Legs 11 September 11 :jail:

 

[Exchange973]

“Umm, I had bought Reeva a bracelet from a designer that she liked, err, earlier in the year and, umm, I hadn’t made plans for the 14th. Umm, I hadn’t made any plans on the 14th. I had a dentist appointment on the 14th in the morning. Reeva wasn’t going to stay at my house, so our plans were that, umm, I meet her in Johannesburg at this jewellery store that I got her the bracelet from. And, umm, the bracelet had a couple of trinklets or charms on it. There were two bracelets I bought her. And so I said to her, umm, we both kind of made a thing about not making a big thing out of Valentine’s Day. Umm, we were just going to have dinner ... I think for us that was a nice evening, just being alone and being at home, making dinner.”


Evasion. Deflection. Lying. Calculating. Tailoring. So crystal clear with his every word.

It’s obvious from Roux’s question that he wants to establish that Reeva loved OP, was not afraid of him.

Poor Roux LOL - his rogue client does NOT want to talk about her gift to him at all (guilt) - he wants to talk about what HE got for her! (See what a totally loving, generous boyfriend I am - even though I can produce NO gift and NO receipt?) We don’t even know the name of this alleged jewelry store, whose owner could so easily testify on OP’s behalf (or at least produce an affidavit)!

* Notice OP says “umm/err” EIGHT times in this very short testimony - clear sign of hesitation and total fabrication.

* Notice Roux has to ask OP to speak up - clear that OP does not want the court to hear what he says (LIES).

* By totally avoiding Roux’s question, OP tries to minimize and discount Reeva’s very thoughtful gift (I’m a selfish, guilty schmuck) - but look over here what I got for her - (phantom) bracelet(s)!

* What the F does his dentist appointment on the 14th have to do with anything?! (Just like his strange teeth-brushing episode that night.) Apparently, his pearly whites were much more important than VD plans with Reeva.

* Notice, just like the fan(s), OP first says bracelet, then it morphs into TWO bracelets - a massive, inexplicable contradiction within a few sentences! (A guilty conscience?)

* Notice OP says “so I said to her”, then STOPS - said what exactly? VD is not important to me so it shouldn’t be important to you? While VD was no big thing to OP, apparently it was to Reeva, who not only gave him very thoughtful gifts, but wanted to cook for him that special day!

As others here and elsewhere have speculated, I think the truth may be that Valentine’s Day perhaps played some part in this murder... the lethal catalyst? Gift vs No Gift which perhaps revealed a huge disparity in love/like and commitment/no commitment ... leading to an ever-escalating spiral of more accusations and even angry confessions?

Do you think he was lying about the bracelets then? You're right he did say bracelet, and then this changed to bracelets. Hmmm....maybe he is lying about everything.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Do you think he was lying about the bracelets then? You're right he did say bracelet, and then this changed to bracelets. Hmmm....maybe he is lying about everything.

BBM

That would be my guess!

 

[Val1]

Hey all - when is Masipa expected to reach a decision?

As stated Sept.11, my question is will we find out if she calls any witnesses back for further clarification, or is she bound to what was entered during the trial because she didn't specify needing to do before retiring to make her decision?

 

[steveml]

I find that outlandish. Anyway Nel didn't put that argument to OP. Even he didn't put it to OP in cross-examination that he deliberately screamed out for help before killing Reeva to cover up what was happening. In my view, the Judge would struggle to (lawfully) make a such a finding, given that this has never been the state's case.

I agree.

If I remember correctly Ms Burger said 'the only thing I can wonder is that it was a mockery', she didn't even forcefully claim that it sounded anything like. I'd be amazed if an advocate would have led with such a suggestion due to its incredulity. This was simply an off-the-cuff witness comment - nothing more.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I hadn't realised that part of the defence put up at the bail hearing included that although OP slept on the left hand side of the bed on 13 Feb, Reeva had slept on that side the previous night.

Listen here: Oscar Pistorius Gets Bail - Magistrate Desmond Nair Hands Down

Well, well, well. That's a fantastic find Mr Fossil. That's news to me too. So for me, that shows that they never swapped sides on the evening of 13 February. He already had his shoulder injury, so why would they?

 

[Val1]

I agree.

If I remember correctly Ms Burger said 'the only thing I can wonder is that it was a mockery', she didn't even forcefully claim that it sounded anything like. I'd be amazed if an advocate would have led with such a suggestion due to its incredulity. This was simply an off-the-cuff witness comment - nothing more.

What struck me most when she said that was Roux's response.

 

[Greater Than]

I agree.

SBM

Not surprising....

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Respectfully snipped.

I've spent quite a bit of time transcribing OP's evidence in chief and cross examination recently, mainly because it has allowed me to focus on his exact words, where he hesitates, where he changes course mid-sentence, the long pauses, the evolving story and its triggers, and the contradictions. It is proving to be enormously enlightening. One area I spotted after I'd started was just how important it was to record the hesitations and longer pauses, which don't typically appear in transcriptions. There are a lot of the former and quite a lot of the latter. I'm planning on analysing them at some point if I can find the time.

Thank you, Mr. Fossil - great job!

For many non-South Africans, the different accents are sometimes very hard to understand, especially if the person talking speaks in a low or soft voice.

Seeing the actual words in black and white really makes them pop - I’ve already caught stuff in the written transcripts I didn’t/couldn’t catch in videos. And you make a very great observation - all those “umms”, silences, and pauses scream as much or more than the words. (e.g. OP’s total 31 second silence when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after he shot.)

 

[steveml]

then why bother with the other charges at all in this particular case?

and, if this is the case, then surely a better course of action - from the prosecution point of view - would have been to have prosecuted the smaller gun charges separately, and first.

I presume it was deemed more beneficial as it enabled the state to introduce some negative character testimony and negligent firearm use which could potentially bolster the main murder charge.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying OP is lying because it took him 20 minutes to eat a stir fry? I will always take 20 minutes or so over dinner, I think most people do. He was probably chatting to Reeva about the day. I don't think we can say he's lying because he didn't eat dinner in 5 minutes flat.

No, not 5 minutes flat, but he later said they finished dinner at 8.00. One hour to eat dinner, I don't think so, chatting or not.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is a RE-POST - I had to correct a couple of links...

Here are some links to audio recordings of discussion with legal experts:

Legal Round Table discussion of the State’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof Stephen Tuson, Cliff Alexander and Riaan Louw (35mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO

Legal Round Table discussion of the Defence’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof James Grant, Michael Motsoeneng Bill and Marius Du Toit (30mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Prof James Grant on Channel 199 with David O’ Sullivan after conclusion of Arguments (9mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/james-grant/s-cDpRf

Attorney Tyrone Maseko on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (18mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/tyrone-maseko/s-llHGA

Criminal Law Expert William Booth on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (20mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/william-booth/s-opVSS

Many thanks for posting these.

I have doggedly listened to every one of them this evening and I cannot see how anyone would think, if they had listened to so many learned lawyers discussing the case, that OP could be found not guilty of murder.

 

[kittychi]

I just stumbled upon this--it is a video taken recently of Oscar's empty house. While carrying a camera, the operator re-traced the steps of OP toward the bathroom and then back through his room and down the steps while carrying Reeva.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/22/exclusive-in-oscar-s-footsteps

One thing that is interesting to me is that there was some distance that OP had to go with Reeva's body...around corners, down hallways, before he got to the steps, and then down the steps. A fair distance to carry a body, IMO. I have always wondered why he moved her in the first place.

 

[steveml]

SBM

Not surprising....

Thank you, right or wrong nobody can question my consistency.

I was wondering if I'd be converted during heads of argument but it all seemed a bit deflating tbh.

 

[AJ_DS]

No, not 5 minutes flat, but he later said they finished dinner at 8.00. One hour to eat dinner, I don't think so, chatting or not.

If I may weigh in…

I do not believe that spending an hour or more at dinner is unusual or improbable… when in good company, conversation is always plentiful and time flies…

That being said… if OP sat down at the dinner table at 7PM with the stir-fry already prepared, no drinks, no appetizers, no wine, no dessert… I can see why picturing OP and Reeva eating a plate of stir-fry for an hour does not seem plausible.

… but I would still say that I spent an hour at dinner if eating took 20 minutes and the remaining 40 minutes was spent chatting at the dinner table… In my mind, dinner would be over when both parties got up to tidy up the kitchen and retire to the living room or bedroom.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

... the circumstance certainly favor that Reeva was the one screaming since she ended up shot dead in the toilet cubicle… at least it makes a lot more sense than Reeva staying completely silent whilst OP screamed his head off for no apparent reason whatsoever. ...

Bravo, AJ! Perfectly stated.

At some point in this trial, along with circumstantial evidence, HARD COMMON SENSE must come into serious play.

That OP would scream bloody murder (pun absolutely intended) and Reeva would remain 100% deaf and dumb throughout this "intruder" event is beyond ludicrous - especially considering that OP did not find it at all necessary or appropriate to SCREAM when he first opened the toilet door and saw his bloody, dead girlfriend.

But, of course, he knew what he had done and to whom - hence, no surprise ... no scream of shocked recognition. (Instead of being "sad" and "crying" for X minutes (seriously?!) his little fairytale would have gone better if he had "SCREAMED" upon finding his girlfriend with her brains blown out.)

I do think he was numb with shock after he opened that door and cold, brutal, gruesome reality suddenly slapped him in the face.

The fact that OP very probably almost immediately regretted his rage (wailing and later, vomiting) - realizing his life as well as hers was over - is still zero defense against premeditated murder.

 

[Interested Bystander]

No, not 5 minutes flat, but he later said they finished dinner at 8.00. One hour to eat dinner, I don't think so, chatting or not.

Did he not say they went over Reeva's New contracts and made some changes or was it he suggested some changes. I wonder if he suggested a clause that precluded her working closely with men? Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can posts sometimes mysteriously disappear without explanations from mods ?

… or is "jerkin' the gherkin" a frowned upon euphemism for describing what OP was doing with his iPad ?

If this post disappears you will have your answer.

 

[Val1]

I just stumbled upon this--it is a video taken recently of Oscar's empty house. While carrying a camera, the operator re-traced the steps of OP toward the bathroom and then back through his room and down the steps.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/22/exclusive-in-oscar-s-footsteps

One thing that is interesting to me is that there was some distance that OP had to go with Reeva's body...around corners, down hallways, before he got to the steps, and then down the steps.

I noted how quickly it was done, 2:03 minutes with added commentary and footage.

 

[JudgeJudi]

If I may weigh in…

I do not believe that spending an hour or more at dinner is unusual or improbable… when in good company, conversation is always plentiful and time flies…

That being said… if OP sat down at the dinner table at 7PM with the stir-fry already prepared, no drinks, no appetizers, no wine, no dessert… I can see why picturing OP and Reeva eating a plate of stir-fry for an hour does not seem plausible.

… but I would still say that I spent an hour at dinner if eating took 20 minutes and the remaining 40 minutes was spent chatting at the dinner table… In my mind, dinner would be over when both parties got up to tidy up the kitchen and retire to the living room or bedroom.

Agreed. However it would have been better for him to have said something like "We had dinner and chatted, then I went over her contract", not that "We finished dinner about 8.00". He did go on to say that she cleared the table around 8.00 but as he was going over the contract, I don't think he would have been doing this with food on the table, but this semantics on my part. The main point I should have made was really whether she in fact ate at all, because being a model, I don't think she would have eaten twice between then and 1.00. JMO