Oscar Pistorius Defense

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

maybee I am wrong with my theory on op not going to balcony I just think its strange thing to do when security called op he said all is fine???
Something doesn't sit right with that picture

Exactly! My guess is yelling from the balcony 'help..help' was a cover up for the open curtains when the police arrived contradicting his pitch dark version . what the neighbors heard could be his shoutings/mockings from inside the bathroom not from the balcony ..after the kicking , he could yell from the bathroom window too which was already open why bothering running / jumping to the bedroom balcony whose doors/blinds/curtains were closed gun in hand and on his stumps? Doesn't make sense.

 

[patCee]

This photo below depicts the end of the corridor. They have also referred to it as the "passage" during trial. There would be some ambient light that hits this spot from the bathroom window around the corner.

Thanks, I think that's a better pic than the one I posted at 80. We can see the lighter floor area from the ambient light from the window.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't know when OP decided on the 'intruder story'....it was a matter of minutes , perhaps seconds ... I don't know if he tried it out on Standar first, since Standar hasn't testified... but the first time it's made public is Oscar's explanation to Dr Stipp.. 'I shot her, I killed her, I thought she was an intruder'... Stipp is told this as he moves toward Reevas body on the hallway floor...


Once Dr Stipp has decided there is nothing more he can do for Reeva, ( and this doesn't take long) he goes home to his own place, and his own anxious wife, still with no clue of who Oscar is.. but it's obvious that he is sceptical of Oscars story.. when Oscars lawyer rings, ( after the 4am warning of its eventuality by Standar to Stipp) Dr Stipp isn't having a bar of what Oscars lawyer is either asking or telling him. Hence, him being a witness for the prosecution.

The only person who called the police on that night was Dr Stipp. he called them before he left home and when he got back home. His first call went to error, but not the one he made when he returned home..

So really. from the first, the 'intruder story' had its detractors, its unbelievers, and its skeptics...

This is a good post because it has highlighted to me another thing in OP's cross examination that is contradictory .
If he told Dr Stipp that he had shot and KILLED Reeva why would he think he had the right to critise Dr Stipps expertise and why pretend to stem the bleeding and try and keep airways open .
Is it definitely in testimony "I shot her ,I killed her " ?
This also indicates that he likely believed she was dead the minute he saw her so the reason why he didn't have blood on the base of his socks was because he never really went near her but literally just dragged her out of the toilet probably by her feet. Hope this is not the case as it is such an awful thought and the actions of a very cold person.
I really can't see any other explanation for the lack of blood on the socks ,anyone else ?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Exactly! My guess is yelling from the balcony 'help..help' was a cover up for the open curtains when the police arrived contradicting his pitch dark version . what the neighbors heard could be his shoutings/mockings from inside the bathroom not from the balcony ..after the kicking , he could yell from the bathroom window too which was already open why bothering running / jumping to the bedroom balcony whose doors/blinds/curtains were closed gun in hand and on his stumps? Doesn't make sense.

Totally agree with this point .

 

[shane13]

Deus ex machina

Oscar seems to be a fan of ancient Greek drama, and theory.

At Tasha's, the gun [or the god in the gun] just went off by itself.

During the shooting of Reeva, 4x the same god must have been in his own gun at that moment, and 4x that Deus caused the gun to just fire.

And the kicker, that Deus just knew where to aim 4x.

[And yes, Deus ex machina is part of Oscar-Speak and Oscar World.]

 

[Mr Fossil]

I still do not understand why there was no blood on the bottom of his socks. I don't think at any time he has said he had his shoes on.

Have we actually seen the bottom of the socks OP wore that night? I recall that the sock on the prosthetic handled during the Dixon cross examination was not the actual one and Nel said he could provide them if necessary.

 

[james83]

Absolutely! This whole sequence of events in the bedroom is mind blowing. It is a classic example of somebody caught in a lie who has to layer and layer and layer to make their story fit.

1. His first statement said he was on the balcony moving a fan until they realized that the balcony light was found on. He can't be bringing a fan inside from a totally illuminated balcony. Of course he would be able to see Reeva in the bed at that point. Now he has to change that part. Instead of being on the balcony, he is now moving fans with his back to the bed. He was VERY specific with Nel... He never once turned around, his back was always to the bed regardless of what he was doing.

2. The amount of time it takes to move one fan from in front of the door a few feet to the right is seconds. Not nearly enough time. So he introduced fan # 2.

3. That's still not enough time for Reeva to get out of bed (on the other side of the bed), walk down that passageway, open the window, go in to the toilet room and pee. So.... he introduced the jeans and the LED light.

4. In his bail statement, this is when he hears the window open. Nel points out, aren't the fans on? How can you hear over the fans? Oscar has to add in that he heard the wood frame of the window slam against wood when it fully opened. Another totally new detail on the spur of the moment. But he had to add it to secure his stance that he heard the window and knew immediately what it was.

5. Also in the bail statement, Reeva was originally asleep. In his plea statement, she was awake and speaking to him. Why? Because Oscar has to KNOW that she was in bed before he got up to get the fans. Of course, everybody's first question when they hear about this case is "why didn't he ask Reeva if she heard the noise?" He says the reason he didn't ask her is because he had heard the wooden frame of the window slam open. He knew what it was, he didn't need confirmation from Reeva. Plus he just spoke to her in bed so he KNOWS that she is there. Perfect. Now it is a bit more plausible.

6. In the bail statement and in the plea statement, no mention of screaming at the top of his lungs for several minutes that night. On the stand, he adds in that he was screaming to the intruder "get the f out" and "Reeva call the police", both before and after the shots. He had to add this because of the ear witness testimony. All the screaming throughout the entire night had to be him.

7. Now to keep up with his story of screaming at the intruder as he's approaching the bathroom, he adds in that he heard the toilet door slam. In real life, a violent intruder would never hide in a small locked toilet room and literally corner themselves. But at least this way it makes a tiny bit more sense why the intruder would be in there... because Oscar was yelling at him. No mention of the slamming door whatsoever in the bail or the plea statements.

And it goes on and on and on.... every step of the way he had to change and add details in order for the story to work. With a genuine story, there would be no need to do this. This is not nerves or emotions or whatever you want to call it. It's OP very deliberately adding things to his story to get himself out of a jam. This has nothing to do with Nel's technique, this is all Oscar's own doing. He intentionally killed Reeva and he will literally do and say ANYTHING to get out of it now. There is simply no doubt left in me at all.

As brilliant as ever Lisa.
It genuinely astound's me that seemingly intelligent people still don't think he knew Reeva was in that toilet,.

 

[soozieqtips]

One thing that just hit me, rereading his account, he never saw Reeva in the 'pitch dark' bedroom but apparently had no problem locating his gun.

I know, and even if he knew the layout of his house, that's not the same as being able to navigate it in the supposed pitch black. Blind people have to learn how to navigate their own home (even if they knew it like the back of their hand before) and so long as the layout remains consistent, they don't have many problems. But OP's gun was under the bed instead of next to the bed, so it wasn't in its usual place, and still he managed to wobble over there to retrieve it without so much as putting a foot (knee) wrong. I know the layout of my own home, but when I switch off the lights in the main room at night and try to walk down the hall in the dark, I'm always wary of stubbing my toe or tripping over the cat. If you close your eyes and try to walk 10 steps in a straight line, I can almost guarantee that when you open your eyes, you'll have veered off course. And OP was doing all this in a rush, so even more opportunity for him to have tripped or stubbed his toe or felt Reeva in the bed when he was busy getting his gun.

 

[james83]

I know, and even if he knew the layout of his house, that's not the same as being able to navigate it in the supposed pitch black. Blind people have to learn how to navigate their own home (even if they knew it like the back of their hand before) and so long as the layout remains consistent, they don't have many problems. But OP's gun was under the bed instead of next to the bed, so it wasn't in its usual place, and still he managed to wobble over there to retrieve it without so much as putting a foot (knee) wrong. I know the layout of my own home, but when I switch off the lights in the main room at night and try to walk down the hall in the dark, I'm always wary of stubbing my toe or tripping over the cat. If you close your eyes and try to walk 10 steps in a straight line, I can almost guarantee that when you open your eyes, you'll have veered off course. And OP was doing all this in a rush, so even more opportunity for him to have tripped or stubbed his toe or felt Reeva in the bed when he was busy getting his gun.

Great point, walking in pitch darkness makes you instinctively walk slowly, it also throw your balance somewhat, so god know's how difficult it would be walking on stumps in pitch darkness and picking a gun up from under a bed, totally and utterly laughable.
For what it's worth i have never believed that Oscar's gun was under the bed, why would it be there?, if he was in bed and heard footsteps approaching his bedroom he would have no chance of getting the gun from under his bed in time, the gun was obviously kept bedside the bed.

 

[sleuth-d-]

OP changed his story from going out on the balcony to not going out on the balcony. According to Nel, OP would have had to have turned slightly to put the fan where he claims he put it. If he'd have turned, he'd have seen Reeva's cell phone light (which OP said she could have used to light the way to the toilet). But Reeva knew OP was awake, so why didn't she switch the light on? Who chooses to use a cell phone as a light when there's an actual light to switch on and when your partner's already up and busy with fans and what not. Don't forget that this window-sliding frame-hitting noise OP heard above the sound of the fan (which would have been right near his face) was not acknowledged by Reeva, and she would have heard it much louder than him - and yet he didn't think it strange at all that she hadn't said 'What's that'?. His story is simply outlandish and his versions have changed with the wind.

i have just discovered the size and position of the balcony. it is small. so a couple of things:

1. from op point of view, this makes it much easier to stay in the bedroom and drag a fan in, that may have been on the balcony.

2. the balcony is at the back right corner of the house overlooking the swimming pool... not an obvious place to go to shout for help. unless he was shouting towards the gardener. with all this noise, why didn't the gardener come to assist?

3. surely, a reasonable man with access to 3/4/5 phones would use a telephone as a means to 'shout for help'... conversely, it is much more likely that a person trapped in a toilet, and under threat, with no other means of communication, would shout for help. i am beginning to think that she may have opened the toilet window...

 

[sleuth-d-]

As brilliant as ever Lisa.
It genuinely astound's me that seemingly intelligent people still don't think he knew Reeva was in that toilet,.

indeed.
and we have to assume that the judge is an intelligent person.

agree about the lisalist... i wouldn't be at all surprised if the judge has created a similar list.

 

[lithgow1]

i have just discovered the size and position of the balcony. it is small. so a couple of things:

1. from op point of view, this makes it much easier to stay in the bedroom and drag a fan in, that may have been on the balcony.

2. the balcony is at the back right corner of the house overlooking the swimming pool... not an obvious place to go to shout for help. unless he was shouting towards the gardener. with all this noise, why didn't the gardener come to assist?

3. surely, a reasonable man with access to 3/4/5 phones would use a telephone as a means to 'shout for help'... conversely, it is much more likely that a person trapped in a toilet, and under threat, with no other means of communication, would shout for help. i am beginning to think that she may have opened the toilet window...

Re your point 3 sleuth-d - there are so many instances in this case that make you think 'what would a reasonable person do?' and it seems that nearly every time OP comes up wanting. If you take his 'version' as being true, very few of his actions were anywhere near 'reasonable'. More like total lack of reason.

 

[BritsKate]

Respectfully to those with differing viewpoints, I don't believe a defendant on trial for murder lies unintentionally or accidentally. I think they get lost in a quagmire of their own making, struggling to keep up with their own inconsistencies.

A complex web of lies is usually based on the truth - this lends credibility to the liar and gives him a reference point for incorporating lies. From start to finish, recounting an 'embellished' version isn't difficult. When questioned on events out of sequence though it becomes extremely difficult to maintain consistency. Its often because of this the account changes - with small bits being altered - a liar heaps lies on top of lies to try to make the initial lies make sense and appear plausible.

We can pick OP's testimony apart line by line, attempt to distinguish truth vs. lie, and weigh what 'gain' he makes from creating a falsehood...but, in my opinion, doesn't it say it all that we're trying to pick out which lies are lies and which aren't? At some point I think it becomes reasonable to conclude a defendant lacks any credibility at all. As such, their entire version should be suspect.

All JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Have we actually seen the bottom of the socks OP wore that night? I recall that the sock on the prosthetic handled during the Dixon cross examination was not the actual one and Nel said he could provide them if necessary.

Yes, the sock on the prosthesis was not the original. I am referring to the photos of OP standing in the garage, I believe, where the top of his sock is bloodstained from when he carried Reeva downstairs but he must have been walking through a lot of blood on the bathroom floor prior to this. I would have expected blood to have wicked up the side of his socks and some of it to show in the photos. Maybe he managed to dodge the blood somehow. It is nothing important - just a curiosity of mine.

 

[shane13]

Respectfully to those with differing viewpoints, I don't believe a defendant on trial for murder lies unintentionally or accidentally. I think they get lost in a quagmire of their own making, struggling to keep up with their own inconsistencies.

A complex web of lies is usually based on the truth - this lends credibility to the liar and gives him a reference point for incorporating lies. From start to finish, recounting an 'embellished' version isn't difficult. When questioned on events out of sequence though it becomes extremely difficult to maintain consistency. Its often because of this the account changes - with small bits being altered - a liar heaps lies on top of lies to try to make the initial lies make sense and appear plausible.

We can pick OP's testimony apart line by line, attempt to distinguish truth vs. lie, and weigh what 'gain' he makes from creating a falsehood...but, in my opinion, doesn't it say it all that we're trying to pick out which lies are lies and which aren't? At some point I think it becomes reasonable to conclude a defendant lacks any credibility at all. As such, their entire version should be suspect.

All JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

It mght be far easier to list sentences in his affidavit or plea that are actually true.

There may be only one!
Where he says "I shot Reeva."

JMO [And I think that's in there]

 

[sleuth-d-]

Re your point 3 sleuth-d - there are so many instances in this case that make you think 'what would a reasonable person do?' and it seems that nearly every time OP comes up wanting. If you take his 'version' as being true, very few of his actions were anywhere near 'reasonable'. More like total lack of reason.

yes, but it is becoming clear to me that he has much experience in this deception... or, even beyond this, has no boundaries between the truth and the lies... i am with those that are saying that he uses elements of truth to muddy the waters and add a little plausibilty to the lies.

i cannot get away from the correlation between what op has demonstrated and the 'sociopathic liar/narcissistic personality disorder' traits.

i know it is wiki but:

Splitting[edit]
Main article: Splitting (psychology)
People who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder use splitting as a central defense mechanism. According to psychoanalyst Kernberg, "The normal tension between actual self on the one hand, and ideal object on the other, is eliminated by the building up of an inflated self-concept within which the actual self and the ideal self and ideal object are confused. At the same time, the remnants of the unacceptable images are repressed and projected onto external objects, which are devalued."[24]

The merging of the "inflated self-concept" and the "actual self" is seen in the inherent grandiosity of narcissistic personality disorder. Also inherent in this process are the defense mechanisms of devaluation, idealization and denial.[25] Other people are either manipulated as an extension of one's own self, who serve the sole role of giving "admiration and approval"[26] or they are seen as worthless (because they cannot collude with the narcissist's grandiosity).[27]

Narcissistic personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gbtaketwo]

i have just discovered the size and position of the balcony. it is small. so a couple of things:

1. from op point of view, this makes it much easier to stay in the bedroom and drag a fan in, that may have been on the balcony.

2. the balcony is at the back right corner of the house overlooking the swimming pool... not an obvious place to go to shout for help. unless he was shouting towards the gardener. with all this noise, why didn't the gardener come to assist?

3. surely, a reasonable man with access to 3/4/5 phones would use a telephone as a means to 'shout for help'... conversely, it is much more likely that a person trapped in a toilet, and under threat, with no other means of communication, would shout for help. i am beginning to think that she may have opened the toilet window...

I have previously said how shocked I was when I noticed the size of the balcony when looking at the house plans and was even more shocked when OP later said he didn't go out on the balcony at all.
I do try but just can not see how Reeva could/would have retrieved her phone and got out of the bed and out of view without speaking or without him seeing her particularly when we know the fans can't have been in the positions that he stated that he placed.
No amount of police tampering allegations can fully refute that fact IMO
Bearing in mind he is disabled without his legs on you would think if this was the real situation Reeva would have at least offered to help him or put a light on for him before leaving the room .
If the duvet/fan/jeans issue is not argued away during further defence testimony then I do see a guilty as charged verdict whatever his psychologist comes up with .
If the judge finds his version to be a lie that will add strength to the case for premeditation if I have understood the states charge document correctly .
Will just go and read that again to check the exact wording of it .

 

[Gbtaketwo]

It mght be far easier to list sentences in his affidavit or plea that are actually true.

There may be only one!
Where he says "I shot Reeva."

JMO [And I think that's in there]

And another thing I believe is true ...... He did shout get the F... Out of my house

 

[sleuth-d-]

Respectfully to those with differing viewpoints, I don't believe a defendant on trial for murder lies unintentionally or accidentally. I think they get lost in a quagmire of their own making, struggling to keep up with their own inconsistencies.

A complex web of lies is usually based on the truth - this lends credibility to the liar and gives him a reference point for incorporating lies. From start to finish, recounting an 'embellished' version isn't difficult. When questioned on events out of sequence though it becomes extremely difficult to maintain consistency. Its often because of this the account changes - with small bits being altered - a liar heaps lies on top of lies to try to make the initial lies make sense and appear plausible.

We can pick OP's testimony apart line by line, attempt to distinguish truth vs. lie, and weigh what 'gain' he makes from creating a falsehood...but, in my opinion, doesn't it say it all that we're trying to pick out which lies are lies and which aren't? At some point I think it becomes reasonable to conclude a defendant lacks any credibility at all. As such, their entire version should be suspect.

All JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

re: those lies, on lies, on lies... do you think it is possible that, in his desire to have done 'nothing', he has even destroyed the defence of an horrific accident?

 

[shane13]

And another thing I believe is true ...... He did shout get the F... Out of my house

Indeed I agree with you. but that's not in his affidavit or plea. We were trying to see that might actually be true in his statements.

That "get the Fvck outta my house' was screamed out for the purpose of "sounding like a woman."

It will be interesting to see if Roux and Co let that be the only time they get into that or if--as promised--they will try to present "proof' as Roux earlier claimed.

Do you think DT will present some [more] evidence of this?