Theory Thread #2 - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

[Cherwell]

I would go with:

1. Guilty of murder - sentence mitigated down from mandatory 15 year sentence due to disability
2. Guilty of possession of illegal ammunition - non custodial sentence consisting of a fine
3. Guilty of restaurant shooting - non custodial sentence consisting of a fine
4. Not guilty of shooting through sun roof of car

I strongly believe in the prosecution's case, but one thing that has always been in the back of my mind is that the shooting took place at 3:17AM and the first call was at 3:19AM. That's not enough time for OP to do everything he said he did and the PT didn't really address this to my knowledge. Masipa also picked up on this. If she takes this into account, I could see the murder charge being reduced to CH.

Just drawing your attention to two crucial words there.

 

[Cherwell]

Main reason's why even by his own version(s) he will be charged with Murder at the least


2) "I didn't fire a warning shot at the shower because the bullet might ricochet", of all the blunders by Pistorius on the stand this was arguably the biggest.
Again he demonstrates that he was thinking clearly whilst inside the bathroom.

And he also demonstrated that he knew the potential consequences of firing in a tiled environment. How much would that have been exacerbated in the small enclosed toilet cubicle!

I do wish Nel had highlighted this point more.

 

[Val1]

I do remember our discussion on this, I just hope Masipa and her assessors see it the same way you explained it the other day....that's partly why I'm still on the fence between whether Masipa will rule this as a murder or CH.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1rxba8_oscar-pistorius-trial-day-19-blade-runner-described-how-he-tried-to-revive-reeva-steenkamp_news

Fwiw, I came across this report on OP's version just after he killed her, it certainly doesn't add up for me. For example, he says he was holding her with her head on his left shoulder in the toilet room, then put her down on the mat then checked her phone, after which he "ran" to his bedroom and got his phones. Umm number one, where's all the blood that he should have tracked all over the place into his bedroom and presumably on the side he had been "sleeping" to get said phones, not to mention all over the three phones, after having her bleed all over him as well as his "battle" to get her out of the bloody toilet room? Also, I don't know if it's just bad reporting, or was one of OP's original versions that was given to the press to garner support, but the little clip not only shows him retrieving the phones from the balcony side of the bed but also portrays Dr Stipp as not having even checked RS, just looked and ran away while OP tried to "save" her...

With accounts like that having been circulated, it's no wonder there's so many Pistorians out there.:/

 

[Val1]

It's certainly going to be a cliff hanger.

Remain out on bail.

Pistorius could appeal against a conviction, against a sentence, or against both.

What I fear.

I read it differently....

However, that's not guaranteed and the judge could order Pistorius be taken into custody. A defendant's bail expires on conviction, meaning Masipa must make a new ruling on bail if Pistorius is convicted.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I'd forgotten ... Fresco is also on the agenda for tomorrow or Friday

 

[mister happy]

I'd forgotten ... Fresco is also on the agenda for tomorrow or Friday

Fresco? Sorry, I don't understand. Can this be explained to lil ol' me?

 

[Mr Fossil]

Fresco? Sorry, I don't understand. Can this be explained to lil ol' me?

He was a Section 204 witness. He was to be granted indemnity from prosecution if he told the truth re. the Tasha's incident. The judge asked Nel and Roux on the final day if they thought she should grant indemnity. Nel said he felt that Fresco had answered all questions honestly, albeit contradicting Samantha Taylor's version. Roux said he did not give a full and frank version. It was agreed that he should present himself with legal representation on 11 Sept.

 

[mister happy]

He was a Section 204 witness. He was granted indemnity from prosecution if he told the truth (Tasha's). The judge asked Nel and Roux on the final day if they thought she should grant immunity. Nel said he answered all questions honestly, albeit contracting Samantha Taylor's version. Roux said he did not give a full and frank version. It was agreed that he should present himself with legal representation on 11 Sept.

Got it, thanks!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I read it differently....

Yesterday I read that the DT can apply for bail before the verdict so, if granted, it will run on from his current bail. You can bet that has already been done. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Another 'exclusive' look inside the house, the reporter walks us through the events of 14 Feb

http://www.today.com/news/where-oscar-pistorius-shot-reeva-steenkamp-exclusive-look-1D80137603

 

[sleuth-d-]

What happened to the six minutes I just pointed out to you that he had between 3:17 and when the Stander's actually arrived at approximately 3:23 when he was just then carrying RS down the stairs?

re: time/6 minutes/op version
when do the defence say the shots were? 3:12-3:13? if so, having quite quickly established the person in the toilet was his girlfriend:

'think it was at that point mlady that the… that it first dawned upon me that the, it could be reeva that was in the bathroom, or in the toilet'
'I jumped out of the other side of the bed and I ran my hand along the curtains'
'to see that she wasn't hiding behind the curtains'

at that point he had the means to phone police or ambulance [phone(s) by the bed]
why did 'i thought she was an intruder'-op then take approx. 6 minutes before phoning netcare? and never phoned police?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I would go with:

1. Guilty of murder - sentence mitigated down from mandatory 15 year sentence due to disability
2. Guilty of possession of illegal ammunition - non custodial sentence consisting of a fine
3. Guilty of restaurant shooting - non custodial sentence consisting of a fine
4. Not guilty of shooting through sun roof of car

I strongly believe in the prosecution's case, but one thing that has always been in the back of my mind is that the shooting took place at 3:17AM and the first call was at 3:19AM. That's not enough time for OP to do everything he said he did and the PT didn't really address this to my knowledge. Masipa also picked up on this. If she takes this into account, I could see the murder charge being reduced to CH.

re: your point 1 and sentence mitigation.
if you shoot your gf through a closed door does it matter whether you are disabled or not?
he was a trained gun enthusiast - knew the safety procedures, and the dangers of his actions. why was the gun loaded with 'black talons'?
he has wasted court time - at first pleading innocent re: tasha's incident.
lied [repeatedly] under oath.
...

 

[soozieqtips]

Yesterday I read that the DT can apply for bail before the verdict so,
if granted, it will run on from his current bail. You can bet that has already been done. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Well, I don't see how his existing bail conditions can be upheld if he ends up a convicted murderer.

Is that what you're talking about? You didn't include a link, so I don't know.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Well, I don't see how his existing bail conditions can be upheld if he ends up a convicted murderer.

Is that what you're talking about? You didn't include a link, so I don't know.

What I understood was that the DT will need to apply for bail to run on from his original bail but I got the impression this would be new and not an extension of the old bail. The impression was given that if the DT are going to apply for bail, regardless, they can put the procedure in place before the day of the verdict. On the day it will be determined by Masipa. I will try to find the article for you.

 

[sleuth-d-]

On 7 April 2014 after OP apologized to the Steenkamp family, Roux asked him if he was on medication. He said he’d been on medication since about the third week of February. (So one week after the murder. He was released on bail on 22 February) He’d been taking Normison, a sedative. Roux asked him if he had difficulty sleeping to which he replied, “I do, My Lady. I'm scared to sleep for several reasons. I have terrible nightmares about things that happened that night where I wake up and I can smell blood and I wake up to being terrified. If I hear a noise, I wake up in a complete state of terror to the point that I’d rather not sleep."

Nel is cross-examining OP on the illegal possession of the ammunition (10 April Session 2 at 31:20)

N: So when in the bail application Mr Roux put that the ammunition belonged to your father, did you try and make contact with your father to confirm that?

O: No My Lady.

N: Do you know if anybody else did?

O: No My Lady.

N: Why not? Why would you not know if anybody did?

OP: My Lady, until after my bail I was in a prison cell and for weeks afterwards I slept.

So on the one hand he’s too terrified to sleep and on the other he slept for weeks afterwards. And “If I hear a noise”. Yep, the only noise was Reeva screaming and him shooting to shut her up.

Can someone explain to me why, after the event, he’s too terrified to sleep and when he does he wakes up in a state of terror because there was no intruder, and he certainly doesn’t say it’s because he killed Reeva. We can all surmise the answer to that.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/2029...ifies-he-cant-sleep-and-can-still-smell-blood

great spot.
so much tailoring... to suit. the problem he has with so many lies, sometimes they just contradict.

here's another:
I got to the fans… where the fans were
placed floor fan 'pretty much just inside the room'
placed bigger fan inside the bedroom
fans were still running at the time
closed the sliding doors and locked them
I then drew the curtains
... roux then asks about blinds
op can't remember closing blinds/remembers closing curtains
I came into the room at this point

remember also how many instances of how his ability on stumps varied to suit him. steady/unsteady

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I read it differently....

Sorry Val, I took it out of context. Just me being doom and gloom. :noooo: :fainted: cguru:

 

[sleuth-d-]

Main reason's why even by his own version(s) he will be charged with Murder at the least

1) Michelle Burger's description of shot's as bang......bang bang bang, backed up by the highly impressive Mangena, the pause is crucial because it show's he made a concious decision to go on firing, it make's of mockery of his claims that "before i knew it i'd fired 4 shot's".

2) "I didn't fire a warning shot at the shower because the bullet might ricochet", of all the blunders by Pistorius on the stand this was arguably the biggest.
Again he demonstrates that he was thinking clearly whilst inside the bathroom.

3) Firing four times- Biggest problem of all or the defence imo, how can they justify him firing once let alone four times?.
If he get's away with culpable homicide then how many times would he have had to have fired for it to be murder?, it's pretty likely that if he'd only fired once Reeva would still be alive today(but of course that's the last thing that he wanted to happen IMO)

4) Sean Rens Testimony, A stroke of genius from the prosecution and a hammer blow for the defence, Rens spelt out in black and white that Pistorius knew the rules, expectation's and responsibilities of owning a gun and broke one of the golden rule's which leads me on to number 5

5) Failing to identify his target before shooting, Pistorius version is obviously the perfect demonstration of why this rule is so vital, "positively identify and verify your target", a simple "Who's in the toilet?" isn't much to ask really is it?.

6) Defence witness Dr Vorster agree's Pistorius committed Dolus Eventualis

"When he armed himself," state prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked the psychologist, "he at least then foresaw the possibility that he might have to shoot, otherwise why would he arm himself and approach the danger? Am I right?"

"Well, he must have," Vorster agreed.

"He must have foreseen the possibility that …" Nel began.

"… he may have to shoot," she finished for him.

"And you know, he then went further and he did shoot," Nel went on.

"We know now that he did shoot, yes," Vorster said.

"So just by arming himself, and approaching the danger, just on that, it already indicates that he acted in dolus eventualis before he got to the door. And that when he fired, he completed the dolus eventualis.
"So you agree with me if I say that he foresaw the possibility that he had to shoot, when he armed himself and approached the danger?" Nel pressed.

"Yes," said Vorster.

only 6, but much more powerful than nel's baker's dozen imo...

 

[Cherwell]

only 6, but much more powerful than nel's baker's dozen imo...

I have to agree. I was surprised and disappointed that Nel left so much for the judge/panel to work out without making the most of such points.

 

[rachael123]

Me too but I guess he had his reason's.Waiting for tomorrow.:jail:

 

[JudgeJudi]

At long last, only one more :bed: to go, or maybe .:bed: :bed:

:seeya: you all tomorrow on the big day.