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

[AJ_DS]

Nope. Can't believe that Reeva would do something like that after all I've read about her.

Perhaps… but she could have said something along those lines in response to something hurtful OP said to her…

… unless you believe OP cannot say hurtful and spiteful things… such as accusing Reeva of being a slutty hoar or something like that ?

One must keep in mind that the situation that night between OP and Reeva was not only extreme but also novel :

- The fight escalated to the point where Reeva screamed her head off for help (pretty sure she never had done that before)

- The fight incited OP to shoot Reeva (pretty sure he never shot a girlfriend before)

- The fight resulted in Reeva's death

… so the "normal" Reeva we all read about would not apply in such circumstances, IMO

Even super nice people have a breaking point… Reeva was no exception, she was human after all.

 

[jay-jay]

I don't think she would've used someone's disability against them though, even if she'd reached breaking point .. to be honest, I don't think that that part of it would even have crossed her mind, why would it (especially as he probably had his legs on during that fight) .. there would've been plenty of other stuff to throw at him, I'm sure, and I don't doubt she gave him back as good as she got (until he top trumped her with his gun)

 

[Cherwell]

I think it's fruitless to speculate what could have triggered a serious row. It could have been absolutely anything. We are aware of some potential causes, but it could have been something entirely different. Equally I don't feel I can say what Reeva would or wouldn't have done. I didn't know her, and in the circumstances people are only going to say good things about her.

 

[Giles]

It’s not a big thing but I was just watching Captain Mangena’s testimony and I noticed that Roux mentioned the ‘double tap’ twice, both before and after an adjournment.


During cross examination of Captain Mangena, Roux’s very first question is this: “Have you ever heard the expression ‘double tap’? … That is the version of the accused – It was two double taps.”

Interestingly, Oscar is on view at this moment and makes no obvious reaction… Mangena strongly disagrees that this would be possible.

Now, before concluding his cross examination Roux takes a short adjournment, and afterwards says:

Roux: “[Defence witnesses] will say… that it is equally consistent with 4 shots on a ‘double tap’…”

This is slightly at odds with what Roux said during re-examination of Professor Botha: "I asked Captain Mangena about a 'double tap' shooting, however I think it’s appropriate that I put on record that directly after adjournment I was told that I was wrong and that it was not the version…”

And when Nel was testing Oscar on Roux's mention of ‘double tap’, Oscar says: “In the first break, I corrected him [Roux]” and Oscar repeats: “I corrected him immediately at the break.”

As I said, just a minor detail - it wasn't a long adjournment, however, it is yet another inconsistency.

 

[AJ_DS]

I don't think she would've used someone's disability against them though, even if she'd reached breaking point .. to be honest, I don't think that that part of it would even have crossed her mind, why would it (especially as he probably had his legs on during that fight) .. there would've been plenty of other stuff to throw at him, I'm sure, and I don't doubt she gave him back as good as she got (until he top trumped her with his gun)

My comment was not about Reeva being the type of person who would use someone's disability against them…

1- I believe Reeva was far more in love with OP, than vice-versa… therefore she would have been way more exposed and vulnerable to being hurt by OP's behavior, words and attitude towards her…. let us remember that it was Valentine's Day and that her card to OP stated, for the very first time, that she loved him… this is a clear indication that she was dropping her 'shields'.

2- Individuals who are close to each other and love each other have a unique perspective into the others insecurities and self-consciousness… in OP's case, it is pretty obvious that his disability is a fundamental part of his self-image insecurity.

This combination makes spiteful and hurtful comments readily available in the heat of a blazing arguments… it has nothing to do with what type of person you are… it has to do with being emotionally hurt by the one you love and wanting the other to experience what it feels like.

All IMO

 

[jimmy73]

I think it's fruitless to speculate what could have triggered a serious row. It could have been absolutely anything. We are aware of some potential causes, but it could have been something entirely different. Equally I don't feel I can say what Reeva would or wouldn't have done. I didn't know her, and in the circumstances people are only going to say good things about her.

Fruitless maybe but as guilty as I believe Pistorius to be, I still find myself asking what would have caused him to blow like that.

(plus this is the actual subject of this thread after all)

 

[AJ_DS]

I think it's fruitless to speculate what could have triggered a serious row. It could have been absolutely anything. We are aware of some potential causes, but it could have been something entirely different. Equally I don't feel I can say what Reeva would or wouldn't have done. I didn't know her, and in the circumstances people are only going to say good things about her.

I agree… I suspect none of us knew Reeva personally… and one cannot truly know someone by reading about them.

… also, I believe none of us really knows what we would do and say in such a dramatic domestic situation… each person is unique and each situation is unique.

 

[jay-jay]

My comment was not about Reeva being the type of person who would use someone's disability against them…

1- I believe Reeva was far more in love with OP, than vice-versa… therefore she would have been way more exposed and vulnerable to being hurt by OP's behavior, words and attitude towards her…. let us remember that it was Valentine's Day and that her card to OP stated, for the very first time, that she loved him… this is a clear indication that she was dropping her 'shields'.

2- Individuals who are close to each other and love each other have a unique perspective into the others insecurities and self-consciousness… in OP's case, it is pretty obvious that his disability is a fundamental part of his self-image insecurity.

This combination makes spiteful and hurtful comments readily available in the heat of a blazing arguments… it has nothing to do with what type of person you are… it has to do with being emotionally hurt by the one you love and wanting the other to experience what it feels like.

All IMO

Yes, I get that (I know, I've been there, believe me) but I really don't believe that Reeva would've thrown a comment at him about his disability .. like I said, there would've been plenty of other stuff to throw at him.

Anyway, like Cherwell said, I don't believe anyone can say what she said or did that night .. not me, and not you .. I don't really think the question should've been raised in the first place, to be quite honest, but seeing as it has then I don't think it's right that people should be speculating that this is something she might have said when it may not have been .. she isn't the one on trial for murder here.

 

[jay-jay]

I agree… I suspect none of us knew Reeva personally… and one cannot truly know someone by reading about them.

… also, I believe none of us really knows what we would do and say in such a dramatic domestic situation… each person is unique and each situation is unique.

Exactly, and therefore you should not be speculating that she may have thrown derogatory comments at OP about his disability.

This line of discussion is getting into the territory of what isn't usually allowed on here with regard to victims of murder ..

 

[jay-jay]

Fruitless maybe but as guilty as I believe Pistorius to be, I still find myself asking what would have caused him to blow like that.

(plus this is the actual subject of this thread after all)

We've been over that on a number of occasions on various threads on here .. when you are talking about a controlling, narcissistic person like OP, then you don't *need* anything particularly massive for them to 'blow like that'.

 

[Sherbert]

when you are talking about a controlling, narcissistic person like OP, then you don't *need* anything particularly massive for them to 'blow like that'.

I agree -the row could have escalated from something completely trivial. Regarding the damaged bath panel and the damaged bedroom door etc, I wish Milady or the assessors had asked Mr Roux what his client's position was in relation to these, as there seem to be quite a lot of elephants in the room. I feel that, regardless of the verdict, the trial was Reeva's parents opportunity to get as many answers from OP as possible.

 

[AJ_DS]

Yes, I get that (I know, I've been there, believe me) but I really don't believe that Reeva would've thrown a comment at him about his disability .. like I said, there would've been plenty of other stuff to throw at him.

Anyway, like Cherwell said, I don't believe anyone can say what she said or did that night .. not me, and not you .. I don't really think the question should've been raised in the first place, to be quite honest, but seeing as it has then I don't think it's right that people should be speculating that this is something she might have said when it may not have been .. she isn't the one on trial for murder here.

Exactly, and therefore you should not be speculating that she may have thrown derogatory comments at OP about his disability.

This line of discussion is getting into the territory of what isn't usually allowed on here with regard to victims of murder ..

I sincerely meant no disrespect to Reeva's memory or to fellow posters… and I did not know certain topics were taboo or forbidden.

I believe the poster who originally brought up this topic, did so honestly without any malicious intent towards Reeva… and the topic is quite valid as there is evidence of an argument brewing and escalating between Reeva and OP that night.

… but I'm more than happy to drop this subject entirely in consideration to other posters who might feel otherwise

 

[Lux et Veritas]

You are correct on that opening line Vansleuths, Roux is doing everything possible and his response is predictable. However, it is very telling that he talks about witnesses who were not called, in his HOA. Think about it for a second, what is he actually saying? In my mind, he is saying,

"There were other people that the State should of called that would would have helped the defence, because I could have cross examined them and made them seem unreliable."

The reason I am surprised it is in his HOA, is because this is the rhetoric of an appeal. Putting this in the HOA is inferring the trial has gone badly and Roux is expecting a Guilty verdict. In other words, he is getting his excuses in early.

Remember the Spat over whether or not Nel was going to call State Psychiatrist Carla Kotze. (Oldwage gave one of the longest objections I have seen, and argued the DT might call theirs if she was called, but Nel needed to tell the Court first?) Well the upshot was that Judge Masipa agreed with Nel that the DT could not hold the Court to ransom, and they should wait & see.

In essence, Roux is doing something similar. He is saying to the Court, "This was not a fair trial and if you find OP Guilty, then I will appeal because of these reasons."

That does not sound like the positioning of a confident lawyer. It is one last throw of the dice for his client, who he must know, is going to be found Guilty. Roux is experienced enough to weigh the evidence himself and work out what he needs to do. (An example of that is his attempts to discredit the Stipps. He knows how damaging they are for OP's case.)

Roux is fighting a losing battle, but fighting it very well given the position he has been put in by OP. It must be nigh on impossible to weave together a coherent HOA, given that your biggest challenge has been your client changing his story & tailoring his evidence.

EXCELLENT post, Hoosen!

You have nailed perfectly the dire predicament Defense has been reduced to. Poor Roux, he did the best he could with his devious, traitorous, obnoxious, rogue client from hell!

Having tried to save OP from wildly running off a mountain ledge, Roux is now on the side of a rocky cliff, desperately clutching a small, scraggly tree, while screaming OP, who has a death grip around one of Roux's feet, dangles in the wind over a 1000 foot abyss.

Poor Oz ... not a soul to save him in sight ... looks like his only hope now is Wile E. Coyote. :lol:

Perhaps Mr. Coyote has some handy-dandy ACME Industrial Springs to attach to OP’s blades?!

Sounds like a brilliant plan - he’ll just bounce back up, on top of the world once more!

Uh. Oh. ...

The Roadrunner (eat your heart out, Bladerunner!) is suddenly perched on the tiny, creaking tree - peering down through spectacles at the screaming Oz.

Meep-Meep!

 

[vansleuths]

I sincerely meant no disrespect to Reeva's memory or to fellow posters… and I did not know certain topics were taboo or forbidden.

I believe the poster who originally brought up this topic, did so honestly without any malicious intent towards Reeva… and the topic is quite valid as there is evidence of an argument brewing and escalating between Reeva and OP that night.

… but I'm more than happy to drop this subject entirely in consideration to other posters who might feel otherwise

I don't think you did anything to disrespect anyone, you just offered your opinion.

There's no denying that there was an argument that night and the question is what caused the argument. With only two people in the house, either he said something to upset Reeva or Reeva said something that upset Oscar. It's unlikely that we'll ever know what this argument was about but if you were to speculate that Reeva had said something to upset Oscar and things got really heated, there is the potential that a comment about Oscar's disability could come into play.

 

[vansleuths]

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.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I believe Roux is attempting much novel interpretations of the Law, as seen during Trial and in HOA

I do not believe that "the State must act without fear, favour or prejudice" is intended to mean that the State must bring forward contradictory evidence in its own case.

"It is unfair to expect the Accused to call police witnesses, who made statements as State witnesses"… now Roux is claiming that the proceedings were unfair… why would that be so ? Roux could have called these police witnesses and confront them to their previous statements as he did with other witnesses.

"the risk that such witnesses may accommodate the State in cross-examination"… this is how it works for both parties… that's why one can enter previous statements into the record and demonstrate lack of credibility and/or reliability…

"which was absolutely necessary in view of the conflicts in the State’s case, the State’s failure to call those witnesses justifies the inference concerning a fear that such evidence might expose facts unfavourable to or might even damage the State’s case"… Roux's argument is based on his opinion on the existence of a conflict in the State's case… Roux is attempting to build a circumstantial case against the State based on inferences that exculpatory evidence may exist… (now the State is on Trial)... but it is unfair for the Court to expect the Defence to bring such evidence into the light of Trial… better for the Court (and the Defence) to assume that such evidence exist and also assume that said evidence would be exculpatory !!… Roux also wants the Court to interpret that the meaning of "fear" is in relation to the State's fear of loosing the case which is NOT at all its intended meaning IMO… this is like saying that "Justice is blind" intended meaning is that a Trial's fairness is predicated on the Judge having very poor eyesight !!

"a failure to call a witness creates the risk that the onus will become decisive"… again a creative interpretation by Roux… the onus is to prove the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt… yes the choice by the State not to call upon a witness may lead to a risk that their onus will not be met… BUT that does NOT mean that the fact that the witness is not called upon can be used to make inferences favorable to the Defence and therefore introduce reasonable doubt.

… I believe Nel adequately addressed these points in closing arguments… Roux is simply employing smoke and mirrors to purposefully complicate the case hoping that the Court will be distracted from the crux of the case… and possibly open a few doors for the inevitable appeal Roux will file.

Well said, AJ!

Seeing as how OP has impressively shot himself in the blades (several times over), Roux has got literally NOTHING! Zip. Nada. Zilch. He really is grasping at straws! LOL

I kinda feel sorry for him.

OK, not really. OP has made Roux a very, very rich man! (And yes, Roux did earn every single Rand! :lol

 

[jimmy73]

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.

Given the poor performance of defence witnesses, expert and Pistorius alike, Roux has no choice but to go after the state witnesses and establish doubt over their testimony.

It is possible to establish doubt if you look at the neighbour witnesses timeline in isolation and then demonstrate inconsistencies between them all, particularly when tying those events in with Pistorius' version. The defence team has gone to great lengths to try to establish earlier or later timings to key events for this very end.

This however is exactly why Nel has implored the Judge to look at the balance of probability, the mosaic as it were. From the state's POV, discrepancies in timings or what spouses heard when does not alter the events heard or observed.

Personally, I don't believe the defence has done enough to convince the judge to doubt the collective evidence of an argument and female screams prior to the shooting. That Pistorius appeared to tailor his own version makes the defence's sale even harder.

 

[4MrsB]

:jawdrop:Barry Roux: addressing future lawyers at the University of Witwatersrand

http://citizen.co.za/235061/psbarryz/

http://witsvuvuzela.com/2014/08/28/oscars-lawyer-says-sas-legal-system-lacks-certainty/

On Wednesday, Roux spoke to a group of potential future lawyers at the University of Witwatersrand. Roux's speech was said to have focused on the corrupt S.A. police force. He blamed 80% of those in the police force. (how convenient, knowing the verdict is due in 2 weeks)

Roux also said, the biggest problem in South Africa was that people who committed crimes did so knowing “there’s a fair chance they won’t get caught – or if arrested, won’t get tried”. . . . Gee, does this sound like the mindset of his own client, Oscar?

He went on to speak about witnesses who claimed they “don’t remember” events when testifying on the witness stand . . . . "much to the delight of his audience".

I would imagine Roux making this point would get a few chuckles from the audience. After all, I'm sure as future lawyers, they have been following the trial closely and are fully aware of Oscar's convenient lack of memory on the stand. (in contrast to his extremely detailed memory of so many other minute details.)

In all fairness, it sounds like this was the topic the University wanted him to speak about.

My favorite.....
Roux then posed a question to the students, "how they were going to get it right and fix the justice system". . . . seems strange for that question to be coming from Roux. What exactly is HE doing to "fix" the S.A. justice system? Seems to me he seeks out the weakest links in it & exploits it. I think Nel would take issue with hearing Roux address this concern with future law students.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Actually, I read all that as Roux QQing about not being given the opportunity to denigrate HB again. I really think that Roux had planned most of his case on being able to cast doubt over the whole investigation because of HB and his alleged rush to judgement in charging OP with murder. When it comes right down to it, I believe HB had seen enough in his career to know what he saw that early morning and it wasn't an "accident".

... and HB was the one and only, that had the courage to accuse the "one and only" sports hero of South Africa of murder because it was obviously and 100% clearly for him. His courage then was severely punished. It will remain, that future detectives/ do not dare their jobs on game and tell the presumable truth - which owes SA the outrageous case Pistorius. There will remain the difference in rich and famous/unknown and poor/perhaps black and white also, proved with the trial transmitted live via TV. :notgood:

 

[Mr Fossil]

Can anyone please point me to a floor plan for the whole of OP's house (including the ground floor). TIA