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

[JudgeJudi]

BB: So in a sense Nel has tied up almost every single possibility as far as making sure OP goes away for a long time. Barry Roux of course is having none of that is he?

JG: Yes, and just to clarify what we’ve just been talking about, all the other evidence about the hearing of a woman screaming and all that is really facts and factors and circumstances that are relevant to these core factors. So we must understand that even if you didn’t have any other evidence, and you only had what we’ve just been talking about, and the Court accepts Nel’s argument that it must reject Oscar’s evidence, it would have to find him guilty. So as I said to you before, it really boils down to that. If Oscar’s version is rejected, and Nel is arguing that it must be rejected, he must be found guilty.

BB: I have to ask you this though. Barry Roux as he began to lay out what he is going to be arguing, says, “You can’t ignore the timeline”. He says, “The defence, or rather the State, hasn’t at all bothered with the fact that there were differences in when different sounds might have been heard. And for the defence’s case, that’s a crucial thing because if the shots went out at 3:12 or thereabouts, it then gives Oscar time to scream which explains what the ear witnesses brought by the State might have heard, and of course it accounts for the second set of sounds that the defence says happened because the cricket bat was beating down the door to break it open. Surely Barry Roux has a point there?

JG: No. He has a point because it’s critical to the defence in terms of the defence perception that Oscar must be believed. In order to have Oscar believed, he has to advance this argument that you cannot ignore the timeline. To the defence it’s important that the State witnesses be disbelieved or their evidence be rejected. I am saying – and I’m sticking my neck out – that at the fundamental level, all that is actually irrelevant. The timeline might be completely messed up between all these witnesses. If the court does not believe Oscar, or rather if the court disbelieves Oscar as to why he killed Reeva, the court has no option for the reasons that Ulrich has set out, but to convict him. Whatever findings about the timeline there are and about the screaming and cricket bat and all that, that in a sense is actually, not irrelevant, but sort of a red herring.

BB: Ulrich Roux, you’re a defence attorney, put yourself in Barry Roux’s big shoes no doubt. How do you with what Nel was saying today, that OP was not only a weak witness, that he was mendacious? How do you deal with making sure that the court looks favourably on your client? I mean where does Barry Roux go to from here?

UR: We said it from the beginning, and we maintained it throughout the trial, that the trial was always going to be about Oscar’s testimony. And unfortunately it doesn’t matter how much you prepare your client or witnesses, you cannot foresee how they will react in the witness box and how they will withstand cross-examination. Now it is of course everyone’s perception that he was a weak witness, that he didn’t testify well. Nel outlined how he was evasive, he was emotional, he got angry with Nel, he changed his versions and all those reasons, but the only thing that the defence is left to do now is to stick to their version and their version was that he made a mistake in shooting Reeva, that he thought there was an intruder, he honestly believed his life was in danger and that the only way that the only way he could protect his own and Reeva’s lives was to shoot whoever was behind that door. Now they attempted to back that up by all the psychological evidence that was led and all the character evidence that was led on Oscar’s behalf as well, that he’d gone through all these traumatic experiences throughout his life and that that was the reason why he thought that his life was in danger. Now to answer your question, it is difficult to deal with the way your client testified, it is of course, and that testimony is on the record. But if I had to give them advice it would be “Stick to your story. Do not attack the State’s case as such now. Stick to your version and try and convince the Judge that it is reasonably possibly true”. Now he’s already shown his hand and indicated that he’s going to attack the police investigation of the matter, but I don’t think it is really material because of those reasons we said earlier. He picked up his gun, he killed whoever was behind that door. The fact that the scene was tampered with to an extent afterwards, after she was shot and killed, or interfered with, does it really have a big meaning? Is it really material? Do the timelines really play such a big part, as Judge Greenland said now? Those are the things that they need to consider. But they can only hammer on their case and their version.

BB: Judge Greenland, if I may, Barry Roux says all those things are material. He says that what the State is choosing to ignore are material facts.

JG: Can I put it this way. It’s in the interests of the defence to subvert all the evidence that contradicts Oscar – evidence before and the evidence thereafter – because it then provides the basis for them submitting to the court, “The only explanation you have of the killing is from Oscar”. And for the reasons that our colleagues have often told us on this show, it’s the reasonably possible true story. “You might not like it, but unless you can actually disbelieve him on jurisprudential grounds, you have no option but to acquit”. So in a nutshell, this is to reach a stage where the defence can submit that the court can only go on Oscar’s version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs&list=UUHTN50mKYmmeg1-HBURUsg

 

[Giles]

Thanks for the transcription Judgejudi - it is really useful.

Judge Greenland's incessant 'pen clicking' must have driven you mad while you were doing this...:giggle:

 

[JudgeJudi]

BB: How difficult is that, Ulrich, given that we now also have those lesser charges where OP, I mean by all accounts, has been found less than wanting?

UR: Indeed, and Nel did refer to them at length during his closing arguments. And that was always a stroke of brilliance and a move of brilliance in my opinion on Nel’s behalf because fundamentally that is actually character evidence. It has nothing to do with the incident on 13 February 2013. But by preferring the charges against Oscar in the manner that he did, he could lead that evidence and thus he could create this perception of Oscar that he is gun hungry, he’s this individual who gets enraged quickly, he goes for his gun before he does anything else, and this was sort of the basis that he laid prior to dealing with the actual incident.

BB: Yet we now have Barry Roux admitting that in fact his client may have been negligent. If that is the case, why then not at least accept that charge that the discharging of that firearm in that restaurant was not the right thing to do?

UR: Certainly in hindsight, and it is 20-20 vision, and we all have our opinions, one would expect him to plead guilty to those 3 charges because if he did, then no evidence would have been led on it and the court would not have considered that evidence in dealing with the main charge.

JG: I’m not so sure that you’re right when you say that Roux is accepting that Oscar might have been negligent.

BB: Well, he said that. He said “I’m going to accept that he was negligent but I don’t think he’s guilty”.

JG: I don’t think he used the word “negligent”.

BB: He used that specific word.

JG: Okay.

UR: He did. He said that he was negligent in accepting the firearm in Tasha’s Restaurant, that is what he said, but Oscar’s version there was that the gun went off by itself and people testified that it’s impossible for a gun to discharge by itself.

BB: He blamed Darren Fresco for passing the gun to him knowing that it was loaded. He took absolutely no responsibility for it.

UR: Yeah. Certainly. Oscar’s testimony on the three lesser charges left much to be desired.

BB: In the absence then of direct evidence, in the absence of another witness or a recording of some kind, presumably then what the court has to do is weigh up OP’s version and try and fit it to the facts that are not in dispute. Is that matching up so far?

JG: Well, sorry. And then we had this exotic reference – sorry, a reference to exotic argument about possession and animus that yes, the defence will admit that Oscar had possession but because he didn’t have intention to possess, it wasn’t actually possession – and I’m very bemused by this argument. I know all about possession and animus but I’ve never ever heard of an attempt being made to apply it to these type of facts before.

BB: So Ulrich, in answer to my question, given all of that, given this issue of possession but no intention to use, and given OP’s version, matching it up with the objectionable facts - do we have the objective facts rather – do we have a match?

UR: No, I don’t think so. Just to get back onto that point, that he said he had no intention to possess the ammunition, but he also testified that his father had placed the ammunition in his safe but then he also testified that him and his father hadn’t had a proper relationship for the last five years. So it’s just, again, you know, Oscar’s entire version regarding those three lesser charges, it is not reasonable, it is in my opinion not possible, and it’s really going to have a great effect on his intention on that evening and the main charge, and the Judge is going to have to consider it because it was evidence placed on the record and brought before court.

JG: And Nel will be supported on those facts in his submission that it is this characteristic that Oscar never wants to take responsibility. He’s never accountable.

BB: In terms of what OP said about that night, the issue of the startle, the issue of hearing a sound, was it a magazine rack, was it the door and the fact that he went to some lengths to show that there was no imminent danger, OP has never been able to say this is what he saw that made him believe that that was the right course of action to take. If we go to the magazine rack, I mean Nel was at pains today again to point out the only way that magazine rack could have moved is if Reeva herself moved it and there is no suggestion that she did. Why or how does Barry Roux deal with that?

JG: With considerable difficulty. You know, to my mind, which ever way you want to take the facts, Oscar is at the door and he groups 4 shots – and this is important because that’s completely inconsistent with aspects of his case like that the gun just went off and that he was terrified – you need a degree of efficiency and effectiveness to group those shots like that, and he knows that there’s a human being behind that door. And I think that everything else is very, very interesting as some other experts said on this program before – but it really doesn’t take the matter that much further.

UR: Just to add on to that Bongani, Oscar’s version was that he thought his life was in danger. He thought him and Reeva’s lives were in danger. He went to go get his firearm. He walked 6 metres down that corridor and he fired the shots through the door. Now, surely the question must be asked, when he fired those shots, was he then on the defence protecting his life and Reeva’s life or was he on the attack, because a person who moves towards the danger – and they will deal with that fight or flight scenario and all of that – still that needs to be considered. Why not immediately make sure where Reeva was, immediately try anything else except advance towards the danger and shoot those 4 shots. And it ties up with, you know, is the importance of the magazine rack – is it that important, because look at his actions regardless of the sounds that he heard, look at the way he acted. And the Judge will have to consider that – whether she is going to accept his version of self-defence or not.

BB: Well, Nell was quite specific. He looked at that photograph, I think it’s photograph 56, with the curtains open and the different positionings of the duvet and denim and so on, and he contends that actually that photograph is very much the scene or at least how the bedroom was when the incident happened. He says “All of the things that we’ve heard from OP in fact never happened”.

UR: Yes, indeed, and I think he has a very valid point. You know, Oscar, during his testimony, he blamed the police for tampering and moving things around in the crime scene, he blamed his attorneys, he blamed his lawyers, he blamed his friends for lying, and again it ties up.

BB: His father.

UR: Exactly. He blamed everyone else. He did not take any responsibility and that is again what Nel pointed out. “You cannot contest that photo of the room because you’re just blaming everyone else and not substantiating it".

JG: Bongani, as regards the scene, I think there were two points that Nel is making is that that scene as it is shows that the lighting was better than Oscar was claiming because Oscar said it was pitch dark, because the curtain was actually open. That is the first point that was important. And he was also saying that Oscar was tailoring his evidence to put his back towards where Reeva would have been if she was in the bed. So that’s the reason why he was saying the question of the scene is important. So Oscar was altering things to say, “No, the room was actually dark and I acted in darkness”.

BB: Yeah. And I mean I suppose also what he was trying to do throughout the day today was argue how, in his view, OP was trying to buy time for Reeva to leave the room without him seeing her. The idea of, you know, one fan at the bail application and then two fans when he was on the stand”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs&list=UUHTN50mKYmmeg1-HBURUsg

 

[Deleted member 102539]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXQTs91w-c

This is someone's recreation of what they thought happened that night a lot of detailed work and extraordinary! :emu:

Thank you for posting, it's great!

 

[Mr Fossil]

Although the trial as such is over and we await the verdict, I remain convinced that the iPhone usage data, when considered with OP's and other witness testimony, tells a different story to that given in court. I will continue to work on it.

So, for those that are interested, here's an updated and corrected version of Reeva's phone usage table, revised to show network connectivity on the left and known usage on the right. Note that cell tower connectivity times are contiguous with the exception of 12:12:07 (22 secs) and 13:07:36 (2 secs) when signal is lost. In the first instance Reeva is travelling. I've not shown the full message content to de-clutter the table (if I could post the Excel worksheet, they'd each appear as comments).



Latest OP phone usage tables to follow in day or so.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXQTs91w-c

This is someone's recreation of what they thought happened that night a lot of detailed work and extraordinary! :emu:

Lot's of guess work, suggested conversations, additional unsubstantiated evidence then a series of sermons. As for the ending, it is hideous if you are not of a religious persuasion. I try to not be contentious normally, (each to their own,) but in my opinion, that video is awful and has no place on Websleuths.

 

[808]

Lot's of guess work, suggested conversations, additional unsubstantiated evidence then a series of sermons. As for the ending, it is hideous if you are not of a religious persuasion. I try to not be contentious normally, (each to their own,) but in my opinion, that video is awful and has no place on Websleuths.

Fair enough Hoose I just thought it might be of value for the extra details he has extrapolated and thought it could stimulate debate.
The order of gunshots? The car being started? The bullet hole from the 38? The iphone manipulation and blood syringe?


I didn't mean to offend I switched off after the holy stuff myself guess I should have prefaced it with a warning.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Fair enough Hoose I just thought it might be of value for the extra details he has extrapolated and thought it could stimulate debate.
The order of gunshots? The car being started? The bullet hole from the 38? The iphone manipulation and blood syringe?


I didn't mean to offend I switched off after the holy stuff myself guess I should have prefaced it with a warning.

Hi 808,
No personal offence taken. I just thought it was a poor video, especially when you consider some of the great work some of the people do on here. As a collective, this community comes up with some great observations which make for enthralling reading. I have only been a member since May & have always found it to have respect & fairness for all.

Cheers,
HF

 

[eimajjjj]

I can't believe the verdict is next week!

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the milestones of this case (waiting for the psychiatric evaluation to finish, waiting for closing arguments to start, waiting for the verdict and so on), have been a constant reminder of how fast this year has flown by!

I remember vividly saying to myself at each of the stages "oh, that's ages away", and then boom, it's right upon us!

 

[vansleuths]

I can't believe the verdict is next week!

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the milestones of this case (waiting for the psychiatric evaluation to finish, waiting for closing arguments to start, waiting for the verdict and so on), have been a constant reminder of how fast this year has flown by!

I remember vividly saying to myself at each of the stages "oh, that's ages away", and then boom, it's right upon us!

Yes, I'm also blown away as to how fast this year has gone by, but I am now looking forward to the conclusion of this trial.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Reeva 5353 13-14 Feb



OP 0020 13 Feb



OP 0020 14 Feb



OP 4949 13-14 Feb



Please let me know if you spot any errors.

Observations and queries I have relating to the phone and its usage include:

1. Where is the GPRS connection to cover the 15 minute WhatsApp conversation with cousin Graham Binge?

2. Note the GPRS activity at approximately 22:30 and 23:10. Also at 01:48:48. Does OP manually switch in and out of Airplane mode to deactivate phone? Is OP awake and using phone? (Note Reeva's phone is permanently connected to GPRS, because GPRS is an 'always on' service).

3. Is 4949 on charge in the kitchen overnight as usual, and subsequently switched with 0020? OP refers to fetching his phone in evidence, which he corrects to "both phones". Why would he take two phones to the bathroom anyway (particularly if 4949 is off)?

4. Why do OP and Carice both get the sequence of calls to Carl and Peet van Zyl the wrong way round in testimony? Simply a mistake?

5. When exactly did OP run downstairs, open the front door, turn on the kitchen light, run upstairs, barge the bedroom door, then unlatch it? After the NetCare call, during the Baba calls, after the Baba calls, or none of the above?

6. Is the call to Security (Baba) a mistake? Does OP hit the wrong number because he is on the move (see 5) or is it recorded in his Contacts as "Johann Pretorius" and he thinks he's calling Stander, who perhaps had this mobile before resigning from the Estate Management Committee.

7. Note the GPRS activation at about 03:30 when Stipp and Carice leave OP momentarily to talk to NetCare outside. The NetCare call was placed at 03:27:06 and lasted about 5 minutes.

8. Note the phone leaves Silverwoods briefly at 06:54:45 (3G Sphere AH NGA covers Hazeldean Square) before it leaves again at around 8am. Why does it disappear for a few days? Why can't OP remember his passcode?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I wish I knew too. Something went wrong, the constant lies even before Reeva's death, being spoiled rotten and not being held accountable, his LOVE of guns, alcohol bringing the worse out in him etc. Maybe he was just a ticking bomb..... :dunno:

Ticking time bomb is exactly right, Prime.

Had it not been Reeva it would have been some other very unfortunate woman. Knowing his temperament and history, plus his apparent alcohol problem, I’m surprised something like this didn’t happen before. (From what we know about OP’s “fiery” relationship with Vicki Miles, a tragedy could very well have happened had his auto accident at 3am on the way to her house not prevented it.)

OP definitely suffers from Entitled Rich Boy Syndrome. His parents/family (and later, authorities, after he became SA's national sports hero) seemingly never really put the brakes to his excesses, offenses and misdeeds with serious consequences - hence, now he’s trying to get away with murder.

OP’s iron “control” seems to be mainly limited to his training and the track - certainly not his personal life.

A while back I posted my theory of how I believe OP was raised - how he became the narcissistic, murderous monster he is today. It’s re-posted below, as it seems appropriate to this discussion.

While meaning well, I think OP’s parents (and family) inadvertently went overboard by instilling in him that he was not only “normal” but EXTRAORDINARY, even if they never used that word. Prodded by his parents, he came to believe he could have and do and control not only anything he wanted, but EVERYTHING. He was not taught any limits or boundaries whatsoever. He was firmly indoctrinated to be a “winner” at all costs, even if his parents never directly stated it. I think poor Oscar got the idea if he didn’t always win, he was a failure on some level. His ego became over-inflated by his parents’ “I’m Superman!” guidance. I believe his parents not only taught him to compete but the unspoken message was WIN - somehow this became conflated with being normal.

OP grew up feeling ENTITLED to anything and everything simply because he was special amputee OP. While from babyhood he grew up knowing nothing but his prosthetics (“trauma", indeed lol), he also grew up knowing he was very different - SPECIAL.

He apparently had no problems defending himself, was reportedly very popular and I believe, grew to take inordinate pride in his profound uniqueness, his specialness. This sense of profound differentness, together with his competitive, aggressive, daredevil, adrenaline-junkie personality, evolved into an entrenched sense of superiority - I can never lose, I will never lose. Losing and failure were never options. His parents never allowed him to simply be ordinary. His sense of self, his ego is inextricably tied up with winning and dominating at all costs. Relentless and driven, he not only became “normal”, somewhere deep in his psyche, he became a demi-god. On some level, boosted by his parents’ mantras, this sense of rarefied uniqueness fed his ego.

Ego demands control.
Ego demands entitlement.
Ego DEMANDS everything.

Unfortunately, his parents did not balance OP’s limitless ego and supreme self-confidence with a sense of humility, empathy or responsibility toward others. (In his mind, how could anyone else ever be equal to him, never mind be special or entitled, if they never had to overcome his physical challenges?) He was essentially taught - pushed - to TAKE everything he could. His parents were so busy pushing him they never stopped him. They never taught him that life and other people don’t always cooperate and submit; they never taught him that life is a game of negotiation, give and take, that it’s OK to sometimes lose. He was subconsciously taught to overcompensate in the bid to be “normal”. He was taught to be Superman but not Everyman (we’re all equal, we all have different challenges).

This is why I think OP suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if not outright sociopathy. OP is the Golden Boy! OP always wins! No one limits OP! No one says no to OP! OP never backs down! OP never loses! (How exhausting it must be to continually have to prove oneself?)

During an intense argument with Reeva (one in which he very possibly was on the verge of her leaving him) he killed her in a blind, controlling, narcissistic rage. How dare she challenge him, how dare she try to leave HIM?!! Driven by his parents to CONTROL every aspect of his world to compensate for his disability - a world in which the word “no” was never an option - he was faced that night with utter loss of control, face to face with a woman who would not be controlled or dominated, i.e. abject humiliation. Possibly for the first time in his life. The blow to his unfettered ego was too much. What better way to stop her, to regain total control, total dominance than to kill her - silence her forever? In his eyes, Reeva’s autonomy, defiance and personal rejection were greater crimes than murder. In OP’s self-made universe, equilibrium was regained after the shooting; OP was once again in total control. He, alone, controlled his “version” of that night. Except this time, he wasn’t in control. The secret, the truth of that lethal fight will go to the grave with him. From that night forward, he has basically lost EVERYTHING. An extraordinary, tragic price to pay to maintain supreme ego.

While admirably trying hard to raise a self-confident child with a physical disability, his parents/family utterly failed to instill in him any sense of real-life limits or personal boundaries - that reckless, irresponsible actions have severe consequences. That failure became OP’s downfall - his most profound disability of all.
- Lux et Veritas

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Statement Analysis Can Show Oscar’s Lies
by Nick van der Leek

http://www.africanman.co.za/?p=309

 

[Suthrnqt]

Ticking time bomb is exactly right, Prime.

Had it not been Reeva it would have been some other very unfortunate woman. Knowing his temperament and history, plus his apparent alcohol problem, I’m surprised something like this didn’t happen before. (From what we know about OP’s “fiery” relationship with Vicki Miles, a tragedy could very well have happened had his auto accident at 3am on the way to her house not prevented it.)

OP definitely suffers from Entitled Rich Boy Syndrome. His parents/family (and later, authorities, after he became SA's national sports hero) seemingly never really put the brakes to his excesses, offenses and misdeeds with serious consequences - hence, now he’s trying to get away with murder.

OP’s iron “control” seems to be mainly limited to his training and the track - certainly not his personal life.

A while back I posted my theory of how I believe OP was raised - how he became the narcissistic, murderous monster he is today. It’s re-posted below, as it seems appropriate to this discussion.

Another case of affluenza, perhaps?

 

[foxbluff]

“I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.”
- OP Bail Statement

So OP grabs his gun from under the bed ... and his holster ends up on the night stand?

I call bullsh#t.

Wouldn’t a “terrified” person in “pitch blackness” grab his gun and simply DROP the holster?

Police should have found it on the floor.

It took conscious thought and deliberate effort to actually PLACE the holster on the night stand.

(Before I give my theory on the holster, I need to preface my post as follows: to this day I don't have any idea what OP testified to re: the location of the holster. And, I really don't know exactly where on the left side of his bed it was found as I've seen three versions e.g. on the floor; on the bedside table; behind the bedside table. Also, I don't know whether OP might have testified that he had to remove the gun from it's holster when he heard the intruder or whether he unholstered to gun before going to bed.)

Given my experience and habits with my handgun over many years, I'm thinking that perhaps Nel believes the location of the holster on Feb. 14th is a moot point.

O/T - Like OP, I sleep on the right hand side of my bed and my bed is positioned the same as his... the left side being closer to the bedroom door. During the day I keep my gun holstered and concealed to the left side of the bed... in case there's a daytime intruder or prowler I can get to the gun quicker.

As soon as I retire to my bedroom for the night, I remove the gun from it's holster and place the gun under the unused pillow which is next to the pillow I sleep on. I leave the empty holster still concealed and in it's usual place on the left side of bed. So it's possible that OP removes his gun from the holster upon retiring to his bedroom at night. (In case I'm awakened by a noise in the night, I don't want to have to lose even one second by having to remove the gun from the holster... perhaps OP thinks the same way on that.)

 

[Interested Bystander]

Statement Analysis Can Show Oscar’s Lies
by Nick van der Leek

http://www.africanman.co.za/?p=309

Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[4MrsB]

Reeva 5353 13-14 Feb

View attachment 57980

OP 0020 13 Feb

View attachment 57981

OP 0020 14 Feb

View attachment 57982

OP 4949 13-14 Feb

View attachment 57985

respectfully snipped for space...

Thank you Fossil for all you work & digging! Very interesting. Much appreciated. :tyou:

 

[Lux et Veritas]

... I personally don't think the door was necessarily locked from the inside by Reeva. I'm not sure the "green key" was available for her to grab when racing to hide in the bathroom from OP. It's a pretty hideous looking key & green tag hanging down. I believe it was stored close by (meaning OP could have retrieved it to assist in his "version" to police). But as a single guy living alone (most nights), I doubt he had a need for a hideous green tagged locking key hanging from the master toilet door 24/7...in all the years he lived there, would he EVER have a need to lock that door? . . . until now.
- 4MrsB

From everything I know about OP, it’s clear that he’s a total perfectionist, a raging control freak and looking at his home decor, a hardcore 'minimalist'. He doesn’t appear to tolerate clutter or messy. I agree, an ugly green key hanging out of a toilet door 24/7 would likely have been an intolerable eyesore to him.

Even more interesting, the photo below appears to show an additional key(s) hanging? (I could be wrong.) Why would this toilet door key have an additional key(s) attached? This would give credence that this key was perhaps not normally left in the toilet door 24/7.

Perhaps it was BOTH the toilet door key and the bedroom door key (one key for all inside doors)? When Reeva ran into the bedroom, closed and locked the door (which he viciously kicked open), she removed the key(s) to run into the toilet and lock it?

 

[4MrsB]

Statement Analysis Can Show Oscar’s Lies
by Nick van der Leek

http://www.africanman.co.za/?p=309

I found this very interesting. Thank you! :happydance:

 

[4MrsB]

(Before I give my theory on the holster, I need to preface my post as follows: to this day I don't have any idea what OP testified to re: the location of the holster. And, I really don't know exactly where on the left side of his bed it was found as I've seen three versions e.g. on the floor; on the bedside table; behind the bedside table. Also, I don't know whether OP might have testified that he had to remove the gun from it's holster when he heard the intruder or whether he unholstered to gun before going to bed.)

Given my experience and habits with my handgun over many years, I'm thinking that perhaps Nel believes the location of the holster on Feb. 14th is a moot point.

O/T - Like OP, I sleep on the right hand side of my bed and my bed is positioned the same as his... the left side being closer to the bedroom door. During the day I keep my gun holstered and concealed to the left side of the bed... in case there's a daytime intruder or prowler I can get to the gun quicker.

As soon as I retire to my bedroom for the night, I remove the gun from it's holster and place the gun under the unused pillow which is next to the pillow I sleep on. I leave the empty holster still concealed and in it's usual place on the left side of bed. So it's possible that OP removes his gun from the holster upon retiring to his bedroom at night. (In case I'm awakened by a noise in the night, I don't want to have to lose even one second by having to remove the gun from the holster... perhaps OP thinks the same way on that.)

The "habit" you have each night makes total sense. As nervous/jumpy as OP seems to be of intruders gaining access to his home, it makes sense OP likely unholstered his gun each night as well.

His TESTIMONY however, stated he "unholstered" his gun that morning, before proceeding towards the hallway/bathroom. Perhaps he thought adding this small detail would help add seconds to his timeframe. Knowing he needed time for Reeva to go to toilet, pull pants back up, etc.

I agree with Lux however....IF HE DID UNHOLSTER the gun, in an emergency like this you would simply leave it there - meaning on the floor. Not find a "new spot" for it, and in the pitch dark. Makes absolutely no sense. Silly to think ANYONE would do that in that situation. But after your post, makes sense he's likely just lying about the gun even being holster.