There are only two questions at the core of this trial. Did Oscar intend to kill a person and did he know that person was Reeva.
All of us collectively have spent over a year pontificating about the “whys” and “hows” of this case but at the end of the day, why he did it or what they may or may not have fought about, is actually not important to the verdict.
It’s very easy to get bogged down in those details, and that almost always plays in favor of the defense predominantly in a jury trial. However, a Judge knows that many questions in these types of cases are almost never resolved. Judges rely on the facts of the case, not the possible scenarios.
Does it feel more comfortable to know “why” when these murders happen? Of course it does. As humans, it’s our nature to want to know why. But the reality is that it is an extremely rare circumstance that we ever truly know why anybody kills.
For those who believe that there’s too much doubt to convict OP because there’s no evidence of a fight, or because OP was a good and kind person who would never do something like this, or because he seemed genuinely upset afterwards… perhaps consider this…
Oscar was a gun owner and gun enthusiast, by his own admission. Based on evidence presented at trial, his gun was partially for protection and partially for bravado. He admittedly carried it around wherever he went and acted carelessly with it on more than one occasion. Is this important to the case? Yes it is. It shows that it’s “possible” for something to go wrong.
Is it a reality that people who own guns versus people who don’t own guns have a higher risk of injury or death? Yes. This is not a PSA on gun dangers; it is simply an acknowledgement that somebody in possession of a deadly weapon is capable of causing death.
And then add in Oscar’s penchant, and again his own admission, for becoming frustrated easily, having a short fuse and often being stressed out. The two are a dangerous combination. You don’t need to be a monster, a sociopath or even a terrible person for a killing to happen in a bad moment under these conditions. It happens every day to very average people.
But back to my original point for this post… does any of that really matter to the verdict? I say, no, it does not.
DID OSCAR INTEND TO KILL A PERSON – MURDER? I adamantly say YES. Here are the facts of the case:
1. When presented with a moment that OP perceived to be dangerous, he consciously chose to retrieve his weapon. Whether you believe his story that the window opening startled him, or believe the State that he and Reeva were in a fight, it is common cause that he retrieved his weapon for a purpose.
2. OP was adequately trained on this weapon.
3. OP consciously chose to keep this weapon loaded and one up at all times.
4. OP consciously removed the holster and safety from the weapon during the incident.
5. According to OP, he consciously chose to keep the lights off so as not to give away his position.
6. According to OP, he consciously yelled at THE PERSON to get out of his house.
7. According to OP, hearing the toilet door slam and seeing it closed solidified for him that A PERSON was inside of the toilet room.
8. OP was aware that he was not the only person in the house that night – he knew Reeva was there in the very same bedroom suite with him.
9. He never asked/didn’t try to identify who was in the bathroom. He just knew it was A PERSON.
10. According to OP, his finger was consciously on the trigger of his loaded, one up, weapon.
11. Although not admitted by OP, his gun was aimed directly at the toilet door. Behind that door was A PERSON. The ballistics evidence proves that the shots were not wild – they were consciously pointed at the door. OP slipped up when he said he didn’t fire a warning shot in a different direction because the bullet could have bounced off of the shower door and hit him. He was aware and conscious of his own safety and in which direction he was shooting – pointing it towards THE PERSON.
12. Admitted by OP, a noise in the toilet room, which would have been caused by A PERSON, prompted him to shoot.
13. He shot four times.
14. He left the gun, with remaining bullets, cocked and ready to fire. This means, he consciously stopped shooting at some point. He didn’t empty the entire gun. He stopped after four. A conscious act.
15. THE PERSON in the toilet room never spoke a word, was never seen, never indicated that they had a weapon and never presented a threat. This is not putative self defense. Hearing a window open in the bathroom when you are sharing your bedroom with a person that you are aware is awake, is not sufficient cause to believe that you are under attack and you have no choice but to kill.
16. OP cannot logically claim that every single action he made that night was carefully thought out, except for one, the four shots that killed Reeva. It doesn’t work that way. No experienced Judge, or quite frankly, clearly thinking person, would ever believe that a person who has been deemed mentally competent by a team of psychiatrists and a psychologist “wasn’t thinking” when he pulled the trigger, considering all of his earlier actions during the incident.
THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT HE HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY OF MURDER, NOT CULPABLE HOMICIDE. HE SHOT AND KILLED WITH INTENT.
DID OSCAR KNOW IT WAS REEVA? I say, yes. Here is an abbreviated list:
1. The fans and the balcony light. When the incident first happened, OP claimed that he had to go “out” on to his patio to retrieve his fan. Now on the stand, the fans were never outside, just halfway outside in the doorway. He never had to go “out” to move anything. In fact according to Oscar’s version, he was only standing a few feet away from where Reeva was in bed, she was awake AND the balcony light was on. The likelihood that he would be clueless that she moved is very slim. He had to add in the second fan, because two fans were found in the room and it takes longer to move two fans than one. He screwed up though when he told the court that both fans were left on the entire night. The police found one fan in the corner, unplugged, and the other fan was in front of the door (unmoved) and not on. His story does not match the physical evidence.
2. The right side of the bed. That area was cluttered with cords, iPad/iPad cover, shirt, clippers standing up on a charger. Yet, OP claims that he walked around that area on his stumps, and later sat there to put on his prosthetics which had been left in that same area. His account of walking around in that area during the incident cannot be possible with the items on the floor.
3. The duvet. It was found on the ground in front of the bed (blocking a clear entrance to the balcony). It also had blood spatter on it which was very likely caused when OP carried Reeva’s body out of the bedroom. If the duvet was lying in that area during the incident, it would have been impossible for OP to run to the balcony and open the doors, especially on his stumps, without falling. He did not testify to falling. Instead, he testified that the duvet was absolutely always on the bed and the police moved it. The physical evidence does not support these false claims.
4. Lack of bloody hand prints. OP was covered in blood after pulling Reeva out of the toilet room. We saw the photos of him that morning. He claims he had to deactivate his alarm (on a remote) to get out of his bedroom, then he had to unlock the bedroom door and open it, and then run downstairs to open the front door. There was no evidence presented of bloody hand prints on his alarm remote, bedroom door, front door or iPhones. Why? There are a few possible reasons: He either ran out of the bedroom and downstairs to open door and make calls BEFORE he pulled Reeva out of the bathroom (which would be inconsistent with his story) or he washed his hands immediately after he pulled her out of the bathroom before calling anybody or going downstairs. There is no dispute that he made some calls within minutes after the shooting. If there are no bloody prints on the 0020 phone that was used, then he either washed his hands first or he hadn’t pulled her out of the bathroom yet. Both scenarios do not match his story of desperately battling to get her out of the toilet room immediately upon thinking it was her in that room. Something doesn’t add up here.
5. The screams. OP claims that Reeva never uttered a single word during the entire event from the point that he got out of bed, even though she was awake (and he states that he knew she was awake). However, multiple witnesses distinctly heard a woman’s voice and a woman’s screams before and during the gunshots. Mrs. van der Mewre heard a woman’s voice arguing from 2am-3am, when OP and Reeva were supposedly asleep according to OP. Burger, Johnson, and both Stipps heard terrified female screams up until the last bangs. Then silence. The only way that the defense could try to explain this was to say that Oscar screams like a woman and every one of the witnesses was mistaken. They claimed they would prove in court that he screams like a woman, they even did audio tests prior to trial, yet nothing was ever played for the court. Obviously those tests failed as miserably as OP’s own testimony on the stand. The ear witnesses that the defense brought to trial, Nhlengethwas and Motshuane, ended up supporting the state’s case. They stated they heard a man crying after the bangs. The fact that they saw the security vehicle/Stander’s mini-cooper within minutes of hearing the cries, fits the timeline that the gunshots were at 3:15+ (not earlier as the Defense says). When trying to understand some of the differences in ear witness testimony, it is essential to identify who heard screams and who heard cries. The people who heard screams, heard them BEFORE THE BANGS. They all identified those screams as a woman. The people who heard cries, heard them AFTER THE BANGS. They identified those cries as a man. Reeva screaming before the shots. Then silence = death. Then Oscar crying afterwards. Use that equation when listening to the ear witness testimony, and it tells the story!
6. Stomach contents. I recognize these are highly subjective. But it is relevant circumstantial evidence in that it supports the van der Mewre evidence of hearing a woman around 2am that morning. It opens up the window of opportunity that Reeva was indeed awake and not asleep as OP states.
7. The bathroom light OP testified that the bathroom light was off during the gunshots. He didn’t turn it on until later, after running from room to room. Annette Stipp, who was awake at the time of the first bangs, around 3am, saw the bathroom light on immediately after hearing the bangs. Dr. Stipp also saw it on. That bathroom light was on during the event! This is a huge discrepancy in Oscar’s story.
8. The aim OP refused to admit that he aimed at the door during his testimony. He claims his gun was pointed in the general vicinity of the door (paraphrasing a bit here). But the trajectory of his shots not only support that he was aiming at the door, you take a look at this picture and decide for yourself if he was pointing at Reeva. Ballistics proved that there was time between the first shot (the hip) and the subsequent shots when she was down on the magazine rack. He shot once, and then continued to shoot three more times. Three of those bullets hit her.
9. The police/security. On one hand, OP states that he is extremely security conscious and has outfitted his home with all sorts of extra security measures. He states that when he initially heard a noise that he perceived as an intruder, he repeatedly yelled to Reeva to call the police. Yet, he never used his panic alarm and he never once asked the police for help. He claims he does “not remember” speaking to security guard Baba at all that night, yet Baba testifies that Oscar did speak to him and told him “everything is fine”. OP is able to remember other phone calls that he made just moments before, but does not remember the suspicious and incriminating “everything is fine” phone call. Selective memory, especially during crucial moments of a crime timeline, is a HUGE indication to me that the person is not being truthful. Circumstantially, you can absolutely surmise that OP did not want the police at his house. OP calling the Standers first before anybody else supports this. Then add to that OP moving the body and asking the Standers to take Reeva to the hospital themselves, even though she had a gaping hole in her head with brain matter coming out, indicates that he wanted Reeva’s body out of the house. I don’t know anybody who would move a body under those conditions.
There are SO many elements of OP’s own story that are not supported at all by ear witnesses, physical evidence, ballistics evidence, medical examiner evidence and his own defense witnesses. Those “expert” witnesses simply were not able to support his claims. They all came to court with reports that had been written within days and weeks before their testimony – after all of the crucial State’s witnesses, as well as OP, had already testified. You can absolutely add that to the pile of circumstantial evidence against OP.
There are many, many more items that I could list here but I wanted to highlight some of the crucial ones. Does it matter what they were fighting about, or even if there was a fight? Does it matter what the Stipps heard closer to 3am? Does it matter whether or not OP immediately felt regret after pulling the trigger? I say, no, it does not.
There is a mountain of evidence that points to OP’s story not being true. If you don’t believe Oscar’s story, then it’s simple. He knew it was Reeva in the toilet room and he killed her with intent (per my points above).
Juror13 
Separate to the court case and assessment of public reaction. There is a stable group that view the case from a specific set of unchallengeable presumptions which seems to be partly as follows:
1a) OP is intrinsically a good person because he has been able to beat the odds in becoming an international sporting star despite his disabilities.
1b) We have been part of OPs journey as we have followed his career development and he clearly is a good person and role model
1c) OP loved Reeva and he would never have intentionally harmed Reeva.
1d) It is unfair to question OP too much because it was an accident and hasn’t OP suffered enough what with him being disabled and him accidentally shooting the person he loved. Hasn’t he suffered enough?
1e) OP is being unfairly bullied by the Prosecution team.
1f) OP is disabled and hence it was physically impossible for him to knowingly kill Reeva.
1g) OP is disabled and hence it is obvious he would be scared and seek to confront the source of the noise with a gun loaded with black talon bullets.
1h) OP is disabled and hence it is obvious he would be scared and accidentally discharge four bullets into the source of noise behind the toilet door.
Everything else is confirmation bias.
being a good person does not mean that you couldnt have shoot and kill your girlfriend in a heated moment and as far as calling juror13 bias its more factual than your “OP is good OP is disable” but if he is that good why does he keep making headlines for fighting in bars,drinking,cheating on girlfriends sends ugly whatsapp messages to reeva.that does not sound like a good person to me.be careful when you use the word “bias” because the reply you left does a better job at bias ie looks like its written by OP himself.
Hear hear, tasneem
Oscar will be proven NOT GUILTY. He loved Reeva, and all these people throwing stones st him will have to appoligise to him through public media, as they insulted him on every possible media they could find and was so willingly doing just that.
Why do you think he will be found not guilty? I’d be curious to hear what evidence brings you to that belief.
Being on trial and being “judged” is part of the judicial process. Like it or not, he killed a person. He needs to answer questions and the situation needs to be examined. Nobody needs to apologize to him.
As a gentle reminder, here are some excerpts from Reeva’s Whatsapp message to Oscar on 27 January (less than 3 weeks before the shooting):
“You have picked on me incessantly …it’s nasty ….I feel sick that you suggested I was flirting with someone …you made a scene at the table and made us leave early ….we are living a double standard relationship …you are very quick to act cold and offish when you are unhappy ….you do everything to throw tantrums …I am scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me ….I’m not some bitch you may know trying to kill your vibe …I get snapped at and told my voices and accents are annoying …you fucked up a special day for me.”
Yip, we can see just how much he loved and respected her.
“…you fucked up a special day for me”
ditto for Valentines Day.
why did Reeva then continue with him, even sleeping over by him for 2 consecutive nights??
Good question Ruth. The whatsapp message shows Oscar to be arrogant, insensitive and selfish and is a pretty good indication of serious underlying problems in their relationship. But it was early days in their relationship and Reeva must have been prepared to try to patch things up and give it a chance.
My guess is that on the evening of 13 Feb something was said or done that made all the previous underlying tensions bubble to the surface. The tone of the message is angry and assertive – “you fucked up a special day for me” – Estelle van der Merwe heard a woman’s voice speaking loudly for an an hour before the shooting. My guess is that Reeva was asserting herself angrily about something and Oscar could not handle it.
Dear Annetjie
You are not taking all the facts into consideration. It is impossible for him to be found “Not guilty” because he has killed a person while not being directly under threat of harm. So, if he gets of the first degree murder charge (highly unlikely) he will be found guilty of culpable homicide (3rd degree murder). Thus, one way or the other he will be found guilty of murder. He is a murderer… get used to it.
Sincerely
Chris Ekerold
Annetjie, OP did kill Reeva. That’s not in dispute. He himself acknowledges that. He can’t claim he did it in self-defense because he was never directly threatened by this alleged intruder. So that means he guilty of SOMETHING. OP is trying his best during the trial to get his penalty reduced as low as possible.
Really?? so who was screaming for her life before he shot thru that door??
In regards to the toilet bowl contents and sad case Pistorians claiming it may not have been flushed so was a mix of blood and urine etc.
As far as I know the toilet bowl contents were not checked for urine being present in sufficient quantity or not to establish a fact of toilet being flushed. Pistorians want the notion of it being unflushed to remain to explain away why OP was not alerted to the sound of flushing etc.
However , weight to the argument of Reeva not going to the toilet as is required in the murderer’s versions is the absence of toilet paper in the toilet bowl. Most women in westernised countries, except it really poor, will habitually dab their bits dry after voiding their bladder. I would fully expect Reeva to be one of the massive majority of women who do this.
As she was wearing shorts with no panties/knickers on then the chances of her dabbing herself dry with tissue becomes as near certain as one can get.
The absence of toilet tissue in the toilet bowl , in my view, can be taken as proof of her not having voided her bladder with a failure to flush afterwards.
So we are left with the impossible timescale for OP’s versions in which he claims she used the toilet, which has to include flushing, OR that the reason for her being in the toilet was not to void her bladder.
Either way…OP’s versions are doomed and cannot reasonably possibly be true.
isn’t evidence wonderful!
that makes perfect sense.the absence of toilet paper might seem small to some like a pistorian as they are blinded to the truth that is so readily available to them however to the “sane person” with brains its big because its just one of the many points that are wrong on OP version of events ie lying all the time.thanks for your informative reply.
OSCARS PASSAGE PROBLEMS;
1/ In his version the part under discussion is when he states he is walking slowly up the passage , using the wall for balance and gun at the ready.
2/ What the focus is now is the sound of the TOILET DOOR SLAMMING.
3/ In his testimony on the 11th April he states he was “just before” the corner to the bathroom of the 5 metre long passage when he heard the TOILET DOOR SLAM.
4/ Also on the 11th he speaks of shouting and screaming while in the passage the Reeva call the police and intruders get out of my house claims whilst not stating the words used. He states he repeated these shouts several times as he went down the passage before going quiet by the bathroom entrance.
5/ IN LATER TESTIMONY Oscar tells us the words he says he used.
He also states he heard the TOILET DOOR SLAM after shouting “REEVA CALL THE POLICE” but before shouting “GET THE #### OUT OF MY HOUSE” He also claims to have repeated the shouts a number of times as he went up the passage to the bathroom when he went quiet.
6/ You have likely by now to have seen the problems with his versions. He claims he began shouting more or less on entering the passage.
So his first shout of “Reeva call the police” must last for ages as he slowly walks the 4 metres or so…with it being exceedingly drawn out…A VERY SLOW MOTION ELONGATED SHOUT AND VERY UNREALISTIC.
A 78rpm vinyl record played at maybe 33rpm is a suggestion…lol
Then of course, for the travelling the final bit of the passage from just before the corner to the bathroom—-to the bathroom OP shouts out “GET THE #### OUT OF MY HOUSE” extremely quickly before repeating the pair of shouts SEVERAL TIMES in an unbelievablely short time as he walks the final metre.
ie …SUPER, SUPER, DUPER QUICK SHOUTS that would be more distorted and silly sounding than speeded up old vinyl records
ie 33 rpm records played at 78rpm as an example!
OP’s fabricated accounts , just do not add up and cannot be reasonably possibly true.
So you are saying that if this OP version of events were true she would have had the time to call the police from her phone – because she had the phone with her when she was in the bathroom area.
The fact that she didn’t call the police suggests that this OP version of events cannot be true.
I should add that OP didn’t claim to hear Reeva dropping and breaking her phone in the bathroom area at all. Presumably if she dropped and broke her phone she might have swore audibly.
The other strange thing that doesn’t match up was that Reeva would have heard that OP was in the hallway and she would have seen that there was no intruder in the bathroom area nor in the passageway as she would have just passed through there.
Hence Reeva WOULD HAVE known that there was no intruder between herself and OP, who was in the passageway behind her – hence logically it would have been safe for her to call out to OP saying “there is no intruder here Baba” – or “I am in the bathroom Baba”. Or she might have double tracked back to OP knowing that there was no intruder between them and that he was likely carrying a very big gun in which to “protect her”.
Who in their right mind takes their phone to the toilet with them at 3:00 in the morning if it wasn’t for emergency? I maintain she grabbed her phone in order to call for help.
The claim from OP and the defence team is that she used it as a light source to make her way out of the bedroom and up the passageway in otherwise complete darkness. However, she didn’t make an emergency call despite OP telling Reeva to call the police, and then shouting and swearing loudly as he followed Reeva up the passageway and into the bathroom.
Something to think about.. When Reeva supposedly got up, Oscar was awake and moving fans. Why wouldn’t she just turn on the light to help her, and him, see?? There would be no need to fumble around with a phone flashlight. They were both awake! No need to be in pitch darkness. Doesn’t make any sense.
Plus, doesn’t it seem likely that she would have helped him with the fans. Would she have let her boyfriend on stumps move fans in the pitch darkness?
Not neccesarily, If Reeva was in the toilet room with door closed, the intruder that oscar was yelling to could have come in from the balcony that she had left…
I am going to add a Quod Erat Demonstrandum to the untruthfulness of that OP testimony: Reeva would DEFINITELY have known there was no intruder between herself and OP at the point.
So to reiterate according to OP testimony as detailed by David Hartopp, from the perspective of Reeva, there is 100% certainty she would have known that there was no intruder between herself and OP, as he progressed up the passageway. There is no doubt that she would have known that when he had reached the bathroom he was addressing her and he was about to shoot her to death – but at no time did Reeva say, “Hey Baba it’s me, its Reeva – there’s no intruder, there is only me”
The most ludicrous thing about Oscar’s passage claims is that with all of his shouting before and after….Reeva never responded to him?She was right there….so highly improbable..
None of the ear witnesses heard him yell ‘Reeva Call the Police” or “get out of my house” , yet fmost o the ear witnesses on both sides heard male voice yell ‘help help help” after the shots…
Is this where OP got his “version” from?
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407
I always wondered how he came up with this story so quickly that night.
I am nearly speechless. I notice that the dead’s wife family had some sort of deal with the killer and agreed that the killer should only be charged with culpable homicide rather than murder, that is there was no contest of the culpable homicide charge. I would imagine that OP would need to have some sort of deal with the Steenkampfs, perhaps his Uncle could have attempted some sort of deal …
… however OP has more or less framed himself with his own testimony in addition to the witnesses and the evidence.
oscar RAMBO pistorious.
Looking at what OP seems to think he was up against in regards to the perceived intruders in his fictional version.
RAMBO pistorious portrays himself as some sort of super brave hero in tackling the intruders on just his stumps and a 9mm handgun.
So what/who does Oscar seem to think the intruders were?
One or more WERE in the toilet, One or more could be in the bathroom and one or more could be on the ladder.
So RAMBO seems to think he is tackling probably 4 or more intruders who were all able bodied and armed.
What is more he even takes into account they could be armed with Mace Cannisters in his version. Obviously if they are so well prepared to use Mace cannisters in a bedroom they can be assumed to have gas masks on in OP’s version.
And even worse, this erm “SWAT TEAM” are hell bent on killing both OP and Reeva.
and brave hero OP sees himself as willing to take on such a group to save his beloved.
AND ALL THIS ARISES OVER A CLAIMED BUMP IN THE NIGHT FROM A BATHROOM…that NEVER happened!
Hi Juror 13 & Rita Castel: Reeva’s broken phone in the bathroom with no blood on it: does this demonstrate it was knocked from Reeva’s hands before she went into the toilet. … Consistent with
a) Reeva not being able to make an emergency call
b) She had the phone with her as she intended to make an emergency phone call but OP got to her first?
Reeva’s trousers thrown out the bathroom window: what is the possible time line for Reeva’s trousers to be thrown out: presumably these trousers were brought with her on that day and was a spare set of trousers? Presumably she only had two pairs of trousers with her – the one in the bedroom and the one thrown out the bathroom window. These must have been grabbed by Reeva as she ran to the toilet – presumably to put them on or something – but OP got to her first and threw them out the window or Reeva dropped them out the window as she used it to try to grab someones attention as she screamed out the window: she could have been waving the trousers like a flag and screaming but it fell from her hands.
The open window in the bathroom: this must have been through which Reeva’s trousers went out of, and through which she directly screamed for help … straight in line to the witnesses bedroom opposite the bathroom.
Broken bedroom door, broken toilet door. This seems to be part of the Reeva – OP struggle.
Reeva locked herself in OPs bedroom and screamed: OP broke down that door, Reeva runs to the toilet and locks herself in, OP breaks that door down, first shooting her to death.
Where there signs in the house of a OP – Reeva struggle (apart from the dead body etc)?
Isn’t it strange that nothing was said about the bashed in cover on the side of the bath? Could that have been bashed in by
Oscar in frustration because he couldn’t get to Reeva? Are you asking for signs of a struggle? No woman in her sane mind would take on a cricket bat wielding aggressor, let alone one armed with a gun, whether he was on stumps or not. She FLED from him.
Signs of a struggle: there was mention of OP athletic awards being thrown around the place and the bedroom door being busted. I was wandering if anyone could comment.
Separate to this were their signs in and around the house of someone with a violent temper, e.g. dents in walls, dents in various objects, broken window frames, busted doors … (separate to the busted toilet door)
Hi Jason,
The trophies being in disarray was an early rumor, not true.
The signs of a possible struggle include the master bedroom double door (view my pics on the Van Rensburg post). The right side was open, the left side was closed.
There was a hole thru that door the size of a pellet, an airgun and baseball bat standing next to the door, and bang marks near the door handle on the right side which look like they are from a bat. On the left door bottom, near the latch/lock that attaches to the ground, that part of the door was cracked, most likely from a kick. OP states he kicked the door to open it prior to removing Reeva’s body from the bathroom, but that doesn’t really make any sense. The door was found closed by police and it would have been a lot easier for him to just unlatch it. That door is highly suspicious considering he also clobbered down the toilet door.
We know the metal bath panel was banged in but police were not able to determine the exact cause. OP did not comment on that on the stand. Nor did he comment on the broken tiles. One of the defense experts, can’t remember who, states the tiles were broken from the reverberation of hitting the wood door frame. Interesting note picked up by David Hartopp – the tiles breaking & falling were not included in OP’s reenactment seen on “Sunday Night”. If that is supposed to be accurate forensic info, why was that left out?
There was a broken window downstairs, but no glass, therefore it was likely done at an earlier date. OP testified he accidentally threw a ball thru the window while playing with his dogs. It had gone unfixed for a while.
Female jeans were photographed laying underneath the bathroom window. Photo in evidence but no explanation from anyone on the stand.
The bedroom- jeans thrown, duvet on ground, iPad/cover on ground possibly thrown, an iPad under the bed, t-shirt thrown on ground – just messy people or struggle? Don’t know. Adding it up in totality, seems more like struggle. OP did not have stuff just thrown around his house. He appeared orderly. Blood droplets on wall near bed and near power switch. What caused those stains since they are not in the path of OP carrying Reeva. OP says cast off when he got his phones off bedside table, but there was no blood found on phones. Not consistent.
ps: Hi Juror13: no matter what the court decision – I hope you or one or some of your websleuth (?) colleagues writes a book on this – scrutinising all the available evidence – including an assessment of the SA police force and the manner in which the crime scene was “locked down” … how OP managed to get bail … evidence of OP working “full time” with family and experts to decide upon a testimony etc. I think it is needed not only to highlight issues with regard to crime in SA but for all those other women killed in domestics.
There appears to be no good reason for Reeva to scream as long as she did (5 minutes plus) and not use her phone to call for help if she had her phone in her possession.
That is a big problem and what makes sense is that she did not have her phone on her.
If that is the case then OP’s claims about finding the phone in the toilet are lies and his story of picking it up and putting it down or dropping it are false.
It is my view he dropped the phone deliberately before placing the parts suitably on the bathroom floor as part of his cover story.
The help, help , help shouts by OP from the balcony were made while Reeva was alive locked in the toilet, likely with no phone, and indicate premeditation and planning for a “mistaken for a burglar” cover story existing prior to him firing the shots.
OP’s lies to Divaris and Grayvenstein that it was Reeva that wanted to stay at his home that night delivered to them early on the afternoon of the 13th and his manipulation of them and Reeva to get her to stay the night suggest a planned murder.
nb, he was quick to wipe internet history from his ipad when he got home and 9 hours later Reeva had been shot dead. That allows a suggestion of removing possibly incriminatory evidence from his ipad.
Reeva would have had time to use her phone in the bedroom after locking the door and before OP managed to force entry after using something as levers and likely shooting an air rifle pellet at the door.
She would have realised by then that the situation was seriously bad so it is unthinkable that she would not have used her phone to call help at that time if she had it in her possession.
This strongly supports the view she did not have her phone at that time and that OP had taken it or hidden it to prevent her using it.
With the light switched on in the bathroom it seems credible that she screamed for help from its open window and may have struck the metal bath panel with the bathroom scales to make noise to attract peoples attention to her desperate plight. Waving her jeans out of the window as well as the screaming is a possibility as it would aid any persons that may look in identifying where the screams were from and where help was needed.
If going to such lengths it is not credible to think she would not have used her phone if it was available.
isn’t evidence wonderful
MAN WITH GUN SAYS JUMP….YOU JUMP!
MAN WITH GUN SAYS TAKE OFF TROUSERS…. YOU TAKE OFF TROUSERS!
MAN WITH GUN SAYS PUT ON SHORTS…..YOU PUT ON SHORTS!
MAN WITH GUN SAYS GO INTO TOILET….YOU GO INTO TOILET
I have a sense that the Judge will let him off a murder wrap and he will be put on a lesser charge and might avoid jail altogether. I say this because OP has been out on bail all this time – not something normally allowed for a murder suspect. The judge saying that she doesn’t want to “punish” OP twice when she allowed him to be a visitor at the psychiatric clinic, the police returning the crime scene to the Pistorius family a few days after the crime, the police allowing the Pistorius family to remove items from the crime scene including Reevas belongings and OP belongings, and the political influence, wealth and connections of the Pistorius family.
That “punish him twice” comment was very perplexing. There are a few ways to interpret that. The “other” punishment could be impending prison time if she deems him guilty or it could mean that she thinks he’s been punished by the trial perhaps unfairly. Who knows.
Do you know why this trial is being televised at all?
If he is cleared of the main charge, which I sense he will be (directly or through an appeal), SA justice will look like a shambles to some.
And then there is that small stable obdurate group in the public that believe OP is innocent because he is “OP the media generated mythical OP” – that they have attached to and taken into their family like their own son. …
In Britain there has been a continuing saga of the Murder of Anni Dewani and the delayed extradition of the husband to South Africa to face trial because of various reasons – that the S Africans were going to treat him unfairly to being too mentally ill to face trial.
I don’t think there can be more of an open and shut case. But I think there are external factors that will see OP eventually face a lesser charge or go free. It’s a complete mystery that he would be given bail plus his passport plus ability to tweet go to nightclubs and to seek the best legal minds to tailor his testimony. If I was marking this as a student essay it would be a fail. It is what it is. I don’t think I’ll waste any more of my time on it. I strongly recommend this all be written up into a book.
“It is what it is.”
Jason, you’re channeling Derman, here! :o)
Juror 13,
Thank you for your concerted effort with regards to this blog, I find it extremely interesting to read your updates and views on the evidence.
I have watched, on Youtube, pretty much everyday of the procedings, so read your, and many of the other regulars, contributions on here is very interesting.
Are you in the legal field, or are you making observations as a layman – either way i find them as close to the truth as we will ever find out unless OP gives a full confession.
I really dont believe OP’s version as he has changed his version of many small details as he went along. As far as im concerned, the devil is in the detail !
The only witness that really had any credibility was Derman, but his bias was absolutely astounding, even as layman I could not believe his failure to recall certain details and his outright refusal to answer certain questions under cross examination.
Anyway, to you and the regulars who post alot of sense on here, please keep the posts/comments coming, they make for interesting reading.
Thank you 🙂 I’m a layman.
In cross examination about a “get together” at the Vaal river the very simple and mundane question of wearing a holster on his shorts caused OP to be very uncomfortable in the witness box. He was reluctant to answer and evasive and this stood out as being a very sensitive issue.
Logically there has to be a reason why the simple issue of wearing a holster on shorts was a such a problem for OP and the question of whether he could have been wearing his holster on his shorts was involved in what really happened in the early hours of the 14th february 2013.
Taking from evidence the interpretation that Reeva did indeed flee upstairs away from a hostile OP at one point and locked herself in the bedroom the issues of what she did in the bedroom are important.
It appears she was unable to use her phone as previously described and that there is evidence that suggests she screamed and did other things to try attracting attention.
Reeva was aware of where OP kept his gun in the bedroom and she was able to use a gun to defend herself so the question arises of why she does not appear to have sought out his gun to defend herself?
A good answer to that may well be that his gun was not at that time present in the bedroom and that may well be due to OP having it in a holster he was wearing on his shorts.
Such an explanation could account for why wearing a holster on his shorts was such a sensitive issue for OP in that it was close to the truth he is desperate to hide fearing its consequences.
Interesting. Oscar definitely was dodgy about the holster while testifying. At the heart of his case is his fear of being attacked and the necessity to carry a gun at all times. So I agree, what the hell is the big deal about wearing a holster on your shorts. In support of his “story” you would think he’d have no issue talking about how he carried his protection.
Interesting observation.
If we discount OP’s version, He did not wake up to go get the fans, Reeva did not say , ‘Baba cant you sleep” and it was not pitch dark in his room or in the bathroom. His balcony doors were open, the one bathroom window opened and he did not go back to his bedroom looking for Reeva after shooting her because he knew where she was..He had the cricket bat and gun accessible on his stumps.They got into an argument, it escalated and Oscar did something loud enough for Anitta Stipp who was up and heard it, to think it was gunshots and for Reeva to scream in a terrified. blood curddling voice, ending up locking herself in the toilet…..I believe the patrol man also heard those ‘rifle’ sounds as well as Van Merwe at about 3ish..We do not know what those loud sounds were yet.The actual 4 gunshots that went thru the door was at about 3:12 am. which killed Reeva heard by the Stipps, Berger/Johnson and Ms. Neghenthwa…
Hi Rita,
I feel pretty strongly that Mrs. VDM and the security guard did not hear the same 3am bangs that Annette heard. Instead, they heard the 2nd set of bangs, which I believe were the gunshots, closer to 3:15am. Roux definitely has tried to use this testimony to his advantage, which I don’t blame him, to support Oscar’s claim that the shots were earlier. I believe it’s important to focus on the elements of what Mrs. VDM & the guard heard rather than the time.
Mrs. VDM says she had her head covered with a pillow because of the earlier arguing voice and was trying to get back to sleep. The bangs roused her and her husband. She says this was “sometime around 3am”. She didn’t state an exact time like she did earlier with the 1:56am arguing voice. So “sometime” can be subjective. It’s important to note that after those bangs there was SILENCE. Shortly after, she heard some commotion, than the loud crying, which her husband identified as Oscar. These details fit with the other testimony about gunshots some time around the 3:15am-ish time frame.
Now for security. Baba & another guard didn’t hear any fighting on their rounds and made it back to the gate at 2:55am. Baba testified that another security guard who was on his bike came to the gate “shortly past 3am” to report hearing rifle shots. Again, “shortly” can be subjective. What’s important to note here is that Baba says “moments” later he received phone calls from Stipp & Mike N. Those calls were at 3:15:51 and 3:16+. So I got the impression that the guy on bike pulled up, said he heard shots, phone starts to ring to report shots from neighbors – and that is consistent with the gunshots being at 3:15+ or that general timeframe.
In conclusion, I believe that Annette and Dr. Stipp are the ONLY people who heard the earlier 3am bangs that caused Reeva to start screaming for her life. I think there is a real possibility that it could have been some other type of banging going on in the house – doors/panels/tiles, etc that they heard. They had direct earshot to that bathroom with no AC or fans on, across the open field. Everybody else was either at the front or sides of the house with AC on, closed windows, etc.
My speculation is that Nel is going to map out very carefully the vantage point of each ear witness to illustrate who heard what. I will be surprised if he does not. It wasn’t really until I did that myself, started factoring in the locations and conditions for all witnesses, that I truly understood why people heard what they heard and the timeline of events.
I’ve said it before, but I think it’s important to repeat. The difference in the witnesses is who heard the screams versus who heard the cries. The screams came after the 1st bangs and before the gunshots = Reeva’s voice. The cries came after the 2nd bangs which were the gunshots = Oscar’s voice.
This also fits with Prof Saymaan`s autopsy report in which he says RS died quickly after the head shot. If OP shot her at just after 3am but didn’t retrieve her body until 3.15, why are we seeing arterial spurts over the house?
In evidence in chief OP states he screamed and shouted at Mr Stander in regards to getting Reeva to the hospital. Carise Stander was present at the time as well.
So there we have 2 defense witnesses who saw and heard OP screaming and shouting and gave evidence at the trial.
No mentions about whether OP’s screams and shouts sounded like those of a female from either witness when the golden opportunity to ask this was when they were on the stand.
One can only conclude that they would have not supported OP’s assertion that his shouts and screams sound like those of a woman.
nb Carise had heard OP’s screams and shouts at long distance as well as close up, as OP described, and as she said the long distance scream/shout sounded like a male we can safely assume that when close up OP’s screams and shouts were consistent with this.
isn’t evidence wonderful.
For Mr Stander , I have a personal message.
YOU SAY in regards to what you saw on the 14th that “YOU SAW THE TRUTH”
I SAY in regards to the 14th “NO” ,”YOU HEARD THE TRUTH” and that was OP’s shouts and screams do not sound like those of a woman.
OP in cross examination clearly said he dropped the holster when on the way from the bed to the passage. He says nothing after that about the holster so it should be on the bedroom floor in the general area for the route he described.
Police photographs show the holster neatly placed on the left hand side pedestal with a lamp and mug nearby undisturbed. It seems unfeasible for it to have been placed in such a manner in the pitch dark. Light would be needed for such a neat placement. There are 2 bloodstains (spatter) on the wall in the general area of the holster and it could be inferred that they arose during the course of the holster placement.
OP , after contact with a bloodied Reeva only claimed to go in the area of the pedestal to fetch his 2 mobile phones from off the pedestal and this seems appears to be his explanation for the bloodstains on the wall. However it makes no sense that OP would have both his phones on that pedestal and not to have arranged, or done something, to have charged them.
The dangling phone charger cord in the bedroom, the charger in the kitchen and that its known he normally charged one phone in the kitchen and the possible manual activity on his phone at 01:48 hrs all cast serious doubt on OP’s claims about getting his phones from the pedestal in the dark.
OP’s version does not explain the holster position and the collecting the 2 phones explanation is lacking in credibility.
Agree. His two phones were not on the nightstand. To me, the location of the holster is odd, it seems to be almost wedged in the corner. I tend to think it was thrown there. Maybe cast off blood on the wall when he threw it.
Agree with you Juror 13, If OP denied Reeva her phone he would not leave her access to 2 phones on the pedestal in an unlocked state. Even if they were on the pedestal (locked) when Reeva had locked OP out of the bedroom I would expect her to pick them up and try them but make no effort to place them back on the pedestal.
No calls from OP’s phone by Reeva, support her inability to access them when if available and unlocked she would have.
So with no reason for OP to visit the pedestal to fetch phones that were not there the bloodstains do appear to be linked to the holster placement after the shootings as there does not appear to be any other reasonable and credible explanation.
The lack of other blood spatter , apart from those linked to the trails from moving her body, appear to support a worn holster as if it was retrieved from somewhere like the floor then some spatter would be expected at the location the holster would be picked up from if any is deposited when it was placed on the pedestal. The earlier action being far more likely to deposit spatter than a later linked action.
OP wearing his holster on his shorts during the incident best fits the evidence available
DERMAN’s dubious “expert” evidence will prove ineffective and useless for OP’s defense against conviction for murder.
However it may be more valuable in regards to supporting the refusal of bail when OP tries to appeal.
Thats the risk with that type of evidence, it can get used against the accused.
isn’t evidence wonderful.
Derman was mentioned in the State’s Closing Arguments more than I thought he would have been – 2 or 3 times if I’m remembering correctly.
OP is clearly guilty of killing a person (by his own admission) and without valid reason as the prosecution has proved… shooting someone through a locked bathroom door with no immediate threat of harm. He is guilty… but of what… 1st or 3rd degree murder. We shall see!
Derman may as well have worn a big BIAS sign when testifying.
1. Didn’t like where Nel`s questions were leading?!?!?
2. Didn’t want to answer objective question to his flight/fight theory?!?
3. Became upset and very frustrated “I feel like I`m on trial here”
4. Sarcastic and argumentative “Are you happy now sir?”
For an independent expert witness, these are shocking things to admit to. And then to come back the following day and copy OP`s lead and not look directly at Nel!! It was so obvious that he had some form of contact from the defence team over the weekend.
It doesn’t matter how sure you are of your theory, at some point you have to concede some ground on alternative possibilities. It is clear that Derman wasn’t prepared for this at all.
Before watching every minute of this trial I wouldn’t have understood it either but I think Derman assumed that his being an expert in his field, which I truly believe he is, automatically qualified him as an “Expert Witness” in a trial. Clearly, it doesn’t and it tripped him up.
Moreover, he was completely biased and, I submit, one step away from the woman who testified after contacting Roux to say that she had seen OP was taking a hit in the media that he didn’t deserve. She was positively gushing over OP.
Derman so much as stated that he was only there testifying after talking to OP in person and “believing” everything he said. The big doctor was going to waltz in there and set everyone straight. After hearing HIS testimony, Oscar would be aquitted. Nel cut him right off at the knees and it was wonderful to behold. I have issues (and pity) for those whose fatal flaw is hubris.
Derman had no idea what went on in courts/trials, etc. He assumed that in every situation in the world his “intelligence” and “success in medicine” would translate into instant knowledge for others to be impressed by, globally, in all situations.
I work in medical education; I know of what I speak. It’s WHY I work in medical education. Many doctors I know make the same assumption Derman does, which comes off as arrogant to everyone else because they know these doctors live within an illusion that only they (the docs) think is real.
?
Moreover, he’s one of those really smart guys having had the opportunity or a great formal education who has absolutely zero common sense, few social skills, and never sees their own deficits. Talk about the DSM-V!! Jungian analysts would have a field day with these guys. I can’t stand them.
I wish I knew what Derman thought of everything after his testimony was over and he went back to his life. Did he learn anything? Was he even slightly humbled? Or did he think the lawyers and judge were idiots, people to look down upon vs people who were as competent and successful in their field as he was in his – if not MORE so!!
I could only IMAGINE what Derman was thinking when Oldwage droned on and on and on and on pontificating about minutiae, when I actually think Oldwage was wrong. M’lady and Nel have the patience of saints!
By the way, I believe Oldwage was the lawyer who got Carl Pistorius acquitted of a negligent homicide charge after CP was involved in a car accident in 2008 in which a woman was killed.
Yup, both brothers have been involved in the deaths of women. I’m telling you, you can’t make this stuff up.
Ditto
Juror I’d love to connect with you to share insights/analysis. Especially the bit about the jeans (and belt) outside on the lawn. Here’s a quick insight into some of my thoughts. Otherwise please contact me on nickvanderleek@gmail.com. Anonymity can be guaranteed if you feel it necessary: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHJ1WI2
and here’s an interview I did explaining how, why and what I did to get this stuff written:
https://soundcloud.com/nick-van-der-leek/ofm-radio-interview-with-nick-van-der-leek-podcast?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook
Hi Nick
What jeans and belt were outside on the lawn, I don’t recall that?
Have a look through the crime scene pics here:
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-11/
I have not heard about the belt.The jeans were on the ground outside the bathroom window but no comment has ever been made by defence or prosecution.There is a photograph somewhere,if you google it it comes up.
It is a shame these were not taken by police as I think they are relevant to what happened,just like the other pair.
Does anyone know why the P family were allowed access to OP house 3 days after the killing?Why was it not sealed until they were sure they had all the evidence?
Those pics were taken by police and were submitted as evidence, so the Judge has seen them. The State just didn’t question any witnesses on the stand about them.
“Does anyone know why the P family were allowed access to OP house 3 days after the killing?Why was it not sealed until they were sure they had all the evidence?”
I don’t know but I suspect the police thought this was just a routine “accidentally killed the girlfriend” scenario. I am not sure when it became a “suspected murder” situation. I mean OPs family were allowed to take away phones and Reeva’s handbag and other stuff during the police arrival period etc. I believe OP had arranged to get his family & friends over before he called the police – maybe he didn’t even call the police – maybe that was done by others.
does juror 13 think that P thought of trying to remove Reevas body from his house?Just thinking about the black bags?
He did not like anything untoward to sully his reputation and what happened was bad.Maybe it explains him telling security all was fine? Time to think what he was going to do-is this the real reason he carried her down,would he have taken her out of the house if people had not turned up?
No, I don’t think he was going to dispose of her body. I originally gave that a thought for a minute when I heard about the bags, but I brushed it away.
I tend to think he was freaking out afterwards and was going in to his usual cover up mode for bad behaviors. Do I think he wanted her to survive? No, I do not. People don’t typically shoot somebody else 4 times and want them to live… Especially when that would guarantee them going to jail.
Does he have regrets? I think he does. Mostly for himself, maybe a little bit for her too. Does that have any relevance on what he did? No.
I think he called in trusted friends & family that night because they would believe it was an accident, and would help keep it quiet – only notify the necessary authorities who could deal with it on the down low… He wanted the Standers to take her body to the hospital (he knew she was dead) to get her the heck out of there, not because he thought she could be saved. His desperation for THEM to take her was a little bit beyond somebody grieving. Something doesn’t sit right with me especially when you consider what he told Baba, which he claims he doesn’t remember. And that bathroom was a disaster. He was desperate to get her out of that damaged bathroom and bedroom because it screams of a fight. He needed her out of that scene.
I think he wanted to clean up the bathroom, hide evidence. We know he hijacked his phone and Reeva’s purse with his sister’s help. Who knows what else they took. He may have frantically pulled out plastic bags when he initially went downstairs to open the front door and they were in the kitchen or foyer when Carice arrived. They were used on her arm because they were laying close by. Just my speculation.
All these close, trusted friends & family claiming that they never asked Oscar any questions about that night after the incident are so not believable. Do they really think we are idiots?? Of course he discussed it with them. If one of my best friends killed someone, I’d be all over them to find out what the heck happened. It would not be a 30 second conversation and that’s it.
Ok I saw it in Day 11 posted here.
Very odd.
this is in Afrikanis…please translate
I Have sent this comment elsewhere but I’ll add it here too:
The Issue of Reasonableness of Reeva Steenkamp’s Response:
1) From OP’s Testimony
It has been, I would say proven by deduction, from OPs testimony that Reeva would have known with certainty there wasn’t an intruder between herself and OP (& as Juror13 points out in the entire bedroom and flat – which was alarmed & had two guard dogs). Yet according to the same OP testimony she attempted no communication with OP after disappearing (silently and visually) from the bed. She was also in the bathroom when she heard OP from the passageway and responded (according to the OP testimony) by slamming the toilet door closed. She then heard OP continuing up the passageway but again made no attempt at communicating despite knowing there was no intruder between herself and OP (and that OP was clearly addressing her).
Or
2) Witnesses that reported Reeva was responding vocally by screaming.
Or Reeva didn’t know that Oscar had mistaken her for an intruder as the last time she saw him the balcony doors were open and for all she knew someone had entered the bedroom. Everyone is entitle to an opinion, we are even entitled to state our opinions as facts but I think it is foolish to say it had to be either or when a third options is logically a viable scenario.
Remember hiding and barricading herself in a room had worked for Reeva in a home intrusion at her mum’s house.
For arguments sake Fawn: If OP did shoot Reeva out of some blind rage – how would a court be able to tell?
Hi Jason,
There are several ways. The first and most obvious way would be Oscar saying that he did so.
Some other ways that would leave little doubt that there was a tremendous row and Oscar with malice killed Reeva would be;
Reeva communicating with someone during the row and giving some account of what was going on.
Frank hearing a horrific row and then the gun shots.
Forensic evidence proving the cricket bat strikes came first and the bullets second, the opposite has been proven and accepted by both sides,”web theorists” aside.
Some things that could possibly lend credence to the States version, a security guard who was right by Oscar’s house when an ear witness was covering her head with a pillow due to a fight also hearing a row, (he did not). Proving Oscar lied about not being on his protheses when he shot Reeva (it is now an accepted truth by the State), proving a motive (speculation is not credible evidence), if Oscar had a history of violence toward his girlfriends the State might argue that his violence escalated on that morning but there is not a single girlfriend who ever said Oscar was violent with them and that wouldn’t prove anything but could speak perhaps to Oscar’s ability to do harm to his girlfriends.
The State hasn’t made it’s case and I’m not going to make it for them, as I don’t think that there is a case to be made for Oscar hunting down Reeva and willfully shooting her in cold blood.
There are many people that talk about Oscar’s “temper” but many of those same people were happy to be in his presence and cloak themselves in his peripheral glory. It is only now that they are no longer benefitting from Oscar’s good fortune that they are talking about what a horrible person he was. Why did they stay by the side of such a horrendous person for so long ? These are things that to me eat away at the credibility of some people. We are asked to believe that Oscar was this wretched arrogant terrible person but the perks of being in his presence were worth the imminent danger he posed to them? What does that tell us about the priorities and characters of those that were there for the perks?
Many people attest to Oscar’s good character and kindness.
Being young, rich, reckless, a gun enthusiast, moody ect. does not equate to being a cold blooded murderer.
Fawn, unfortunately there is rarely ever an indication that somebody is going to kill. It happens every single day for all sorts of crazy and unforeseen reasons. How many times have you seen it stated “I never would have imagined he/she could have done that” after a murder? All the time.
Did anyone foresee that Scott Peterson would kill Lacey and his son? No, not at all. Did he? Yes. Circumstantial evidence proved that and now he’s on death row. Do you ever watch Dateline? Every week you can hear a new story of people killing each other that you would never see coming a mile away. I recognize that those cases are different than OP’s. All cases are different. But this goes back to one of my original points in my post – is it possible that OP could have killed someone? Well obviously, yes, he did.
The urge/intent can happen quickly for a thousand different reasons. You, nor I, know exactly what happened in that house prior to 3am that day. Only OP and Reeva know. Therefore, the case must be decided on evidence NOT on possible motives, assumptions, scenarios or general opinions about his character.
There is no dispute that OP killed. There is however dispute about his reason for killing. He needs to be able to support HIS reason for killing in court. He has NOT done that. HIS story did not hold up to the tests done in court. If it were true, it would have.
very interesting fawn that you bring the FB site’ bat gun kick’ into it!There is someone on there calling himself deon pilot which is an anagram of OPs full name…..He seems to know OP very well and so do you….Now OP is not going to admit to a row is he.’He is fighting for his life’.Frank is saying nothing,most likely been paid off. The story does not make sense .However I am not sure that the prosecution has the story right.What we do have is OPs testimony changing constantly from that on his original statement.The darkness and the silence is all just laughable.Reeva was afraid of him and his recent escapades do not help him at all.There is too much evidence which does not add up.If his story were true he could talk of it over and over with no hesitation or forgetfulness.To talk of police moving things-how in the hours after the killing would they have known what ops testimony was going to be ?So how would they have worked out how to move things to an exact spot so that it would discredit Ops story?I wish people would stop insulting everyones intelligence with their insane explanations.We will have to see what the judge decides wont we because at the end of the day the decision lies with her and her assistants..
Hi Fawn, we will have to see what the final statements are. It is true that Reeva didn’t send any message for help – she could have used her own phone or one of OPs phones. So Prosecution needs to address that – however Reeva’s phone was found to be broken – so there is no proof that she had a workable phone during the critical moments. The witnessed screams and the trousers out of the window could be considered as evidence of Reeva sending out a message of help – but of course a phone message would have given 100% certainty.
I don’t know about Frank – others will need to address why he wasn’t brought in as a witness and tested through cross-examination.
Remember the state has only to prove what a “reasonable person” would have done. I believe for certain (100%) that OP testimony can be proven to be incorrect in several places and unreasonable in other places – but even if he is directly lying or tailoring that doesn’t necessarily mean he “intended” to murder Reeva during a blind rage.
I also believe he clearly acted unreasonably. But again that is up to the judge – remember the Judge has to be careful NOT TO GIVE A PRECEDENT TO ALLOW boyfriends and husbands to murder girl-friends and wives. I would like to know whether there has been a similar case of a girlfriend shooting a boyfriend etc and “getting away with it”. But it is up to the judge.
There are also the witnesses that heard a woman’s screams, saw lights on in the bathroom etc – that needs to considered by the Judge & she needs to give a reason if she is going to discount them. Maybe she will discount them – we will have to see.
There is also other witnesses to other events involving guns that OP is denying and the judge needs to consider that as well as regards OPs reliability as a witness.
But at the end of the day nothing will bring back Reeva Steenkamp & in the past the person doing the killing, if from a wealthy & influential family, would have likely avoided a lengthy jail term.
You also have to accept that if OP does avoid jail or the murder charge there will be many people who believe him to be guilty etc.
You have to accept that people have the right to assess the available evidence for themselves and come up with conclusions etc.
But one of the things I don’t understand is why the trial is being televised at all??
Ps just to add, Fawn:
Like you and others I cannot fathom why OP, if he in fact murdered Reeva, would have done so, given his successful international athletics career and wealthy, privileged lifestyle. That is why one has to remain focussed on the evidence and disregard our own initial sense that this sounded too ridiculous to be true. My initial thoughts were he would either be found to be utterly stupid or there was some “heat of the moment” brief period of murderous intent – I knew that Valentines Day was a classic period for splits in relationships.
The utterly stupid possibility could have been explained by a convincing story of being seized by a real overwhelming fear under a realistic scenario that would engender that fear. But looking at the evidence and listening to OPs testimony I am unable to sustain that possibility. He is clearly lying – is clearly trying to cover for something – at least that is how I see the situation. I expected to see something a little more from OP and the defence in order to convince the public (remember this is being televised) of his “innocence”. Instead he and the defence seem evasive in details and unconvincing.
One of the things that surprised me also was how short the relationship was – there was no declared commitment that it would be a long term relationship.
Hence my view is that this slaying – which I believe to be a heat of the moment murder – was ultimately an attitude issue of OP: one of narcissistic sociopathy – allowing him to be extremely careless, gun-ho, with violent outbursts. I am certain if he was able enough he would be in the army shooting people. That’s my best interpretation of what I have seen – I accept others come to a different interpretation.
pps Fawn: I will add in support of your OP is “innocent of murder” view – there were ladders outside the house. But for me it doesn’t outweigh the evidence that in my view incriminates him (described previously),
fawn , have you considered he may be lying,are you willing to accept he may be?
that was a real home intrusion though wasn’t it!
Put yourself in R place.Is it possible that you would not have uttered a sound especially when that first bullet hit!
Impossible that it all took place in the dark too,Bad enough for an able bodied person to navigate in the darkness-Ive tried it many times- and my partner always wakes and asks where I am going!
I think it is safe to say when one hears a noise in the bathroom it is usually the person living in the house with you.If you hear a window sliding open its easy enough to shout is that you?before arming yourself,firing your weapon etc etc etc.
There are a handful of people on all these sites who keep supporting the far fetched story of OP. It is perhaps time to consider the staes version and consider all the slips OP has made WHILE giving his testimony.I have considered OPs story but it doesn’t fit.I think the Police should not have allowed the family to go back into the house as there a questions that still need addressing and the crime scene should have been re examined for an extended period.Would have been interesting to know about the kitchen to see if there was any proof that R had eaten again around 1PM,or did Frank clear that up pronto? The jeans outside-were they Reevas,a big coincidence they were outside the bathroom window if not.
OSCARS 2 REAL STARTLES AND NOT THE FABRICATED CLAIMED ONES.
STARTLE 1.
OP is elsewhere , but not too far away (landing outside bedroom maybe), when Reeva makes a loud banging. This is when she is striking the bath inspection panel with the bathroom scales. He did not expect that!
The evidence of the bath panel rules out being struck by a cricket bat or prosthetic leg by virtue of the shape of the damage not being compatible with either but more importantly by the small scratch present which neither item are capable of causing on their own on the metal panel.
A piece of grit adhering to the cricket bat could make a scratch on the panel but the cricket bat was kept indoors and could not have got grit or similar on it. The panel damage was prior to the shots being fired and the tiles falling was after the shooting.
The bathroom scales being of metal construction with screws etc being present would be a credible cause of the damage and easily capable of causing the small scratch reported when the inspection panel was examined. The scales being found upturned and out or place no more than a 1 metre from the damaged inspection panel is significant in making the connection as being an improvised action at a time of desperation.
STARTLE 2.
OP never expected or anticipated this!
The tiles becoming dislodged and crashing down noisily onto the tiled bathroom floor. OOPS. This happened when the door was opened in approx the 90 degree position when OP was impacting it in order to remove the upper panel.
I just updated/added bullet points 5, 7 and 8 under the section about whether or not he knew it was Reeva. I do this all the time… I publish a post, read it a bunch of times, and then want to change it 🙂 The problem in this case is it is a LONG list of what I could add. I don’t want to get bogged down in to an enormous amount of details, as that somewhat goes against my initial intention for the post – keeping it simple.
If there was an intruder in my house and i’m trying to hide i wudnt SLAM a door shut as if i am being chased. Just close and lock QUIETLY not to give away my position. OP says he wishes RS had responded to his shouts and screams to alert him of her whereabouts. BUT what effort did HE make to locate her B4 shooting? NONE. His story and entire actions that night as per HIS version are difficult to appreciate as reasonable. He is guilty culpable homicide on his own account. But then again his account is full of lies…
Hi juror13,
Sorry I can’t “reply” to your above post specifically as there is no reply button.
I was answering Jason’s specific question.
Of course neither you or I know what happened preceding Reeva’s death, you believe the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a fight between Reeva and Oscar, and Oscar in an escalation of that fight murdered Reeva in cold blood. I do not believe the evidence supports that conclusion, I have stated some of the reason I don’t believe the State has proven it’s case.
Of course evidence trumps, general consensus of character, motive, general assumptions. We disagree on what the evidence proves and disproves.
In the case of Scott Peterson there was a lot of evidence discovered after Lacey’s disappearance that impeached Scott’s “good family man” persona. There was even evidence against Scott’s persona being a facade before the murder of Lacey, such as Scott’s girlfriend finding the newly married Scott and Lacey in bed and screaming in a fit of jealousy at Scott.
I have never once stated that Oscar did not kill Reeva, this is a case (as are the vast majority of cases) of “intent”. It is not a did he do it, it is a why did he do it.
I don’t think that they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a fight… I believe that they have proven that OP knew that Reeva was in that toilet room when he fired, and that those shots were intentional.
His account of a perceived intruder is not reasonable based on the evidence, IMO.
As for Scott Peterson, I recall many defense attorneys and others in his favor stating at the time of his trial that just because he was a “cad” and having an affair, that did not make him a murderer. Well.. he turned out to be a murderer.
Oh also… I’m not saying that you claimed he didn’t kill her. I was making a general statement that in this particular case, we know that he did it… It’s just a matter of does his account of events stand up in court. It’s not about “why” he did it. It’s about whether or not he can prove his defense, which could be three possible things at this point:
1. Putative self defense: The perceived intruder never was seen, never talked, never threatened him, no weapons were brandished, nothing. Therefore, he cannot claim putative self defense. There was no threat. A window being opened on a second floor, in the same room you are sharing with your girlfriend, when you have security alarms that don’t go off, is not a sufficient threat.
2. Accident: OP claims he had no control over firing those 4 shots. Yet he admittedly testified to having control over every other action. Even his defense witnesses testified that he did shoot to nullify a threat. He doesn’t have GAD, false evidence given on his behalf per his evaluation. He was mentally competent. Therefore, “accident” will be ruled out. He was in control of his faculties and decisions that night.
3. GAD/mental incapacity: This has been disproven.
He has no defense left from a legal perspective. He intentionally killed a person behind that door. It’s not my opinion, it’s what has been proven in court.
It’s about whether or not the prosecution can disprove Oscar’s version of the events of that morning, which is another way of saying it is about “why” he did it, as no one is arguing whether or not Oscar killed Reeva.
Intent is central to his defense.
Did he know it was Reeva in the toilet and kill her in a rage or did he think it was an intruder and pursue the intruder because he thought that was his best chance for he and Reeva to survive a break in? Why, did he shoot the person in the toilet is the heart of the case.
I think the evidence supports Oscar’s version of what happened. I don’t believe the evidence points to Oscar knowing that it was Reeva in the toilet.
As to Scott and being a cad not necessarily correlating to him being a murderer, that is a correct statement. There are a lot of cad’s who have murdered no one. But a huge volume of evidence came out against Scott’s character, and a huge volume of circumstantial evidence and hard evidence came out about his behavior and whereabouts when Lacey went missing. It is a totally different case.
And no I do not watch 48 Hours or any other crime shows.
1) I don’t agree that putative defense has been disproven.
2) Oscar doesn’t exactly claim that he had no control over firing the gun he claims he fired it but fired it out of fear in the direction what he thought was the sound of an advancing intruder. His claims seems to almost be an instinctual firing of the gun while in surveil mode due to his fear.
3) Oscar was not diagnosed with GAD by the panel. But GAD was never set forth by Oscar, the psychiatrist or Roux as a defense.
!!!very interesting.
One could definitely make the argument that OP has a lot of character flaws too.
And saying that nobody in Oscar’s camp introduced GAD as a defense is not true. The doctor made the assertion on the stand that OP’s GAD may have been a factor on the night in question. That lead to a 30 day evaluation ordered by the Judge. How can you say that nobody introduced that as a defense? It was central to OP being overly freaked out by the noise in the bathroom.
Fawn, is the law more lenient when people make stupid decisions? Assuming OP’s version is correct, then he made one stupid decision after another and wants the judge to say, oh, that’s okay, Oscar, I know you didn’t mean it.
Is the “reasonable man” under the law allowed to he a complete idiot? Misjudgement, yes, perhaps, can be excused. But to go forth with gun drawn and bullets flying, after formal training in and demonstrated knowledge of gun usage, and to shoot at a closed door without identifying the supposed intruder goes against all he had been taught and any law-abiding person’s better judgement.
You are correct that it comes down to intent. As such, we can rely on the fact that he himself states that he made conscious decisions every step of the way, even to the point of supposedly not firing a warning shot into the shower because he feared injury to *himself.* How on earth anyone can accept his excuse that for a few brief seconds he suddenly “wasn’t thinking” and shot four perfectly aimed shots at a silent person behind a door defies belief.
So, it’s easy to show that he intentionally killed someone. Did he know that person was REEVA? Again, you seem to give wide latitude for stupid decisions, although I doubt the law is as generous. Because she was the person he supposedly loved, his first action would have been to confirm the noise and then, second, to ensure her safety. The man who loved guns and had been through extensive training and testing on firearm usage completely fails first time out of the gate. Actually, that’s not true: he failed at the restaurant, too, amd nearly blew someone’s foot off and failed when he stuck his hand above the sunroof and shot out of the car. How stupid is a person allowed to be before we finally dcide it’s all a fraud, that no semi-intelligent person would do those things and that, in fact, he’s lying?
You can continue to defend him, but I, for one, don’t think he’s as stupid as the Pistorians would like us to believe.
Fawn: how do you understand the ‘female’ screams intermingled with the male “shouts” prior to the shots heard by 4 witnesses? the lights on in the bathroom during the screams, shots? The duvet on the floor with the denim pants with the blood pattern to prove that is where they were when he carried her out down the stairs? That all her items were neatly packed in her bag ? that the stomach contents indicated she had eaten at least 2 hours before her death? that she must have screamed after the first shot as Mangena’s evidence ? There is a pretty strong case that he indeed knew it was Reeva….
Im reading that OP went partying 2 months after the murder and got blind drunk.
Interestingly, he was trying to hook up with a Reeva look alike at the party but was rejected by her.
Doesn’t sound very traumatised to.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Oscar-hit-on-Reeva-lookalike-weeks-after-shooting-20140720
I said it is not Oscar’s defense, because it is not his defense. It was introduced as a possible contributing factor as to his response to what he perceived to be an intruder in his home, which goes, once again, to intent. The “why” of it all.
And my apologies for the typo’s in my previous post.
To add a bit of levity to this whole crazy mess, talk about typos… I once wrote “Oscar’s shits” instead of shots. That’s a whole new level to the story 🙂
That is a typo worthy of remembering 🙂
The other thing that didn’t happen – if there was a row from 2 to 3 am in the morning – Reeva didn’t make any phone call. Maybe it was too late for her to call a friend? There is a testimony of someone staying with Oscar in the other bedroom. He knocked over a fan in the early morning (it being too hot) and Oscar appeared in his bedroom, gun in hand., asking if everything was okay. So there is evidence of Oscar being twitchy late at night.
It is unlikely that anyone would call a friend just because of a row with your partner at 2am in the morning. Reeva could have had no idea that things were going to escalate to the point that they did and by the time things had got out of hand, it was too late.
Elsewhere others have speculated that he may have hidden her phone, possibly to prevent her from making a call, and that was part of the fight.
I believe there was intruder that night.
The “intruder” was an aspect of Reeva’s personality that Oscar could not handle – strong and assertive. We don’t know very much about her but we have had glimpses (“I’m not just some bitch trying to spoil your vibe … you fucked up a special day for me ….”) of someone who was not about to put up with his narcissistic shit.
Estelle van der Merwe’s testimony of only hearing a woman’s loud voice between 2am – 3am suggests that she was verbally attacking Oscar, and given the contents of her whatsapp messages and what we have learned about his personality, I’m not surprised that she had finally reached a point where she was fed up with his arrogance and selfishness.
I believe that something nasty had happened or had been said, or she had discovered something shocking about him and was planning to make a call – probably from the “safety” the toilet – and he knocked her phone out of her hand in order to prevent her making that incriminating call, round about the time that the second pair of jeans ended up outside the window.
Alternatively, she had her phone in the toilet and he shot her to prevent her from making that call. She would have dropped the phone and it may have been the first thing he checked before touching Reeva (hence no blood on it) once he got into the toilet to ensure that she had not already made any calls.
Apparently porn was watched on his iPad at about 9.10pm (I got this from the re -enactment video. Please correct me if I’m wrong). For many people this may not be a big deal (“regular guy stuff”) but on Valentine’s evening when you have you lover of less than 3 months with you?! If they were spending a loving evening together this would be very strange and it would be even more odd if they were in the middle of a flaming row. I can’t help but feel that this may have been what sparked something …..
To me, OP was very immature. In that light I perceive many of his reactions to things that upset him as passive-aggressive: playing the Kendrick Lamar song about bitch/vibe to “pay her back” for what he thought SHE did to him at that party. I think he knew exactly what song it was.
I think he may have been really threatened by the fact that two days before she had had lunch with her former boyfriend of 4 years. (Paraphrasing from her WhatsApp about how he felt about tht boyfriend:” You talk all the time about all the girls you dated, I tell one funny story about my former boyfriend and you get angry.”)
To pay her back for that lunch (she may have mentioned something the two of them talked about at lunch), got pissed off and surfed porn to to try to hurt her. (He actually did surf porn. There is a screenshot – probably here! – of his browser log. It’s right on there.
Having just been with what I think was her much more mature boyfriend and now seeing how Oscar acted, she had probably had it with Oscar’s shit and said it was over.
It may sound weird – and it may BE weird, armchair psychologist stuff – but I think Oscar had trouble with women leaving him ever since his mother died. That was devastating to him and was out of his control. He overcompensated for that loss by trying to hold on for dear life to the illusion of control that most of have. We don’t know that because for many of us it’s not tested. Maybe no one close to us in our family has died when they and/or we were young.
No relationship/terrible relationship with his dysfunctional father mother dies when he’s an adolescent, and extended family who seem perhaps have a greater amount of money than they do warmth. (Voerster’s eval said he didn’t feel close to any of them).
Saying all this doesn’t change ANY facts. IMHO he knew it was Reeva, he knew that Black Talon ammunition would tear a grizzly bear apart, and I think when he shot a blur of women’s faces, transparent, one on top of the other: his mother, Samantha, Reeva…
He was striking out violently at his lack of control.
I wish he had had counseling when his dad left the family, grief counseling when his mother died, and “instant celebrity/success/pressure” counseling when things took off for him. The whole thing is so tragic. I watched some really really old footage of Oscar from a long time ago and he seemed like a genuinely sweet kid. Even with money and success his life continued to spin out of control.
THAT being said, how do I feel about Reeva? She was smart, accomplished, beautiful inside and out, extraordinarily kind and loving and caring. And she was seeking. She was seeking something in her modeling, the “fast crowd I think she has started running with, and perhaps her own celebrity, too.
She was stronger and more wonderful than I think she ever knew – at least, perhaps, until the night she died — when I think she stood up for herself to Oscar. I wish she had always known that she was more than enough, just as she was, without any “trimmings.” Had she, she wouldn’t have been in that bathroom that night and she’d still be alive lighting up the world with her smile.
Extension Cord and Tripod Fan Conclusion.
Were the lengths of lead combined long enough for the Tripod Fan to be placed where OP claimed he put it.
We do not lead the “missing” lead that is falsely being claimed as missing by a dishonest and desperate, “ducking and diving, milady” defence.
LETS SUM UP WHAT WAS SAID SIMPLY AND COME TO A SOUND CONCLUSION.
1/ Nel states to OP that the leads are not long enough to allow the tripod fan to be placed where OP claims he put it.
2/ Visually it looks to be the case from the photographs.
3/OP , rather weakly, claims he does not know the measurements of the leads so he is unable to tell of they are long enough.
4/ Nel asserts again that the leads are not long enough even if pulled tight to allow the tripod fan position claimed by OP.
5/ OP takes things no further as he relies on “not knowing the measurements” is equivalent to his typical “NOT SURE” answer so if he does not state the measurement he cannot be accused of lying on the issue if proven wrong.
6/ Well it does not actually matter if the leads were long enough as OP’s answers to Nel’s assertions tell us the TRUTH of the matter.
7/ If OP had put the tripod fan in the spot claimed by him on that night (or on any other occasion for that matter) then HE WOULD KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE LEADS WERE LONG ENOUGH AS HE HAD REALLY PUT THE TRIPOD FAN WHERE HE CLAIMED.
8/ Simply put, it it were true, there would be no issue of doubt in OP’s mind and no need to state about not knowing measurements. Simple strong claims, asserted fully with no doubt would have proven the point.
9/ We can safely say from OP’s evidence on the matter, HE DID NOT PLACE THE TRIPOD FAN WHERE HE CLAIMED (where duvet was in photographs).
Absolutely, David. No need for OP to waffle over the cord. If he had put the fans there, he would have insisted he put then there and the measurements would not matter. That was another classic example of his mind & mouth racing to keep up with his stories.
Good point.
All he had to say was “That’s where I put the fan so the cord must be long enough”. Simple.
The judge has to ask herself – is OP’s nose long enough?
OPs whole testimony has been strange and creates a sense of evasiveness. There was that whole testimony he gave of him being shot at on the motorway and then pulling off the motorway to park up at a restaurant (I think?) but then he claimed he couldn’t remember who he phoned and who drove him back home afterwards – as he was too afraid to drive back himself.
what i think he is trying to convey is that he has a bad memory and this is why he couldn’t be more specific whilst on the stand with certain questions.!
Quite cunning
yes, but the question Nel put is “if the metal ext. plug does not move” then the cord is not long enough…but who proved it does not move??
Hi Ruthy – I attempted to answer this elsewhere. In the official crime scene pic the extension cord is pulled fairly tight and presumably the rest of the cord is tucked away behind the bedside pedestal. If the fan had been where he said he placed it the multi plug would have moved, pulling the cord out further. If the fan had then been moved back again by a policeman, there would have been more slack visible, with the extension cord looping back.
This is all presuming that the cord of the fan is not long enough to reach to where he said he placed the fan without moving the plug. In the photo it certainly appears to be the case but you are right in saying that this was not actually proved.
I think the manner in which Oscar argued about the length of the cord was more damning.
Irrespective of the length of the cords, OP said he ran to the balcony on his stumps, in a panic, in the pitch dark with his gun in his hand and he did not knock over a fan or trip over the cords of either fan, both of which he claimed were plugged into the multi plug even though there were not sufficient sockets for both fans and the hair clipper.
So what OP is alleging is that the police not only moved the fans, but also unplugged one of them and plugged in the clipper before the crime scene pics were taken.
I think the whole thing is an unfortunate “shituation.”
From the moment OP awoke, RS never again spoke after OP got out of bed. She never shouted, cried, screamed etc. She was quiet throughout OP shouts to ‘intruders’. She never asked OP why she had to phone the police, what would she say? She was quiet when OP was in the bathroom shouting at ‘intruders’ to get out. He was sooo close to her then. She was quiet when the 1st bullet hit her hip. She was quiet when another shattered her arm. She was quiet at the sounds of all 4 gunshots blasting through the door. She was hit and died silently.Lets believe Oscars story here and let him free. He is not to blame. Reeva could’nt utter a single word to save her life. She should have said/done something.
This is what Oscar wants the world to believe? Its really a shame how some people that believe him cant see through him.
Great observation David. I was concerned about this extension cord issue and the issue of police tampering. I thought it was going to be devastating to the states case. Seeing how you explained it here, I hope the judge picks this up as she seemed worried to learn that it was missing.
Go to time mark 52:00
I see yr point and it`s a good one. He should be stating it as a fact if it happened.
Thanks for posting this video which contains the undeniable PROOF that Oscar is lying. (Any comments Fawn?)
If you watch to the end of the video, Oscar argues in the same way about the smaller fan (“the cord would have been long enough to reach”) and then the final coup de grace by Gerrie Nel when he points out that the cord of the small fan runs under the speaker so it could not possibly have been moved.
And then Oscar tried to tell Gerrie Nel that HE was misleading the court!!!
No it wasn’t running under the speaker – Nel was basically fishing at that point – which was fair enough. Check the shadow of the wire – it shows that the cord doesn’t fun under the speaker. That won’t be part of the Nel final statement.
Yes, Nel was not able to substantiate that point about the wire under the speaker.
The fact that the small fan was off, unplugged and in the corner tells the story well enough. It was not “on” and in front of the bed as OP testified.
I hope the police photos can be substantiated (in terms of order of the photographs). They had to get rid of one of the investigating officers & he has since left the force.
Basically the OP testimony is partly the police moved everything around – so that has to be nailed – what is accepted and what isn’t accepted.
My thoughts are – didn’t OP move everything around and did he have some family come in before the police arrive to move everything around as well as take some things ???
Yes, to your last answer. Revisit the Van Rensburg evidence as to who was there and when.
@Jason – it looks very much as if the cord of the small fan is running under the speaker to me, but one would need to zoom into the picture more to be sure of this. Presumably the judge will be able to zoom in and decide for herself.
Hi William, check the cord where it is supposed to leave the speaker from the side – can you see there are two lines … the only explanation is that the top line is the cord and the lower parallel line is the shadow … hence the cord has been lifted above the carpet (and hence cannot be under the speaker).
I don’t think it is clear cut. Nel is saying if the extension cord wasn’t moved would the fan stretch to the position. OP keeps saying he cannot say if the extension cord was moved (by the police) – he also says that in his view it can easily move to the position, Nel says no it can’t and it progresses from there. I don’t think there is much wrong with the responses from OP in this case – it is up to the state to prove the cord couldn’t stretch … but then OP would just say the extension cord was also moved.
What was interesting however was OP specifically said that AT ALL TIMES his back was against the bed (when he approached the fan and when he moved the fan). This causes a problem later on when he says his back was against the passageway when placing the fan – because Reeva would have been going up the passageway at that point using the light of the phone – which he would have noticed because at that point he claims the room was otherwise in pitch darkness.
There is an absolute falsehood in his testimony because adding his statements together his back was facing in two different directions at the same time.
50.30 where I placed the fan my back was facing the bed …
& at this point Reeva would have been going up the passageway with her phone. Later he says his back was facing the passageway and that’s why he wouldn’t have seen the light from Reeva’s phone.
never thought of that…….
He can remember EXACTLY which way his back was pointing at all times but other times he has a hazy memory(to suit him and his testimony).Its amazing isn’t it?He has got himself in a right tis was and can not get out.
We all know how hard it is to walk around in the dark ,I do it nearly every night to go to loo.Its hard enough for an able bodied person
let alone doing all the things OP was supposedly doing that night.It is SO ridiculous .
Have enjoyed this forum.All sorts of points made that I hadn’t thought of.
You are assuming that Reeva would have used the light from her phone to find her way to the toilet – not necessarily. But we know none of this is true anyway.
I’m jumping around here and apologize because I’m certain they have already been addressed elsewhere in this blog but two things have stuck out to me.
1. During the discussion about the black Mercedes firing at OP, Nel asked (I’m completely paraphrasing here) whether there were any other cars on the road. OP said he thought there might have been one or two pretty far off ( I don’t know kilometers, only miles). Nel then said, “That’s a pretty busy road though isn’t it?” OP replied, “It’s the busiest road in the Southern Hemisphere, M’lady.”
Nel said, “So we can safely say there were at least a few cars on the road that night.” OP then said, “There were definitely cars on the road that night.” (He emphasized the word “definitely,” as in “that is a fact.” I thought that was so odd.
Many other times in the trial he just followed whatever Nel said, even though it completely contradicted what he had just said himself. Like when he spontaneously said that he turned off the alarm before leaving his room to go downstairs to unlock the door. OP followed up with “he wasn’t sure,” then with Nel leading the way, OP said he “might have,” and ultimately OP wound up saying he “must” have. It was ridiculous.
2. Sometimes OP would actually say to Nel, “But that’s not my version.” Who in the world would say “that’s not my version?” The truth is the truth, not a “version”. If Nel put something to me that was incorrect and I was telling the truth, I’d say, “No, that’s not what happened. This is what happened…”
All those weird things were mind-boggling to me. Well, not if he was lying — which is how I know he’s lying.
THE AIR RIFLE
A number of issues arise.
A few basic things first;
1/ OP gave no explanation for it in testimony and nor for the pellet found in the bedroom door with fresh splinters by the hole.
2/ He did not accuse the police of using the air rifle in regards to tampering at the scene.
3/ Along with the baseball bat, it was found in a position which blocked OP’s claimed placement of the cricket bat to help secure the bedroom doors.
Now lets explore a little.
4/ It appears safe to say the panels in the bedroom door are similar to that used in the bathroom door and in the main part are of the same material and thickness.
5/ The air rifle pellet penetrated very deeply into the panel and knocked a hole through it. Exit hole splinters being seen.
6/ From what is seen of the door it seems safe to say it is a very powerful air rifle and consequently capable of causing serious injury or death if desired.
7/ Air rifles are fairly quiet and certainly are not going grab attention when fired like pistols etc would.
Now some more open thinking.
8/ Even if not caused on the night of the murder, the idea of shooting through a paneled door is demonstrated in the person responsible as existing prior to the fatal shots. THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.
9/ With a plan to kill the victim with a “mistaken for an intruder cover story” about the only place the victim could be shot was behind the toilet door and shooting through it for the story to have a fair chance of being accepted as genuine. The very confined space allowed for easy targeting of the victim and the lock on the door would trap the victim.
10/ If the air rifle was found to be powerful enough to penetrate the door and still be thought capable of inflicting damage on the victim
then its low noise factor would avoid alerting others and numerous shots to kill would not be a problem. A later clean up, disposal of body and evidence and replacement door and no one would know.
####################################
That was some thoughts and exploring of issues.
####################################
If planning to kill in the toilet then making use of the victims story about the burglary with her mother seems to have been exploited. It certainly has in OP’s dodgy testimony and seems a core feature of it.
In regards to POINT 9 ABOVE then having selected the “shoot behind the toilet door” was the plan then the broken light in the toilet would also fit and its broken state appears to be by design and not happenstance. The Murderer expected his victim to be silent from fear in the situation he placed her in.
CONFLICTING CLAIMS BY OP
(rule out Reeva’s phone from being involved)
1/ OP positively claims he picked up both his phones from the pedestal to the left side of the bed where he had earlier placed them.
2/ OP When asked if the Apple charger was being used that night, OP claims he “can’t remember”.
REMEMBER the lead for that charger was dangling messily as if a phone had been disconnected from it without care and/or in haste.
Both phones not on charge does not seem credible.
The white phone had not been used since his arrival home and was turned off and needed a password to enable it for use.
The white phone mysteriously was placed under a mat in the bathroom.
OP cannot remember if he placed the white phone under the mat and nor does he explain why.
It does not seem credible for a phone to be removed from the charger in the pitch dark and it not to be remembered due to difficulty.
One would expect the bedroom light to be on for someone to remove a phone from the charger.
When in a rush to phone then getting 2 phones from separate locations is wasting time so a need existed in OP’s version to place them together.
OP may not have known about the white phones location in the bathroom (until being informed by the police) so had to create a lie to cover for how it got there so had to pair it with his other phone in his “version” of events.
########
In the scenario of Reeva locking the bedroom door to keep OP out then he was sloppy in leaving keys for her to do that and its likely he could be sloppy leaving a phone on charge feeling it being locked was good enough to prevent use.
Reeva taking the white phone off charge and attempting to use it from in the bathroom does seem credible.Once he broke through her needing to hide the phone to try and prevent enraging him further may have led to it being hidden under the bathmat in a rush.
If that is the case then this has created a SEVERE DIFFICULTY for OP that is difficult to satisfactorily cover with his lies.
Saayman said he would be suprised if the deceased did not scream and botha concede dunder cross examination that it was LIKELY that she would have screamed!!
This coupled with good evidence from mrs stipp that she heard screams of a woman that only faded when the shots finished.
That is where Oscar tailored his evidence and had to fit in the part where he said his ears were ringing as he was shooting and after he shot, this was to cover the fact that reeva did in fact scream while he fired.
INSIDE OUT JEANS ARE OSCARS.
lets start this by saying that both Roux and Nel have to be very careful not to mislead a witness so have to be very careful in some of the things they say.
In regards to the inside out pair of jeans that are shown partially on top of the duvet both Roux and Nel have been very careful in what they state. Neither state as fact etc that that pair of jeans are Reeva’s or Oscar’s in a direct way. For much of the time that item is described as “jeans, denim or trousers. Both are being careful not to mislead so questions and statements are constructed with care.
On the 15th april in cross examination NEL asks a set of questions about those inside out jeans in which it appears that he links them to Reeva. However that is not the case as at the start of that set of questions he sets the context to the questioning as being from what Oscar had stated in testimony…..If I remember the exact words they were “YOU SAID”, and it is under that context that he continued.
In other words, Nel was using the claim by OP that the jeans were Reeva’s and working from that basis and not from the view or position that the jeans were actually Reevas.
Observers should be careful not to mislead themselves by taking things out of context and thinking the PT accept the inside out jeans are Reevas.
On the 14th April Nel basically stated in cross examination with OP that the ONLY item of Reevas clothing not in her overnight bag was her jeans. He uses the word “outside” at one point to describe those jeans but with 2 possible views of what that “outside may be”. That is outside of the overnight bag but also that there were literally outside in regards to not being in the house.
Nel’s use of the word “ONLY” is the critical point. We know the jeans outside in the garden are most definitely Reevas. So they fit as being the “only” item of her clothing as being not in her overnight bag. The other jeans cannot be Reevas or NEL would have been misleading the court. So Nel and Roux seem to know that the inside out jeans are not Reevas.
Note that Nel on the 14th when he spoke of Reeva’s jeans said things that did not rule out the jeans that were found outside as being the ones he was speaking directly about on this occasion.
So taking that the inside out jeans are not Reevas it follows that they are Oscars and that has big implications. Things like, which side of the bed he was supposedly using etc come into play and where his gun and phones would be or not.
Also , with them being on top of the duvet it suggests he took them hastily off around the time of the murder.
The Inside Out Jeans
If OP fired whilst wearing those trousers I would imagine that they would find traces of gunpowder on them – and they would have to admit that into the evidence? Also I don’t know what if anything OP claimed for those jeans – he must presumably know they have completely different trouser sizes – and wouldn’t make an elementary mistake such as that – if one were made.
The jeans have been driving me crazy and I agree that the pair in the bedroom are more likely to be Oscar’s but we can only assume that the pair outside are Reeva’s. I can’t understand why this was never established as fact in court. Could it not also be possible that both pairs belong to Reeva? It would not be unusual for her to have had 2 pairs with her.
There has been various forensic and other relevant paperwork submitted within the evidence bundles supplied to the defense and to the court. Jean info such as size and identified when needed.
These mean some information will not need to be spoken of in court .
When Nel made his claim about Reeva’s jeans being the ONLY bit of her clothing not in her nightbag it made the connection.He was not talking about the inside out jeans.
OP clearly has seen the evidence and photographs so knows of the jeans outside and Nel’s use of ONLY in a question put to him as a fact challenged what OP was claiming.In other words Nel was saying to OP that he was lying about the inside out Jeans being Reeva’s. OP ignored , or did not understand the challenge,and locked himself into his own lie on the matter. OP wanted to ignore the jeans outside and not get involved in speaking about them. That suited Nel and the tactics Nel was using.
You have to remember the heads of argument have not been put forward in which much will become clear.
While OP was talking of the inside out jeans as being Reevas , Nel kept quiet for a reason and was under no obligation to put OP right on whose jeans they really were.
If both pairs of Jeans were Reevas then Nel would be in trouble for misleading the court by stating “ONLY” as he did.
Roux could not complain as he knew from disclosed documents what the situation was. That there are 2 pairs of jeans that are of interest and only one pair was Reevas.
That is interesting.
Why do you think Nel would not just quiz OP on Reevas jeans being outside the window of the bathroom , near to where she was shot?
Do you know if the state and/or defence can introduce new evidence in their closing arguments or is it only already presented evidence that can be raised and used?
I do believe (and hope!) that Nel will use the jeans as a “trick up his sleeve” in closing argument.
When the photo of the pair lying outside was shown in court he moved on surprisingly quickly, without comment, almost as if he did not want to draw too much attention to them … at that stage.
The brilliant Breaking Bad series began with a weird shot of a pair of pants fluttering to the ground, having been flung out of a vehicle window. Perhaps the movie about Reeva will begin with a similar shot: the final, desperate act of a terrified woman. May she rest in peace.
You are right that Nel didnt specify which jeans he was referring to but the question to OP on why the jeans were outside of of RS overnight bag was put to him against the back drop of how neat she was.
If those are OP jeans then it is better for OP as it could mean that it was not RS trying to get changed to leave etc.
Remeber the jeans outside ( which baffle my brain) has never been mentioned.
I assume that Reeva arrived wearing jeans and may or may not have had a spare pair in the overnight bag. For an overnight stay it is unusual to bring an extra pair of trousers. It should be easy enough to determine whether the jeans had been previously worn (jeans she arrived in) or not (hypothetical laundered jeans from the overnight bag) – a forensic version of the whiff test … but the prosecution would have had to enter that as evidence.
Another very interesting post David. Re the inside out jeans being OP’s and taken off hastily at the time of the murder. This would mean that OP was wearing them all evening with his gun in the holster and clipped to the jeans. After murdering her he could not afford to get them covered in blood because that would not fit with his version of them being in bed since 22:00. So either (a) he invented the intruder story very quickly; or (b) the intruder story was already running through his mind when he shot her; or (c) your previous post stating it was a planned murder is correct.
That makes sense to me, he had them on and after shooting her he had to take them off to account for him saying he was asleep.
The duvet was up ended onto the floor in a possible argument and it was there before he shot her and that is one of the reasons why Nel made such an issue about the jeans being in top of the duvet.
The other reason is that the part about going out to bring the fans in never happened because on OP own version the duvet was not in his way and he never mentioned it ever being there having only ever being able to exclude its position with his false claims of police moving and rearranging the scene. But its clear that the duvet was there because the jeans , if they are his, are lying on top of the duvet.
OP’s inside out Jeans FATAL TO HIS VERSION.
1/ OP’s inside out jeans in his version can be classed as being on the right side of the bed and can be associated with it. Along with his vest top, prosthetic legs (by his linked claim to vest) socks by association (for use on stumps/prosthetic legs) and his other items then together the claim he used the left side of the bed is untenable. The locked in lie about whose jeans they were re-inforces the issue and counts against OP’s claim to have used the left side of the bed.
2/ Reeva’s slops/sandals on the left support her being on the left and the holster cannot be included in reasoning for which side of the bed was supposed to be used by who.
3/ OP’s side of the bed was the right side and this means the claims about his 2 phones being on the left pedestal and the gun under the bed on the left side must fail using the placement logic used by OP which is normal.
4/ With a real reasoned placement of OP’s phones and gun, in its holster, starting out on the right side his VERSION has to be now considered from that standpoint.
5/ Once OP first became bloodied after contact with Reeva then the BED, DUVET AND JEANS become a barrier to OP’s movement in the bedroom due to blood trail evidence. He no longer is able to access the right side of the bed and room.
6/ The holster and phones cannot have been accessed from the right side of the bed after OP became bloodstained himself.
7/ Logically the gun and holster and phones had to have been accessed before the shooting and carried or used by OP or Reeva.
8/ The holster could not be returned to the right side of the bed by OP so he placed it on the left pedestal and likely made the two blood spatter marks on the nearby wall in doing so.
9/ We know OP used his 0020 phone so he must have got that prior to the shooting as he would be unable to access phones kept on the right side of the bed.
10/ So we have OP at least having his 0020 phone and gun and holster (likely worn) at the time of the shooting.
11/ The jeans being on top of the duvet suggest some role in the events. The “mistaken for a burglar” story would fail if either Reeva or OP were wearing jeans at the time of the shooting.
####
Possible scenario.
OP, wielding his gun orders, Reeva out of her jeans and demands she wears what he selects. (probably in the bathroom)
OP orders Reeva into the toilet and locks her in.
OP is then free to remove his jeans and prosthetics and puts on shorts and maybe also calls out HELP HELP HELP from the balcony as part of the cover story.
OP carries out the shooting deliberately on his stumps to fit with his planned cover story.
Intuitively I doubt that OP’s actions were this coldly calculated (although not much about this man would surprise me now!) I tend to believe the shooting was “hot blooded”, i.e. in a few moments of blind, uncontrollable rage.
He kept on using the phrase “I didn’t have time to think”. I believe this to be one of the only true things he said about that night.
ONLY 2 BAT STRIKES ON BATHROOM DOOR.
Lets start off with clear claims about the bat strikes from OP.
He states that when striking the door with the cricket bat he used FULL FORCE also described as “with all my might”.
As loud sounds are tied to the DT claims about bat strikes then it is appropriate to use the FULL FORCE description to tie in strikes with alleged loud bang sounds.
PT and DT agree on 2 bat strikes which fit the FULL FORCE description. OP in testimony could describe these 2 strikes hitting.
In regards to a 3rd Bat Strike, OP only “thinks” he hit the door 3 times and is unable to give any real detail on this 3rd strike. This claim looks very dubious.
There were no marks on the panel parts of the door that could be linked to a 3rd bat strike.
Dixon for the DT claims a mark to be a bat strike that is on the frame of the door. However there are no features to define what made the mark or not.The claim is dubious.
Looking deeper at this alleged 3rd bat strike mark to the frame of the door we should apply the defining description of it is conversant with a FULL FORCE blow.
This mark has a lack of damage so does not compare to the accepted bat strike that hit the frame so this mark does not appear to be FULL FORCE. OP fails to report a second kick back from a strike to the door like he did with his first striking hit to the frame which would be expected from a FULL FORCE strike.
Conclusion; The alleged 3rd strike claim and mark ARE NOT compatible with the claimed FULL FORCE defining description supplied by OP in regards to the bat strikes.
It follows that there were only 2 cricket bat strikes to the door..
@ Juror13,
I was wondering if you would / did a post in Prof. Derman who testified for the defence?
Although I feel if the court finds OP a poor unreliable witnes, which im sure they will then by default his evidence will be rejected as it only relates to his version of an intruder in the house. It does not deal with anger or rage.
I am really hoping you can get a chance to put up the closing arguments here, I will watch on YouTube but I really do enjoy your views on the proceedings and I also really enjoy the comments from the other readers.
Thanks 🙂 I do plan to write a summary for that last week of the defense’s case, as well as for the closing arguments. I have been super stretched for time, but I will find a way to get it done. I too have enjoyed the commentary from the readers!
RS was so stealthy that she got up, moved across to the opposite side of the bed, got off the bed and walked in pitch dark to the bathroom in absolute silence that not even OP heard her while initially only being no more than 2 metres away , but then she goes and flings the window open with such force that it makes a noise loud enough to be heard with such clarity that OP was immediately able to identify it as the window OPENING.
That just doesnt sit with me.
Also, if we accept the above part of his version as true we still have to deal with her doing all that starting ONLY from when got to the right side of the bed and had his back to the bed (otherwise he would have seen her) up to where he has just turned round to make his way back from the right side of the bed just before he picks up the jeans.
Again that doesnt sound like its probable to me.
Something else that doesn’t make sense to me is that on OP version she did all of the above in the above time frame and then still went into the toilet, pulled her basketball shorts down, urinated, pulled them up again and then took a step out of the bathroom to pull the outward opening toilet door closed and lock it from the time it took OP to get from the front of the bed to fetch his firearm under the left side of the bed and into the passageway to the bathroom where he alledges he heard the toilet door slam shut and lock which I understand to be as he enters the passageway because in his cross examination he says he heard the door close when he started to shout , which was as he entered the passage.
2 eyewitnesses also saw the bathroom light on IMMEDIATLY after the first set of bangs, OP says he never turned them on so that means if we accept the witness evidence that RS turned on the light as she entered the bathroom. Meaning he knew she was in there as the light was on and it wasnt him that switched it on.
when you say intent do you mean ‘premeditated’?
Premeditated is a tricky word, and it seems that it can be interpreted differently from country to country from what I understand.
In this instance, I personally do not think that Oscar had pre-planned to kill her that evening in the traditional sense of the word “premeditated”. However, I do think that whatever occurred in that house on the 13th/14th prompted him to want to kill her. Whether it was heat of the moment, or something that brewed for a few hours, I don’t know. I would just be speculating, like everybody else. By intent, I mean that he consciously used a weapon that he knew was loaded to shoot and kill her that night. It was not an accident. He wasn’t “not thinking”. He wasn’t under the duress of heightened anxiety. He shot 4 times, with intent, to kill Reeva, who had no means to escape a tiny toilet room.
At the bail hearing I gathered that, in the South African legal context, premeditated and intentional seem to be interchangeable. Some have argued that the murder was planned in advance (premeditated in the more traditional sense) which I just cannot see. I believe it was a hot-blooded (crime of passion) as opposed to a cold-blooded (planned) murder.
Juror 13, I am really hoping that you will cover the Shrien Dewani case. Now there is what appears to be a carefully premeditated, cold-blooded killing.
because I explore that line of questioning here:
Hi Nick… I will check out your ebooks.