Just a note on the video – It says something about how much OP’s version has got into peoples sub-conscious when the Narrative follows his version.
Having seen the walk through, I am convinced the Narrative should be:
‘After Murdering his Girlfriend, Oscar Pistorius tried to get her dead body out of the house as quick as he could and called a friend to help him. His friend rushed over, however he was thwarted by another neighbour who also arrived on the scene. This person became the Catalyst for the prosecution of Pistorius and his defence team tried everything it could to discredit him.’
To see whether they succeeded, tune in on Thursday for the latest instalment of, ‘The Incarceration of The Blade Runner’…….
OP’s narrative has to be followed by the State, as the State is trying to show the OP narrative cannot be reasonably true.
What the State have done is to jump on this narrative and extend it to the two previous incidences – gun going off in the restaurant, allege shooting from the car … to create a narrative of recklessness and a narrative of refusing to accept responsibility (which OP helped them with).
The State have also attempted to create a narrative of OP – RS deteriorating relationship with selective use of the Whatsapp messages – leading to an argument and then intentional murder.
some suspicious acts after the supposed accident. 1. op never called the police, although he claims he told reeva to many times 2. what did he do when he returned upstairs. 3,claims he was told to take her to the hospital; never called for an ambulance. 4. washed his hands after he shot reeva (lied about it at trial)5, no emotion during the re-enactment video.
I don’t recall the State making a big deal out of this? It doesn’t at all appear in their Head of Arguments or Summing up? I don’t think the state have at all made anything out of it … It is only in the comments on this site, the websleuths site and elsewhere have I seen this brought forward – I get no sense that this will be considered at all within the court or by Judge Masipa. I really don’t see the State emphasising this as part of their case. Maybe I am mistaken – I just don’t see this as part of the State’s case?
On the contrary, the defence have made a case of post shooting remorse, sadness, attempts to save RS – this is given support by all the first witness from 3:22 am – including Dr Stipp.
although i believe the state has a strong case, i think they should have delved more closely into some of these peculiarities during the trial, esp when op was cross-examined. op not calling the police or the ambulance shouts to me that he wasn’t sincere but rather was thinking like someone who had just committed a terrible crime His. hand washing was an attempt to wash away his guilt. His emotions are contrived. They are one of his best defenses.
i just want to add that he knew from the start he was as guilty as sin and was caught redhanded by dr stipp. He knew it would be hard to convince anyone of his concocted story so gave it everything he had with all the emotion he could muster. His antics in the court room brought sympathy even from the press. He is paranoid that his story won’t be seen as believable…he doesn’t trust his lawyers…he must help them out . Poor, poor Oscar.
If OP is acting – hopefully the Judge etc can see through it. Both lawyers (Barristers?) and Judge would have seen many thousands of defendants (innocent and guilty) – and would probably have a better idea than us whether someone was pretending etc.
well, i have to admit i was wrong to judge oscar as acting since now the judge has ruled that he wasn’t. I was very surprised by her decision today but accept it, since she is much more qualified than me. Still leaves me questions, but have decided to trust her better judgment.
Well mrs marsha Matheson, that’s very good of you. Despite the judges “qualifications” her decision would be overturned in a jiffy if a different and unbiased judge was reviewing this case.
Juror13 
Just a note on the video – It says something about how much OP’s version has got into peoples sub-conscious when the Narrative follows his version.
Having seen the walk through, I am convinced the Narrative should be:
‘After Murdering his Girlfriend, Oscar Pistorius tried to get her dead body out of the house as quick as he could and called a friend to help him. His friend rushed over, however he was thwarted by another neighbour who also arrived on the scene. This person became the Catalyst for the prosecution of Pistorius and his defence team tried everything it could to discredit him.’
To see whether they succeeded, tune in on Thursday for the latest instalment of, ‘The Incarceration of The Blade Runner’…….
I like it, Hoosen!
OP’s narrative has to be followed by the State, as the State is trying to show the OP narrative cannot be reasonably true.
What the State have done is to jump on this narrative and extend it to the two previous incidences – gun going off in the restaurant, allege shooting from the car … to create a narrative of recklessness and a narrative of refusing to accept responsibility (which OP helped them with).
The State have also attempted to create a narrative of OP – RS deteriorating relationship with selective use of the Whatsapp messages – leading to an argument and then intentional murder.
some suspicious acts after the supposed accident. 1. op never called the police, although he claims he told reeva to many times 2. what did he do when he returned upstairs. 3,claims he was told to take her to the hospital; never called for an ambulance. 4. washed his hands after he shot reeva (lied about it at trial)5, no emotion during the re-enactment video.
I don’t recall the State making a big deal out of this? It doesn’t at all appear in their Head of Arguments or Summing up? I don’t think the state have at all made anything out of it … It is only in the comments on this site, the websleuths site and elsewhere have I seen this brought forward – I get no sense that this will be considered at all within the court or by Judge Masipa. I really don’t see the State emphasising this as part of their case. Maybe I am mistaken – I just don’t see this as part of the State’s case?
On the contrary, the defence have made a case of post shooting remorse, sadness, attempts to save RS – this is given support by all the first witness from 3:22 am – including Dr Stipp.
although i believe the state has a strong case, i think they should have delved more closely into some of these peculiarities during the trial, esp when op was cross-examined. op not calling the police or the ambulance shouts to me that he wasn’t sincere but rather was thinking like someone who had just committed a terrible crime His. hand washing was an attempt to wash away his guilt. His emotions are contrived. They are one of his best defenses.
i just want to add that he knew from the start he was as guilty as sin and was caught redhanded by dr stipp. He knew it would be hard to convince anyone of his concocted story so gave it everything he had with all the emotion he could muster. His antics in the court room brought sympathy even from the press. He is paranoid that his story won’t be seen as believable…he doesn’t trust his lawyers…he must help them out . Poor, poor Oscar.
If OP is acting – hopefully the Judge etc can see through it. Both lawyers (Barristers?) and Judge would have seen many thousands of defendants (innocent and guilty) – and would probably have a better idea than us whether someone was pretending etc.
well, i have to admit i was wrong to judge oscar as acting since now the judge has ruled that he wasn’t. I was very surprised by her decision today but accept it, since she is much more qualified than me. Still leaves me questions, but have decided to trust her better judgment.
Well mrs marsha Matheson, that’s very good of you. Despite the judges “qualifications” her decision would be overturned in a jiffy if a different and unbiased judge was reviewing this case.