In an affidavit, Oscar Pistorius made the following statement which was read out in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Tuesday by his lawyer.
Please note that Statement Analysis is in bold type. This is analysis of the statement only; and not of Oscar Pistorius. It is not known if these were his words, or the words of attorneys.
I am an adult male, SA citizen and applicant in this application and seek to be released on bail.
I make this affadavit of my own free will and have not been influenced. Contents is true and correct.
I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder because I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.
Note "murder" and "premeditated murder" are separate.
Note "my girlfriend" is an incomplete social introduction, avoiding the use of her name, which suggests trouble within the relationship.
I have been informed I have been acused of murder – I deny the accusation.
Please note that to deny the accusation is to avoid saying "I didn't murder her"
Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the murder of my girlfriend.
He denies only premeditation.
I have no intention to relocate as I love my country.
I earn R5.6m a year. I’ve never been convicted of crimes.
I deny that I committed murder in the strongest point. Even though I don’t have to, I want to deal with these allegations.
To deny is to refuse to accept. This is also to avoid saying "I did not murder her." By refusing to accept, he is "denying"; which could be that he refuses to accept responsibility or refuses to accept the charge.
Note "in the strongest point."
Note that he wants to "deal" with these allegations.
Reeva had bought me a present for Valentine’s Day. We were deeply in love.
Note the use of her name as "Reeva", first name, casual. Note the use of the pronoun "we" regarding the context of Valentine's Day and a present.
Note the past tense "were" is used. Does he no longer love her?
We were deeply in love and couldn’t be happier. I loved her and I know she felt the same way.
Note the sensitivity of being in love, via repetition. Note in the negative, "couldn't be happier" which is hyperbolic language. This is another indication of a bad relationship.
Note "I loved her" is past tense. When someone loses a loved one, the love continues.
On 13 Feb Reeva would have gone out with her friends, me with mine. She wanted to stay at home.
This appears to be a point of contention.
By about 22h00 we were in my bedroom. I was watching TV. My legs were off. She was doing yoga. At the end of the evening we got into bed.
Please note that it is his bedroom, not "the bedroom" or "our" bedroom.
Note that he was watching TV and that his legs were off.
"At the end of the evening" skips over time.
I’m accutely aware of people gaining entries to homes to commit crime, I’ve received death threats.
I sleep with my 9mm under my bed. I woke up to close the sliding door and heard a noise in the bathroom.
Note again, "my" bed, and not "the" or "ours": this from someone "deeply in love" and "couldn't be happier"
Please note that he tells us the reason he woke up: "to" close the sliding door and then afterwards he heard a noise.
This is a very sensitive point for him in his account, and may be something that he wished he had corrected.
It was not the noise that woke him.
He feels the need to explain why he woke up.
How is it that the reason he woke up was to close a door, yet he heard a nose afterwards?
Is this his "dead squirrels climbed up into the engine" moment for Pistorius?
I was scared and didn’t switch on the light. I got my gun and moved towards the bathroom. I screamed at the intruder because I did not have my legs on I felt vulnerable. I fired shots through the bathroom door and told Reeva to call police.
1. Here we have the emotion of being "scared" placed in the perfect, or logical part of the story. This is done in story telling and is often placed their artificially. In reality, humans take time to process emotions, and in truthful accounts, often the action is given first, and the emotions afterwards.
2. Note anything in the negative: he reports, positively, that he did not, negatively, turn on the lights. This is very important to him.
3. Here we see the need to explain why he screamed at the intruder. This is the second "blue" (highest level of sensitivity) in the story. First he needed to tell us not that he woke up, but why he woke up, and now he needs to tell us, not that he screamed, but the need to explain why he screamed. This is the critical portion of sensitivity in the account.
4. "I felt vulnerable" is another example of artificial placement of emotions in a statement.
Emotions within a statement of "what happened" are found, within truthful accounts, in the post event portion of a statement.
Each statement has three parts:
1. The introduction
2. The main event
3. The post events
Generally, a truthful statement will have 25% of the words used to describe what happened before the event, 50% of the words to describe the actual event, and 25% of the words telling us what happened afterwards ("I called 911" etc). Any significant deviation from this formula makes the statement "unreliable."
Because humans take time to process emotions, the portions about being afraid or vulnerable, in truthful accounts, are generally found in the third section of a statement, as the subject now has given thought to what happened.
Truthful people tell us what happened. When someone feels the need to explain why something happened, it indicates that they are aware of what questions are going to be asked.
"Why did you get out of bed?" for example, and the person thinks, "I better tell them now why I got out of bed because they are going to ask..."
The portion of being "vulnerable" is an attempt to excuse or justify the actions.
I walked back to the bed and realised Reeva was not in bed. Its then it dawned on me it could be her in there.
Note the lack of rushing in the statement. No mention is made of his legs. Previously, he had to drag himself along, and was vulnerable about not having his legs on. This appears to be another "dead squirrel" moment. Note that it is "the" bed and not "my" bed
I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door onto the balcony and screamed for help.
Note that now he adds that he "rushed" back.
I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick open the toilet door.
and now he put on his legs.
Note that the word "tried" in the past tense, means attempted and failed.
I think I must have then turned on the lights.
Note the mention of lights not being turned on before, and now he only "thinks" (weak commitment) he turned them on.
Investigators should seek to learn if sexual activity may have been part motive in this crime. Did his girlfriend have sexual contact with another man?
I went back into my bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door.
He feels the need to tell why he grabbed his cricket bat.
I called paramedics and complex security. I tried to carry her down stairs for help.
I tried to help her but she died in my arms. I am mortified.
Note that "mortified" is often associated with embarrassment. It would be interesting to know how people in South Africa use this word.
With the benefit of hindsight I realise that Reeva went to the bathroom when I went to close the balcony door.
I trust the South African legal system and the facts will show that I did not murder Reeva.
This is not to say "I did not murder Reeva" but that the facts will show it. This may explain his "trust" in the South African legal system. This same thought continues:
I believe the forensic evidence will prove what I am saying. I used a cricket bat to break open toilet door.
This is not to say he did not murder Reeva; only that the facts will show it, and specifically, the forensic evidence will prove "what I am saying."
I am an international sports star, I will not evade my trial.
After the shooting I did not flee the scene. I remained until the police arrived.
I dont know of any witnesses in this matter, and I won’t interfere with any witnesses.
My continued incarceration will be of “no benefit” to the state. Release would not disturb the public order.
There are enough indications in this account to conclude Deception is present.