Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Oscar Pistorius Affidavit Analyzed


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.
He walked,
he rushed
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. 

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

OT

Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/ohio-poll-worker-obama-supporter-investigated-for-potentially-voting-six-times/#ixzz2LMg3LQau

Jo said...

I have no intention to relocate as I love my country.

"Relocate" is very weak language. Relocate suggest a forwarding address, not exactly what the court is afraid of. He also tells us why he would not relocate - that his love of country would be stronger than his desire to avoid being charged with this crime.

I earn R5.6m a year. I’ve never been convicted of crimes.

Does using "crimes" vs "a crime" suggest he may have one crime on his record?

shewolf said...

If you hear noises at night - you check if it is a family member.
If you can't find a family member - you scream his name.
If you think family member is asleep - you DON'T shoot before waking him because it may scare him to death.
If someone is hiding in your bathroom and you think it is a burglar - you drag some furiture to block the door, try to hide your family and then call the police.
If you are scared - you turn on the light.

Sarah said...

Thanks Peter! I've been waiting for you to comment on this.

Would this be an embedded admission?

'I have been informed I have been accused of murder – I deny the accusation. Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the murder of my girlfriend.'

Also, I saw a report a while ago that he tweeted something about thinking he heard an intruder in his house (in an earlier incident) and 'going commando' or something to that effect. Did he have this in mind when he tweeted that?

Sarah said...

here's that tweet--

"Nothing like getting home to hear the washing machine on and thinking its an intruder to go into full combat recon mode into the pantry! waa,"

I think in late November.

Lis said...

Lots of indicators in this guy's speech and actions. I wonder how it will go since he has plenty of money and supporters.

I wonder if she was breaking up with him.

Seriously, who shoots into a room through a closed door while having no idea who they are shooting at?

Anonymous said...

He's legless in many ways!!!! Jail this slug!!!

Skeptical said...

Did anyone else come across this site today? A set of punctuation marks to indicate specifically what is meant - irony, sarcasm, authority, etc., so much cooler than emoticons. I have noticed that sometimes on sites like this what someone means is misunderstood. These could make our intentions clear. Have fun with them.

http://flavorwire.com/371097/10-obscure-punctuation-marks-that-should-really-get-more-play/view-all

Periwinkle Paisley said...

Someone who is SO concerned for their safety, so "accutely aware" of intruders, a man who feels terribly vulnerable without his legs, and is worried enough about death threats that he sleeps with a gun under the bed, falls asleep with the door open? Not likely! And if your vulnerability due to a lack of legs was your chief concern, wouldn't you put them on first? Considering that with legs on you're the fastest man in South Africa and you might have to run away from or after an intruder I think you'd pick legs first. On a daily basis I would think putting on legs would be the very first thing he does. I could be wrong. I'm basing that assumption on my very nearsighted son whose first action of every day is to put on his glasses. If he can't find them, he stumbles around looking for them before doing any other actions. Not putting on legs before checking out a strange and potentially dangerous noise seems highly unlikely.

He hears a noise. He doesn't say, "Babe, is that you?" Usually I assume any noises I hear are other people that are in the house with me. Instead he gets the gun and moves toward this supposed noise. I assume moving without legs is very awkward, holding a gun while moving moreso. Then he screamed at the intruder. At this point, wouldn't Reeva have answered him? "I'm trying to pee, what are you yelling about?"

No,I think they were fighting and and he shut the sliding door afraid of being overheard. In the time it took him to shut the door, she barricaded herself in the bathroom because at this point the fight had escalated to the point where she was scared of him. He screamed at her through the door and she either backsassed him or he's trying to look badass and shoot the lock open or he shot through the door to scare her some more or some combo of the three. Then when she doesn't answer he realizes what he's done. Whoops. I don't think it was premeditated, I don't even think he meant to kill her(If you shoot through a door there's a high level of uncertainty that the person is even in your direct line of fire.) but that is what happened. Man 1or Murder 2 at least.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just wait for the trial. Instead of reading into a situation which u were not present to.

Anonymous said...

I was so interested to read your work on this, Peter - thank you.

One thing that was suggested to me today when I queried the use of the word 'mortified' was that the statement might have been given in Afrikaans and translated. I don't know how likely that is.

PP - agree totally about a man so frightened of possible intruders falling asleep with the door open. And seriously - all statement analysis aside for a moment - what is the first, logical conclusion when you're spending the night with someone and hear a noise in the en-suite bathroom?

Even if his story were to ring true, he still intended to kill an intruder who was not at that point offering him bodily harm, ie it was not immediate self-defence. He's still guilty of intentionally killing someone.

Back to SA - this was a fascinating and instructive read. Thank you.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

I preceeded my scenario with the words "I think" not "I was there and saw the whole thing", anonymous 6:44, and just because a trial occurs and a verdict is given doesn't mean that it's the right outcome. :cough:OJ:cough:

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of what you said except I do believe he meant to kill her. She shut the door on him, maybe because she didnt want to argue, or maybe because she was afraid, probably the latter because she locked the door. But his statement is fat full of ego, 'international sports superstar' or whatever, why not easily recognizable, etc. This dude feels entitled, its all over his statement. 'I dont have to' answer to these charges, but Im choosing to deal with them. Well of course you have to answer to murder charges you arrogant ass. Anyway, in my mind he raged out when she sequestered herself and there was no punishment big enough for her in his mind at that point. No one turns their back on international sports superstar!
I also believe it was more than shooting off the lock based on where she was hit unless she was crouching, but youve made a good point and it will be interesting to see where the bullet holes were in the door.

Anonymous said...

This is a statement analysis blog...statement deconstruction and crime reconstruction (witness jon benet posts) are part of it. You will want to post that on every page of this blog if that's how you feel.

BostonLady said...

'I have been informed I have been accused of murder – I deny the accusation. Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the murder of my girlfriend.'

Oscar denies the accusation but does not deny the murder. And I agree Sarah, the statement within "I planned the murder of my girlfriend" certainly appears to be an embedded admission.

Peter Hyatt said...

If she ran into the bathroom to get away from him, he then executed her.

That pretty much speaks to intention, no?

Peter

sella35 said...

Blade Runner said- "I’ve never been convicted of crimes"..... Convicted is the key word here, so he admits he has committed crimes, but never been caught... Also I caught the " Nothing can be further from the truth..." negative. Am waiting for more to read and learn, thanks! <3 Sella

Anonymous said...

I doubt he remembers any of this. I told my mom when the story first broke, I BET he was on steriods, and then I heard they found them and he was drinking and it was 3am...maybe he was in a blackout and really doesn't recall anything, but knows the facts now, so tryign to cover his tracks??

Amaleen6 said...

Periwinkle Paisley, I agree with you except for one thing: I believe he meant to kill her. He fired four shots through the door. Three of them hit her.

brosnanfan said...

Am I the only one who has noticed the absence of any Valentine's Day "celebrations"? Yes, it was the evening of February 13, but that's close enough for jazz, and a young sexually active couple don't need too much of a reason. Yeah, it might not be important, but then again maybe it is important. I just have a hunch that small detail is important.

One thing I noticed throughout the course of the letter...he repeatedly says he "moved", "walked", "moved", all without putting on his legs. I realize that people who use prosthetics can move around without their appendages, but can he do all these things while carrying a handgun?

It will be interesting to see what the angle of the shots are. He has legs that end at the knee, which of course would make him shorter than Reeva when he was not wearing his legs. If the angle were headed upwards, such as from a shorter person shooting towards something higher than him, then he might have a defense; but if they are straight shots, compatible with the height he would be with his legs on...I hope the SA police can figure that out. Surely there will be bullet trajectory clues, both in Reeva and the bathroom door.

He sounds paranoid. Do steroids make a person paranoid, as well as enraged?

brosnanfan said...

It seems that the full statement hasn't been published here on SA. Here is a link to his entire statement. I still think it shows deception, but it is the full statement and not just part of it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

Here is a sentence that jumped out at me:

"I also know that the events of that tragic night were as I have described them and that in due course I have no doubt the police and expert investigators will bear this out."

Could this be another way of saying, "I've told you all I know and that's it,"?

Anonymous said...

He is so guilty. Why would a sport star get death threats?????

Anonymous said...

The biggest clue for me is the LOCKED bathroom door.

Does anyone go to the bathroom, even for something as simple as a midnight pee, in their significant others place and take the time to lock the bathroom door?

From experience I never have. Unless a third party was also in the house.

I really wanted this to be an accident because she must have been terrified. I hope when she died in his arms she forgot he killed her on purpose.

Anonymous said...

(From ivanna-anna)

"Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the murder of my girlfriend."

I agree -- he refers to this as a murder. From an innocent man, I would expect something like "Nothing can be further from the truth that I planned the death of my girlfriend."

MaryK said...

This story is so fishy, I just had to come here to see if you agreed! Why would you not immediately think it was your girlfriend in the bathroom upon first hearing a noise? This alone is so stupid. If we are to believe him, he certainly paints himself as really stupid and really reckless. Why would you call out to the "intruder" and then begin firing? Stupid again. After you got your gun wouldn't you have awoken your girlfriend to tell her to be quiet and to call the police? Why would you risk her waking up and getting shot? Stupid. He's guilty.

Red Ryder said...

Sadly, as expected, "Pistorius Shots Said To Come From High Angle" ABC news. Sorry, unable to link by my phone. There it is. Shots fired from high up toward the toilet bowl into an approximately 5'x5' room. Reeva hit in head, elbow, and hip. Two phones on bed, neither used to call LE. OP brother, Carl, and OP's lawyer came before LE and tried to access OP's offshore bank account! Looks bad.

Red Ryder said...

Also loud arguing heard by neighbors for hour before shooting and lights seen on at time shots were fired:( Poor Reeva, she must have been terrified. Reported 2 bottles of testosterone found in bedroom.

Peter Hyatt said...

RR,

sharp commenting, as usual. You bring an interesting perspective to cases.

thank you,

Peter

Anonymous said...

'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.'

For someone who was deeply in love with his girlfriend, he should have checked if his girlfriend was fine, just to make sure the 'intruder' hadn't harmed her in any way, before pulling the trigger.

Secondly, why would the deceased 'lock ' the bathroom door, if they shared the same bed, unless if she was in fear.

Unknown said...

Come on now, when he said "we were in love' it doesn't mean that he no longer loves her, I mean she's dead, do you want him to say we are in love even though she's dead? aaaag these magistrates are just a pain, come on, i thought they were smarter than that, so lame!

Unknown said...

Jesus! come on, 'my bed instead of our??? they were not married, so it still is Oscar's bed

Unknown said...

he probably woke up to close the balcony sliding door due to wind or cold air! and then heard the noise in the bathroom afterwards!

Unknown said...

Come on now, when he said "we were in love' it doesn't mean that he no longer loves her, I mean she's dead, do you want him to say we are in love even though she's dead? aaaag these magistrates are just a pain, come on, i thought they were smarter than that, so lame!

Unknown said...

please guys, this oke did not kill her on purpose, he didn't

Anonymous said...

If it helps, I don't think he was in his right mind when he did it. Also passion is not love. Passion leads to tragedies like this. I am sorry if he was your hero. All heros disappoint. Maybe not this hugely, but they all fall. Our heros have clay feet, ever hear that saying?

Anonymous said...

After today,yall would know Oscar won the case.

Anonymous said...

Oscar Pistorius threatened a known mobster in November 2012 over a girl. Apparently that was Oscar's girlfriend at the time and Oscar believed she'd been cheating on him with the mobster. Oscar confronted him and threatened to break his legs off. The mobster then threatened to 'go after' Oscar - the "death threats"

Zac Broxson said...

Too scared to turn on the light yet he yelled at the intruder? Makes no sense
You have missed huge parts of the statement out here which explain more. He got up, opened the door, went to the balcony (yet from the light he must have let in didnt realise Reeva was missing) he then heard 'the noise', also more fishy stuff on the aftermath and realisation

Zac Broxson said...

Too scared to turn on the light yet he yelled at the intruder? Makes no sense
You have missed huge parts of the statement out here which explain more. He got up, opened the door, went to the balcony (yet from the light he must have let in didnt realise Reeva was missing) he then heard 'the noise', also more fishy stuff on the aftermath and realisation

Zac Broxson said...

Too scared to turn on the light yet he yelled at the intruder? Makes no sense
You have missed huge parts of the statement out here which explain more. He got up, opened the door, went to the balcony (yet from the light he must have let in didnt realise Reeva was missing) he then heard 'the noise', also more fishy stuff on the aftermath and realisation

Anonymous said...

A crime of passion? I don't believe this was an accident! Wondering if her family will sue OP.

Anonymous said...

If we look at the facts in this case (Oscar Pistorius' affidavit), we see early on when he gives his account of events, he had 2 chances to "see" if Reeva was actually in bed or not before the shooting:

Chance 1 – When he woke up he would have noticed if she was next to him or not:
Affidavit: During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains.

We assume from his testimony when he woke up he did see she was in the bed because:
A) there was more light in the room because the curtains and blinds were not closed, and
B) he says later on in his affidavit "With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in." and also “I thought Reeva was in bed”

Chance 2 – When he came back in from the balcony, and heard the noise and went to the bed to grab his pistol:
Affidavit: I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

From the above we can see he saw Reeva was in bed the first time, but we can assume the second time he never saw if she was in the bed because he says “It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed”, and according to his testimony she was not in the bed, but had already gone to the bathroom whilst he was in the balcony.

There was a third time he “saw” if Reeva was in the bed or not:

Chance 3 – This was after he conducted the shooting, and went back to the bed to “see if Reeva was safe or not”
Affidavit: I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed.

We know at the time of Chance 1 and 2 the lights were off. If they were not, none of what he is saying would be viable. Were the lights on or off during Chance 3?

We know from his affidavit that during Chance 3 the lights were off:
Affidavit: When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help. I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights.

Thus we know Chance 3 and Chance 2 were both on equal par in terms of “pitch blackness” to see if Reeva was in the bed or not. But during Chance 3 he saw she wasn’t there, and during Chance 2 he never noticed even though he was right next to her “grabbing the gun”?

It does not make sense that he would be able to see she wasn’t there during Chance 3 but not Chance 2. By his own affidavit he noticed

What would Oscar say in Court:
Chance 1: Yes I saw she was there
Chance 2: No I did not notice, cause during chance 1 I saw she was there
Chance 3: Yes, I saw she was there

What did you mean when you said “It was pitch black in the bedroom and I thought she was in bed”?

If he says “I couldn’t see she was there”, strange, because the level of blackness was the same during Chance 3, and you saw she wasn’t in bed then

Anonymous said...

He is guilty of MURDER. Nobody shoots without knowing where their partner is. Why go towards the danger and shoot?? Why not wake Reeva and escape the bedroom together? And after shooting, his first instinct is "It was Reeva in there".....not once did he check the bedroom door to see if she had perhaps run downstairs for help........He's an ego maniac who murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage.

Derry Gene said...

It's a badly kept secret that he was seeing someone else but their mutual friends were pressurising him to stay with Reeva.

Derry Gene said...

It's a badly kept secret that he was seeing someone else but their mutual friends were pressurising him to stay with Reeva.

Derry Gene said...

Just a thought. @LAJanne Those tweets from early February to just days before the event are spine chilling in hindsight.

Anonymous said...

Sorry "Anonymous" but ....


"He is guilty of MURDER. Nobody shoots without knowing where their partner is." - If he didn't hear her or see her get up and go to the toilet, why wouldn't he assume she was in bed?



"Why go towards the danger and shoot?? Why not wake Reeva and escape the bedroom together?" - The bathroom entrance is by the bedroom door. He/they would have had no choice but to go towards "the danger" to escape the bedroom.


"And after shooting, his first instinct is "It was Reeva in there".....not once did he check the bedroom door to see if she had perhaps run downstairs for help........" - The bedroom door is lockable from the inside and was locked so he would have known she hadn't gone downstairs. Besides, considering as I said that the bathroom door is by the bedroom, why would she have gone towards "the danger"?


"He's an ego maniac who murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage." - If he's an egomaniac, why didn't he just dump her? It's not as if it isn't well known by many around them that he didn't want her, was hung up on someone else and had tried to get rid of her three times in six weeks but had been sympathy-talked into taking her back by his friends, most of who happened to be mostly her friends.


To the "analyzer" - the reason he uses the word "my" to refer to the house, the bedroom, etc, is because she didn't live there. Where does this idea that they lived together come from? They'd only known each other for three months and were mostly off during that time.

Anonymous said...

Why does this blogger insist on analyzing affidavits? Do you think they are what the defendant says on the spur of the moment? Do you think each and every word hasn't been gone over and gone over again with a fine tooth comb by the attorneys first? Do you think attorneys would allow anything in an affidavit that they wouldn't be able to back up or defend in court?

Peter Hyatt said...

Analysis of an affidavit follows the same principles of analysis of all statements.

It often yields content.

As to your questions, I will let others answer for you.

Anonymous said...

OP probably screamed to Reeva to ''get out of his house'' and not the imagined intruder, remember his trophies were in a mess and 1 was smashed