Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Oscar Pistorius Statement Analysis by Kaaryn Gough


                                      Oscar Pistorius Statement Analysis
                                                               by Kaaryn Gough

Following is a transcript of the central section of Oscar Pistorius's defence affidavit, read out by the athlete's lawyer to the judge in the Pretoria courtroom during his bail hearing:

"After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep. I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
"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. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.
Change of language from “intruders” to “someone”. It is important to note when a person’s Personal Dictionary changes. People don’t change their language arbitrarily. People use very specific words and are consistent with their language as long as their relationship/experience with the item/person remains the same. A change in language is expected when the relationship/experience with the item/person changes. The change of language from “intruders” to “someone” at this point in the story, tells us that the subject viewed who ever was in the bathroom differently than from those ‘entering homes with a view to commit crime.’ “someone” is neutral and could be anyone, friend or foe, and the use of it at this point in the story tells us that the subject did not consider the “someone” in the bathroom to be an “intruder”.
Also note: “someone” is singular. The subject believed only one person was in the bathroom.
"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
“someone”—the subject’s language tells us that he still does not consider the person to be an intruder.
"I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
“On my way to the bathroom…”—not “as I approached the bathroom…”. “On my way…” is too casual considering the circumstances.
words to the effect” – He’s not committing to what he said. The “effect” is more important, which was to “get out of my house”.
Note: He does not include that he informs the someone that he has a gun. Since he doesn’t say this, we cannot assume that he did. One would expect when a person wants to gain control in a situation, he/she would use this information as leverage. It would be an important point in a story that the someone was “warned” that a gun was present. Why doesn’t the subject say this?
Also, if the subject screamed for the someone to get out of his house, this demonstrates that the subject had made the decision to allow the someone in the bathroom to leave of his own accord. In order to do that, the someone would have to open the toilet door in order to exit the house (Keep this in mind for later)*. Again, as part of his efforts to get the someone to leave, one would think that mentioning “I have a gun” would help to prompt the someone to leave.
"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
“Intruder/s”—change from “someone” as said earlier. The change follows the fact that the subject noticed the bathroom window was open. The question still remains, why did the subject originally consider the person in the bathroom to be “someone” but now considers them an “intruder” at this point?. The subject’s relationship with the someone in the toilet has changed.
“I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.”— The events within a story should be told in the order of how the subject experienced them. Note the order here. The subject realized the intruder/s were in the toilet before he did not see anyone in the bathroom and before he heard movement inside the toilet.
"It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
 “I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.”—not “if the intruders came out…”. The subject was certain the intruders would come out. How did he know this?
“I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.”—“grave” provides the reasoning behind firing the gun. However, there is a conflict in thinking and logic at this point.
Recall earlier note in my analysis at the (*)—the subject claimed he screamed for he/them to get out of his house. This part of the story happened just moments before he believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet, that he and Reeva would be in grave danger. In effect, he’s telling us that he was willing to allow the intruder/s to come out in order for them to get out at the same time, making the decision that when he/they come out, “we would be in grave danger”. In other words, he was telling them to get out at the same time he was preparing to fire his gun.
 “I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”—not “us”. He separates himself from Reeva. However, he does place Reeva first, indicating Reeva was more important than “myself”.
“we”—This is the last time the subject uses this pronoun.
I felt trapped…”—not, “I was trapped”. “felt” describes an emotional state rather than an actual physical one, and yet he uses physical reasons (my bedroom door was locked…) to explain why he felt trapped. Given the subject uses “I” and the past tense, he is committing to this statement and it is likely true—he felt trapped. But trapped how?
I felt trapped…”—not “we were trapped”. There was no “we” at this point.
"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. 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.
Again, change of language from “screamed” to “shouted”. The subject first uses “screamed” when describing how he communicated with the “him/them” in the bathroom and in his communication to Reeva for her to call the police for the first time. However, after he fired shots at the toilet door, his language changed to “shouted” in his communication to Reeva for her to call the police. Why the change? What had changed for him in his experience with Reeva? He had fired shots at the toilet door.
One should note—“screamed” indicates an extreme emotional state and a very loud projection of voice, whereas “shouted” does not necessarily include an emotional state. One can shout simply because of distance or an impediment, such as a door, being between the two. The projection of voice is not as great as a scream.
Also note he included that “She did not respond.” after his second command to Reeva to call the police. One should wonder why he did not say that she had not responded the first time when he had “screamed” at her to call the police. Since he does not say it, we can not assume it happened. Therefore, we can only assume Reeva did not respond when the subject “shouted” to Reeva.

Change of language from “shouted” to “screamed”. Again, the language changed at this point of the story. However, given the events within the story, the change can be explained, making it “justified”. The word “screamed” indicates a highly emotional audio response. Generally, screaming is connected with extreme emotions such as fear, anger, joy. With all three emotions, it’s possible to “scream”

86 comments:

Kaaryn Gough said...

Correction in my analysis.

Therefore, we can only assume Reeva did not respond when the subject “shouted” to Reeva.

john said...

Confused..

Are we not to assume in S/A ?

Peter Hyatt said...

John, it may be semantics.

You might be referring to the assumption that we call "the expected"; where Kaaryn, for example, gave a list of expected (or assumed) words that a family of a kidnapped baby might use, and when they did not, she confronted the "unexpected" in her work.

Specifically, she can answer for you.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

I corrected the one word in the original.

It is brilliant analysis and shows a very important a facet of analysis:

how language in relationships can change, even in a moment, as the reality changes.

Marvelous work.

Bravo.

Peter

Anonymous said...

The thing that gets me, if she had been in bathroom and he is yelling for "the intruder" she wouldve spoke up. I know I would've. She was in there more than likely because they were fighting and she needed space away from him. The door was locked, she didnt answer, she didn't know what was coming. :( if he even said anything to her at all.

john said...

Thanks Peter.

john said...

OT.

Peter,

Is this reliable denial weakened by his second denial.

“I did not choke my wife. I’ve never laid my hands on my wife,”

New York news anchor accused of choking wife
By Katherine Cavazini
updated 12:45 PM EST, Wed February 20, 2013

WCBS news anchor Rob Morrison is accused of choking his wife during a domestic violence incident
His wife, Ashley Morrison of CBS MoneyWatch, had red marks on her neck, police said
'I did not choke my wife,' Rob Morrison said Tuesday

WCBS news anchor Rob Morrison is facing charges after authorities allege he choked his wife during a domestic violence incident early Sunday at the couple’s Darien, Connecticut, home.

Morrison’s wife, CBS MoneyWatch anchor Ashley Morrison, did not request medical treatment after the incident, according to police, but authorities say they observed red marks on her neck.

Darien police say they arrived at the couple’s home around 1:30 a.m. Sunday after receiving a call from Ashley Morrison’s mother.

“Upon arrival, it was ascertained that Morrison had been becoming increasingly belligerent toward his wife during the course of the evening culminating in his choking her by the neck with both hands,” Darien police said in a statement.

While being processed, arresting officers allegedly heard Morrison make “verbal threats to do his wife additional harm,” the statement added.

Morrison was charged with second-degree strangulation, second-degree threatening and disorderly conduct.

He was released from jail Tuesday after posting $100,000 bond.

“Rob and Ashley Morrison are cooperating fully with the authorities to insure that all of the information necessary to properly evaluate this unfortunate incident is made available,” the couple’s attorney, Robert Skovgaard, said in a joint statement released Monday.

“The Morrisons are confident that a full review of this matter will show that the allegations have been greatly exaggerated,” Skovgaard added.

A WCBS spokeswoman told HLN the station is declining to comment because the incident is a personal matter.

“I did not choke my wife. I’ve never laid my hands on my wife,” Morrison said outside the courthouse Tuesday following his arraignment, according to News 12 Connecticut.

His next court appearance is scheduled for March 26.

Kaaryn Gough said...

Hello John,

We must be careful in our assumptions. We can only assume something if the evidence is present in the language. If something does not appear, even if logic tells us it should be there, then we cannot assume it to have happened.

It may be a little confusing here. I should have perhaps written:

"Therefore, we can assume "she did not respond" only when the subject "shouted" at her and not when he "screamed at her.

Since the subject doesn't say, "she didn't respond" when he screamed at her, we cannot assume that she did not respond at this point. This was more my point. By raising this point, it raises the question...Did she respond when he screamed at her?

Has this helped to clarify?

J said...

Oscar makes the claim "I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. ...I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on." Then he claims that he "screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

This makes no sense whatsoever bec if he was too scared to turn the lights on (in order for the "intruder" not to detect him) then why is he screaming to the intruder to get out of the house.? If oscar is going to scream to let the "intruder" know he's detected him in the bathroom hiding, then why not turn on the lights???

Jlh said...

Oscar makes the claim "I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. ...I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on." Then he claims that he "screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

This makes no sense whatsoever bec if he was too scared to turn the lights on (in order for the "intruder" not to detect him) then why is he screaming to the intruder to get out of the house.? If oscar is going to scream to let the "intruder" know he's detected him in the bathroom hiding, then why not turn on the lights???

john said...

Thank You Kaaryn,
I'm a huge fan of your work.

Jo said...

"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police.

"at the toilet door" is weaker than "through the toilet door" it is like he is trying to reduce the damage he was intenting to do.

"phone the police" but no explanation to her as to why or instruction to move to a safer place. It was still dark at this time as he did not turn on the lights yet and he fired the gun and then told her to phone the police. She would not have known if he had the gun or if an intruder was firing.

Hobnob said...

john said...
OT.

Peter,

Is this reliable denial weakened by his second denial.

“I did not choke my wife. I’ve never laid my hands on my wife,”


Yes.
Additional words weaken the denial.

Never does not mean did not.

A strong denial would be "I did not choke my wife"
it has all 3 parts of first person singular(I), past tense (Did not/didn't), event specific (choke my wife)

Anything under or over that is not a reliable denial.

I would ask though what his definition of choke is, and if he has touched her with something other than his hands

Hobnob said...

Another excellent analysis Kaaryn,
You not only explain the deception you explain what is expected and why and also when there is something unexpected and ask what would the expected be.

I can see i have much to learn.

john said...

Cheers Hobs..

john said...

OT

Armstrong Refuses To Talk To Doping Officials

The cyclist will not take part in any interviews despite previously being told he must if he wanted to reduce his lifetime ban.9:41pm UK, Wednesday 20 February 2013
Former champion cyclist Lance Armstrong is refusing to talk to officials

Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong says he will not cooperate with American anti-doping investigators, despite having said he would help clean up cycling.

The former athlete had until Wednesday to respond to a request from US officials, who had wanted him to tell them everything he knows about drug use in the sport.

But his lawyer announced Armstrong - who last month admitted using drugs to Oprah Winfrey - would not take part in any interviews.

The US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) had told him he must take part if he wanted to reduce the lifetime ban on taking part in sports he had previously received.

His lawyer Tim Herman said Armstrong would not participate in the process as it was designed "only to demonise selected individuals".

USADA had been negotiating with Armstrong's representatives for more than two months before the announcement.

Armstrong had previously said he was willing to participate in an international effort to clean up cycling.

The former cyclist was at the top of his sport for years, winning the Tour de France seven times during a career that also saw him take other titles.

His success made him rich as sponsors queued up to be associated with his name

In January, he admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs in order to win the seven Tour de France titles. He has now been stripped of the titles.

His confession to taking part in doping has caused the former road cycling star a number of problems.

He is being sued by a Dallas-based promotions company which is seeking to recoup £7.6m in bonuses they paid him for winning the Tour de France.

The US Anti Doping Agency has been locked in a war of words with Armstrong for some time and last month - after his confession - accused him of lying when he claimed he was clean when he made his comeback in 2009.

Armstrong claimed on the Oprah interview he should be given the opportunity to compete again, saying that his life ban felt like a "death penalty".

He told the chat show host: "I can't lie to you. I'd love the opportunity to be able to compete, but that isn't the reason that I'm doing this.

"Frankly, this might not be the most popular answer, but I think I deserve it."

An estimated 3.2 million Americans tuned in to watch Winfrey's interview with him.

It has since been announced Paramount Pictures and producer JJ Abram are planning a film of the cyclist's life.http://news.sky.com/story/1054781/armstrong-refuses-to-talk-to-doping-officials

Hobnob said...

off topic and no surprise here then


Lance Armstrong won't interview under oath with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to reveal all he knows about doping in cycling, his attorney has said.
USADA officials had told Armstrong he must speak with them if he wanted to reduce his lifetime ban from cycling and compete again - and today was the deadline.

After more than two months of negotiations, Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said today that the cyclist won't participate in a process designed 'only to demonize selected individuals.'


Armstrong had previously said he was willing to participate in an international effort to clean up a sport that is based mostly in Europe.
For years, Armstrong denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

But last year, USADA released a report that detailed extensive doping on his seven Tour de France-winning teams and stripped him of those titles.


Armstrong then admitted last month in an interview with 'Queen of Talk' Oprah Winfrey that he doped and used performance-enhancing drugs to win those races.
'We remain hopeful that an international effort will be mounted and we will do everything we can to facilitate that result,' Mr Herman said in a statement.

'Lance will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 per cent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction.'
Armstrong is facing several legal challenges, and testifying under oath to USADA could have exposed him to further troubles.
Armstrong was the subject of a two-year federal criminal investigation that was dropped in February with no charges filed, but the Department of Justice is still considering whether to join a federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis.
Armstrong also has been sued by a Dallas-based SCA Promotions to recover more than $12million in bonuses.

He also has been sued to by The Sunday Times in London to recover a libel judgment that Armstrong won against the paper


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281879/Drugs-cheat-Lance-Armstrong-WONT-testify-oath-U-S-Anti-Doping-Agency-official.html

Hobnob said...

I wonder why, when he shouted at her that he tells us she didn't respond.

If we go with his story he thought there was an intruder in the house, would not the normal reponse be at being shouted at to do what he said she would acknowledge she had heard?
To let him know she was calling the cops etc and also to let him know where she was in relation to him.
Knowing the high crime rate in SA and knowing he had guns within reach, instinct alone would ensure she responded so he was aware of where she was in relation to him and his gun.

it is interesting to note he says she didn't respond as opposed to the expected answer or reply.

He goes from screaming at the intrude to shouting to Reeva to calling her name (no urgency?)back to screaming for help from the balconey.

Why not scream for help from the window in the bathroom?

I wonder he screamed at the intruder but only shouted to Reeva?
On realising it could have been Reeva in the bathroom he only calls her name, why does he minimise when after firing shots and realising it could be Reeva the expected is for him to be shouting or screaming her name? after all he has just shot at her and probably hit her given the toilet size.

He returns to the bathroom (no haste) rushes back to the bedroom (haste) exiting onto the balcony (additional word no haste).
Why does he need to tell us he exited onto the balcony after he opened the sliding door?
Expected would be i ran to the bedroom balcony and...

I wonder if maybe something was tossed off the balcony?

BostonLady said...

The fact that the "toilet" door was locked makes no sense that an intruder was in there and threatening anyone. How do you threaten through the "locked" door? All Oscar had to do was leave his home and get the police.

It wasn't as if Oscar was locked in his "toilet" and the intruder was threatening to kill him and he could not escape.

Thank you Karyyn for your excellent analysis.

sella35 said...

OT @Hobs-- Happy Birthday to you! <3 Sella...
OT @Peter-- Happy Birthday to you!! <3 Sella...sorry not sure on dates, but know they are coming soon!! Enjoy!

CanadianGirl said...

His story makes no sense at all. No one would keep all the lights off when approaching someone, an intruder. Who fires shots in the dark and hits a person perfectly 4 times!!!

He says he felt trapped, no! The only person who was trapped was the someone/intruder in the toilet room.

He shouted/screamed at Reeva to call the police, however, once he discovered he had shot her he didn't call the police right away. Why not, why scream instead of picking up the phone and calling security and the police.

Accident or not, he needs to go to jail for a long time.

Anonymous said...

@John .. today I watched a show, they had the 911 call..she did not say hello...she said.."I think SOMEONE is dead".. she then went on to say.. the mother and my "sister" are dead.

It raised my suspicion, because she said someone...(The house contained 5 dead: a mother, her mother:3 kids)

I listened to the 911 and thought why would someone say...someone is dead???.. I know now is because she only saw the grandma dead..and she did not know her...

I think Peter is saying semantics play a huge part??

equinox said...

Thanks Kaaryn, your post brings an entirely new way of looking at things.

I have questions about Pistorius' account of events.

1) He claims he felt trapped because his bedroom door was locked. I assume not from the outside. Why would he feel trapped IN the bedroom?

2) He claims he wanted to protect Reeva. The "vulnerable" legless man walks on his stumps to her side of the bed to get his gun, yet he doesn't attempt to wake her and urge her to leave the room to safety? Why? This would instinctively be the first thing I would do to protect someone in my bedroom from intruders.

3) He says he didn't turn on lights. Yet he claimed that he could see that the bathroom was empty, with certainty. From the floor plan he had to go down the hallway and look around a corner into the bathroom, at which point he would have known he could be easily ambushed. Did he know before he reached the bathroom that the intruder was in the toilet then? It would seem so.

4) He shoots through the bathroom door, then returns to the bedroom and realizes that Reeva is not in the bed. Why would she be? There was loud shouting, shots, calls to contact the police. She could be on the balcony, under the bed, desperately searching for the phones, dashing through the house, or even already outside seeking help. Any of these things were possible, but Pistorius seems to instantly "realize" it must have been her in the bathroom as his entire behavior switches at this point in the story from daring defender to desperate rescuer. Why did he assume Reeva should still be in the bed? Why did he not search for her at all?

5) Simply by not finding Reeva he seems to instantaneously switch modes. There is no grave danger, no worries that he may only have injured an intruder. "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." He puts the lights on, stops to attach his prosthetics, and then goes to try and kick down the door. Why was the toilet door locked? Why did he now know with certainty that she was in there?

6) Finally, upon breaking down the door, we hear no details of his physical or emotional response to discovering what he had done. What was this moment like? Was she still alive? Conscious? Did she speak? He carries her, unlocking both his bedroom door and the door to his suite, down the stairs, does not call paramedics, and then claims to have attempted to give her the breath of life. Why on earth did he move her?

It's almost a plausible story until you try to actually walk through it. It doesn't add up for me.

john said...

OT

Pistorius Cop Faces Attempted Murder Charges
Hilton Botha, the lead officer in the Pistorius investigation, is facing charges over shooting at seven passengers in a minibus.8:58am UK, Thursday 21 February 2013

Video: Hilton Botha faces attempted murder charges from a 2011 shooting

The police officer leading the Oscar Pistorius has been charged with seven counts of attempted murder from 2011.

Hilton Botha and two other officers reportedly opened fire on seven passengers in a taxi mini-bus in an attempt to stop it. It is alleged that the officers, who were on duty at the time, were drunk.

They were arrested after the event in October 2011 and charges were initially dropped but were reinstated by the state prosecutor in the days before the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp.

Prosecutors are understood to be in discussions with police about whether to drop Botha from the investigation, however, police are insisting that no decision has been made.

An earlier report from Eyewitness News had quoted a National Prosecuting Authority spokesman as saying that Botha "cannot continue with this case".


Hilton Botha arrives at court to give evidence at Pistorius' bail hearing
Botha only discovered the charges against him had been reinstated yesterday. He is set to appear in court in May to face the charges, but police plan to keep him on the Pistorius murder case despite them.

The South African Police Service has confirmed the charges against the detective and launched an investigation which may see Botha suspended.

Spokesman Neville Malila said: "We were only informed yesterday that attempted murders charges against Hilton Botha have been reinstated."

He said that Botha remained on the Pistorius case and that the charges would not hamper Botha's investigation into the circumstances of the Valentine's Day shooting at Pistorius' Silver Lakes home.

It is unclear why the charges against Botha were reinstated. He denies being drunk and has told a South African news channel that he was chasing suspects.


Oscar Pistorius is due to find out whether he will be granted bail
Medupe Simasiku, the spokesman for National Prosecution Agency, said: "The (Pistorius) prosecutors were not aware of those charges (against Botha)."

Under cross-examination during Pistorius' bail hearing, Botha was accused of contaminating the crime scene in the paralympic star's home and backtracked on key details, including the distance of witnesses from the house.

In his often confused testimony, Botha, who was described as a 24-year police veteran with 16 years as a detective, conceded that police had left a 9 mm slug from the barrage that killed Steenkamp inside a toilet at the scene.

Police also lost track of illegal ammunition found inside the house, Botha said, and the detective himself walked through the crime scene without wearing protective shoe covers, potentially contaminating the area.

He also claimed in court that police found boxes of testosterone and needles in multiple Paralympic champion Pistorius' bedroom following the Valentine's Day shooting last week, but then said later he wasn't sure what the exact name of the substance was.

The lead defence counsel Barry Roux accused the police of oversights and mistakes on their initial investigation.http://news.sky.com/story/1054865/pistorius-cop-faces-attempted-murder-charges

brosnanfan said...

Something else that I noticed in his statement: His constantly going back to "lights". Isn't it a flag, in SA, when lights are mentioned, either turned on or off or whatever their state? I think it has to do with sexual abuse and/or activity.

What happened before all this "light" activity or non-activity?

"On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends.

Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home.

By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television.

My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way.

She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep."


After this, in three different places, Pistorius mentions the lights in some way:

"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house.

I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed."

"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."

"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.

I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door."


In the first two, the lights were off; in the last one, the light was turned on.

Also...in the beginning of the statement, they were in "our" bedroom. He spoke of "bed", but didn't elaborate whether it was "his" or "hers" or "ours", just "bed". I don't think they had any sex that night; if they did, wouldn’t it then become “our bed”? It was just “bed”; “in bed”, “got into bed”. He also felt the need to point out that they were “deeply in love and I could not be happier” and he knew she “felt the same way”. Usually, when someone has to point out how deeply in love they are, there is a problem. The fact that he chose this specific point in the narrative to introduce this statement, when they went to bed, says to me that there were sexual issues/problems/jealousies.

After the TV watching, after the yoga, after she “got into bed”, only then does it become “my bed”:

(continued below)

brosnanfan said...

For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

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.


What happens after this?

I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me.

There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside.

Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house.

I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.


I think that after they went to bed, they had an argument (possibly concerning sex or a prior sexual relationship she had with another man, as has been reported in the media) and she was attacked and hurt with the cricket bat and/or shot (it has been reported that there was a shot, several minutes went by, then more shots). That is why he had to get up and close the sliding doors, blinds, and curtains; so nobody would see what was going on. She managed to get to the bathroom and barricade herself inside. As he describes it, ”It was pitch dark in the bedroom […]” Again, a mention of light or lack of light.

I think it was then that the fatal shots were fired at Reeva through the bathroom door. Again he says, ”Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light.”

Only after this does he say, "I think I must then have turned on the lights." His murder was completed.

brosnanfan said...

This is the source material I used:

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

john said...

brosnanfan,

I just noticed this reading your post.

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises SHE got into bed and WE both fell asleep."

He says "We both fell asleep"

He tells us "She got into bed"

But doesn't tell us that he got into bed,just that they both fell asleep.
If he doesn't tell us he got into bed we can't assume he did..

brosnanfan said...

john:

He said earlier in the statement that he was "in bed" watching television while she did yoga, although he also said that after she finished yoga she "got into bed" and "we both" fell asleep. He doesn't, however, say she got into bed with him, just that she got into bed. Hmm...nothing, or larger point?

Anonymous said...

I think they were in bed on Valentine's Eve, there was some sexual disfunction on his part which may have happened before between them, likely due to his steroid use. She may have been fine with it, or she may not have been, it doesn't really matter, it was he who was sensitive about it, and particularly if there was an old boyfriend she was still in touch with, which I read somewhere.

If he was drunk his sensitivity and sexual disfunction may have been even worse, and his soaring into rage and jealousy and insecurity exacerbated.

It was Valentine's Eve, lest we forget, they are a young hip public couple, they have expectations of one another and of their sex lives. It's a big deal to him.

And didn't he say he felt vulnerable? And didn't he say he felt afraid to turn on the lights? And don't doors and lights have something to do with sexuality in statement analysis?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I think they were in bed on Valentine's Eve, there was some sexual disfunction on his part which may have happened before between them, likely due to his steroid use. She may have been fine with it, or she may not have been, it doesn't really matter, it was he who was sensitive about it, and particularly if there was an old boyfriend she was still in touch with, which I read somewhere.

If he was drunk his sensitivity and sexual disfunction may have been even worse, and his soaring into rage and jealousy and insecurity exacerbated.

It was Valentine's Eve, lest we forget, they are a young hip public couple, they have expectations of one another and of their sex lives. It's a big deal to him.

And didn't he say he felt vulnerable? And didn't he say he felt afraid to turn on the lights? And don't doors and lights have something to do with sexuality in statement analysis?>>


Choose a name if you're going to post intelligent comments! :)

Anonymous said...

OK...let me think of one. :) I am always so afraid of becoming a target! People on the Internet can be so mean.

You are a lot braver than I am, Peter. All of the named people are.

Skeptical said...

South Africa has a population of 50 million people and an average of 50 murders per day. The United States has a population of 300 million with an average of 45 murders per day.

If this murder had not involved a high-profile athlete and his model girlfriend, it would have been one of the 49 other murders in the country on that day.

Sus said...

Kaaryn and Peter's analysis are great. I agree with the comments made on this blog...Oscar Pistorious is deceptive about that night.

But, something is bothering me and I want ask others what you think. Other people have described OP as an anxious person, constantly worried about his safety...overly worried. An Olympic interviewer who spent a week with him said he was jumpy and constantly watching his back. She told the story of the crew accidently leaving the garage door open and how OP flew into a rage. OP himself mentions numerous times how scared he is.

My point is that OP sounds very much like a traumatized person, even one suffering from PTSD. People can suffer trauma in many ways, and the original trauma can be triggered in odd ways.

I beloved OP's mother died when he was young, plus he says he feels vulnerable without his "legs". Could Reeva, through no fault of her own, have triggered a disfunction in OP? Maybe with a present? Maybe by loving him despite his handicap? Or loving him despite sexual disfunction?

Just wondering what others thought. I can't shake off thoughts of OP's constant anxiousness.

Sus said...

Gosh darn it. Autocorrect! Not trigger a disfunction, but a PTSD RAGE. Sorry.

Peter Hyatt said...

Kaaryn seems to be unwilling to let a word slip by;

She does not get hung up on a point;

She has a very strong imagination where she appears to have an ability to enter into the "expected" better than anyone I have ever read...

She does very well in explaining what her thinking is as she goes along;

Above all else, she seems to grasp relationships best: what I mean by "relationships" is the relationship between a word and the context.

Remember the child molester and his "daughter" who became "the girl" when her mother was gone, and the child was victimized? She became "my daughter" again when the mother returned home.

Kaaryn gets it. She just "gets it" and I find her to be an inspiration in my own work.

She also possesses the necessary element of humility. Without it, one cannot learn.

In the trainings I have done with her, she is forever learning, forever open, and forever willing to ask questions.

My only complaint is that she doesn't publish more analysis for us! :)

She, just like many here who contribute, show why 'group analysis' can be so valuable. It takes away the 'tunnel vision' that any one of us might have, at any particular point in a statement.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

I want to address Sus' comment. Here it is in full:

Sus said...
Kaaryn and Peter's analysis are great. I agree with the comments made on this blog...Oscar Pistorious is deceptive about that night.

But, something is bothering me and I want ask others what you think. Other people have described OP as an anxious person, constantly worried about his safety...overly worried. An Olympic interviewer who spent a week with him said he was jumpy and constantly watching his back. She told the story of the crew accidently leaving the garage door open and how OP flew into a rage. OP himself mentions numerous times how scared he is.

My point is that OP sounds very much like a traumatized person, even one suffering from PTSD. People can suffer trauma in many ways, and the original trauma can be triggered in odd ways.

I beloved OP's mother died when he was young, plus he says he feels vulnerable without his "legs". Could Reeva, through no fault of her own, have triggered a disfunction in OP? Maybe with a present? Maybe by loving him despite his handicap? Or loving him despite sexual disfunction?

Just wondering what others thought. I can't shake off thoughts of OP's constant anxiousness.

end of Sus comment.

I think this is something that should be explored as well.

I wonder if he, himself, has been victimized, and if he suffers from PTSD.
If so, how does the elevated testosterone impact his anxiety and possible hyper-vigilance?

How does the increase in testosterone impact his temper?

Great post, Sus. Lots to consider.

Peter

Sarah said...

You guys are so good (Peter & Kaaryn). All I can do is read and be amazed! It would be so fun to be able to devote the adequate amount of time to learning and applying SA. It's frustrating always operating in novice mode!

Peter Hyatt said...

Sarah,

Thank you for your kind comments.

You are doing fine. It is not difficult to learn, but it takes lots of practice.

Sus said...

I don't know about testosterone. I can only imagine. But I have had students who live in a constant state of panic from past trauma. Add drugs to the mix and it's explosive.

Kaaryn Gough said...

I will try to post more. I enjoy sharing my analysis and reading what others have to say. So often, other's comments/analysis highlight a point I missed. And as Peter said, it's a collective process. "Group analysis" is best for we all can become too focused.

I am grateful to Peter for his kind words and support and for his invitations to post here. I enjoy working with him on cases. He brings to the table excellent SA skills and so often, he sparks my thinking and awareness. He told me a while back he learns from me. Well, I learn from him as well. I am in awe of his ability to analyze a statement quickly and accurately and then write the analysis in a clear and concise manner. I am much more of a plodder. Our skills compliment each other's. :-)

As for my imagination, it's more that I'm highly visual. When I read a statement or hear testimony, I immediately see the events as a movie running in my head. I encourage everyone to hone their "inner movie maker" for it supports SA beautifully, especially in an 'on-the-fly' situation where one does not have the luxury of the words in front of them. Practice listening to others and running the movie of EXACTLY what they are saying. It can be tough, for your brain will try to create a picture that makes sense. In other words, it will try to smooth over the bumps, fill in the gaps. But don't let it. Make it a very literal movie. It's the same principle in SA. Analyze only the words that are used--nothing more, nothing less. Outside information/influence about the person is not allowed. The words must set the stage, create the characters and direct the action.

Lemon said...

@9:31 wanting to be brave-

Please do choose a name. We are all here to learn. If you ask nicely, Hobs may bring donuts 'round. :)

Anonymous said...

Change in language also from "firearm" to "pistol".

Hobnob said...

Hi Kaaryn I agree with your comment as seeing things as a movie.

I wonder, do you have the ability in your dreams to stop the dream at any point, rewind it, replay it or carry on where you left off if you wake up?

I do and i also have the strange ability to be a participant in the dream actually experiencing sight sound touch etc and at the same time also be a spectator of what is happening.
It's strange yet illogical being in 2 places at once (is it my inner child i wonder?)

When i do an analysis i see it as a kind of movie except there are paths leadin off the expected,(split screen or sub plot) i wander along the paths seeing where they go, where they interconnect and where they end.
sometimes it's convoluted and others times straight forward.

It's hard to describe how i see things, it just is, if this makes any sense.

I guess having a vivid imagination is a big help, perhaps this is why when they turn a good book into a movie i get disappointed as the on screen characters aren't how i saw them.

I have also woken myself up giggling after a particularly funny dream and depending what woke me up it may be included in one of my stories.
I need to include the Flying Spaghetti Monster into one of them, maybe an Easter one cos even monsters like a choc egg :)

Keep up with the analyses Kaaryn, i hope you post here more often or perhaps will do a show with Peter one night.

Thanks for all your input and for teaching us

Hobnob said...

Lemon said...
@9:31 wanting to be brave-

Please do choose a name. We are all here to learn. If you ask nicely, Hobs may bring donuts 'round. :)

February 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM


I'll bring them around, you can admire them, heck i'll even let you sniff them, however, to save your pixels i'll munch them on your behalf so you won't need an avatar with elasticated sides or worse an extra large.

See how kind and considerate i are? heheh.

Thanks Sella for your Birthday wishes and birthday wishes to Peter as well. mwaaaaaaaaaaah

Welcome aboard Anon

Lis said...

Kaaryn, I learned so much from this post and from your further comments. I am fascinated with the idea of seeing events as a movie and can't wait to try it. I hope you will post more here, as well!

However frightened OP claims to have been, I cannot picture being frightened by a burglar who has broken in only to lock himself inside the toilet. I also cannot imagine hearing someone in the toilet during the night and not automatically assuming it is your partner.

To me it would be expected that, hearing someone in the toilet, his first act would be to ascertain if his girlfriend is still in bed. If they were both in the same bedroom, it would be much quicker to see if she was still present than to hobble all the way down the hallway without his prostheses.

If he had checked and found her still in bed and was hearing someone in the bathroom, I could picture being freaked out. But still, if the burglar has locked himself in the toilet, it does not seem quite the situation to strike terror into ones heart.

Edwin Taveras said...

Serious lover of your blog, a considerable number of your blog posts have really helped me out. Looking towards updates!


Airport Taxi Service in Sanford
Reliable Taxi Service in Orlando

Anonymous said...

''On my way to the bathroom I screamed

words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police''. - OP


Facts; OP's trophies were strewn all over the place and 1 was smashed with arguments all night

It's highly possible he was screaming for Reeva to get out of his house during their argument

I always thought this statement was bizarre, his focus should have been on calling security and cops

I now believe his yelling was directed at Reeva to get out of his house and she never responded, just locked herself in the toilet. OP just changed the story to fit an intruder, he changed Reeva to ''intruder''
The 2 security dogs woke no person in the district

Anonymous said...

OP was scared to turn on any lights yet when he shouted to Reeva he NEVER told her to keep the lights off

Anonymous said...

''I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.'' - OP

When Oscar Pistorius claimed he ''screamed'' to Reeva to call Police, he never warned her to keep the lights off nor did he tell her to open the balcony door that he earlier closed

Anonymous said...

Reeva was dead in the toilet not in OP's arms at the bottom of the stairs as in a romantic novel.

Her corneas were milky and the heart stopped pumping in the toilet otherwise the toilet would have extra litres of blood on the floor and the blood trail on the stairs would be huge from the 3 hollow point bullet exit wounds

Anonymous said...

OP refers to intruder/intruders and leads us to believe it/they were males.
He avoided mentioning the possibility of a female intruder, he never heard her screaming according to his statement yet a woman in that situation is more likely to scream than a male

Anonymous said...

I phoned Johan Stander who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.
I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her - OP
Why did OP involve a third party with the Ambulance? The Ambulance people will always ask about the wounded person and offer advice that may save a life, including not moving the victim. Who told OP not to wait for Paramedics?

Anonymous said...

''During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went on to the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom ( from the bedroom balcony, many metres away) and realised that someone was in the bathroom'' - OP

A witness living close to Oscar Pistorius told a court of how she was awoken by “blood-curdling screams of a woman” followed by four gunshots last Valentine’s Day - this witness heard screams first and gunshots

OP heard a noise metres away, yet failed to hear blood-curdling screams of a woman 2 metres away behind the toilet door and does not mention a woman's screams in his statement. He realises it may have been Reeva when she wasn't in bed

Anonymous said...

OP used 'black talon' hollow points, they are FATAL in most cases as they were with Reeva, the 3 that hit were all fatal as the autopsy revealed.
''OP shouted to Reeva to call Police then he fired 4 shots across the door''
OP must have known a fatality was certain. So he called for Police then killed the intruder who was LOCKED in the toilet and was not a threat
There are forensic black talon demonstrations on YouTube, they are wicked and banned in some countries, you don't stand a chance. It's obvious Reeva did not die in OP's arms at the bottom of the stairs as the autopsy and doctor testified, she had severe brain damage with tissue exposed

Anonymous said...

Correction with my last comment, OP fired 4 shots across the door then shouted to Reeva to call Police
I don't agree with OP's vulnerability comment, he's a strong medal winning athlete and when he phoned the estate manager and Security they both answered IMMEDIATELY. Why did he shout for Reeva to call Police when Security is on the grounds and it should be their job to call Police. OP didn't call Police when Reeva was injured, he called both estate manager and Security…why?

Anonymous said...

Getting off subject;
The Defence who claims we can not hear a woman's screams 170 metres away is not taking into account the location and elevation of the buildings and the cold DENSE air at 3am.

The Prosecution has failed in his duty by not giving forensic evidence that the witnesses did hear the screams bouncing off hard buildings and roads
Below is extraordinary evidence of how sound can travel. Type search below on youtube
''No tricks! Whispering Wall - Sound bounces across dam-Barossa valley''
or use link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFydNDAmyFQ

Anonymous said...

Off topic;
Just checked the aerial view of the Silverwood Estate Pretoria on youtube, most vegetation is removed obviously for security and homes are on flat land and well spaced so screams will travel. The average Pretoria February low temp is a cool 16c and that also will aid screams to travel as the air is dense. It's highly likely the witnesses did hear the screams from a long distance

Anonymous said...

OP has woken bed friends in the past when he's heard a noise yet in his statement he gives no reason for not waking Reeva

Anonymous said...

Pistorius, in his statement omits any mention of his 2 guard dogs and that sent alarm bells ringing with me as any of the two dogs would eat you alive. On youtube I've seen film of OP playing with both of them and it seemed to be under the bathroom window

Anonymous said...

Firing 4 hollow points across the door without warning he was armed, the intention was to kill whoever was there

OP shouted to Reeva to call Police, obviously he knew any threat was gone and he killed the person.
Why didn't OP ask Reeva to call an Ambulance with Police ? It's obvious to me OP knew an Ambulance couldn't help

Anonymous said...

'' I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.'' - OP
The door was locked, the key should have been reached by hand through the split in the door just above the lock. What was the key doing on the floor?
The thick vertical wood panel containing the lock did not sustain damage and the lock looks like a normal house key that will not vibrate and fall to the floor. I need better photos to make a better judgement but I expected OP to just reach in with his hand and open the door from the inside or remove the key

Anonymous said...

''Police have also confirmed that ­Pistorius’ two dogs were in the yard of his home at the time he said an ­intruder had climbed in through his ­toilet window using a workman’s ladder.''

Anonymous said...

OP had the bathroom window open and the balcony open. OP had to know the bathroom window was OPEN because that's how he got flow through ventilation. If he closed one, why didn't he close the other? It was probably left open as ventilation for the toilet so an open window would indicate Reeva was in there. Who doesn't leave a window open when visiting the toilet ?
He did not have bars on the bathroom window nor did he have sliding bars for the balcony. Bars for both would be cheap.
OP is just feigning paranoia about intruders to fool the judge. Why is the world just learning now that OP lives in fear with windows OPEN ?

Anonymous said...

OP is claiming disadvantage and fear due to his legs and his Defence is pushing this view
However
Police say a gun is the great equaliser
and a gun loaded with hollow point bullets is as equal as it gets

Anonymous said...

''I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime.'' - OP

''I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before.''- OP
The 2 statements above refer to a different address, OP is trying to deceive us into believing his current address is unsafe………

''I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside.''OP
How do we know this is true ? Did the Police report it on crime scene night ? OR did OP arrange to have them placed there OR did they just disappear ?

A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. (he said Reeva's corneas were turning milky) and the autopsy revealed NO blood in the airways, she had few breaths after the head shot, Reeva was dead, OP lied

''Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms''OP what assistance can you give a corpse, and another witness said he was crying and had his fingers in her mouth to save her ??

Anonymous said...

"So you discover things later," he said.
These are added to later reports.
Van Rensburg said that looking over the bedroom balcony on the morning of the shooting he did see ladders outside. (WHERE?)

But he insisted there was no window in the toilet cubicle, just the bathroom windows.
But Roux insisted there was''. Does anyone know if the toilet had windows ?

I assume the balcony and bathroom were both open for ventilation assisted by the balcony fan. If the toilet has no window then the bathroom window ventilates the toilet and the shower. Because OP actually lives there he would be aware an open bathroom window is likely to warn that his guest is in the toilet and nothing else, he should have known this many times in the past with other girlfriends. There was no need to reach for his high powered 9mm hollow point, NOT warn Reeva and fire without warning, then shout for Police (not an Ambulance) because he knew his victim was fatally wounded

Anonymous said...

Reeva was a victim and also a witness had she survived, I've no doubt OP's procrastination was deliberate, Reeva was more useful to OP as a corpse with her version of events. A live Reeva could still have sent him to prison for life.

Anonymous said...

The defence’s case is that the screams the neighbours heard were in fact Pistorius’s, because when he is anxious his voice pitches and he “sounds like a woman”.

At the London Paralympics when he failed to win gold, when he believed ''his medal'' was being robbed from him, that the Brazilian winner had cheated, OP sounded like himself, not like a woman, he sounded like a spoiled child

Anonymous said...

I believe OP said in his statement ''she died in my arms'' as a distraction to the fact he took ages to get help for her in a logical order. OP wasted 10 minutes. There was shooting, all the neighbours were awake, why didn't he shout to any of them for help ?
She was deceased in the toilet but OP made sure she wouldn't live as a living witness is dangerous

Anonymous said...

''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.

I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me.'' - OP

Who doesn't reopen the only exit for himself after hearing an ''alleged'' noise especially when he is next to it ?
OP should have got the gun, woken Reeva and reopened the balcony. OP does things in an illogical order

Anonymous said...

Pistorius: Three years later I got an American pitbull. "I selected them because I thought they would make the best watchdogs."

OP also had a Ridgeback, (photos on the net) they will also eat you alive and wake the whole neighbourhood. It seems both dogs are excellent for supporting a ladder for intruders under the bathroom window, while remaining completely SILENT

Anonymous said...

Changed statement from OP now, it seems the balcony door, shutters and curtains remained OPEN and Reeva surprisingly is awake and he is aware of that.
Why was he ''trapped'' if the balcony exit was open. OP said he was trapped because the door was closed. It seems OP has lied in one of his statements

Anonymous said...

''He said he fell asleep between 9 and 10 p.m. and woke up later. Steenkamp then asked him if he couldn't sleep, he said -- and he got up to move the 2 fans (not 1 fan). He then heard the noise from the bathroom.

''This was the first time he had indicated that Steenkamp was awake in the moments before the drama unfolded.''

So did Reeva hear the noise ? Why didn''t she remain behind the gun?

If Reeva was awake with OP, why did he SHOUT to her to call Police ?

This is OP with 2 versions of the same catastrophic event. A thorough analysis will reveal more discrepancies

Anonymous said...

He testified today that when he got into the toilet she was not breathing.
I found the above comment on CNN(not confirmed from another source yet), it varies from the bail statement which said at the bottom of the stairs ''she died in my arms''

It would have been prudent for OP to alter his testimony re time of death because witnesses so far have confirmed she was most likely deceased in the toilet

Anonymous said...

He testified today that when he got into the toilet she was not breathing.
I found the above comment on CNN(not confirmed from another source yet), it varies from the bail statement which said at the bottom of the stairs ''she died in my arms''

It would have been prudent for OP to alter his testimony re time of death because witnesses so far have confirmed she was most likely deceased in the toilet

Anonymous said...

OP's altered evidence
''I whispered to Reeva in a low tone''
When one whispers, it's imperative to get a REPLY because there's no way of knowing the whisper was heard, unless you whisper directly into the ear

Anonymous said...

I always believed ''get out of my house'' is something you would say to a known person, not a stranger
As I see it;
arguments from 2am
toilet door slaming
(this was like finding gold, missing piece)
F****** get out of my house (to Reeva)
Shooting

Anonymous said...

Reeva was a Lawyer, older and more mature than OP. I can't believe she remained silent to all the alleged shouting and when in the toilet didn't ask OP if the coast was clear, he was 2 metres away.

I also can't believe she would have let OP have TOTAL control of the situation.
Certainly Reeva would have called Security and Police without the need for OP to shout/scream to her

Anonymous said...

If OP heard a noise then the alleged intruder heard a bigger noise with the balcony door closing with shutters and curtains, so the intruder had to know everybody was awake in the bedroom and OP had a DUTY to warn Reeva, he had to wake her if she was asleep

Anonymous said...

When OP reached for his weapon, Reeva was less than 1 metre from him yet he did not wake her

OP had a rush of TERROR and he did not warn Reeva
This sounds impossible as he claimed she was in danger

Anonymous said...

It was suggested on another site that OP screamed like a woman to imitate Reeva's screams in order to confuse witnesses.
This sounds highly probable to me

In the witness box OP said he screamed like never before

Anonymous said...

Reeva screamed
OP shot her
OP noticed neighbours lights were ON
OP knew there were witnesses to screaming before the shooting
OP 'screamed like a woman' to confuse witnesses

How many murderers scream like a woman after the crime ?
OP is the first that I know of

Anonymous said...

Reeva screamed
OP shot her
OP noticed neighbours lights were ON
OP knew there were witnesses to screaming before the shooting
OP 'screamed like a woman' to confuse witnesses

How many murderers scream like a woman after the crime ?
OP is the first that I know of

Anonymous said...

OP screamed like a woman after he saw the neighbour's lights on, he knew he had witnesses to screams before the shooting
I believe he was screaming because of the witnesses

Anonymous said...

OP's bail statement had NO screaming by OP
Only other versions claimed screaming by OP to discredit witnesses and claim Reeva did not scream. They needed ''OP's screaming'' for his Defence