Sunday, July 06, 2014

Oscar Pistorius' Defence in Deep Dwang Yet Again - but was it self sabotage to secure an appeal?










Buckle your seatbelts Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye.  Mandy Weiner tweeted this apparently genuine footage of Oscar Pistorius re-enacting - yes, you read right - the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp.


The story broke on Yahoo News (Sports) Australia. Weiner describes the channel airing the footage as 'an Australian Broadcaster.' It's Channel 7.

But latecomers will be disappointed to find the footage has been made unavailable in South Africa, possibly due to legal threats from Oscar's defence team.  (However one wonders how Channel 7 got the footage if Oscar play-acted it for their film crews in the first place...)



















So the bad news is the video is down, the good news is there are a few journalists out there who anticipated this and took a few screengrabs.  A picture tells a thousand words, so I'm going to share some of my screengrabs and juxtapose these with actual scenes of the crime.  You don't have to be Dexter, or an expert forensic investigator to realise the enactment is not only unconvincing (despite Yahoo!7 making the opposite contention) but also contradicts (yet again), Oscar's own testimony in court.  Let's examine it now.


In court Nel has Pistorius demonstrate how he held the gun when he shot. Nel holds his own arm out at shoulder height copying him. 

Before we go to the discharge itself, have a look at what Oscar himself says, under cross-examination.  Pay special attention to 1:30 onwards at the video below. Note the blonde woman, Kim Martin [Reeva's cousin's response] as Oscar tries to avoid answering.

Here's what the court established[via this excellent article by eNCA's Gill Gifford], see if you can spot the problem:

He [Mangena] measured the height of each hole: 
A was 93cm off the ground, 
B was 104.3cm high, 
C was 99.4cm and 
D was 97.3cm high. 
Inside the toilet cubicle he found a ricochet mark at 89cm high and an impact mark from the same bullet at 75cm. He found another mark on the tiles containing lead traces which he believed to be the impact of a piece of bullet fragment.
Mangena said he then made use of steel rods to work out the angle and trajectory of the bullets. He had not used thin rods as they would move around, but rather rods sized to fit snugly in the holes and show the angle of the rods.
He found that only one bullet had hit the wall and three others had struck a target inside the toilet. In this way he managed to link bullet hole B with the ricochet mark.
Mangena said steel rods had the danger of bending and moving out of their angles and so he had then gone on to use laser beams to determine exact angles he had originally determined with the steel rods. He had also used an angle finder instrument.
He then asked for the position of the spent cartridges on the scene.
Building on his information he further asked for Steenkamp’s post mortem photographs in order to view her injuries. He asked for the clothes she had been wearing when she was shot. He explained that this information was necessary for him to reconstruct what had happened.
Mangena had examined the entry and exit marks of a wound on Steenkamp’s arm and another on her hip. He found an impact bruise on her chest, but no bullet entry. There were also bruises on her back and a head wound with a bullet entrance at the front and an exit wound at the back. He examined her vest and found a hole in it on the right side “as well as some body tissues”.
Mangena also asked for Pistorius’s version of events. He used this as his bench mark in reconstructing the events, working from Pistorius’s claims that he had been on his stumps when he shot the toilet door.
Mangena also asked for Pistorius’s measurements -- 155cm tall on his stumps and his shoulder at 123cm and elbow at 96cm. His height with his prosthetic legs on was 1.84m and his shoulder height was 156cm. His arm length, held out straight with the hand in a grip position, was 66cm.
We also know Mangena measured a slight downward angle of between five and six degrees. So if we accept Oscar's version, that he stood on his stumps like this:

And, holding the weapon shoulder height, he supported himself with his other hand against the wall, this is what the trajectories should look like - connecting height of shooter, to impact holes in door and ricochet impact marks on the toilet wall:

Once again, it doesn't take a genius to see those rods through the door don't line up with the steep angle, which looks to be 7-10 degrees (not 5-6 degrees). Have a look.


If you're not convinced, just look at the rods themselves, and look how roughly horizontal they are to the casual observer.



Here's another angle.



and another.

This last image above suggests an angle again so let's rather look at a laster light.
Good, do you notice it's almost horizontal?




Here's a vertical view above the toilet. Note where the first bullet A is directed. Remember Reeva was standing, and had her phone with her.  The first bullet (A) (the lowest rod in the image below) hit her at hip height, on her right.  In other words, it was directed at her her hand holding a cellphone.  [She was about to call for help, on her phone, and Oscar panicked, and that was the fear he felt, and then decided to stop her there and then.


You may ask how he could hit Reeva on target, unsighted.  Well, one of the panels could have been cracked from cricket bat blows (the door still intact, but cracked).  During the process of beating on the door, Reeva would have screamed those terrified screams that awakened Burger.  Then, the door locked and Oscar running out of time, he would be faced with this setup:



Take special note the short distance from the bathroom entrance to where the gun was in his holster (at #9 which is where Reeva would have been sleeping if she wasn't fearing for her life.)  At this point the argument reached a climax.  Reeva would not want to get Oscar's brand into trouble, even if he had been abusive to her.  She had her own brand to take care of, and she was not a confrontational of antagonistic person.

Just let me go, I won't tell anyone.

 He couldn't let her go. Well, not just yet.  He needed to do damage control If they resolved the argument, he could ask her to explain to the media that they thought there was an intruder and they were both terrified.  Maybe she'd agree to keep her mouth shut if he gave her some money.  
They could say they both heard something, were terrified but it was a false alarm.\

 But how, having broken her trust, could he trust her?

 For Oscar the critical thing there and then was he didn't have control over her phone.  The door was in the way.  

 Give me the phone and I'll let you go...

 But it was a stalemate, and the longer she resisted the more enraged and frighted he became, eventually - losing it - he started banging down the door.  But he wasn't strong enough to break it down, it would take time, and in that time she could still make a call (before he broke through).  He needed a back up plan.

 This present us with a problem.  WHEN DID OSCAR GET HIS GUN?  How could we possibly know for sure?  

 Well, the way the mind works is if we're guilty of something, we tell the truth as far as possible, but then tailor evidence to fit in with objective facts (as they may be anticipated or perceived) and match the two narratives together.  
If this matching/tailoring can closely resemble the true state of events as they unfolded, our narratives ought to make sense, right?

 We have to change details here and there that could be incriminating, but otherwise we stick to the basic narrative.  The vital parts we need to be consistent on is the stuff witnesses see and hear.
So Oscar's version must at least correspond to the basic format of all witnesses. He can tailor it here and there, as long as the basic schema stays the same.  

 And that's exactly what Oscar - whose not stupid - does.

 Before I reveal why it's almost certain Oscar first confronted Reeva at the locked door unarmed, let's consider, just for a moment, other circumstantial evidence.  Let's use earwitnesses and logic.

> Did Reeva see Oscar had a gun and he chased her from the bedroom, crying and screaming into the toilet?  I doubt it.  Why?  Because if she'd seen the gun it would either have been over almost immediately, or there would be no build up in screams as Michelle Burger describes.  

 > Also, it's entirely possible that Reeva got up in the night to use the toilet, and since they had been arguing earlier, Oscar suspected she might be texting something confidential, or even communicating with an old flame.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is it was her phone behind the locked door that was the crux of Oscar's problem.  How could he shut it down?  

 He had to get through the door.

 But let's answer the question now: was Reeva screaming at first because he had a gun and was threatening to kill her, or because she was in the toilet, with her phone and wanted to leave.

 Here's the question again: WHEN DID OSCAR GET HIS GUN?

 The critical clue comes from Oscar's version.  As we've seen, a version approximates the truth, but not too much that it incriminates an accused.

 So here it is: Nick van der Leek's Juxtaposition of the Facts and Fictions.- to fully and finally 'unpack' EXACTLY what happened on February 14 2013, at 286 Bushwillow Street in the Silver Woods Country Estate:

 If you have motive (which I do), then piecing this together is a walk in the park.

 Ergo:

 1. Oscar says he is sleeping and he gets up...and goes from the bed to a door. [The balcony door rather than the toilet door is the first adaption]
2.Oscar places HIMSELF, in his version, unarmed facing a door.  
3. Oscar places himself, in his version, on his stumps.

 This was another question that had bothered me throughout the trial.  Why would he be on his stumps when he shot her?  Also, why would he be on his stumps if they were up for possibly as long as an hour?  In other words, for some reason being on his stumps was not a priority even though his interactions with Reeva were intense.  So what was the priority?  Someone and something behind a door.

 4. There's also an object in or or behind the [balcony] door. [The fan].  This is the symbolic part of the story which represents the first phase of his confrontation with Reeva, the part he has to conceal, or misrepresent.  The balcony door still takes the place of the toilet door, and a fan now occupies the recently deceased ghost that was his beloved Reeva.
5. He moves fans - which suggests effort.  He also moves in and out through the balcony door [in his fictional version] in some of his testimony.  He contradicts himself here, saying he went 'on' the balcony and later that the fan was so close to the door it was right up against it (the one foot preventing the door from closing - which was why he had to move it].  The fan, like Reeva, is facing the door, and he is facing the door on the other side. Oscar did not need to step onto the balcony to get it.  The reason he slips here, is because his narrative is fictional, so he thinks it is unimportant.  So what if he was on or almost on the balcony.It's a detail about fans, who cares?  Well, not so what when Gerrie Nel is in the court room.
6. The movement of fans and opening and closing of curtains and the symbolic balcony doors is indicative of his struggles at the real door, with Reeva.  This was a protracted period not only of arguing, but of him, every so often, shouldering the door. Beating on it with his fits.  

 The fact that she had her phone with her was the danger.  Perhaps an irritation, but as the argument wore on, the danger worsened.  Like a fan, Reeva may have felt her barrier gave her sufficient protection so she could remain inert.

 7. The moving around of the fans ALSO symbolises the forceful attempts to move Reeva, to attempt to control, maoevre, orchestrate and badger her. This was Oscar's attempt to forcefully frogmarch her according to his agenda.  It's likely the meat of their argument was a combination of bargaining and threatening, from both sides.  Then accusations, then more bargaining and threatening. 
Do as I say, promise me, then I'll let you go.
8. Next, in Oscar's version he is annoyed by a blue light. It disturbs him, won't let him sleep.  Get it?  But we know the actual light is the light of her phone, not the light of his music station.  How does he respond to this annoying light?
9. He wishes to extinguish the light.  Using her item of clothing.  Once again, he will ask her, bargain with her,  use her fabric, her personality, to cover up this incident.  If she agrees she will let him go.  Reeva either agrees to this, then changes her mind, or Oscar feels - despite her agreement to abide by his rules - he simply doesn't trust her. Intimidation, pressure and his menace has alarmed Reeva, but with the barrier between them, she is also angry!  How dare you threaten me!
10. If you want to get the fuck out of my house you better do as I say.  Do you know who I am?  I control the cops in this town.  I will bury you if you defy me.
Ok Oscar, you win.  Just let me go.
But, he would have insisted, what guarantees do I have? I have far more to lose than you. While she screamed he'd be at pains to say to her [the male voice]:

 He couldn't just let her out, and let her go. Well, not just yet.  He needed to do damage control. If they resolved the argument, he could ask her to explain to the media that they thought there was an intruder and they were both terrified.  Maybe she'd agree to keep her mouth shut if he gave her some money.  

They could say they both heard something, were terrified but it was a false alarm.

   If I let you go, how do I know you'll keep your mouth shut?   Reeva, a conscientious girl but no pushover, at 3:10am may have screamed at him, screamed for help, realising she was in deep trouble.  She had tried to reason with him, that he had no choice but to trust her.  He had no other choice.  But he wasn't convinced.  There was never going to be a convincing argument to this empasse.And if he didn't let her go then and there, she would call the police, or Gina Myers.

 11. Then he hears a sound, which even in his version takes place in the bathroom. The sound [like a window opening] is Reeva's phone becoming operational.  It makes him feel trapped, and terrified.  It sounds like a window opening. He is on his stumps, and he has limited mobility.

 That's when everything changed.

  He feels vulnerable.

 I felt trapped.

  "I remember the first thing he said when I got there was 'I shot her, I thought she was a burglar and I shot her'," Stipp told the court.

 I thought she was a burglar.

 Because what do burglars do - they steal your possessions. If Reeva completed that call, Oscar would lose everything.  It would be as though it was 'stolen'.

 I thought someone was coming to attack me.

 And he would be, by the media, by the court of public opinion.  His persona would most definitely be attacked.

 I felt a terror rushing over me.

 He realises what's at stake.  So much.  So much effort, so cruelly taken away but this...bimbo.

 I thought she was an intruder/people behind the door.

 Listen to the cast of characters.  Burglars, intruders, attackers...people.  

 Thoughts of endorsements, contracts, millions, the respect and adoration of millions around the world, my glorious career, this season, lost, scuppered because of this stupid argument!

 “As I was entering the bathroom I was quiet,” Pistorius said, adding that he expected people to come running at him any second.

12. He was 'quiet'.  This is symbolic of the decision.  He realised what he stood to lose.

Reeva was terrified at this point, and so, with Oscar in a blind rage, even beating on the door with a cricket bat, the realisation would have sunk in that now she was in real trouble. She was well and truly trapped.  Locking the door was fine, he was disabled, he would calm down...she may have reasoned...but when he started beating the door with a cricket bat...she realised she was running out of options.   He would eventually break through if he kept hammering with the bat. And what would he do to her then? This terrified her.
Having screamed as loud as she could for several minutes, but with no signs of anyone in the neighborhood rushing to find out what was happening, coming to knock on his door (which was one way of ending the siege, and saved her) Reeva would have finally confronted him with her last card.  She would have told him she was going to call the police (call someone) if he didn't let her go.

And then Reeva made good on her threat.  It was past 03:10 and she had given up. She turned to her phone.

 I was quiet.

 That's when everything changed.

 I felt trapped.

 I thought she was a burglar.

 I thought someone was coming to attack me.

 I felt a terror rushing over me.

 I thought she was an intruder/people behind the door.

 Listen to the cast of characters.  Burglars, intruders, attackers...people.  

 Thoughts of endorsements, contracts, millions, the respect and adoration of millions around the world, my glorious career, this season, lost, scuppered because of this stupid argument!

 “As I was entering the bathroom I was quiet,” Pistorius said, adding that he expected people to come running at him any second.

 Oscar would have realized his millions would be 100% on the line if this story came out, and so he had to stop Reeva from making the call.  

 When you engage a smartphone it illuminates, and the screen makes the sound of an opening window on some models.  The point is, Oscar would have heard the phone becoming operational, and the dialing of numbers.Also, because the toilet's light didn't work, he would also be able to see if anything illuminated - either between the floor and the door, or through the slight crack he had bashed through the meranti, or even through the meranti.  If this sounds far fetched, consider that the tiled floor was a light reflective colour.  If a phone in the dark space behind illuminated it would reflect the slight blue or white hue.

 These sounds and lights would have helped him find his target.  Remember what he said:

 “I never intended to shoot anyone. I got a fright from the noise inside the toilet,” he said.

 He said it sounded like wood moving, a sound like a shuffle, right, a muffled noise.  Now open your smartphone.  That's the sound he heard.  Except, he knew exactly what that sound meant.

 13. Oscar Pistorius: "I didn't have time to think, I discharged my firearm." Under the circumstances of her about to make a call, and the door locked and too much of a barrier to break down quickly. yes, he had no time.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-not-mentally-ill-when-he-shot-reeva-what-now/page/0/1#ixzz36f87xTUY

1. I did not fire at Reeva -yes, he fired at her phone.
2. I did not intend to kill Reeva or anybody else. 

 14. In the same way, in his version, he runs back after shooting to find Reeva, he runs (on his stumps) from the bathroom to retrieve his pistol from under the bed (on her side). It's been shown on camera, and let's face it, he's been called the fastest man on no legs.  He's fast enough to run back, feel under the bed [in his version that's also exactly where he goes after firing the shots/defence says these were cricket back sounds]
retrieves the weapon, and rushes back to stop the call from executing.

I believe him.  When he fired the first shot, the idea was to stop her from making a phone call, and to his reasoning, it was a form of self defence.
 Defending his identify, defending his brand, defending his persona that was worth millions.  But having shot her once, he had prevented the phone call, but his situation had worsened.

Now he had to explain not just being abusive, but SHOOTING her?  And he couldn't allow her version - he'd just shot her while she was defenceless, unarmed, through a door.  Trapped in a toilet.  If anyone found out they would never forgive him. But Reeva would tell them. He couldn't let that happen:

[Michelle Burger] said that there was a gap between the first shot and the next three, describing it as "bang (pause), bang bang bang."

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10672989/Oscar-Pistorius-witness-describes-bloodcurdling-screams-followed-by-shots.html

That's when it really became an intentional act, because it certainly didn't start that way.   Oscar's account, of course, is an elaborate fiction.  It doesn't make sense because it's simply too improbable.  The whole case actually centres - and has all along - on just two things:

- 4 shots
- a woman screamed

A further point can be made that any pause at any time during the firing of those four shots also shows methodical and calculated intention.  3/4 shots were on target.

Now, in retrospect, Oscar knows Reeva didn't call anyone in the end.  She might even have been bluffing, who knows.  This was why what he did was a mistake.  This is why it was an accident.  No, he didn't intend to kill Reeva.  Yes, he stopped that phone call at all costs.

Ultimately this is where Oscar's personal narrative takes over.  I've dealt with it in detail in Resurrection, which is why I can be so sure I'm intuitively, factually and have a legal and conceptual basis to be on the right track. It's true from his point of you, that in a certain sense he did not fire at Reeva. And one can also imagine the remorse, heartbreak and overall feeling kak after the fact.

Of course at the end of the day, phone or no phone, terror or not, it's still murder - based on what we have here.  And yes, premeditated murder.

 But I want to take you even further down this rabbithole.

To illustrate just how strange and improbable Oscar's story is  - just look at these two graphics.


Notice how the one on the left sketches a scene to the media which is not how Oscar's house looks at all.

 They get the passage way wrong, making it longer than it is, the bed is facing the bathroom whereas the graphic on the right shows the proximity of the gun to where he shot through the door.Thee's also a lot of activity around a fan and balcony almost at the opposite end of the house to the incident.

Based on earlier analysis I did (on 911 calls, which I tackled in Recidivist Acts) one of the telltale signs of lying is obfuscation.  Providing a lot of extraneous information.  In the real world, you wouldn't even think to mention fans, LCD lights, jeans on floor.  The absolute trauma and intensity, and if you were innocent, love for the person, would mean your story starts when you hear the sound. (ie the startling, activating action).  In Oscar's version nothing specifically wakes him up, and in fact, his story essentially begins with him lying in bed, asleep, with Reeva.

This is also symbolic, of course.  The innocent slumber of lovers, and untested love.  Yes, 14 February represented a very real awakening for Oscar, an awakening into the real world.  He handled this with characteristic aggression, but then retreated into a fictional persona (just as the able-bodied superman, the Bladerunner, is also fictional).  This fictional persona is the crybaby, the mouse-like, bespectacled, baby-ish victim.

To return to the graphic on the right, and to see why the version here makes watertight sense, notice:
The gun under his bed at the slippers, and where he stood firing at an angle at the door, this is a very short distance in the image to the right.  Short enough for the fastest man with no legs to hear/possibly see Reeva about to make a call, then he would run back, retrieve his gun and shoot through the door at the phone before she can call.  Make sense?




What's also interesting about the 'blue' graphic above and the 'beige' graphic top left, is the artist draws Oscar literally crawling, shifting snail-like over the ground.  This is what they have inferred through Oscar's own fictitious version.

Why is this man so low on the ground throughout - because both artists knew the height of the bullets in the door (below the handle), and were consciously trying to convey someone moving at low level over the floor space because of his 'limited mobility on his stumps' and, as he said in his bail affidavit and his 'vulnerability on his stumps.'

The video by Channel 7 for the first time shows Oscar can also run on his stumps.

Throughout this trial I personally couldn't figure out 4 things:

a) why there is an angle of the bullets fired at the door, not downward or upward, toward the door.  Why from an angle and not facing the door.  Why this strange angle?
b) why fire all bullets at hip height.  It doesn't matter how tall you are, why would you fire to kill someone - even an intruder - at hip height? (the second shot, B, which is the only one that missed, is slightly higher, presumably aimed towards the head)
c) what could cause Reeva to scream terrified screams for several minutes, the pitch eventually reaching a climax?
d) why did a man (Oscar) scream HELP HELP HELP?

But given the scenario provided above these four mysterious oddities now make absolute sense.

1) He fired at the angle because he had to hurry back to and from the bed, and shot at the door AS SOON as he had line of sight.  The area where he shot her is also closest to the bedroom, but still being able to maintain clear line of sight to the toilet door.  This conveniently allows Oscar to make up the story of an intruder, and being afraid, suggesting - even though he is in fight mode - a sense of semi-cowering around the corner.
In other words, this:

Looking around the wall, in case someone is coming out to attack him.  But what also makes perfect sense it was the earlier he should shoot at the door.

It's likely Oscar wasn't in this standing position but propped on both needs (legs bent lack) - in other words slightly lower.  Possibly even on his buttocks, but that I think would suggest an upward trajectory.

Both knees and close proximity to the wall would also have given him greater stability to fire, adjust aim, and achieve 75% accuracy.

It's also possible that the first shot threw Oscar slightly off balance.  This was in all likelihood the first time he had ever fired a weapon whilst on his stumps, and whilst an excellent shot, he wasn't used to it. This is the first indicator for PREMEDITATED MURDER.

2. Why fire bullets at hip height?  To hit the phone.  Also, he knew he had hit her after the first shot, and she was unlikely to be standing upright afterward. This adjustment of trajectory is a second indicator for PREMEDITATED MURDER

3.How and why could Reeva scream for such a long time?  If she was being intimidated and at the same time protected by a barrier, this makes absolute sense..  The use of the cricket bat in such a small space, and remember the room was also dark, would have been terrifying.
The order of bats, screams, shots, screams (last shot) and bat sounds would have aligned with:

a - Oscar demanding Reeva open the locked door, then shoulder it, trying to force it open.
Reeva's response - terrified screaming.
b - Reeva, trying to defend herself, threatening Oscar, if he didn't stop trying to break the barrier she would use the phone.
c - this made him panic, and tell her he was going to kill her
d - aware that he had guns, Reeva's terror would reach maximum and now she really had to call because now her life was in danger.
e - these were the petrified screams just before he fired, to stop her from phoning.  His intent had never been to kill her, or harm her, until she began to operate the handset.
f - knowing what was about to happen, because he was shouting at her, trying to prevent the call, Reeva screamed as she was shot, and stopped shortly after the last shot just as Michelle Burger had testified
g - after the last shot, silence.
h- after the last shot, a man screaming for help, 3 times.

Note:
both the prosecution expert (Vermeulen) and the defense expert (Dixon) asserted very firmly that the cricket bat blows were made after the shots through the door.

 Yes, but it is not a question that all the cricket bat blows were made EITHER all before the gunshots, or all produced afterward.  It's not absolute.  It's not a case of OR but AND!
A few intitial blows were made before the shots.  This would account for the confusing and supposedly contradictory accounts of earwitnesses who heard 3 shots, others as many as eight, one witness (Stipp, who was nearby) hearing a set of shots and then another set of shots...etc.  
There were four gunshots, and likely many cricket bat impacts, a few before the gunshots, prompting Reeva's 'petrified' screams, and then after the gunshots, those additional blows to the door (probably three or four) to break it open.

 Three reasons why we need at least one blow to the door before the shots is we need to explain how he was able to shoot Reeva with such accuracy. 

 Firstly - We need at least one blow through the door so that Oscar can visually sight his target through a crack.  

 Secondly - This this initial blow and Reeva's screams, would have woken Burger (ie both would have occurred at the same time - the intensity of the initial screams and a few initial cricket bat blows

 Thirdly - from Oscar's perspective, he urently needed to reak down the barrier, not to harm Reeva, but to prevent her from using the phone.  His motive was to break down the door!  It was never to kill Reeva.  But by attempting (and failing) Reeva became hysterical, and threatened to use the phone, and this is why Oscar felt he ran out of time, felt terror running over him, etc.  At any moment his life could be wiped out.  The news leaving Reeva's lips of abuse to another soul would destroy him.  He had to prevent that, but he dd n't have time to put on his prosthesis to continue hammering with te bat.
Since he had failed to smash the door with the bat on his stumps, and since time was critical, her response to his first hit was to execute her threat (I don't want to call but if you don't let me go, I will).  He couldn't exert power with the bat on his stumps, so he needed to find a way to break through using something that was more effective. And fast. His gun.

 He sprinted to fetch it and as soon as he achieved line of sight, on his knees, he fired the first shot ---
 at the phone.  
Hitting her in the right hip.  

 Either it was a sighted shot, or estimated, or he followed the sound of the phone as she called and her screams.  Or all of these.  

 4.  why did a man (Oscar) scream HELP HELP HELP? This was the critical question, and I thought if he had screamed this during the encounter, before the shots, I might have a problem, because I knew he screamed this from the balcony, and this Deep Dwang Version only places Oscar between the bed and the toilet door.  So what happens when you check the record:

3:17am: The Stipps, Burger and Johnson all stated that the screaming stopped after the last shot or faded away with the last shot.
Johan Stipp heard the man's voice shout "help, help, help" after the shots. 

 ...the man who wrote the gun safety exam that Pistorius and all South Africans take before getting licensed to own a gun, told ABC News that shooting Steenkamp through a bathroom door violated a key rule on the test which states a shooter must know what or who the target is. 
He said: 'That came as a big surprise to the general public because ... he got the answers correct when he took the test not too long ago, but unfortunately the night of the shooting he's broken every rule.'

Oscar knew exactly what he was doing, and he violated these rules, which he understood very well, because he felt a much greater, more urgent, more critical priority had emerged.

- his own survival.

 By his thinking he had to
- stop the phone call to nullify the threat
- killing Reeva followed, because he had injured her, and now the situation was even worse
- he justified killing Reeva by effectively saying his life, and his interests, were more important than her existence.
- his critical error was trying to stop Reeva from calling by shooting - in his mind - at the phone.
- but the real error was thinking Reeva would tell anyone, and misunderstanding her screams etc as resistance, when it was simply fear.

 But we still haven't dealt with the timing of his screams.  

"She screamed terribly and yelled for help. Then I also heard a man scream for help, three times he yelled for help."

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10672989/Oscar-Pistorius-witness-describes-bloodcurdling-screams-followed-by-shots.html

 We may assume - incorrectly - that Burger means he screamed for help while she was screaming, and before he shot her. That's how I read it, and that's how it appears at face value.  

 But that's not even Oscar's version. Oscar's version is first shots, then he screams Help Help Help.

But this is not what Burger actually means.  She rephrases it here:
"She screamed terribly and she yelled for help. Then I also heard a man screaming for help. Three times he yelled for help.
"Just after her screams, I heard four shots. It was very traumatic for me. You could hear bloodcurdling screams."
"I heard a man screaming for help three times. What was left out [of her initial statement] was the fear-stricken screams of the woman," she said.

 What's also not explicitly asked, but it's easier to be critical in retrospect, is when the man's calls for help occurred.  All Burger tells us is a woman shouts first and then a man.

 But Stipp clarifies on this point:
3:17am: The Stipps, Burger and Johnson all stated that the screaming stopped after the last shot or faded away with the last shot.
Johan Stipp heard the man's voice shout "help, help, help" after the shots. 
Roux questioned her account of how many shots she heard and whether the shots could have been fired before she woke up. He sought to downplay the "bloodcurdling screams" by questioning whether the emotive term was inserted into Burger's testimony at a later date.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oscar-pistorius-trial-michelle-burger-tells-bloodcurdling-screams-steenkamp-killed-1438687
Let's get specific:

Johnson [Burger's husband] testified that he had heard the woman’s screams intensify and that he then heard shots, with the last screams fading away after the shots.
Although Burger had been adamant that it was four shots, Johnson said he recalled a “few shots” and later told people it was five or six.
Johnson also confirmed that he had the impression that somebody was being “attacked in their house” and he was later surprised to learn that Pistorius had said that he’d shot his girlfriend by accident.
“It was difficult for me to believe … unless it was a house break-in, because I heard both a woman and a man screaming”.
Finally it is resolved:

13:36pm: Summary of the court proceedings from 'Day 4' thus far - Tymon Smith

Oscar Pistorius was again emotional, holding his head in his hands as he, the court and members of the Steenkamp family heard evidence of a doctor who attended to Reeva Steenkamp shortly after she was shot.

Radiologist Dr Johan Stipp, a neighbour of Pistorius in the Silver Woods estate, was awoken by the sound of bangs in the early hours of February 14 2013. As a former military doctor, he identified these as gunshots. [Probably mistaken]
Stipp told the court that he went to his balcony, saw lights on in Pistorius' house, then heard the sound of a woman screaming and a male's voice. 

Note: woman screaming + male voice.  

His bedroom is 72m from Pistorius' bathroom.

While trying to phone Silver Woods’s security back in his bedroom, he heard three more bangs, which he thought were also shots [these were the 4 gunshots] and shouted for his wife to get to safety.

Stipp returned to the balcony and heard a man screaming three times for help. He returned to his bedroom and after consulting with his wife, got dressed and drove to security before going to Pistorius' house.
http://m.sowetanlive.co.za/news/?articleId=11222213
1:31
Burger: if he said he did not hear a woman scream, then he had to explain that to the court.

Remember what we said at the outset:

The way the mind works is if we're guilty of something, we tell the truth as far as possible, but then tailor evidence to fit in with objective facts (as they may be anticipated or perceived) and match the two narratives together.  If this matching/tailoring can closely resemble the true state of events as they unfolded, our narratives ought to make sense, right?

We have to change details here and there that could be incriminating, but otherwise we stick to the basic narrative.  And that's exactly what Oscar - whose not stupid - does.

And here's his explanation:

Oscar's version is first shots, then he screams Help Help Help.

Deafened and with his ears ringing [after the shots], he continued screaming for Steenkamp to call the police.
He walked back to the room with his pistol raised. He continued shouting for Steenkamp, still believing there were intruders in the bathroom. He lifted himself onto the bed , moved his hand backwards and didn’t feel anything. At first he thought Steenkamp was on the floor.
When he couldn’t find her, he ran his hand along the curtains to check if she was hiding. He went back up the passage, still disbelieving that he could have shot her. He tried to open the toilet door and found it locked.
He ran back and screamed from the balcony for help. He put his legs on and ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick down the door. He returned to the bedroom to fetch the cricket bat. All the while he was screaming and shouting.
“I don’t think I have ever cried and screamed like that,” he said. He cried out for Reeva, to the Lord, begging for help.
Well he must say that to account for Reeva's screams.
"I was convinced that they were being attacked. The screams did not sound like fighting, more like panic and distress," Johnson said, referring to a woman's screams he heard around 3am.


This statement also corresponds to the Deep Dwang concept, contextualized here. If you want to leave, and are trapped, and the scenario is as described above, will it be conventional fighting, or - being far more serious, far more urgent - will the arguing become panic just before death?

 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Witness-grilled-by-Oscars-defence-team-20140303
OSCAR 'WAS SINCERE IN HIS GRIEF' - Sapa
Murder-accused Oscar Pistorius was sincere in his grief after he shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Thursday.
Radiologist Johan Stipp told the court he found Pistorius was emotional as he tried to revive Steenkamp at the bottom of the stairs at his Pretoria home.
"He definitely wanted her to live... He looked sincere to me. He had tears on his face," said Stipp.
Whilst Oscar was sincere, Stipp is probably wrong when he says He definitely wanted her to live.
Why?
- Alive she would be a threat to his brand, because her testimony [of his abusiveness] would destroy him
- Was he distraught and upset, absolutely, he loved her and she was only the second relationship he'd had with a female, and he was 26 years old.  So a catastrophic loss for him, but also a strategic, calculated loss.
- Has Oscar been sincere.  Yes and no.  Like his testimony, sincere when this couldn't incriminate him, and full of AFFECT [ie pretense] when this could help his image and his case.

Once again - not either OR, but AND.

Highlights from Oscar's Psyche Analysis:

 1. Note the unusually high levels of Social Phobia and Agoraphobia.
These recorded measurements serve to confirm the Deep Dwang narrative.  Ie that Oscar sought to control Reeva during this incident, and in his failure to control her (due to the locked door, and her access to a phone) felt critically unable to control his vital narrative, and panicked.

2. Notice the allusion to 2 Oscar's - also referenced in Resurrection.  The existence of two polar opposite persona, super strong and super weak, created a schism, and as he attempted to emerge as a man, threatened to expose his critical failures (as a man, as a lover, as a human being.  These were privately and publicly sources of significant stress)

Note Oscar's particular aversion to feelings of defenseless-nes, lack of control and the intuitive sense that to resolve feelings of vulnerability and lack of control, he had to resort to - or become - a weapon.


3. He was instantly taken with her, wished to move in with her (after 3-4 months) seems to reinforce Cecil Myers allegations of Oscar:
Cecil remembers their first date, shortly after she broke up with her former boyfriend.
“She went with Oscar to a sports-awards evening. And after that he wouldn’t leave her alone. He kept pestering her, phoning and phoning and phoning her.
“Oscar was hasty and impatient and very moody – that’s my impression of him.
“She told me he pushed her a bit into a corner. She felt caged in. I told her I would talk to him. I told him not to force himself on her. Back off.
He agreed, but his face showed me what he was thinking: ‘Oh, this guy is talking nonsense.’
He did cool down a bit. Then they started going out steadily, and she was more at his home.
“I once talked to her about Oscar’s moodiness. She didn’t answer me.”
He takes Oscar’s testimony that he and Reeva were madly in love with a pinch of salt. “I think she loved him, but it was no massive love affair.”
Was he ever worried about Reeva and Oscar?
“My answer to that is ‘no comment’, and that’s probably enough of an answer. There’s a dark side to him. And all we’re left with now is a huge emptiness.”
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/i-could-have-saved-reeva/


4. The day before the incident, see above/below, Oscar was discussing issues with an estate agent.

 This is very quick to be moving in when not even Reeva's parents (certainly not Barry Steenkamp) were aware she was in a relationship with Him.


5. He had serious abandonment issues (see below) - due to his mother's death and his father's absence.  Echoed by desperate letter begging Sam Taylor to join him in London.  Similarly wanted friends to regularly visit him and sleep over, he wanted Reeva to move in and travel with him overseas.  But did she want to?  Could she?

 6. Erratic relationships.  Pressure and anxiety related to his CAREER/brand


 7. A strong ability to regulate his affect.


 8. Genuine feelings of love, yes, but also insecurity and jealousy.  However there were signs of abuse and co-ersion [see Cecil Myers bullet 3]


Mockery?
What happened?  Was it a charade?  Why did Oscar also call for help?

Burger said she was not there and did not know.
“She shouted for help. He shouted for help. I don’t know why. Was it a mockery? I don’t know,” Burger answered.
It is a pity Nel didn't pointedly ask Burger when she heard him scream.  Perhaps she was unsure.  Could she confirm his screams after the shots?
Given her statements thus far, it's entirely possible that she can confirm both Stipp and Oscar in this matter, not that this is crucial, simply a matter of tying up a loose end.

 Let's ask Roux's question again, bearing in mind the context we now have:

Why would he do this? Why would a man who wanted to kill his girlfriend also shout help help help?  Because he was already immediately during and immediately after the act  [Premeditation Red Flag] trying to think of a way [a version] to explain this mess to the media.

 Did he know what he was doing?  Absolutely.  Because the psyche report says so:



“I think I hit the door three times and I grabbed a plank and pulled it out into the bathroom,” he said. There was no key on the inside of the door. He spotted it on the floor and managed to reach in and retrieve it.



"With the head shot, she (Steenkamp) would have dropped down immediately," Roux said.
Burger disagreed. "I heard her voice just after the last shot," she said. "It faded away."

Burger's allegation of a mockery caused a massive response from Roux, and one of the few, if only occasions during the trial of 'badgering'.  Why?  Because it was true.  It was a mockery.  It's been one all along.  The only difference is, now we know for 99% certain.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)