I agree there. Maybe OP did not bank on Reeva becoming as famous as himself?
His ego demands a partner who is in awe of him
I think he worked it up, the whole dysfunctional thing, over time. Sam put up with a lot, but rebelled, and then caved and then was superseded. Reeva was supposed to be 'it', but she not only rebelled, she couldn't be controlled, I think he was very desperate to control her, even on that day, the whole effort to get her to stay. But she was not having it.
And she was NOT going to gain really by being with him, perhaps her company had told her that, it was all slipping away from OP, and Op is all about his OWN status.
And he couldn't take rejection, he couldn't even take being crossed, that much is pretty clear.
And what is so sad for me, is that if she had been fly, if she had been properly scared, instead of trying to work out her own demons having been in an abusive relationship before, if she hadn't 'faced him out', but understood she should 'get out from under', placated him, waited, watched herself, she could have survived.
Of course, I can't know, and this is speculation, but it fits her, and it fits him.
The 'intruder' LOCKED himself in the toilet then,and OP wasn't surprised because HE was the victim? He was the one that was scared? He was the one that was trapped?
Well of course he claimed he didn't hear that very noisy lock mechanism, in order to be able to have any remote chance of maintaining the intruder could come out (otherwise it really is just executing someone).
If he heard the lock, for sure, MWI. So he couldn't.
Then he even went to all the trouble of talking about the magazine rack being in a different place, to be able to say he had this "perception" of the door opening, which precipitated his shots - in fear.
All that trouble.
And then said, afterwards, that he wasn't surprised to discover the door was, in fact, locked.
Can only suggest that 5 hours+ every day on the stand was taking it's toll!
That should surely feature in Masipa's comments about this "door opening" business. It is certainly one of his most striking contradictions.
Well of course he claimed he didn't hear that very noisy lock mechanism, in order to be able to have any remote chance of maintaining the intruder could come out (otherwise it really is just executing someone).
If he heard the lock, for sure, MWI. So he couldn't.
Then he even went to all the trouble of talking about the magazine rack being in a different place, to be able to say he had this "perception" of the door opening, which precipitated his shots - in fear.
All that trouble.
And then said, afterwards, that he wasn't surprised to discover the door was, in fact, locked.
Can only suggest that 5 hours+ every day on the stand was taking it's toll!
That should surely feature in Masipa's comments about this "door opening" business. It is certainly one of his most striking contradictions.
I think he worked it up, the whole dysfunctional thing, over time. Sam put up with a lot, but rebelled, and then caved and then was superseded. Reeva was supposed to be 'it', but she not only rebelled, she couldn't be controlled, I think he was very desperate to control her, even on that day, the whole effort to get her to stay. But she was not having it.
And she was NOT going to gain really by being with him, perhaps her company had told her that, it was all slipping away from OP, and Op is all about his OWN status.
And he couldn't take rejection, he couldn't even take being crossed, that much is pretty clear.
And what is so sad for me, is that if she had been fly, if she had been properly scared, instead of trying to work out her own demons having been in an abusive relationship before, if she hadn't 'faced him out', but understood she should 'get out from under', placated him, waited, watched herself, she could have survived.
Of course, I can't know, and this is speculation, but it fits her, and it fits him.
And he loves guns.
She had no real idea how far he would go.
Couldn’t agree more
Such a lying hypocrite to talk of her going to bed feeling loved when in fact he took away from her the very last thing she did on this earth when he callously denied her dying screams.
I think he worked it up, the whole dysfunctional thing, over time. Sam put up with a lot, but rebelled, and then caved and then was superseded. Reeva was supposed to be 'it', but she not only rebelled, she couldn't be controlled, I think he was very desperate to control her, even on that day, the whole effort to get her to stay. But she was not having it.
And she was NOT going to gain really by being with him, perhaps her company had told her that, it was all slipping away from OP, and Op is all about his OWN status.
And he couldn't take rejection, he couldn't even take being crossed, that much is pretty clear.
And what is so sad for me, is that if she had been fly, if she had been properly scared, instead of trying to work out her own demons having been in an abusive relationship before, if she hadn't 'faced him out', but understood she should 'get out from under', placated him, waited, watched herself, she could have survived.
Of course, I can't know, and this is speculation, but it fits her, and it fits him.
And he loves guns.
She had no real idea how far he would go.
BiB: I think that is really on the money Rhum.
She thought she was arguing with a "normal" guy that was being a "jerk" - not someone with such extreme intensity as him. OP didn't realize that either, perhaps, or he might have had the sense to walk away himself. He's also had too many people picking up the pieces when his smaller scale disasters have happened in the past, no doubt. What really troubles me is those individuals, like Darmen, that seem oblivious to the problems, even now, as though everything is "fine".
He's troubled but not in the ways these people are suggesting, with their many and various misdiagnoses (IMO), but in the sense of having a fractured mind which could sometimes shoot a person for whatever reason.
Smoothing these things over does not make them go away.
Uncle A saying: Can't wait to see him back at the Olympics.
Nice idea Uncle A ... but won't that be pretty stressful??? All that training, all those flights - weren't the flights part of the problem, wasn't that whole entire lifestyle in the public eye making the "two Oscars" split apart.
So they believe the story about how he flipped or something (and killed) - but not what must be the next logical step - which is slow everything waaaaayyy down. I don't get Darmen and these kinds of people that can say on the one hand - here's a theory why he's so messed up right now - and on the other - he isn't a danger.
At least Vorster was more realistic about that...
I suppose September 11th decision might offer him the means to slow things down, as it happens...
Plus there was one text referred previously on here which mentioned him phoning Reeva whilst she was at the hairdressers to tell her how to have the foils in her hair so as to get the best result.
How controlling is that? Ringing your other half at the hairdressers to tell her how to have her hair done. This has all the signs of her being just a trophy girlfriend
How knowledgeable of OP in such feminine matters.
With that and his screaming like a big girls blouse he could have been SA's answer to Julian Clary
I thought he had 'tried' the door, wasn't that in his main evidence?
Anyone?
Yes - when he ran back into bathroom he 'tried' the door but was NOT surprised to find it locked.
Even though the idea that it might be locked never crossed his mind before, and he did not hear it locking, and he even thought it was about to open (based on the alleged 'wood' sound).
It's the lack of surprise that is inconsistent with the fact he believed it was not locked so must have been expecting it would just open when he turned the handle.
Normal reaction: Trying lock - then rattling it - yanking it - swearing - saying "oh god it's locked WTF am I going to do now".
Maybe dialling for help - my girlfriend is trapped in cubicle, I think I shot her, I need help fast as possible.
Not stopping to put "socks" onto his prosthetics, that kind of thing...
I thought he had 'tried' the door, wasn't that in his main evidence?
Anyone?
I do recall that was what he had said.
Someone being truthful would not contradict themselves as many times as he has.
He was truly an awful witness and his defence team where made to present an awful fist of it due to OP and probably OP's family's efforts.
I honestly think that its nailed on that he will have the book thrown at him.
Was that the Bible or some Jane Austin novel?
Yes - when he ran back into bathroom he 'tried' the door but was NOT surprised to find it locked.
Even though the idea that it might be locked never crossed his mind before, and he did not hear it locking, and he even thought it was about to open (based on the alleged 'wood' sound).
It's the lack of surprise that is inconsistent with the fact he believed it was not locked so must have been expecting it would just open when he turned the handle.
Normal reaction: Trying lock - then rattling it - yanking it - swearing - saying "oh god it's locked WTF am I going to do now".
Maybe dialling for help - my girlfriend is trapped in cubicle, I think I shot her, I need help fast as possible.
Not stopping to put "socks" onto his prosthetics, that kind of thing...
Such a lying hypocrite to talk of her going to bed feeling loved when in fact he took away from her the very last thing she did on this earth when he callously denied her dying screams.
I suspect because that was a 'promise' to her parents also under 'oath' to God that it is exactly for that reason that the wording is incomplete.
"She felt loved when she fell asleep". My guess is that is true in the sense that when they fell asleep things were relatively normal. It's a "loophole" for him to say it like that IMO, he hopes to avoid saying a lie of such magnitude as a promise to her parents that she felt loved when things went so drastically bad in the middle of the night and in fact she felt scared and angry and then terrified because of him.
Otherwise why not say: "I promise you she never saw this coming, and felt loved up until the moment we last spoke."
It's a bit like his "I will try to tell the truth" ... just making a little loophole on some of the more profound aspects to telling lies.
The rest being excusable under the guise "we are all sinners" and "it was a mistake" and "i did not mean it" and "if the Lord will only let me stay out of prison, I will do good things with my life."
Bet they went to sleep and it was fairly normal but then later, upon waking, a row was somehow sparked, and that's the missing segment in his promise. Even on his own version they had some waking moments together but the promise is silent on the matter of how loved she felt at that point in time.
Such a lying hypocrite to talk of her going to bed feeling loved when in fact he took away from her the very last thing she did on this earth when he callously denied her dying screams.
Don't, it's amazingly horrible, his whole set of lies, his emotion and his DENIAL of her, of HER, totally, the 'silent' partner in HIS tragedy.
And he utters not one word of real self blame, of any regret of ANY of his actions, not ONE.
That's not normal if he actually HAD killed her by accident, it's ABNORMAL, for anyone, except for a murderer who is playing the court, then it's sort of obvious.
Don't, it's amazingly horrible, his whole set of lies, his emotion and his DENIAL of her, of HER, totally, the 'silent' partner in HIS tragedy.
And he utters not one word of real self blame, of any regret of ANY of his actions, not ONE.
That's not normal if he actually HAD killed her by accident, it's ABNORMAL, for anyone, except for a murderer who is playing the court, then it's sort of obvious.
BiB: Really in huge agreement with all your posts this evening Rhum!
It's that total lack of stopping himself to say "If only..." not on any one specific thing ever.
"If only i'd...:"
- seen or heard her leave
- waited a few more moments to look at the bed...
- crouched down and watched the passage, I can't believe I was so foolish...
- shouted something specific on the way [like: Reeva - I'm checking out the bathroom] she would have answered then ["Why - I'm [I]in[/I] the bathroom"]."
- asked 'who's there'..."
- warned them I was armed, she would have said something.."
- fired a shot out the window, not into the door.."
- waited and not fired, waiting to see what Reeva was doing in bedroom, I would have figured out she wasn't there.."
- just kept 1 bullet in my gun, for an emergency, instead of fully loaded.."
- not lost control - I cannot understand what happened to me..."
- heard her cries.."
- had the presence of mind to ring ambulance immediately, or got Frank, we could have helped to stop the bleeding quicker..."
Nope, none of that. There is nothing at all that he rues on his part. Not one moment of this alleged accident which provoked a moment of self-reflection on how he might have prevented it some how...
He does still blame himself for the accident, though. But try to pin him down to a specific moment where he could have done things differently, and you will never find one...
Everything else: It's a justification. No criticism, please. It was all reasonable. It was all intent upon the minimum of harm (indeed none). He had no choices at any moments. He "did not have the luxury of time..." (except when walking very slowly). he was scared - vulnerable - trapped - fearing crime - unable to run - protective - defensive - trying to negotiate - startled - overwhelmed with fear - doing everything possible to save her life...
It just happened (as though he were an automaton). And now he's suffering because of it.
Hmmm.
ETA: It's not really that he's "justifying" what he did [because this didn't happen], except in the sense Rhum says of "playing the court". The justifications are in an attempt to account for all the steps in the story in the hopes this makes it more believable.
But if it was a real story, it would just be "what he really did" and he would probably be going the opposite way of talking about the things he might have done differently! You don't have to justify everything if it's real, some of it, you probably can't justify anyway and would have to just hold your hands up and say "that was a bad decision".
"No blame" certainly makes his story less reasonably possibly true, doesn't it. ;-)
BiB: Really in huge agreement with all your posts this evening Rhum!
It's that total lack of stopping himself to say "If only..." not on any one specific thing ever.
"If only i'd...:"
- seen or heard her leave
- waited a few more moments to look at the bed...
- crouched down and watched the passage, I can't believe I was so foolish...
- shouted something specific on the way [like: Reeva - I'm checking out the bathroom] she would have answered then ["Why - I'm [I]in[/I] the bathroom"]."
- asked 'who's there'..."
- warned them I was armed, she would have said something.."
- fired a shot out the window, not into the door.."
- waited and not fired, waiting to see what Reeva was doing in bedroom, I would have figured out she wasn't there.."
- just kept 1 bullet in my gun, for an emergency, instead of fully loaded.."
- not lost control - I cannot understand what happened to me..."
- heard her cries.."
- had the presence of mind to ring ambulance immediately, or got Frank, we could have helped to stop the bleeding quicker..."
Nope, none of that. There is nothing at all that he rues on his part. Not one moment of this alleged accident which provoked a moment of self-reflection on how he might have prevented it some how...
He does still blame himself for the accident, though. But try to pin him down to a specific moment where he could have done things differently, and you will never find one...
Everything else: It's a justification. No criticism, please. It was all reasonable. It was all intent upon the minimum of harm (indeed none). He had no choices at any moments. He "did not have the luxury of time..." (except when walking very slowly). he was scared - vulnerable - trapped - fearing crime - unable to run - protective - defensive - trying to negotiate - startled - overwhelmed with fear - doing everything possible to save her life...
It just happened (as though he were an automaton). And now he's suffering because of it.
Hmmm.
Exactly.
And the head -the logical arguments, the 'tickle points of niceness', the 'possibilites' are THERE, and they are seriously damning.
But it's the reality of OPs response that demonstrates to the GUT, that he is lying, that he DOES NOT CARE, that he did not love, that he KILLED her and he meant it.
It was NO accident. No innocent person could have acted and said what OP did in this trial.
Nel asked him 'who was to blame?' and that was brilliant.
OP was to blame, even if it was an ACCIDENT.
And if it HAD been, he would have buckled and said of course it was his STUPID fault.
ETA: It's not really that he's "justifying" what he did [because this didn't happen], except in the sense Rhum says of "playing the court". The justifications are in an attempt to account for all the steps in the story in the hopes this makes it more believable.
But if it was a real story, it would just be "what he really did" and he would probably be going the opposite way of talking about the things he might have done differently! You don't have to justify everything if it's real, some of it, you probably can't justify anyway and would have to just hold your hands up and say "that was a bad decision".
"No blame" certainly makes his story less reasonably possibly true, doesn't it. ;-)
No blame makes his story UNBELIEVABLE, humanly, and the evidence supports that is is all ACTUALLY untrue.
To a reasonable person.
And we must remember that we are ASKED, or the court is, to RELY to a great extent on the belief that OP is telling the truth.
And the head -the logical arguments, the 'tickle points of niceness', the 'possibilites' are THERE, and they are seriously damning.
But it's the reality of OPs response that demonstrates to the GUT, that he is lying, that he DOES NOT CARE, that he did not love, that he KILLED her and he meant it.
It was NO accident. No innocent person could have acted and said what OP did in this trial.
Nel asked him 'who was to blame?' and that was brilliant.
OP was to blame, even if it was an ACCIDENT.
And if it HAD been, he would have buckled and said of course it was his STUPID fault.
But he didn't.
At all.
Yeah he might have thought he loved but in actual fact he just wanted.
She's dead - but I don't want a fault to my name.
Inconsistent with consideration and most definitely inconsistent with true love.
It makes the state case way more plausible anyway.
No blame makes his story UNBELIEVABLE, humanly, and the evidence supports that is is all ACTUALLY untrue.
To a reasonable person.
And we must remember that we are ASKED, or the court is, to RELY to a great extent on the belief that OP is telling the truth.
I don't, I can't believe that Masipa is fooled.
I can't believe she is either... I think she and the panel probably has some different theories to the way Nel has described things, but ultimately, I'm sure no one believes the intruder {I]in the manner OP described it[/I], and it's just a matter of whether they feel there is enough to convict on shooting RS as well...
Their factual research might be picking and choosing the "best" from each case I guess, they might for example have theorized that the couple did indeed go to bed (due to the lack of digital data for hours), and then perhaps woken up again, explaining RS's attire not being any smarter...
But so far as the core impressions goes it will be 3-0 that he's (significantly) not truthful I guess. And then the only question is, how much is he lying about:
[1] did he go Rambo style on the intruder rather than 'innocently' as he maintains
or
[2] was it in fact a break up or something like that.
I don't know what I think to be honest which of those two they will majority go for. There might be a difference of opinion 2 to 1 or something like that. It should be 3-0 but they might not link everything together the same way, might form different viewpoint.
Panels are much more likely to be smart than individuals since they bounce ideas of one another and fill in gaps in each others' reasoning - I think that is partly why OP couldn't play the psychiatrists the same way he did with Schultz... ;-)
Yeah he might have thought he loved but in actual fact he just wanted.
She's dead - but I don't want a fault to my name.
Inconsistent with consideration and most definitely inconsistent with true love.
It makes the state case way more plausible anyway.
Moniker it makes it inconsistent with any sort of innocence at all.
You don't have to have 'true love' to feel terrible regret and remorse and self blame for an accident.
But, as you have said, OP demonstrates none of this. The crying and puking are nothing, the puking I thought was a distraction from the main event even.
But the lack of any tiny acknowledgement that he was WRONG not to check, that he, when recalling how he felt going up the corridor screaming when there was NOTHING THERE, and he knows it, but STILL giving this dramatic performance without a HINT of - 'I was a fool, I was a pratt, I thought that, but it was stupid'.
He and the defense wanted to MAKE the court feel 'in this delusion' and OP couldn't let ANY of it go.
If it was an accident, he would have said 'I should have bloody thought', as you said, Moniker.
He would have tried to explain, but his understanding of his own STUPIDITY about the whole thing would have leaked out.
He would have been stupidly honest about how stupid it was. And that would have convinced us.
But 'OP starring in this 'die hard' movie with the fear and the terror and the bravery evern though he was so scared, and the ninjaing and the so even reckless determination to save the damsel, and then the ODD girly screaming, and all the rest of it, just didn't cut the mustard.
And he told his story like that. Knowing he killed this woman.
And anything that psychologically leaked out, was about killing Reeva deliberately
Lubs you , by the way, and thanks for putting up with me this evening.:kitty:.
Regarding 11th September - Judgement day - Judge Masipa -
"Natal Jupiter is exact conjunct Cybele – inflated female outrage. This will be contained within her judgement, rest assured.
Natal Pluto is conjunct Nessus and the mid-heaven – all that we wrote above about Nessus will apply to this woman whom today, wears the robes of a judge.
tr Neptune (turquoise) in the inner wheel is quindecile Saturn (10th house) – at risk of obsessively being martyr to the cause (as in the role of the judge).
tr Pluto is also in quindecile; this time with natal Uranus – attainment of great goals through great effort. Rising to the enormity of the task.
tr Pluto is also square natal Neptune – this is a risky aspect as it can involve death threats when we interpret through a forensic astrology lens.
tr Lunar nodal axis conjunct natal Sun – projected onto the public stage is a traumatic experience for this private woman; her private life can never be the same again.
tr Saturn conjunct natal mid-range Moon – need for mental control over personal sense of authority.
tr Mars conjunct natal Jupiter (green) – making waves effectively."
He would have been stupidly honest about how stupid it was. And that would have convinced us.
But 'OP starring in this 'die hard' movie with the fear and the terror and the bravery evern though he was so scared, and the ninjaing and the so even reckless determination to save the damsel, and then the ODD girly screaming, and all the rest of it, just didn't cut the mustard.
And he told his story like that. Knowing he killed this woman.
And anything that psychologically leaked out, was about killing Reeva deliberately
Lubs you , by the way, and thanks for putting up with me this evening.:kitty:.
BiB1: Yep - that's what was needed. Knowing he had brought the tragedy as he calls it upon himself and her and her family. Accepting the responsibility in causing all of this suffering. There was none of that...because the truth of the matter is something he has not faced up to, basically. And now he thinks it's a challenge to come out on top of the situation, another competition i guess, that's all...
One thing I must comment upon is that he could have told a very simple story if he hadn't been trying to cover all these different alibis LOL because the irony of going that is almost none of the actual evidence he was worried about surfaced LOL
- No one saw him go onto the balcony
- No one heard him yell "Get the F outta my house"
- Reeva did not dial the police
If you knock out all that stuff he could have been woken by RS closing toilet door, crept stealthily out of his alleged side of the bed, with his gun, crept along the passage in fear, and then done the whole 'startled thing like he in fact did it.
I think it's pretty ironic that he would go to the trouble of covering all the evidence there MIGHT have been and then it never surfaced LOL - but in the process wind up with this convoluted story, as you say, ninja-ing around the bed and up the passageway...;-)
There was different evidence to what he predicted (such as RS standing up at the time, or gastric contents, or the blood trail/spatters stopping things from being moved ad lib, etc).
But it's the possible evidence, that he couldn't NOT cover JUST IN CASE but as a result, things got way more complicated for his version hehe.
Serves him right lol
Definitely be annoyed if the panel rules in his favour on this version of events. They need a smack around the head(s) if they do lol :D:D
BiB2: No worries at all, been a pleasure chatting!! :cool:
One thing puzzles me: Why would OP tell Roux it was 2 double-taps if it wasn't?
Because that rhythm BANG BANG ........... BANG BANG is something that you definitely would not be able to produce automatically. It means more complex control, more thinking while firing, there are definitely 2 separate intentions to fire then.
Mangena ruled out A+B as a double tap pair BUT if OP was swerving around the corner when he fired, the trajectories could easily have splayed apart, right.
B could have clipped RS left hand as it went to E.
She then falls he takes a pace into the room and then fires the next pair C+D.
Perhaps he had expected that the ballistics to prove it, so could not deny.
After all, two cartridges were further into the bathroom. Only two were in passage. And the firing range was anywhere between 60cm and 2.2m (ish).
I suppose he might have crouched a bit as well due to the open window.
I just can't see exactly why he would admit "two double taps" unless it was true, and perhaps when Mangena formally ruled that one out...that was the moment that it changed to 4 rapid shots.
He could never have claimed any kind of automatism if it had been 2 double-taps.
Perhaps it is just as well he was lulled into this possibility mind you, as it became the claim which will be most certain to be rejected.
ETA: Another possibility is "two double taps" is simply an attempt to half the total "firings" so it doesn't sound so bad. Because I'm also thinking about Stipps evidence: If they woke up to hear B+C+D then it is more consistent with the pause after A. There must have been a reasonable regularity to the shots or otherwise Mrs Van der Merwe might have noticed the pace had a big gap in. [I'm not for the moment considering Burger+Johnson as I'm uncertain which set of bangs they actually heard]
Really ? I'd have some questions for you then. Not to do with PED but opportunity to abuse as an elite athlete.
I'm only an 'expert' in the way Wollie and Roger were 'experts'! I have an interest in its use and effects though. Best advice?.....Don't touch it..it can shrink your willie and sometimes increase anger in an already angry person!
One thing puzzles me: Why would OP tell Roux it was 2 double-taps if it wasn't?
Because that rhythm BANG BANG ........... BANG BANG is something that you definitely would not be able to produce automatically. It means more complex control, more thinking while firing, there are definitely 2 separate intentions to fire then.
Mangena ruled out A+B as a double tap pair BUT if OP was swerving around the corner when he fired, the trajectories could easily have splayed apart, right.
B could have clipped RS left hand as it went to E.
She then falls he takes a pace into the room and then fires the next pair C+D.
Perhaps he had expected that the ballistics to prove it, so could not deny.
After all, two cartridges were further into the bathroom. Only two were in passage. And the firing range was anywhere between 60cm and 2.2m (ish).
I suppose he might have crouched a bit as well due to the open window.
I just can't see exactly why he would admit "two double taps" unless it was true, and perhaps when Mangena formally ruled that one out...that was the moment that it changed to 4 rapid shots.
He could never have claimed any kind of automatism if it had been 2 double-taps.
Perhaps it is just as well he was lulled into this possibility mind you, as it became the claim which will be most certain to be rejected.
ETA: Another possibility is "two double taps" is simply an attempt to half the total "firings" so it doesn't sound so bad. Because I'm also thinking about Stipps evidence: If they woke up to hear B+C+D then it is more consistent with the pause after A. There must have been a reasonable regularity to the shots or otherwise Mrs Van der Merwe might have noticed the pace had a big gap in. [I'm not for the moment considering Burger+Johnson as I'm uncertain which set of bangs they actually heard]
Both your ideas (real double-taps, or misguided minimisation attempt double-taps) are interesting Moniker, and I agree that automatism does not sit well with double-taps. Although - as has been said here before - the shift in defence from double-taps to rapid fire is academic and somewhat desperate anyway, as shots 2, 3 & 4 don't sit well with automatism, regardless of their delivery.
Comments
I think he worked it up, the whole dysfunctional thing, over time. Sam put up with a lot, but rebelled, and then caved and then was superseded. Reeva was supposed to be 'it', but she not only rebelled, she couldn't be controlled, I think he was very desperate to control her, even on that day, the whole effort to get her to stay. But she was not having it.
And she was NOT going to gain really by being with him, perhaps her company had told her that, it was all slipping away from OP, and Op is all about his OWN status.
And he couldn't take rejection, he couldn't even take being crossed, that much is pretty clear.
And what is so sad for me, is that if she had been fly, if she had been properly scared, instead of trying to work out her own demons having been in an abusive relationship before, if she hadn't 'faced him out', but understood she should 'get out from under', placated him, waited, watched herself, she could have survived.
Of course, I can't know, and this is speculation, but it fits her, and it fits him.
And he loves guns.
She had no real idea how far he would go.
Well of course he claimed he didn't hear that very noisy lock mechanism, in order to be able to have any remote chance of maintaining the intruder could come out (otherwise it really is just executing someone).
If he heard the lock, for sure, MWI. So he couldn't.
Then he even went to all the trouble of talking about the magazine rack being in a different place, to be able to say he had this "perception" of the door opening, which precipitated his shots - in fear.
All that trouble.
And then said, afterwards, that he wasn't surprised to discover the door was, in fact, locked.
Can only suggest that 5 hours+ every day on the stand was taking it's toll!
That should surely feature in Masipa's comments about this "door opening" business. It is certainly one of his most striking contradictions.
Edit - he 'tried' it after the shooting.
Couldn’t agree more
Such a lying hypocrite to talk of her going to bed feeling loved when in fact he took away from her the very last thing she did on this earth when he callously denied her dying screams.
BiB: I think that is really on the money Rhum.
She thought she was arguing with a "normal" guy that was being a "jerk" - not someone with such extreme intensity as him. OP didn't realize that either, perhaps, or he might have had the sense to walk away himself. He's also had too many people picking up the pieces when his smaller scale disasters have happened in the past, no doubt. What really troubles me is those individuals, like Darmen, that seem oblivious to the problems, even now, as though everything is "fine".
He's troubled but not in the ways these people are suggesting, with their many and various misdiagnoses (IMO), but in the sense of having a fractured mind which could sometimes shoot a person for whatever reason.
Smoothing these things over does not make them go away.
Uncle A saying: Can't wait to see him back at the Olympics.
Nice idea Uncle A ... but won't that be pretty stressful??? All that training, all those flights - weren't the flights part of the problem, wasn't that whole entire lifestyle in the public eye making the "two Oscars" split apart.
So they believe the story about how he flipped or something (and killed) - but not what must be the next logical step - which is slow everything waaaaayyy down. I don't get Darmen and these kinds of people that can say on the one hand - here's a theory why he's so messed up right now - and on the other - he isn't a danger.
At least Vorster was more realistic about that...
I suppose September 11th decision might offer him the means to slow things down, as it happens...
With that and his screaming like a big girls blouse he could have been SA's answer to Julian Clary
Yes - when he ran back into bathroom he 'tried' the door but was NOT surprised to find it locked.
Even though the idea that it might be locked never crossed his mind before, and he did not hear it locking, and he even thought it was about to open (based on the alleged 'wood' sound).
It's the lack of surprise that is inconsistent with the fact he believed it was not locked so must have been expecting it would just open when he turned the handle.
Normal reaction: Trying lock - then rattling it - yanking it - swearing - saying "oh god it's locked WTF am I going to do now".
Maybe dialling for help - my girlfriend is trapped in cubicle, I think I shot her, I need help fast as possible.
Not stopping to put "socks" onto his prosthetics, that kind of thing...
Someone being truthful would not contradict themselves as many times as he has.
He was truly an awful witness and his defence team where made to present an awful fist of it due to OP and probably OP's family's efforts.
I honestly think that its nailed on that he will have the book thrown at him.
Was that the Bible or some Jane Austin novel?
Cheers, checked, mindfart.
I suspect because that was a 'promise' to her parents also under 'oath' to God that it is exactly for that reason that the wording is incomplete.
"She felt loved when she fell asleep". My guess is that is true in the sense that when they fell asleep things were relatively normal. It's a "loophole" for him to say it like that IMO, he hopes to avoid saying a lie of such magnitude as a promise to her parents that she felt loved when things went so drastically bad in the middle of the night and in fact she felt scared and angry and then terrified because of him.
Otherwise why not say: "I promise you she never saw this coming, and felt loved up until the moment we last spoke."
It's a bit like his "I will try to tell the truth" ... just making a little loophole on some of the more profound aspects to telling lies.
The rest being excusable under the guise "we are all sinners" and "it was a mistake" and "i did not mean it" and "if the Lord will only let me stay out of prison, I will do good things with my life."
Bet they went to sleep and it was fairly normal but then later, upon waking, a row was somehow sparked, and that's the missing segment in his promise. Even on his own version they had some waking moments together but the promise is silent on the matter of how loved she felt at that point in time.
Don't, it's amazingly horrible, his whole set of lies, his emotion and his DENIAL of her, of HER, totally, the 'silent' partner in HIS tragedy.
And he utters not one word of real self blame, of any regret of ANY of his actions, not ONE.
That's not normal if he actually HAD killed her by accident, it's ABNORMAL, for anyone, except for a murderer who is playing the court, then it's sort of obvious.
BiB: Really in huge agreement with all your posts this evening Rhum!
It's that total lack of stopping himself to say "If only..." not on any one specific thing ever.
"If only i'd...:"
- seen or heard her leave
- waited a few more moments to look at the bed...
- crouched down and watched the passage, I can't believe I was so foolish...
- shouted something specific on the way [like: Reeva - I'm checking out the bathroom] she would have answered then ["Why - I'm [I]in[/I] the bathroom"]."
- asked 'who's there'..."
- warned them I was armed, she would have said something.."
- fired a shot out the window, not into the door.."
- waited and not fired, waiting to see what Reeva was doing in bedroom, I would have figured out she wasn't there.."
- just kept 1 bullet in my gun, for an emergency, instead of fully loaded.."
- not lost control - I cannot understand what happened to me..."
- heard her cries.."
- had the presence of mind to ring ambulance immediately, or got Frank, we could have helped to stop the bleeding quicker..."
Nope, none of that. There is nothing at all that he rues on his part. Not one moment of this alleged accident which provoked a moment of self-reflection on how he might have prevented it some how...
He does still blame himself for the accident, though. But try to pin him down to a specific moment where he could have done things differently, and you will never find one...
Everything else: It's a justification. No criticism, please. It was all reasonable. It was all intent upon the minimum of harm (indeed none). He had no choices at any moments. He "did not have the luxury of time..." (except when walking very slowly). he was scared - vulnerable - trapped - fearing crime - unable to run - protective - defensive - trying to negotiate - startled - overwhelmed with fear - doing everything possible to save her life...
It just happened (as though he were an automaton). And now he's suffering because of it.
Hmmm.
ETA: It's not really that he's "justifying" what he did [because this didn't happen], except in the sense Rhum says of "playing the court". The justifications are in an attempt to account for all the steps in the story in the hopes this makes it more believable.
But if it was a real story, it would just be "what he really did" and he would probably be going the opposite way of talking about the things he might have done differently! You don't have to justify everything if it's real, some of it, you probably can't justify anyway and would have to just hold your hands up and say "that was a bad decision".
"No blame" certainly makes his story less reasonably possibly true, doesn't it. ;-)
Exactly.
And the head -the logical arguments, the 'tickle points of niceness', the 'possibilites' are THERE, and they are seriously damning.
But it's the reality of OPs response that demonstrates to the GUT, that he is lying, that he DOES NOT CARE, that he did not love, that he KILLED her and he meant it.
It was NO accident. No innocent person could have acted and said what OP did in this trial.
Nel asked him 'who was to blame?' and that was brilliant.
OP was to blame, even if it was an ACCIDENT.
And if it HAD been, he would have buckled and said of course it was his STUPID fault.
But he didn't.
At all.
No blame makes his story UNBELIEVABLE, humanly, and the evidence supports that is is all ACTUALLY untrue.
To a reasonable person.
And we must remember that we are ASKED, or the court is, to RELY to a great extent on the belief that OP is telling the truth.
I don't, I can't believe that Masipa is fooled.
Yeah he might have thought he loved but in actual fact he just wanted.
She's dead - but I don't want a fault to my name.
Inconsistent with consideration and most definitely inconsistent with true love.
It makes the state case way more plausible anyway.
I can't believe she is either... I think she and the panel probably has some different theories to the way Nel has described things, but ultimately, I'm sure no one believes the intruder {I]in the manner OP described it[/I], and it's just a matter of whether they feel there is enough to convict on shooting RS as well...
Their factual research might be picking and choosing the "best" from each case I guess, they might for example have theorized that the couple did indeed go to bed (due to the lack of digital data for hours), and then perhaps woken up again, explaining RS's attire not being any smarter...
But so far as the core impressions goes it will be 3-0 that he's (significantly) not truthful I guess. And then the only question is, how much is he lying about:
[1] did he go Rambo style on the intruder rather than 'innocently' as he maintains
or
[2] was it in fact a break up or something like that.
I don't know what I think to be honest which of those two they will majority go for. There might be a difference of opinion 2 to 1 or something like that. It should be 3-0 but they might not link everything together the same way, might form different viewpoint.
Panels are much more likely to be smart than individuals since they bounce ideas of one another and fill in gaps in each others' reasoning - I think that is partly why OP couldn't play the psychiatrists the same way he did with Schultz... ;-)
Just have to wait and see...
Moniker it makes it inconsistent with any sort of innocence at all.
You don't have to have 'true love' to feel terrible regret and remorse and self blame for an accident.
But, as you have said, OP demonstrates none of this. The crying and puking are nothing, the puking I thought was a distraction from the main event even.
But the lack of any tiny acknowledgement that he was WRONG not to check, that he, when recalling how he felt going up the corridor screaming when there was NOTHING THERE, and he knows it, but STILL giving this dramatic performance without a HINT of - 'I was a fool, I was a pratt, I thought that, but it was stupid'.
He and the defense wanted to MAKE the court feel 'in this delusion' and OP couldn't let ANY of it go.
If it was an accident, he would have said 'I should have bloody thought', as you said, Moniker.
He would have tried to explain, but his understanding of his own STUPIDITY about the whole thing would have leaked out.
He would have been stupidly honest about how stupid it was. And that would have convinced us.
But 'OP starring in this 'die hard' movie with the fear and the terror and the bravery evern though he was so scared, and the ninjaing and the so even reckless determination to save the damsel, and then the ODD girly screaming, and all the rest of it, just didn't cut the mustard.
And he told his story like that. Knowing he killed this woman.
And anything that psychologically leaked out, was about killing Reeva deliberately
Lubs you , by the way, and thanks for putting up with me this evening.:kitty:.
http://astrologyincrime.com/2014/08/16/pistorius-judgement/comment-page-1/
Regarding 11th September - Judgement day - Judge Masipa -
"Natal Jupiter is exact conjunct Cybele – inflated female outrage. This will be contained within her judgement, rest assured.
Natal Pluto is conjunct Nessus and the mid-heaven – all that we wrote above about Nessus will apply to this woman whom today, wears the robes of a judge.
tr Neptune (turquoise) in the inner wheel is quindecile Saturn (10th house) – at risk of obsessively being martyr to the cause (as in the role of the judge).
tr Pluto is also in quindecile; this time with natal Uranus – attainment of great goals through great effort. Rising to the enormity of the task.
tr Pluto is also square natal Neptune – this is a risky aspect as it can involve death threats when we interpret through a forensic astrology lens.
tr Lunar nodal axis conjunct natal Sun – projected onto the public stage is a traumatic experience for this private woman; her private life can never be the same again.
tr Saturn conjunct natal mid-range Moon – need for mental control over personal sense of authority.
tr Mars conjunct natal Jupiter (green) – making waves effectively."
BiB1: Yep - that's what was needed. Knowing he had brought the tragedy as he calls it upon himself and her and her family. Accepting the responsibility in causing all of this suffering. There was none of that...because the truth of the matter is something he has not faced up to, basically. And now he thinks it's a challenge to come out on top of the situation, another competition i guess, that's all...
One thing I must comment upon is that he could have told a very simple story if he hadn't been trying to cover all these different alibis LOL because the irony of going that is almost none of the actual evidence he was worried about surfaced LOL
- No one saw him go onto the balcony
- No one heard him yell "Get the F outta my house"
- Reeva did not dial the police
If you knock out all that stuff he could have been woken by RS closing toilet door, crept stealthily out of his alleged side of the bed, with his gun, crept along the passage in fear, and then done the whole 'startled thing like he in fact did it.
I think it's pretty ironic that he would go to the trouble of covering all the evidence there MIGHT have been and then it never surfaced LOL - but in the process wind up with this convoluted story, as you say, ninja-ing around the bed and up the passageway...;-)
There was different evidence to what he predicted (such as RS standing up at the time, or gastric contents, or the blood trail/spatters stopping things from being moved ad lib, etc).
But it's the possible evidence, that he couldn't NOT cover JUST IN CASE but as a result, things got way more complicated for his version hehe.
Serves him right lol
Definitely be annoyed if the panel rules in his favour on this version of events. They need a smack around the head(s) if they do lol
BiB2: No worries at all, been a pleasure chatting!! :cool:
Because that rhythm BANG BANG ........... BANG BANG is something that you definitely would not be able to produce automatically. It means more complex control, more thinking while firing, there are definitely 2 separate intentions to fire then.
Mangena ruled out A+B as a double tap pair BUT if OP was swerving around the corner when he fired, the trajectories could easily have splayed apart, right.
B could have clipped RS left hand as it went to E.
She then falls he takes a pace into the room and then fires the next pair C+D.
Perhaps he had expected that the ballistics to prove it, so could not deny.
After all, two cartridges were further into the bathroom. Only two were in passage. And the firing range was anywhere between 60cm and 2.2m (ish).
I suppose he might have crouched a bit as well due to the open window.
I just can't see exactly why he would admit "two double taps" unless it was true, and perhaps when Mangena formally ruled that one out...that was the moment that it changed to 4 rapid shots.
He could never have claimed any kind of automatism if it had been 2 double-taps.
Perhaps it is just as well he was lulled into this possibility mind you, as it became the claim which will be most certain to be rejected.
ETA: Another possibility is "two double taps" is simply an attempt to half the total "firings" so it doesn't sound so bad. Because I'm also thinking about Stipps evidence: If they woke up to hear B+C+D then it is more consistent with the pause after A. There must have been a reasonable regularity to the shots or otherwise Mrs Van der Merwe might have noticed the pace had a big gap in. [I'm not for the moment considering Burger+Johnson as I'm uncertain which set of bangs they actually heard]
http://www.mycentraloregon.com/2014/08/19/gunmen-escape-after-shooting-two-people-in-pretoria-court/
Bit like the Wild West.
Hopefully nothing dramatic will occur in Masipa's court!
Holy sh#t! You'd think they just wouldn't show up for their court hearing. Instead, they do the reverse, and more
Both your ideas (real double-taps, or misguided minimisation attempt double-taps) are interesting Moniker, and I agree that automatism does not sit well with double-taps. Although - as has been said here before - the shift in defence from double-taps to rapid fire is academic and somewhat desperate anyway, as shots 2, 3 & 4 don't sit well with automatism, regardless of their delivery.