Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

Re your post above MrJitty I still think the question of why he snapped to that extent on that particular night is a valid one and I also maintain that it is a leap, and a large one, to murder in this particular case. I was not talking about DV in broad terms but in relation to the Oscar Pistorius case.

Yes there are many anecdotes about his temper but none relate to domestic violence. The closest, to my knowledge, is the slamming the door on the Cassidy girl at the party. And there was also Sam Taylor's evidence and Reeva's text messages but they relate to verbal rather than physical aggression. Nasty and unpleasant for sure but IMO a long way from shooting someone. Not everyone who is verbally abusive is physically so, even over the course of a long relationship. But, if you believe he shot her deliberately, as I do and think you do too, then something happened that night that led to that occurring. By no means as I suggesting any responsbility on the part of the victim but he had never shot anyone before, despite his love of guns and his known temper, but that night he did. 'Why?' is the only question I was posing.

I suppose my answer is there is no answer

Why did Nathan Mathews one day strangle his step sister Becky Watts to death and inflict brutal overkill?

He is an abusive man, and one day he lost control.

It is hard to analyse because the victim always holds a special significance for the murderer which cannot easily be translated into an understandable motive.

The other important consideration is we don't know what violence he inflicted on Reeva previously because she is dead.

In the case of Veitch for example, it only later emerged he had assaulted her at least half a dozen times previously - but we only found out about this because the victim lived to testify

It was apparent no one is Veitch's circle realised the extent of his abuse.

Reeva has already been in an abusive relationship - and this one was no different.

Sadly this cycle is what tends to happen.

 

[Colin de France]

I suppose my answer is there is no answer.

.....enough said.....

 

[Sherbert]

I wish Nel had focused harder on Sean Rens' testimony (manager of the firearms training academy where Oscar was tested on the law for when you can legally use your firearm)-- or at least driven the point home for Masipa and crew. This was CRITICAL testimony that proved Oscar had knowledge and foresight of the unlawfulness of his actions.

It seemed like on so many occasions Nel made the assumption that Masipa and others would correctly interpret testimony or evidence without taking time to summarize or draw conclusions from each piece of evidence the State presented. I noticed that throughout the trial but thought maybe he did not want to offend the judge by making it seem like she might not draw the right conclusions. Worked for Roux though.

I agree - as Leach pointed out, if a trial judge fails to apply herself to all the evidence, that is a misapplication of law.

Sean Rens' evidence was pretty much proof that OP must have had intention to kill unlawfully; yet, Masipa glossed over it to find lack of intention.

IMO, Nel should have emphasised that it was an error of law to ignore this evidence.

He could also have emphasised that Masipa made another error of law by ignoring the evidence that OP was not suffering from GAD. Clearly, judging by her comment about whether a person with an anxiety disorder had licence to shoot, it was unlikely that Baartman had clocked that, according to Weskoppies, OP didn't actually have one.

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that the verdict will be upgraded, on the basis that OP had intention not only to kill, but to kill unlawfully.

 

[elfie]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story does add up.

ACK! Does NOT add up.

 

[lithgow1]

I suppose my answer is there is no answer

Why did Nathan Mathews one day strangle his step sister Becky Watts to death and inflict brutal overkill?

He is an abusive man, and one day he lost control.

It is hard to analyse because the victim always holds a special significance for the murderer which cannot easily be translated into an understandable motive.

The other important consideration is we don't know what violence he inflicted on Reeva previously because she is dead.

In the case of Veitch for example, it only later emerged he had assaulted her at least half a dozen times previously - but we only found out about this because the victim lived to testify

It was apparent no one is Veitch's circle realised the extent of his abuse.

Reeva has already been in an abusive relationship - and this one was no different.

Sadly this cycle is what tends to happen.

Re BIB - IMO there is always an answer, we just don't know what it is in this case or the one you cited. As you say, the motive may not be understandable from our POV, or even within the perpetrator's complete understanding, but there still is one, as meaningless as it might appear.

I doubt that up until that point he had been physically abusive to Reeva, unless you mean on the night in question, because I doubt she would have still been there if he had. And though I would be one of the last to defend him, Sam Taylor did testify that he had never been physically abusive to her. Maybe Reeva was different to his exes - older and a bit wiser and not about to put up with his crap, or at least not any longer. The only way we will ever know what really happened would be if he confessed and I think we are probably in agreement that that is not likely to happen.

 

[soozieqtips]

By no means as I suggesting any responsibility on the part of the victim but he had never shot anyone before, despite his love of guns and his known temper, but that night he did. 'Why?' is the only question I was posing.

BIB - we can only speculate. However, his reckless behaviour had been escalating in the months before the killing, and he was somehow always permitted to get away with it. Almost a perk of being such an icon. On the night Reeva was killed, it's not hard for me to believe he saw red when she wouldn't come out of the toilet and things just happened from his rage. He didn't know if she was calling the police, so if he was screaming at her to come out and she was yelling back (if she was) you can just imagine how mad he'd have been. First, her not obeying his instructions, and secondly, the possibility she was calling the police to report him for violence. Some people, when they are in a red mist, will do the most extreme thing to gain back control of the situation.

I think the fact OP hadn't shot anyone up to that date was because he hadn't been in that specific situation before. Once he was in it, I think his rage took over and all he could think about was getting Reeva out of the toilet and away from the phone. The smashing of the bat on the toilet door (rage), and the final bullets put him back in control and kept whatever Reeva might have been going to tell the police, secret. I can totally see him killing her in order to protect himself and his image. He's a cold unfeeling human being (shoots dogs and drives off without a word to the dog's owner who's standing there...) - so the 'why' for me is more about 'why not'. He did what he did to protect himself, just like the Tasha's incident when he got someone else to take the blame as he didn't want negative publicity. Maintaining his image was more important to him than Reeva was.

 

[elfie]

I don't think so, if you go to the site it came from(on the bottom of the pic) there's a few more from different angles. What I find interesting is that the towel appears to used for cleanup of some kind, whether by OP when he washed up before he'd been photographed in the garage, or used to clean up other evidence(ie.mrjitty's suspicions, we'll never know).:/ I also hadn't been aware that those two boards beside the tub had come out apparently as one piece.
View attachment 84144

Two panels by the bath? Can you point me to them please. I only know of the one wide, middle panel. Then, of course, the panel in the toilet.

Re. marks on Oscar's torso: consider the height of the middle strut across the door. It is very low, much lower than you'd expect. We recreated it and it is relatively easy to lean over and pick a key up off the floor without touching the strut.

Thank you for noticing, I tried to include Val's post with the image, hope it works.

I completely misstated above before my recent edit. I meant to say that OP's story about retrieving the key DOES NOT add up.

 

[lithgow1]

BIB - we can only speculate. However, his reckless behaviour had been escalating in the months before the killing, and he was somehow always permitted to get away with it. Almost a perk of being such an icon. On the night Reeva was killed, it's not hard for me to believe he saw red when she wouldn't come out of the toilet and things just happened from his rage. He didn't know if she was calling the police, so if he was screaming at her to come out and she was yelling back (if she was) you can just imagine how mad he'd have been. First, her not obeying his instructions, and secondly, the possibility she was calling the police to report him for violence. Some people, when they are in a red mist, will do the most extreme thing to gain back control of the situation.

I think the fact OP hadn't shot anyone up to that date was because he hadn't been in that specific situation before. Once he was in it, I think his rage took over and all he could think about was getting Reeva out of the toilet and away from the phone. The smashing of the bat on the toilet door (rage), and the final bullets put him back in control and kept whatever Reeva might have been going to tell the police, secret. I can totally see him killing her in order to protect himself and his image. He's a cold unfeeling human being (shoots dogs and drives off without a word to the dog's owner who's standing there...) - so the 'why' for me is more about 'why not'. He did what he did to protect himself, just like the Tasha's incident when he got someone else to take the blame as he didn't want negative publicity. Maintaining his image was more important to him than Reeva was.

Yes, good points. I particularly think the first sentence about the combination of an escalation in his recklessness and there being no one to tell him to pull his head in is key to the events. Also, even though I said in my original post that he had it all, that possibly should have been in the past tense as he had lost a few big races, had the lawsuit coming up, was nearing the end, age wise, of his career etc etc, so with someone as volatile as he was with an 'I always win' attitude, 'failures' would conceivably bring out the beast rather than the best in him. Anyway, I am not that concerned with the 'Why' - I was just trying to defend the validity of pursuing it in light of another poster's comment that it was time to drop it and kind of wish I'd not bothered now

 

[janicelongbright]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story does add up.

I Know ! It is really confusing because in fact the police dismantled the door , and the C.S. photos if you can find them all , show each stage of dismantle . I found afew over many months , unless you do an awful lot of digging and different sources , yopu just end up with a headache .

Even so you end up with a headache anyway . The alleged Ist C.S. photo shows Only the narrow board , at the farthest, right hand side of the door , just by the handle missing , not wide at all . The next one shows the tree panels ( made up of the bashed one and 2 others the same size but joined together , which you have probably seen , the next show no top filling to the door and the next show the door frame only with no filled in .panels , if you see what I mean .

I have also seen , as I said totally different supposed C.S. to the ones a few pages ago , different blood , different towels , different bits of wood .

Why did they dismantle the door anyway and why take it away ! It was a crime scene and forensic evidence .

Maybe ',juror 13', has some more information . I've just been searching for stuff which would confirm what I'm trying to say to Mr Fossil . And I've finally found it on that.

How can there be totally contradictory information , most of mine has come from watching some of the trial , and Guardian live blogs ( which seem to have since disappeared though ) But the trial I watched is different from Mr Fossil's video . I'm losing the will to live.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story doesn't add up.

Before Botha was kicked off the trial he said Oscar was wearing a bloodsoaked T shirt so I don't think he would have been scratched or bruised in any way. I don't recall this ever being shown as evidence but given that Botha visited the scene fairly soon after the event I think he was recording exactly what he saw. There is a photo somewhere showing a redness to OPs right side. I came across it yesterday but did not save it. I assumed it was the remains of the blood that soaked through his T shirt but I cannot be sure. If I come across it again I will post and you can judge for yourself.

 

[janicelongbright]

Please read 'the bullet trajectories'. Everything you need is there. Feel free to cross-check against the ballistics reports.

Thankyou I have looked at the reference you give now , I have to say , I don't really understand it Though .


I can only give one reference at the moment which supports my assertion that Pistorius claimed to have the gun as I said , with arm bent out in front , and close to his body . IE about 3 ft or 90 cms high . He specifically denied holding the gun at either shoulder height or his arm straight .

Oscar trial Day 21 April 14th 'juror 13 .

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes, good points. I particularly think the first sentence about the combination of an escalation in his recklessness and there being no one to tell him to pull his head in is key to the events. Also, even though I said in my original post that he had it all, that possibly should have been in the past tense as he had lost a few big races, had the lawsuit coming up, was nearing the end, age wise, of his career etc etc, so with someone as volatile as he was with an 'I always win' attitude, 'failures' would conceivably bring out the beast rather than the best in him. Anyway, I am not that concerned with the 'Why' - I was just trying to defend the validity of pursuing it in light of another poster's comment that it was time to drop it and kind of wish I'd not bothered now

I completely understand :smile:

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story doesn't add up.

OK, here we go. This is the article in which Botha confirmed OP had been wearing a T shirt. Botha was talking to Mark Seal of Vanity Fair.

“We all know Oscar,” she told me a month later in a Johannesburg café, where we sat with her husband.”

“Botha went into the garage, where Pistorius, in a bloody shirt and shorts, wearing his prosthetic legs, was sitting on a gym bench, surrounded by training equipment. “His head was in his hands, and he was crying. There was blood on him, but his hands were clean. We said, ‘Did you wash your hands?’ And he said, ‘Yes, because they were full of blood.’ ”

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Re your post above MrJitty I still think the question of why he snapped to that extent on that particular night is a valid one and I also maintain that it is a leap, and a large one, to murder in this particular case. I was not talking about DV in broad terms but in relation to the Oscar Pistorius case.

Yes there are many anecdotes about his temper but none relate to domestic violence. The closest, to my knowledge, is the slamming the door on the Cassidy girl at the party. And there was also Sam Taylor's evidence and Reeva's text messages but they relate to verbal rather than physical aggression. Nasty and unpleasant for sure but IMO a long way from shooting someone. Not everyone who is verbally abusive is physically so, even over the course of a long relationship. But, if you believe he shot her deliberately, as I do and think you do too, then something happened that night that led to that occurring. By no means as I suggesting any responsbility on the part of the victim but he had never shot anyone before, despite his love of guns and his known temper, but that night he did. 'Why?' is the only question I was posing.

Brigadier Denise Beukes said, though, that “we are not sure where this report came from; it definitely didn’t come from the South African police service.” Beukes, who did not use Steenkamp’s name, pending her family’s identification of the body (though it was widely reported), added that there was no other suspect involved. There were witnesses—“we’re talking about neighbors and people that heard things”—but “the only two persons on the premises were the resident and the deceased.”



What the police do know is that they have been to the home before. “I can confirm that there has previously been incidents at the home of Oscar Pistorius.” Pressed, she said that they had involved “allegations of domestic nature.” Beukes said that Steenkamp had been shot four times: “It’s a 9-mm pistol. It is a licensed firearm. It is licensed to Mr. Pistorius.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/oscar-pistorius-his-girlfriend-and-his-gun

I think, "Why?" can be answered: his panic fear of loss of reputation because in the past there were several incidents around him and someday even The Hero had to fear trouble with sponsors and/or police and NOT LONGER SILENT MEDIA. His next thought after having fear would have been "Reeva ist to blame for that what will come to me", IMO.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Re BIB - IMO there is always an answer, we just don't know what it is in this case or the one you cited. As you say, the motive may not be understandable from our POV, or even within the perpetrator's complete understanding, but there still is one, as meaningless as it might appear.

I doubt that up until that point he had been physically abusive to Reeva, unless you mean on the night in question, because I doubt she would have still been there if he had. And though I would be one of the last to defend him, Sam Taylor did testify that he had never been physically abusive to her. Maybe Reeva was different to his exes - older and a bit wiser and not about to put up with his crap, or at least not any longer. The only way we will ever know what really happened would be if he confessed and I think we are probably in agreement that that is not likely to happen.

i think that there should always be the possibility of an answer.

one of the impressive things about this site is the attempt to get closer to the answer, even if it is only a tiny step closer...

re: physical abuse, there must always the first instance in every case, and maybe this was it? and surely there can be many contributing factors that lead to dv, not necessarily even directly associated with reeva. but 'behind closed doors' reeva was at the top of the iceberg so to speak.

the perfect storm is often mentioned. and op had a violent/reckless nature [boating accident/car accident]. had a huge career setback [london olympics - violent reaction]; he was on the brink of a court case [taylor-memmory - also violence]; frustrations one on top of another; right down to shoulder injury and not being able to train.

being keen on guns [he turned to shooting as a late night remedy to lack of sleep - v unusual]; having access to guns [often carry a holstered gun]; but being reckless around guns [tasha's] becomes the disastrous parallel strand to this. moo.

 

[janicelongbright]

I can refer to a Guardian report quoting Mangena, "On prosthetic limbs he measures 1.84 metres ,compared to 1.55metres on his stumps"

This would contradict your figures of, I think ,'9cms ' difference ? , anyway by this source Mangena gives 29 cms difference .

The height of the bulletr holes are given as A 93.5cms : B 104.3cms: C 99.4cms; D 97.4 cms .

Guardian Tues 18th March 2014 .

 

[janicelongbright]

Two panels by the bath? Can you point me to them please. I only know of the one wide, middle panel. Then, of course, the panel in the toilet.

Re. marks on Oscar's torso: consider the height of the middle strut across the door. It is very low, much lower than you'd expect. We recreated it and it is relatively easy to lean over and pick a key up off the floor without touching the strut.

There are photograghs of the crime scene with only one narrow panel removed . and that is important to establish , because leaning over , where you arm is constricted is very much different than ' being able to bend over ' .

 

[Interested Bystander]

There are photograghs of the crime scene with only one narrow panel removed . and that is important to establish , because leaning over , where you arm is constricted is very much different than ' being able to bend over ' .

If I remember correctly those photos are where forensics had replaced the door panels so that they could determine exactly where the bullet holes were. I think there were markers on the panels too.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Thankyou I have looked at the reference you give now , I have to say , I don't really understand it Though .


I can only give one reference at the moment which supports my assertion that Pistorius claimed to have the gun as I said , with arm bent out in front , and close to his body . IE about 3 ft or 90 cms high . He specifically denied holding the gun at either shoulder height or his arm straight .

Oscar trial Day 21 April 14th 'juror 13 .

the reference you give is in respect of how op says he walked down the corridor between the bedroom and the bathroom. he had a detailed discussion with nel around this.

this was not a discussion about how he was positioned when he fired the shots.

there are youtube videos for each day/session of the trial if you wish to double check.

 

[janicelongbright]

I'm not sure what the heights you give refer to. They're not the bullet heights, which are between 93.5-104.5 cm at entry.

The angle of bullet B is the angle Mangena quotes was necessary to align the laser through B to hit E. He states this in the trial and in his report.

We have calculated the horizontal and vertical angles of all the bullets using the entry and exit measurements through the door. This is simply trigonometry and the answer is what it is and can be verified. I give the formula in the tables. So no, it's not trying to fit anything to anything. It is what it is with the caveats that Wolmarans quotes in his report at paragraph 16 (which we reiterate).

The quote I gave for what Oscar says is correct and I have listened to the video again.

I thankyou very much for your reply , but I do wish you would read Juror 13 Day 21 14 th April , which agrees withwhat I say precisely about , how he said he held the gun , as well as agreeing with what I recall .

I am really sorry to appear to be contradicting , and I'm not trying to waste your time , or be flippant.

Pistorius also says explains his reason that he 'wouldn't hopld his gun away from his body ,' 'because on assailant could easily knock it from his hand etc.'

And he is vehement about it , because he is flatly denying that he had an aggressive aimed syance that Nel is demonstrating .

I have to say that the video is wrong , or at least contrdicts other reliable sources, and I can only hope you will look at it for me .