General Discussion Thread #2

[natsound]

Possible logical implications RE this recent claim:
“Detectives said they were no longer concerned with whether Pistorius put on his legs before he shot Reeva, 29.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-suicidal-reveals-best-1753776


Pros originally made a big thing of this matter, as they said it related to a “downward angle” needed supposedly to ensure hitting RS through the door. Now if The Mirror report is correct, Pros. says this matter of the angle thru the door is basically moot.

Possible implications:
1. Geometry was found to make it impossible for bullets thru the door to have hit RS. (See my previous posts of 1-2 days ago.)
2. Forensic examination of bullets in RS found no trace of door matter.
3. Evidence that RS was already dead when emplaced in toilet, or had expired (after staggering there) by the time of the shots thru the door.

By now perhaps Pros. has had several forensics specialists, medical examiners etc. sign onto an extensive timeline scenario of what, where and when all crucial events occurred. Coupled with earwitness statements, and they know that the final sequence of shots after 17 minutes or so of silence were part of the cover-up after the murder had occurred.

JMOOC

So is the line of thought that, because the detectives are no longer concerned with whether OP put on his legs, the conclusion is that she was placed in the toilet after being shot elsewhere?

 

[DriveBy]

It doesn't means it's true though does it......I try to take everything with a pinch of salt tlll its proved..people like to speculate and before long speculaton becomes fact. Just because it is in print, doesn't mean it is true.
If it comes out at trial the photo was found beside her body smashed....I'll believe it, otherwise it is 50/50 this happened.

Are you going over to the "dark side?" (Joking)

But seriously, I thought that he claimed Reeva's gift was not to be opened until the next day, he didn't open it? I see it, like Reeva, as a source of his rage that he destroyed.

 

[Estelle]

It doesn't means it's true though does it......I try to take everything with a pinch of salt tlll its proved..people like to speculate and before long speculaton becomes fact. Just because it is in print, doesn't mean it is true.
If it comes out at trial the photo was found beside her body smashed....I'll believe it, otherwise it is 50/50 this happened.

No it is just what I have read in newspaper articles. i say "convinced" because I am choosing to believe it as it is consistent with how I see OP - an abuser. If he destroyed her photo gift, there is no love or sentimentality in him for a loved one. She had to go...and so did the photo.

 

[Estelle]

Shouldn't the BBC show be on right now? Hmm?



.

Yes BBC3 is supposed to be on now!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rb2y0/broadcasts/upcoming

But it is telling me it is on at 2100 Monday March 11 and repeated at other times each day - 4 times this week.Oscar Pistorius is suicidal, friend tells BBC documentary

Azzie the horse trainer and Gina Myers interviews are here in print:

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/p...ry/story-fndir2ev-1226594351299#ixzz2NAvlw72L

 

[natsound]

I do think that RS was as serious about things as OP. Remember, she had just told a magazine that she wad worried that "lies" (rumors, tabloid fodder about them) would ruin their relationship. I think OS was just too possessive in the end.

 

[Estelle]

I do think that RS was as serious about things as OP. Remember, she had just told a magazine that she wad worried that "lies" (rumors, tabloid fodder about them) would ruin their relationship. I think OS was just too possessive in the end.

Yes I do not think she wanted that magazine (was it called "heat"?) to make more of their relationship than it really was. I think she said they might do an interview in April. It gave me the feeling that she might be trying to resolve things when she did that interview and maybe wondered about her longevity in that relationship at the time.

 

[natsound]

Yes I do not think she wanted that magazine (was it called "heat"?) to make more of their relationship than it really was. I think she said they might do an interview in April. It gave me the feeling that she might be trying to resolve things when she did that interview and maybe wondered about her longevity in that relationship at the time.

Then why wouldn't she say, we're not that serious? Or, we're just dating?

 

[Estelle]

So is the line of thought that, because the detectives are no longer concerned with whether OP put on his legs, the conclusion is that she was placed in the toilet after being shot elsewhere?

That's the way I understand it. it is possible that the bullet holes through the door cannot be correlated with the bullet wounds to the body so the bullets into the door were part of his cover up.

 

[Estelle]

Then why wouldn't she say, we're not that serious? Or, we're just dating?

Probably because OP was serious and she was not so she knew he would not have liked her saying, "We're just dating."

 

[DriveBy]

nnnnnnnnnnnn

Sorry. What does that mean, I am not familiar with the term.

 

[DriveBy]

That's the way I understand it. it is possible that the bullet holes through the door cannot be correlated with the bullet wounds to the body so the bullets into the door were part of his cover up.

Hi Estelle,

I posted my theory a couple of days ago, but there have been pages of conversation up to now. Please take a look, it is not bad:

03-08-2013, 11:06 AM
DriveBy
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 95

Here is my theory; with the caveat that it is just for that small piece of time in all of the events that night.

The first shot from the bathroom entryway missed Reeva, that is highly likely to be the bullet found in the toilet. I believe that because he fired from the bathroom entryway - a distance - at a solid door and he had no idea in that instant of time exactly where in the toilet closet Reeva was hiding.

So OP chased Reeva in to the bathroom with his gun, but she had made it to the toilet closet and locked the door before he fired the first shot. He fired at the door and missed her which caused Reeva to 1) Scream, 2) turn away from the door (all gunshot wounds were to the right side of her body), 3) crouch down (bullet entry in the door was downward) for cover with her hands covering her head ("she was not on the toilet, she was in another position" Det. Botha testified), 4) OP moves in to the bathroom close to the door (three shots 1.5 meters from Reeva), 5) and there was conversation of some sort because it provided OP with sound-produced coordinates to target with the sights of his pistol, 6) he fired three (3) shots accurately at the target sound, Reeva.

Not everyone will agree with me, but that is what I believe and it fits the facts much better than OP's story. IMO

 

[soozieqtips]

I do think that RS was as serious about things as OP. Remember, she had just told a magazine that she wad worried that "lies" (rumors, tabloid fodder about them) would ruin their relationship. I think OS was just too possessive in the end.

I remember reading that and thought it was a very odd thing to say. Why would she assume that rumours about her cheating on him (which is what she referred to in the interview) would surface so early in their relationship? Had OP already been grilling her about past boyfriends? Was she concerned that any mention of previous partners might trigger his jealousy?

I was in an extremely possessive relationship many years ago and it was absolute hell. I was lucky to get out of it when I did, but it left scars. I dreaded it if a guy even talked to me because my b/f would automatically assume we must be having (or about to have) an affair. Life with one of those people is no fun at all and always ends in tears. The more I learn about OP, the more I think he was jealous, possessive, controlling and needed to be the only focus of any girlfriend's life.

One thing that puzzles me is what their actual plans were for February 14th. OP said that on the night of February 13th, Reeva gave him a present to open the next day. Does that mean she wasn't planning to be there the next evening? Could that be why their plans changed on the 13th when they spent the evening together instead of separately with their friends like they'd planned? Was that because Reeva had let OP know she couldn't be there on the 14th? Did they argue about that? Just thinking out loud here, but I could see someone like OP being really peed off if he'd been expecting her to spend the 14th with him and she had to cancel at short notice because of something else. Especially if he expected to be her priority at all times.

 

[Zinn]

Probably because OP was serious and she was not so she knew he would not have liked her saying, "We're just dating."

I haven't seen the article you're referencing, so forgive me if this comment does not apply. I may not be following this conversation well enough. But looking at Reeva's Twitter feed, I see an instance of someone asking her about a wedding date and she responds that she's not getting married, but this is stated in a way that makes me think she's simply confused by the question because she is not engaged to be married. This exchange was a couple days before her death. I don't get the sense she was trying to hide something, nor do I get the sense she was avoiding communicating about this topic, even though O.P. followed her on Twitter and could have seen this exchange.

 

[natsound]

Probably because OP was serious and she was not so she knew he would not have liked her saying, "We're just dating."

Playing devil's advocate... why would she be worried about what he wanted if SHE didn't want it too? She gave indication that they WERE thinking along more serious lines.

 

[DriveBy]

Playing devil's advocate... why would she be worried about what he wanted if SHE didn't want it too? She gave indication that they WERE thinking along more serious lines.

I believe that Reeva was peaking professionally (lots of exciting things happening and more to come) and personally (she was dating the hottest guy in SA), but she was also a woman with a head on her shoulders and was not ready to rush in to a long term relationship that included marriage.

 

[natsound]

I believe that Reeva was peaking professionally (lots of exciting things happening and more to come) and personally (she was dating the hottest guy in SA), but she was also a woman with a head on her shoulders and was not ready to rush in to a long term relationship that included marriage.

Respectfully disagree, I believe RS wanted as much as OP, I just believe OP was insecure to the point that he couldn't quite believe she loved him and she would stay with him.

 

[DriveBy]

Respectfully disagree, I believe RS wanted as much as OP, I just believe OP was insecure to the point that he couldn't quite believe she loved him and she would stay with him.

I was going to reply that Reeva would have accepted it "given time," because her life was changing so fast, for the better, just a few weeks ago. Many intelligent and content people don't feel the need to rush things in their lives. Women more so than men, IMO. They are more considerate of each event in life and want to make them each a celebration. He rushed her, she refused, and it went downhill from there.

 

[shane13]

If anyone manages to see the BBC3 doc "what Really Happened." please post anything new and important.

I first thought it was scheduled for tonight in the UK.
But I think it says Monday now.

I also found that it says you have to be in the UK, when I tried to download the player.
But then Estelle said she can see it, and she is in Australia. So let us know, if you see it please.

 

[Estelle]

Hi Estelle,

I posted my theory a couple of days ago, but there have been pages of conversation up to now. Please take a look, it is not bad:

03-08-2013, 11:06 AM
DriveBy
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 95

Here is my theory; with the caveat that it is just for that small piece of time in all of the events that night.

The first shot from the bathroom entryway missed Reeva, that is highly likely to be the bullet found in the toilet. I believe that because he fired from the bathroom entryway - a distance - at a solid door and he had no idea in that instant of time exactly where in the toilet closet Reeva was hiding.

So OP chased Reeva in to the bathroom with his gun, but she had made it to the toilet closet and locked the door before he fired the first shot. He fired at the door and missed her which caused Reeva to 1) Scream, 2) turn away from the door (all gunshot wounds were to the right side of her body), 3) crouch down (bullet entry in the door was downward) for cover with her hands covering her head ("she was not on the toilet, she was in another position" Det. Botha testified), 4) OP moves in to the bathroom close to the door (three shots 1.5 meters from Reeva), 5) and there was conversation of some sort because it provided OP with sound-produced coordinates to target with the sights of his pistol, 6) he fired three (3) shots accurately at the target sound, Reeva.

Not everyone will agree with me, but that is what I believe and it fits the facts much better than OP's story. IMO

I used to think what you have just posted here and I think it is still quite possible. But I also see other scenarios which I have posted being possible. I know nothing about guns and I see most things from a psychological perspective. I know you think that one of my multi-cover up ideas were far-fetched but this is how I think about OP. IMO he is very devious. In fact, I think the usual sequence of event would be:

1. Domestic violence - use of cricket bat - as he is in a narcissistic rage and gets violent

2. Now he wants and decides he needs to kill her as he does not want anyone to know in the media or at the police station that he has assaulted her. That would give him a bad name and affect his brand/reputation/income.

3. Having killed her, he thinks how am I going to get away with murder now? I will pretend I thought she was an intruder. South Africans will believe that as it happens all the time and I can pretend I did it in self-defence - "kill him before he kills us".

IMO this is the way I see a guy like him behaving. Each step had a purpose. They said he was not drunk perhaps not on drugs so he was not out of control because of that influence. He was in a rage but could still think logically.

Now I do not think that we know enough about the forensics to be really sure of where anything is or was or happened.

Your theory is similar to what was in the media from the beginning.

My gut feeling says she died in the bedroom or hallway and did not make the toilet of her own accord. The clue for me was when they said the door was irrelevant. I read that to be concerning how and where she died. Previously, it was deemed very important because it was thought that the bullets fired through the door were the ones that led to her death. IMO now they have found out that that did not happen so the door is not important and nor is whether he had his legs on or not.

Those bullets through the toilet door were just so he could say he thought he was shooting at an intruder through the door to back his story up.

I know it sounds more complicated but that is what sociopaths are like. If he felt he was losing her or angry with her, he could have had this "like a fantasy ready to go" in his mind previously and was delighted with himself that he had thought up the perfect crime - a crime he thought he would never even have to even go to prison for with the right lawyers behind him. After all, "in SA killing an intruder is not an offence" seemed to be his and his family's attitude. But he forgot to factor in self-defence.

I like to think out of the box....until more concrete evidence is leaked, that is a scenario (as well as yours) that I am considering.

 

[Estelle]

Prove?
Maybe doesn't prove anything. I only detailed logical implications.

And RE perjury. I do not know the laws and regs in SA RE perjury. In the USA, I believe they usually allow leeway and don't look to charge a defendant with perjury when s/he concocts a false alibi.

And my post doesn't lead to "he must flee now" either.
While it would not surprise me if he did flee or try to, I do not think it is likely that he will try.

If he (and his family) are deeply connected to the power structure, he does not have to. No jury of his peers will hear the case. A Magistrate there has great leeway. A plea deal could be reached before trial. Or the Judge could give a light sentence that could have OP running again in a year or two.

I was merely indicating what I wrote: that Pros. now has a probable complete timeline of the events of the crime.

I will now give another original deduction of other possible crimes he could be charged with perhaps.

Alteration of a crime scene, and/or obstruction of justice. These relate to the coverup events he did. Also if they think she was already dead: in the USA, I believe there is a separate possible charge for interfering with a corpse.

Again I do not know if they have the same or similar charges. But if the lengthy scenario I have laid out the last 2-3 weeks here is valid, the above indicates, there are other possible crimes they could charge him with, if they want to.

JMOOC

Update: I do not think they will charge OP additionally (the possible crimes I just listed above) for various reasons.
But does anyone know if they made the addn'l charge that they were threatening in the first days?

Cops found ammo in the safe IIRC and said that was unlicensed or not for his gun, and said they would charge him for that. And OP's defense said something like he was holding that for was it Dad or uncle?

Has OP been charged RE the ammo?

We have not heard that he has actually been charged for the ammunition. The defence said it bleonged ot his father but those bullets were used to kill Reeva so that would still be illegal. They might get around to that later.