awaiting sentencing phase

[PrimeSuspect]

\RSBM

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...84331&highlight=real+estate+agent#post9784331

I posted this on 26 August, 2013 as I was interested in what led up to events that occurred that night. I am now wondering if "the boys night out" was really going to be a date with Jenna Edkins. IMO OP or his lawyers could have got Divaris, Greyvenstein, Alex and Binge to lie in their statements about OP's movements on 13th February, 2013 and also to give a glowing report of how OP felt about RS to distract the police.

What I wrote last year begins here:

All the links don't work, I wonder why?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Because he is a bit stupid and not very savvy?

:giggle:

 

[mrjitty]

If you look at my Phone usage charts for Reeva's phone (5353) you will see that other than for a few seconds it has a GPRS connection for the entire day, not just over night. The connections are contiguous. I pointed this out to Moller.

When you switch your phone on (or take it out of Airplane mode) it makes a connection to the nearest cell tower with the strongest signal and ample capacity. The data connection remains in place in case you need to use it, or in push mode, someone needs to send you something. Most of the time the data usage is nearly zero (I can see mine throughout the day and when I know I'm doing nothing I see the odd packet being exchanged and that's it).

I think Moller misunderstood how GPRS work. Or maybe I do?

Exactly - the phone cannot activate GPRS itself. This means someone is awake and using his phone. GPRS does not mean the phone is either sending or receiving data. If you think about it, the amount of data Reeva's phone would have sent/received when it is connected all day would have been colossal, as would her bill! It simply can't work like that.

You've just proven OP murdered Reeva in cold blood.

Individual circumstantial facts & inferences do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court should ask what it accepts or what is likely.

So the only credible explanations are

1. OP did not chat with Binge (no GPRS/No messages on phone)
2. OP was awake and activated his phone 3 times including at 1.45am
3. OP was heard by EVDM after 2am

Therefore OPs version should be dismissed as completely fabricated

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This is another question I would like to find an answer to especially in light of the JE secret relationship.
Did OP introduce Reeva as his fiancée? Wouldn't Reeva have confided this to her best friend Samantha, and her mother that her and OP had moved to the next stage? Could it be a lie? :thinking:



A neighbour of Oscar Pistorius told Pretoria's High Court the athlete referred to Reeva Steenkamp as his 'fiancée' just days before he shot her dead.

Michael Nhlengethwa, who was on the state witness list but was never called, told the court he met Ms Steenkamp for the first time on the Sunday before she died and Pistorius introduced her as "his fiancee".

Taking the stand, Mr Nhlengethwa said Ms Steenkamp, a model and law graduate, opened her arms and hugged him when they met, and he told Pistorius: "This one is for keeps."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-reeva-steenkamp-as-his-fiancee-9325374.html

 

[Susza]

I have tried to access the 37 page preview that you allude to but there are no links that I can find to it. This book does not seem to be available in Australia yet.

Same here in Switzerland.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Same here in Switzerland.

Have you tried http://www.amazon.com/One-Tragic-Night-Pistorius-Murder-ebook/dp/B00IQNYVMQ?

 

[WilliamMunter]

Same here in Switzerland.

Have you tried the link kindly posted by sleuth-d- ? Open up the link then click on the book cover.

Edit: in fact this extract is longer

i was interested to read in the bb book preview how reeva had previously split with op, but then got back with him [the relationship was only 4 months in total]. also how reeva had fears about his cheating. i think she wanted it to work, but would have been so undermined/annoyed by finding concrete evidence of cheating.

the split/get back together happened with taylor and the previous gf too. he does tempestuous.



interesting also, gina commented about how reeva looked in the mini security gate video. i have always thought that she looked stressed/uncomfortable/verging on tearful.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/sample/read/9781466846319

 

[Mr Fossil]

We know that OP adapted and developed his version numerous times both during and prior to the trial. Nel repeatedly pointed this out to him, that he was tailoring his evidence. His changes and contradictions have been the subject of much discussion on here.

It seems quite clear to me that the defence case had to be rebuilt at the last minute in the light of OP's changing version and that previously prepared material was discarded as it would have been damaging to whatever version OP was arriving at.

What I think would have been particularly useful to the court would have been an Annexure to the State's Final Heads of Argument outlining not only the key adaptations (and contradictions) but pointing out clearly why it was that OP was adapting: what piece of evidence or argument had just been introduced to cause him to adapt. A cause and effect analysis if you like. This would show explicitly that OP's evolving version was not the result of his muddled thinking, that he wasn't simply adding detail, but was systematically attempting to work around anything that would be 'devastating for his case'. The result IMO should have been that his testimony was thrown out.

Perhaps I should add it to my list of things to do!

 

[LadyL]

I have issues with this statement analysis. The use of the word 'intruder' was in a sentence in which OP was making a general statement. The use of the word 'someone' was in a sentence in which he was making a personal statement about what happened inside his home that particular night. OP used grammatically correct language in each instance. A statement analyst should be looking at patterns thoughout and should have an above-average grasp of the language they are analyzing.

The word 'someone' as singular can be easily explained in that most people would not assume there is more than one person unless they heard people talking to each other or saw more than one person. For example, if I heard noises in my house right now without seeing anyone, I would say to the police "there's someone in my house!".

Oscar Pistorius Statement Analysis by Kaaryn Gough

"After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep. I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom."

Change of language from “intruders” to “someone”. It is important to note when a person’s Personal Dictionary changes. People don’t change their language arbitrarily. People use very specific words and are consistent with their language as long as their relationship/experience with the item/person remains the same. A change in language is expected when the relationship/experience with the item/person changes. The change of language from “intruders” to “someone” at this point in the story, tells us that the subject viewed whoever was in the bathroom differently than from those ‘entering homes with a view to commit crime.’ “someone” is neutral and could be anyone, friend or foe, and the use of it at this point in the story tells us that the subject did not consider the “someone” in the bathroom to be an “intruder”.

Also note: “someone” is singular. The subject believed only one person was in the bathroom.

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

http://.blogspot.c...alysis-by.html

I find statement analysis very interesting

 

[Susza]

Have you tried http://www.amazon.com/One-Tragic-Night-Pistorius-Murder-ebook/dp/B00IQNYVMQ?

Thank you, Mr Fossil, I succeeded reading the sample pages.

 

[Susza]

Have you tried the link kindly posted by sleuth-d- ? Open up the link then click on the book cover.

Edit: in fact this extract is longer

Thanks a lot, WM. Wow, 63 pages!

 

[Susza]

We know that OP adapted and developed his version numerous times both during and prior to the trial. Nel repeatedly pointed this out to him, that he was tailoring his evidence. His changes and contradictions have been the subject of much discussion on here.

It seems quite clear to me that the defence case had to be rebuilt at the last minute in the light of OP's changing version and that previously prepared material was discarded as it would have been damaging to whatever version OP was arriving at.

What I think would have been particularly useful to the court would have been an Annexure to the State's Final Heads of Argument outlining not only the key adaptations (and contradictions) but pointing out clearly why it was that OP was adapting: what piece of evidence or argument had just been introduced to cause him to adapt. A cause and effect analysis if you like. This would show explicitly that OP's evolving version was not the result of his muddled thinking, that he wasn't simply adding detail, but was systematically attempting to work around anything that would be 'devastating for his case'. The result IMO should have been that his testimony was thrown out.

Perhaps I should add it to my list of things to do!

BBM -
Today, with all I have understood until now, I agree with you: I think it would have been helpfull.
The only thing is: I thought that this is the only job JM & assessors had to do and that they would do it. I'd never expected it might be necessary to "pre-chew" everything for them in order to ensure they'll understand the core.
Well, it's the first time I follow a trial - thanks to the passionate posters here who help me to understand and learn - and maybe I was/am very naive.

 

[geevee]

But this is the part which concerns me.

Has a deal also been made about this to cover it up? Brigadeer Denise also said this:

Police Were Called To Oscar Pistorius’ Home Hours Before Shooting Of Reeva Steenkamp

Was this misreporting or a cover up as the police did not respond to the call or something else?

Police Were Called To Oscar Pistorius’ Home Hours Before Shooting Of Reeva Steenkamp | http://1045theteam.com/police-oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp/?trackback=tsmclip

This begs the question of which neighbor called the police that first time and why weren't they a witness? Where is the police report? Why is LE colluding to cover up this call?

Evidence removed from the scene, phone tampered with, ear witnesses ignored because they tell the same story or don't match exactly or can't be relied upon because they were woken up at 3 a.m., medical examiner tossed because stomach content evaluations are not an exact science, illegal bullets in safe but he didn't really mean to have them, witness not to be believed in one instance (sunroof shooting) but indemnified for his honesty in the other (Tashas), psychological testing that only interviews those with good things to say, the judge who questions the veracity of the accused yet accepts his version as true...I'm sure the list goes on but these are all I can recall at the moment.

Did S.A. want to have this big show trial to prove to the world they run a clean, honest system of jurisprudence while everything behind it is just one great big lie? Colossal failure with a capital F.

 

[soozieqtips]

This begs the question of which neighbor called the police that first time and why weren't they a witness? Where is the police report? Why is LE colluding to cover up this call?

Evidence removed from the scene, phone tampered with, ear witnesses ignored because they tell the same story or don't match exactly or can't be relied upon because they were woken up at 3 a.m., medical examiner tossed because stomach content evaluations are not an exact science, illegal bullets in safe but he didn't really mean to have them, witness not to be believed in one instance (sunroof shooting) but indemnified for his honesty in the other (Tashas), psychological testing that only interviews those with good things to say, the judge who questions the veracity of the accused yet accepts his version as true...I'm sure the list goes on but these are all I can recall at the moment.

Did S.A. want to have this big show trial to prove to the world they run a clean, honest system of jurisprudence while everything behind it is just one great big lie? Colossal failure with a capital F.

It's like Inspector Clouseau was running the show.

 

[Estelle]

This is another question I would like to find an answer to especially in light of the JE secret relationship.
Did OP introduce Reeva as his fiancée? Wouldn't Reeva have confided this to her best friend Samantha, and her mother that her and OP had moved to the next stage? Could it be a lie? :thinking:



A neighbour of Oscar Pistorius told Pretoria's High Court the athlete referred to Reeva Steenkamp as his 'fiancée' just days before he shot her dead.

Michael Nhlengethwa, who was on the state witness list but was never called, told the court he met Ms Steenkamp for the first time on the Sunday before she died and Pistorius introduced her as "his fiancee".

Taking the stand, Mr Nhlengethwa said Ms Steenkamp, a model and law graduate, opened her arms and hugged him when they met, and he told Pistorius: "This one is for keeps."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-reeva-steenkamp-as-his-fiancee-9325374.html

IMO it was a lie as Reeva would not have accepted that she was his fiance so she would have told him that she wasn't.

This man has either been bribed to lie or he decided to do so himself to help OP.

In fact, having read the preview of Barry's book today on amazon.com, much of what the neighbours (that the Defence called) testified IMO could be lies, omissions or exaggerations designed to help OP. I hope they feel embarrassed when and if they read Barry's book themselves one day.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Barry thinks that it is possible Reeva did flush the toilet, she was then shot, fell dead onto the toilet seat and the last few dribbles of the flushing water caused the striped effect of the blood in the toilet bowl.

The toilet wasn't flushed post shooting as wood splinters are visible on the bowl.

Neither PT or DT wanted to run with this evidence as it would not support either of their cases.

Barry’s theory is hogwash. It doesn’t account for the multiple screams pre-shooting (or after the first shot), the locked door, why Reeva had her phone in the toilet (according to OP’s version) nor does it explain OP’s “perfect storm” of outlandish, bizarrely improbable actions/omissions that night.

However, Barry’s theory would definitely support the State’s case: if she did flush the toilet he knew it was her, hence, MURDER (what dumbazz intruder would hide in the toilet then flush the toilet?!).

What are the chances that Reeva flushed the toilet at exactly the same time she was shot? Astronomically impossible, in my view.

IMHO, the bloody streaks are simply the various plasma/red blood cell components of the blood separating in the water and pooling at the bottom of the bowl.

 

[Mr Fossil]

IMO it was a lie as Reeva would not have accepted that she was his fiance so she would have told him that she wasn't.

This man has either been bribed to lie or he decided to do so himself to help OP.

Agree 100%. If she had been OP's fiancée I can think of a lot of other people who would have known before a neighbour. This is just a red herring and completely irrelevant IMO.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) reportedly considered charging Carl with defeating the ends of justice, but it did not proceed with the case against him.

http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/201...other-allegedly-tampered-with-athletes-phone/

I tell you, whatever was on OP’s phone was damning. It was toxic enough for Carl to STEAL that phone, keep it for 12 DAYS and completely vaporize little brother’s trail - data perhaps not just in relation to Reeva / events preceding the murder, but an endless string of evidence of other past misdeeds, offenses, indiscretions ... lies and truths (going back years?) the family couldn’t afford to have come to light.

We know OP is addicted to talk and text (he can't even stay off his phone in court!) - must have been a treasure trove of data on 0020. No doubt in my mind, Carl being an IT tech guy, that before nuking all the data, he copied it to a flash drive and stashed it.

So, the Pistorius* family itself TAMPERS with crime scene evidence (they make the cops look like newbie slackers LOL), superhero-hacker Carl skates yet again and the NPA won’t even press charges. (How long do you think you or I would stay out of jail for the same offense?)

The Judicial-Bias-Corruption-Fixed-Verdict Theory isn’t looking so crazy now, huh?

This new development boosts the theory that the family’s accusation of police tampering/corruption (“missing watch&#8221 was so much hogwash - oldest trick in the book ... deflect, deny, project and pre-emptively attack.

* I’m convinced that some distant ancestor of the Pistorius clan was named Johannes Schoombie “Teflon” Pistorius.

 

[Cherwell]

Agree 100%. If she had been OP's fiancée I can think of a lot of other people who would have known before a neighbour. This is just a red herring and completely irrelevant IMO.

It all sounds a bit odd. Did Reeva really fling her arms round him and hug him? That's a bit forward, isn't it? If he was a relative or close friend of Pistorius, fair enough, but a neighbour? Someone she'd never met before, or even spoken to on the phone or net?

And this is the guy who wouldn't talk to the police until they approached him formally.

 

[Sherbert]

IMO it was a lie as Reeva would not have accepted that she was his fiance so she would have told him that she wasn't.

This man has either been bribed to lie or he decided to do so himself to help OP.

In fact, having read the preview of Barry's book today on amazon.com, much of what the neighbours (that the Defence called) testified IMO could be lies, omissions or exaggerations designed to help OP. I hope they feel embarrassed when and if they read Barry's book themselves one day.

I also find it very surprising that they didn't hear the argument, especially if Mr Fossil's theory is correct, given that their bedroom was so close to that of OP.

Also, didn't Mrs Stipp testify that their lights were on during the female screams, ie before the shots?

However, in my experience some men do come out with these things when describing their female companion to strangers. If Reeva were in love with OP, she might even have found it flattering.

But can we really be sure that Mr Nhlengethwa was able to differentiate between OP's various blond companions?