awaiting sentencing phase

[ColonelMustard]

So, that's what happened with the verdict.

Judge Masipa now has a rhino horn in her safe.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-10-03-reeva-steenkamp-sandiswa-who/#.VDQLhRYUrUk

Put the Pistorius trial aside for a moment and it would seem, from looking at the treatment of ordinary women, that the police don’t know how to do their jobs, and that the courts are completely dysfunctional. This is of course simply untrue. As the Pistorius case shows, the South African justice system can work when it needs to. When wealthy foreigners from first world countries or celebrities are involved we see a state that is speedy and efficient.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-10-03-reeva-steenkamp-sandiswa-who/#.VDQLhRYUrUk

Put the Pistorius trial aside for a moment and it would seem, from looking at the treatment of ordinary women, that the police don’t know how to do their jobs, and that the courts are completely dysfunctional. This is of course simply untrue. As the Pistorius case shows, the South African justice system can work when it needs to. When wealthy foreigners from first world countries or celebrities are involved we see a state that is speedy and efficient.

Very sad.

 

[Estelle]

A few days ago, one of you made a list of possible people who might give testimony at the sentencing. One of OP's friends is Chris Menelaou (maybe the only one he has left) who gave this interview:

4 DAYS LATER SHE WAS DEAD
https://media.otd.co.za/Pdf.ashx?id=93728&dl=true&src=false
May 2, 2013 - OSCAR & REEVA. CLOSE FRIEND & NEIGHBOUR TELLS ALL .. See Page 8

He heard three thunderclaps on the night RS was killed.

More on Chris here:

http://hostmaster.thegardenshow.org/africa-news/item/109374-oscars-house-seems-very-safe-buyer

 

[ColonelMustard]

I think that is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I have often thought that her jeans were put over the sill of the bathroom window - NOT the balcony window with the dogs bringing them around to the other side. This would also prove that the bathroom window was already open IMO.

Something else I have often thought is how could an intruder get through that bathroom window! He would have to be very small.

I think you just solved this!

The drying jeans fell off the the window sill when the intruder(s) squeezed through.

 

[AW2B]

They should have asked Francois if Pistorius sounded like a woman when he was screaming!

On second thought..Francois was outside getting in his car AND Pistorius was inside his house screaming very loud. So Francois didn't see him ..he simply heard him scream. If Pistorius sounds like a woman when he screams..Francois would have said something along those lines ----> " I guess there was a woman in that house who was screaming too" ..LOL

:giggle:

 

[G.bng]

Exactly.

Where Roux's timeline goes wrong is in it's unwarranted assumption that the "helps" heard in a male voice were from the balcony after Reeva was shot.

Personally, I think Reeva shouted "help" from the bathroom and OP mimicked her while he was in the bedroom getting the gun. If the balcony door was open, this is why Carice and the rest heard that without hearing Reeva...because she was down the passage in the bathroom. But the Burger-Johnson's did hear her as well because they were in a different relative position.

BIB
How can the physical location of the voice possibly affect the timeline which as its name indicates is constructed with time and not location data? AFAICS once the timeline showed that witnesses who heard a woman screaming were hearing it at exactly the same time, (i.e. in the few minutes prior to the second volley), as other witnesses were hearing a man crying, (in EVDM's case a woman which Mr VDM told her was Oscar*), there is no reasonable conclusion other than that those hearing screaming and those hearing crying were in fact all hearing one and the same thing from whatever location it came from. jmho

* Mr VDM's comment to EVDM that it was Oscar's voice was, as Masipa noted in the judgement, compelling and comes under one of the main exceptions to the hearsay rule, i.e., "excited utterances", on the basis that spontaneous statements made at the time of an event unless circumstances prove otherwise are deemed very reliable since the speaker has not had time for any planning or premeditation.

 

[G.bng]

Do you have links for OP's testimony and graphic timeline?

I'll have a look later tonight in my history since I didn't bookmark merely downloaded the documents. OP's testimony is a five hundred and thirty something page pdf and written like a normal text and not like a play with the names except when the judge comes in or there is an objection when the interlocutor is named.

 

[foxbluff]

Those jeans on the ground are truly puzzling because of the way the lie there.

I've always wondered whether she might not have dried those jeans hanging from the window - or partially dried them, folded over the long way, doing one side first then the other.

When I dry jeans in a dryer they often dry out except for the thicker parts -- the waist band, the belt loops, the seams, the cuffs, the button or zipper fly, never get dry. I hang them up and let the rest of them dry on their own.

Why would she have folded them over and later turned them to dry on the other side(s) (back left, back right, front left, front right.) Maybe the window wasn't wide enough to spread them out all the way.

But, if they fell out, how could they have landed so perfectly folded over the way they did? First of all, perhaps because they were already folded like that hanging from the window plus the fact that air dried jeans are often as stiff as boards.[/QUOTE]


[foxbluff's reply]
BBM - That's an interesting new theory you've got there. But I'm with you that if the jeans had been folded in half (lengthwise) draped over the bathroom window to dry, I simply can't imagine them freefalling through the air without opening up.

Also, if RS had them draped across the windowsill for drying, wouldn't she have removed them at nightfall... to keep them from evening mist/dew?

The only way I can possibly conceive of them landing the way they did, if they fell from window height, is if they were folded all the way up (as you would fold jeans to put in a dresser drawer or suitcase) to begin with.

 

[G.bng]

Those jeans on the ground are truly puzzling because of the way the lie there.

I've always wondered whether she might not have dried those jeans hanging from the window - or partially dried them, folded over the long way, doing one side first then the other.

When I dry jeans in a dryer they often dry out except for the thicker parts -- the waist band, the belt loops, the seams, the cuffs, the button or zipper fly, never get dry. I hang them up and let the rest of them dry on their own.

Why would she have folded them over and later turned them to dry on the other side(s) (back left, back right, front left, front right.) Maybe the window wasn't wide enough to spread them out all the way.

But, if they fell out, how could they have landed so perfectly folded over the way they did? First of all, perhaps because they were already folded like that hanging from the window plus the fact that air dried jeans are often as stiff as boards.[/QUOTE]

BBM - That's an interesting new theory you've got there. But I'm with you that if the jeans had been folded in half (lengthwise) draped over the bathroom window to dry, I simply can't imagine them freefalling through the air without opening up.

Also, if RS had them draped across the windowsill for drying, wouldn't she have removed them at nightfall... to keep them from evening mist/dew?

The only way I can possibly conceive of them landing the way they did, if they fell from window height, is if they were folded all the way up (as you would fold jeans to put in a dresser drawer or suitcase) to begin with.

Bit provincial and not very elegant drying clothes in the window of a luxury estate. Sounds more like something you'd see in Asia or Morrocco, etc!

 

[Estelle]

Those jeans on the ground are truly puzzling because of the way the lie there.

I've always wondered whether she might not have dried those jeans hanging from the window - or partially dried them, folded over the long way, doing one side first then the other.

When I dry jeans in a dryer they often dry out except for the thicker parts -- the waist band, the belt loops, the seams, the cuffs, the button or zipper fly, never get dry. I hang them up and let the rest of them dry on their own.

Why would she have folded them over and later turned them to dry on the other side(s) (back left, back right, front left, front right.) Maybe the window wasn't wide enough to spread them out all the way.

But, if they fell out, how could they have landed so perfectly folded over the way they did? First of all, perhaps because they were already folded like that hanging from the window plus the fact that air dried jeans are often as stiff as boards.[/QUOTE]


[foxbluff's reply]
BBM - That's an interesting new theory you've got there. But I'm with you that if the jeans had been folded in half (lengthwise) draped over the bathroom window to dry, I simply can't imagine them freefalling through the air without opening up.

Also, if RS had them draped across the windowsill for drying, wouldn't she have removed them at nightfall... to keep them from evening mist/dew?

The only way I can possibly conceive of them landing the way they did, if they fell from window height, is if they were folded all the way up (as you would fold jeans to put in a dresser drawer or suitcase) to begin with.

IMO RS might have put them there folded and intended to turn their position around later but got distracted by OP earlier in the night and forgot about them. How wide was that window space? Also if already folded, I think jeans could be heavier and could freefall with a breeze the way they were OR OP threw them there when he entered the bathroom.

 

[Estelle]

Bit provincial and not very elegant drying clothes in the window of a luxury estate. Sounds more like something you'd see in Asia or Morrocco, etc!

Maybe OP did not have a clothes dryer so she had no choice. All her other washing dried (maybe on a rack) but her jeans had not properly dried and as it was a hot day, she put them there earlier in the day to dry off a bit more and she forgot about them.

 

[Estelle]

Another thing I noticed is how OP ignored RS when he got home and later in the night with his phone calls, *advertiser censored* and car sites. What was she doing all this time? Cooking a simple stir fry? Yoga? What else did she do?

I have often thought that his anger with RS challenging him about things was brewing and (like another poster said once) that he could have fantasised about doing this for a couple of days. The ladders were there and how did he silence his dogs? I think he could have thought that Jenna was a better alternative than RS and that he would go back to her.

 

[foxbluff]

In Reply to G-bng's Post RE: Jeans

Exactly. That always bothered me, too. I can't picture OP approving of that.

However, unlike you, every time I see mention of jeans drying on window sill or balcony railing, the analogy I draw is with New York (US) tenements.

O/T - For some reason my posts aren't showing properly...

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB
How can the physical location of the voice possibly affect the timeline which as its name indicates is constructed with time and not location data? AFAICS once the timeline showed that witnesses who heard a woman screaming were hearing it at exactly the same time, (i.e. in the few minutes prior to the second volley), as other witnesses were hearing a man crying, (in EVDM's case a woman which Mr VDM told her was Oscar*), there is no reasonable conclusion other than that those hearing screaming and those hearing crying were in fact all hearing one and the same thing from whatever location it came from. jmho

* Mr VDM's comment to EVDM that it was Oscar's voice was, as Masipa noted in the judgement, compelling and comes under one of the main exceptions to the hearsay rule, i.e., "excited utterances", on the basis that spontaneous statements made at the time of an event unless circumstances prove otherwise are deemed very reliable since the speaker has not had time for any planning or premeditation.

You (& Masipa) may think that Mrs VDM thinking initially that it was a woman's voice crying is "compelling". I don't. I think it's far more compelling that every other instance of crying was identified as clearly male. And nobody who heard "screaming" said it was anything other than female.

The issue of the "helps" and the timeline is that it is entirely possible that Reeva was still alive when everyone heard this. Which, quite obviously, would mean that she was the one doing the female screaming. And the geographical location would explain why some people only heard certain aspects.

Think laterally.

Oh, and you should pay attention to exactly when Mrs VDM heard this crying. It was AFTER her husband called security....which we know from the common cause phone records must have been after Mike N at 3.16. Can't have been earlier than 3.17 which, according to the State was the time of the second bangs. So whatever she was hearing, it was not between the crucial time period of 3.12 to 3.17, so completely irrelevant in terms of hearing the crying at the same time as the screaming. She wasn't.

 

[AW2B]

I have a question..

Christo Menelaou said that there was one light that was always on in Pistorius's house..

Did he ever say or was he ever asked which light was always on?

 

[sleuth-d-]

BIB
How can the physical location of the voice possibly affect the timeline which as its name indicates is constructed with time and not location data? AFAICS once the timeline showed that witnesses who heard a woman screaming were hearing it at exactly the same time, (i.e. in the few minutes prior to the second volley), as other witnesses were hearing a man crying, (in EVDM's case a woman which Mr VDM told her was Oscar*), there is no reasonable conclusion other than that those hearing screaming and those hearing crying were in fact all hearing one and the same thing from whatever location it came from. jmho

* Mr VDM's comment to EVDM that it was Oscar's voice was, as Masipa noted in the judgement, compelling and comes under one of the main exceptions to the hearsay rule, i.e., "excited utterances", on the basis that spontaneous statements made at the time of an event unless circumstances prove otherwise are deemed very reliable since the speaker has not had time for any planning or premeditation.

once the timeline showed that witnesses who heard a woman screaming were hearing it at exactly the same time, (i.e. in the few minutes prior to the second volley)

ah, the skewed timeline... i agree with you that they all heard op crying after both sets of shots, and shouting helphelphelp.

carice didn't hear shots but heard helphelphelp [so presumably after all the bangshots]
mrs n [at 285] heard the final bangshot then heard helphelphelp
dr stipp heard both sets of shots then helphelphelp

as for your view on what mrs vdm heard after both sets of shots. this doesn't preclude her from hearing a woman arguing at 2am-3am. both op and reeva were alive at this time. either it was a one sided argument, or op's voice was not raised as much as reeva's...

i think mrs burger was the one that heard helphelphelp before the second set of shots... didn't she hear a man and a woman both shouting it? maybe it was shouted more than once - between the bangshots, and after them.

 

[foxbluff]

Another thing I noticed is how OP ignored RS when he got home and later in the night with his phone calls, *advertiser censored* and car sites. What was she doing all this time? Cooking a simple stir fry? Yoga? What else did she do?

I have often thought that his anger with RS challenging him about things was brewing and (like another poster said once) that he could have fantasised about doing this for a couple of days. The ladders were there and how did he silence his dogs? I think he could have thought that Jenna was a better alternative than RS and that he would go back to her.

Ohh Estelle... if only we knew what she was doing all night... OP is never going to tell us. He had them going to bed at abt 10 PM in order NOT to have to come up with "good/normal" things they could have been doing all those l-o-n-g hours they were really awake. moo

Like you, I've considered that perhaps RS didn't see jeans drying after dark. However, I pretty much discounted that theory because I don't think a woman would go all night without wanting to touchup her make-up, retrieve something from her handbag, Etc. Do any of you have any thoughts on that?

Btw, OP definitely owned a dryer. Was it out-of-order at the time?? Personally, if it was out-of-order, I doubt RS would have chosen to do laundry there.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Originally Posted by Estelle
He seems to go from one blonde girlfriend to another pretending he is committed to them and without any breaks and also apparently goes on this site at least to find intimate encounters as well to top up his sex life and watches *advertiser censored* on the eve of Valentine's Day when he could be making love with a woman who apparently loved him. Could OP be a sex addict if this is true?
http://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-sexual-addiction/000745

Originally Posted by Mr Fossil
I see him more as a person who views life and relationships like a series of races. You're only as good as your last race. Females (of which he definitely has a preferred 'type') are like a series of conquests to him. He doesn't do commitment and is easily distracted by the next 'challenge'. He loves the adoration, to be seen with a beautiful woman, because it makes a statement about him. But serious relationships make him feel trapped. He wants the best of all worlds: to always have someone but to be playing the field at the same time. It gives him a buzz.

OP does seem to (creepily) gravitate to one highly specific "type".

I think he seriously misjudged Reeva Steenkamp.

He doesn’t strike me as a guy looking for deep and meaningful, a soul mate (when you’re in love with yourself, two’s a crowd and muddies the pristine, self-reflective waters). As long as the girl-du-jour conforms to his iron-clad, non-negotiable specs (physical and behavioral) and she provides sufficient adulation and subservience, he’s good.

Excellent chance that Reeva did not properly conform. In fact, I suspect OP suddenly realized during that vicious fight that Reeva would NEVER conform - she was her own person, not just an extension of him.

Whatever the argument that night, she was such a threat to his ego on so many levels (i.e. independence, intelligence, etc.), such a threat to the carefully-constructed status quo of his perfectly stage-managed life, such a threat to his deep, dark secret(s)?, that the only way he could “control” her (and “save” himself) was to kill her.

RS very possibly was the first woman to ever seriously challenge OP, to stand up to his sh#t. Her messages/tweets clearly show not only her warm spirit, generosity and compassion, but her feisty, independent, no-nonsense side. Had she not been killed, I have no doubt that (despite her VD card) she was on the fast track to eventually telling him to f##k off and dumping him. Indeed, she may well have been trying to do exactly that on Feb 14.

The problem with malignant narcissists like OP - self-entitled control freaks - is that if you cross them, if you dare call them out on their crap (big or small), it’s an unforgivable blow to their ego, their very sense of self is threatened.

They can dish it out with stunning brutality but they can’t take it.

When they fight they go straight for the jugular; their goal - annihilate, destroy, obliterate.

After their explosive, self-righteous rage is spent, after the maximum damage is inflicted, after they’ve cooled off, surrounded by the devastation they’ve wrought, they are terribly, truly remorseful.

Until next time.

(Whether it’s days, weeks or months is anybody’s guess.)

But, make no mistake, there is always a next time.

A relationship with a narcissist is like driving through a minefield in a golf cart instead of an armored bulldozer.

The tragic irony with people like OP is that their insatiable thirst for total control - DOMINANCE - inevitably triggers severe personal conflict and social backlash (i.e. his nasty, bitter response to losing the 200m Paralympic gold to Alan Oliveira is a perfect example). Too often, total control morphs into catastrophic loss of control. His unbridled, super-aggressive ego destroyed not only innocent Reeva but his own life.

And everyone around him will swear they never saw it coming.

“I’ve got that addiction to perfection when I’m off the track as well.”
- Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius 28 Nov 2012
Lighter, stronger, faster, harder more motivated than ever to turn 2013 on its head! POWER gym session! #Revered&Feared

 

[Sherbert]

BIB
How can the physical location of the voice possibly affect the timeline which as its name indicates is constructed with time and not location data? AFAICS once the timeline showed that witnesses who heard a woman screaming were hearing it at exactly the same time, (i.e. in the few minutes prior to the second volley), as other witnesses were hearing a man crying, (in EVDM's case a woman which Mr VDM told her was Oscar*), there is no reasonable conclusion other than that those hearing screaming and those hearing crying were in fact all hearing one and the same thing from whatever location it came from. jmho

* Mr VDM's comment to EVDM that it was Oscar's voice was, as Masipa noted in the judgement, compelling and comes under one of the main exceptions to the hearsay rule, i.e., "excited utterances", on the basis that spontaneous statements made at the time of an event unless circumstances prove otherwise are deemed very reliable since the speaker has not had time for any planning or premeditation.

BBM

I'm not convinced that Mr Van de Merwe's comment falls within the excited utterance exception, and, even if it does, it would only be admissible to prove that he said it was OP crying, not that it actually was OP crying.

Be that as it may, I think the one thing we can all be absolutely sure of, knowing Milady as we now do, is that, in all likelihood, she didn't even clock that the evidence was hearsay in the first place, let alone apply her mind to the issue of whether or not it fell under an exception to the hearsay rule.

The Defence's witnesses did not hear the shots - at best, possibly, one or two of them heard the last shot - so it stands to reason that, had Reeva screamed before the first shot, they would not have heard her either. IMO, to argue otherwise is completely, utterly and indefensibly illogical. Unfortunately, however, logic does not seem to have played a part in the findings of fact that have been handed down.