awaiting sentencing phase

[steveml]

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Seriously, did the author pay close attention to the entire trial, especially OP’s testimony?!

One cannot neatly separate fear (or in this case, alleged “fear&#8221 from actions.

She thinks his fears were GENUINE?!

That would entail the magical belief that open windows, slamming doors and magazine racks pose an imminent threat and that closed, locked doors can kill you.

Do you not find it a bit self-aggrandising to suggest that anybody disagreeing with your theory mustn't have watched the trial? Many of us have watched the trial more times than we care to remember. There shouldn't be any problem with the fact that some of us agree with the verdict, or aspects thereof. We'll never know the truth and you could be very very wrong - as could I.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I fail to see the connection between someone screaming in a distressed manner at such extreme volume with someone supposedly using a disrespectful mocking tone towards a victim. The two really are miles apart.

Heck, I still think it could have been Frank crying, "Help, help, help!" Makes as much sense as OP crying out into the night at 3 a.m. instead of calling security or pushing the panic alarm.

 

[Cherwell]

This was simply a passing comment made by Michelle Burger when she was pushed for a response as to why OP would have screamed, bearing in mind he was the one supposed to be committing the violence. The comment was made off the top of her head, which is clear to see by re-watching the court testimony. The reason we know that it was is because she didn't suspect or suggest that it may have been a mocking tone at any time whatsoever prior to Roux's question during testimony. Both herself and Charl Johnson were convinced that the noises were related to a burglary at the time, and this was never disputed. This was nothing more than a throwaway comment made by Michelle Burger when she got a bit riled in court. As with a few things, it was blown out of proportion by people thinking this may have happened. She didn't even suggest that she thought this is what happened - she said 'perhaps' he may have been mocking. A simple speculative comment made by a witness became a necessity, so much so that many versions fell apart if they did not include this as a definitive action. We have seen another example of witness speculation hindering the trial, rather than helping.

I agree with you here.

My own opinion on Pistorius calling for help is that he did it to reinforce his burglary story. He realised that Reeva's screams would probably be heard, so he added his own yells as an alibi.

Or yes, it could easily have been Frank, alarmed by the screaming.

 

[jay-jay]

We've heard a great deal about the things we have to believe in order to accept OP's version of events. However, I've yet to see anybody outline the particular things we need to believe in order to accept that OP is guilty of intent to kill Reeva. As we're supposed to look at the case for both sides with equally balanced points of reasoning, it would be interesting to hear anyone's views on what would need to be believed to accept their version of events. Obviously, many people will have a different version of events depending on how they believe OP committed the crime, but I presume that everybody's version isn't cut and dried, and relies on us having to take a leap of faith on a few things.

One of the things that make me a strong non-believer in many forum posters versions is the idea that OP mocked Reeva's screams in the way that has been suggested. I absolutely accept that people have been mocked sarcastically during domestic violence, but here we are talking about something entirely different. This couldn't possibly be quantified as a similar action. If you try and imagine someone doing this, they would direct mocking sarcasm at the victim, and the tone and demeanour would be one that shows disrespect and apathy towards the victim. Now try and place that same picture on the morning in question. We are expected to believe that OP mocked Reeva, but rather than mocking her apathetically or sarcastically he decided to mock her by making a scream at such volume that it was heard over a distance almost 2 football pitches away.

This idea is the exact opposite of how domestic violence perpetrators operate. The modus operandi of such a person is to direct everything towards the victim, whilst attempting to maintain an outward image of normality to people outside the relationship. I fail to see the connection between someone screaming in a distressed manner at such extreme volume with someone supposedly using a disrespectful mocking tone towards a victim. The two really are miles apart.

It's worth remembering that this suggestion wasn't proffered by the prosecution. It would never have been suggested because it contradicts typical domestic violence indicators.

This was simply a passing comment made by Michelle Burger when she was pushed for a response as to why OP would have screamed, bearing in mind he was the one supposed to be committing the violence. The comment was made off the top of her head, which is clear to see by re-watching the court testimony. The reason we know that it was is because she didn't suspect or suggest that it may have been a mocking tone at any time whatsoever prior to Roux's question during testimony. Both herself and Charl Johnson were convinced that the noises were related to a burglary at the time, and this was never disputed. This was nothing more than a throwaway comment made by Michelle Burger when she got a bit riled in court. As with a few things, it was blown out of proportion by people thinking this may have happened. She didn't even suggest that she thought this is what happened - she said 'perhaps' he may have been mocking. A simple speculative comment made by a witness became a necessity, so much so that many versions fell apart if they did not include this as a definitive action. We have seen another example of witness speculation hindering the trial, rather than helping.

Who said anything about the screams being mocked? It was the 'help, help, help' that was suggested could've been mocking, the screams were separate to this, screams which did not consist of words but which were petrified screams that built in intensity and which reached a climax, according to Burger.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm not quite sure why you quoted my post, as I only said that I thought her action in calling a trusted colleague was understandable.

Anyway, here is what Cape Town Crim had to say about it. It is a great pity that she hasn't posted recently. She seems to know a fair number of the individuals involved in this case. (She was spot on about Wollie Wolmarans!)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Discussion-Thread-30&p=10470803#post10470803

Sorry Cherwell, I should really have quoted #31. I was only referring to your mention of Mikki as opposed to what you said. IMO she's as nutty as a fruitcake, even if she is clever.

 

[AJ_DS]

I agree with you here.

My own opinion on Pistorius calling for help is that he did it to reinforce his burglary story. He realised that Reeva's screams would probably be heard, so he added his own yells as an alibi.

Or yes, it could easily have been Frank, alarmed by the screaming.

If OP did that as an alibi that means he had already decided to shot and kill Reeva at that moment… because if he hadn't and security/police arrived the burglar/intruder story would not fly because Reeva would be alive to say otherwise.

IMO, the screams/shouts for Help after the shooting were indeed for the purpose of alibi… who in his own home, in an estate with several security personnel on duty 24/7, with readily available and working telephones, with an alarm system and panic button decides to go out onto a backyard balcony at 3AM to shout aimlessly Help-Help-Help ???… makes no sense except for said alibi… and it worked beautifully with Masipa.

It's quite simple… If you plan to murder someone, simply shout for help before and after you kill someone… it might serve you well if you get arrested !!

 

[AJ_DS]

Who said anything about the screams being mocked? It was the 'help, help, help' that was suggested could've been mocking, the screams were separate to this, screams which did not consist of words but which were petrified screams that built in intensity and which reached a climax, according to Burger.

Some prefer to ignore completely that aspect… focus solely on the sex of the person who was screaming and what was being screamed… sidestepping the manner in which it was screamed.

 

[jay-jay]

There seems to be a helluva lot of confusion about what a petrified scream actually is, I do wish they had played some examples in court for Burger, etc. to confirm exactly what it was they heard because I know in my own mind what Burger meant when she used the word 'petrified, bloodcurdling, building in intensity, building to a climax, in fear of her life' and yet I find others appear to take the screams to mean what I would personally describe as 'shouts' not screams.

 

[AJ_DS]

There seems to be a helluva lot of confusion about what a petrified scream actually is, I do wish they had played some examples in court for Burger, etc. to confirm exactly what it was they heard because I know in my own mind what Burger meant when she used the word 'petrified, bloodcurdling, building in intensity, building to a climax, in fear of her life' and yet I find others appear to take the screams to mean what I would personally describe as 'shouts' not screams.

Not easy to replicate such screams… some horror movies would contain such screams

I don't know how much clearer Burger could have been… she was describing a woman in mortal fear… which could NEVER be confused with a panicked man.

 

[AJ_DS]

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Seriously, did the author pay close attention to the entire trial, especially OP’s testimony?!

One cannot neatly separate fear (or in this case, alleged “fear&#8221 from actions.

She thinks his fears were GENUINE?!

That would entail the magical belief that open windows, slamming doors and magazine racks pose an imminent threat and that closed, locked doors can kill you.

Indeed… OP failed to provide anything remotely reasonable to support his allegation of being fear stricken

Heck even Roux had trouble with that one… last minute unplanned hail-Mary effort with the GAD diagnosis… which failed miserably… then a complicated story about fight vs flight… rubbish… everyone knows fear and has experienced it… don't need a phd to explain it UNLESS the tale being told makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Basically, stating that he was fearful was enough for Masipa… ridiculous !!

 

[vanatos]

We've heard a great deal about the things we have to believe in order to accept OP's version of events. However, I've yet to see anybody outline the particular things we need to believe in order to accept that OP is guilty of intent to kill Reeva. As we're supposed to look at the case for both sides with equally balanced points of reasoning, it would be interesting to hear anyone's views on what would need to be believed to accept their version of events. Obviously, many people will have a different version of events depending on how they believe OP committed the crime, but I presume that everybody's version isn't cut and dried, and relies on us having to take a leap of faith on a few things.

Ok.

I don't believe it is reasonable to believe in this sequence of events.

1. Pistorius grabbed his gun under the bed, yet could not confirm Reeva was on the bed, when he would be right next to her
2. I do not believe any reasonable person would hear a sound in the bathroom and not consider it is the person sleeping over
3. I do not believe Reeva would be at the door of the toilet rather then sitting on the toilet, unless she was in fact talking/arguing with Pistorius, because usually you go to the toilet to use the toilet, not the door, on the other side.
4. I do not believe Pistorius could aim so well, in such a sequence, first knowingly being able to hit Reeva at the position of the door, which requires knowing she was at the door,
instead of the toilet, then adjusting his aim to shoot at her fallen body which then fell on the toilet, instead of simply backwards from the door.

One of the things that make me a strong non-believer in many forum posters versions is the idea that OP mocked Reeva's screams in the way that has been suggested. I absolutely accept that people have been mocked sarcastically during domestic violence, but here we are talking about something entirely different. This couldn't possibly be quantified as a similar action. If you try and imagine someone doing this, they would direct mocking sarcasm at the victim, and the tone and demeanour would be one that shows disrespect and apathy towards the victim. Now try and place that same picture on the morning in question. We are expected to believe that OP mocked Reeva, but rather than mocking her apathetically or sarcastically he decided to mock her by making a scream at such volume that it was heard over a distance almost 2 football pitches away.

Given Pistorius' well known history of verbal abuse, both publicly in front of his girlfriend, and privately, it is clear and fact that Pistorius is mentally unbalanced with regards to relationships with women.

In that regard, nothing is outside the realm of reasonable possibility in his abuse of women.

 

[jay-jay]

Not easy to replicate such screams… some horror movies would contain such screams

I don't know how much clearer Burger could have been… she was describing a woman in mortal fear… which could NEVER be confused with a panicked man.

Yes, that's what I mean .. horror movie type screams and just play clips of them to verify that that was the 'type' of scream heard. I'm not being entirely serious about them doing that in court though, because I know that would be a bit ridiculous, I'm mainly saying it because it would have stopped all the nonsense of pro-OPers trying to make out that it was something other than what was really heard, and that there is no way on god's earth OP would ever be able to sound like that, nor could it be confused with a 'help, help, help' .. it just would've put pay to all of that if there was a recording of an almost identical type of screaming because words are always open to manipulation by those with an agenda.

 

[jay-jay]

Indeed… OP failed to provide anything remotely reasonable to support his allegation of being fear stricken

Heck even Roux had trouble with that one… last minute unplanned hail-Mary effort with the GAD diagnosis… which failed miserably… then a complicated story about fight vs flight… rubbish… everyone knows fear and has experienced it… don't need a phd to explain it UNLESS the tale being told makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Basically, stating that he was fearful was enough for Masipa… ridiculous !!

.. although .. there is perhaps one thing which would've made him fearful that night, i.e that Reeva, if she stayed alive, would be able to tell the world about the abuse she suffered at his hands, and his fear of that forced him to silence her forever?

 

[AW2B]

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Seriously, did the author pay close attention to the entire trial, especially OP’s testimony?!

One cannot neatly separate fear (or in this case, alleged “fear”) from actions.

She thinks his fears were GENUINE?!

That would entail the magical belief that open windows, slamming doors and magazine racks pose an imminent threat and that closed, locked doors can kill you.

Masipa also thinks that his fear made him GENUINELY believe that ONLY intruders use toilets..:banghead:

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Yes, I thought this Christo Menelaou lived on the estate, or at least nearby. Didn't he give an interview saying that he heard the shots but thought it was thunderclaps? Why would he need to be renting OP's old house?

Maybe the new owner couldn't find anyone else willing to rent it? lol

Perhaps Menelaou is keeping his own house but simply going to be an "on-site" caretaker, since he lives so close and has sentimental ties to the property. My guess is that instead of "rent", the new owner is probably paying Menelaou for this service.

(It's my understanding that when the new owner retires, he and his family will move into the property - a year or two, I think.)

 

[AJ_DS]

Ok.

I don't believe it is reasonable to believe in this sequence of events.

1. Pistorius grabbed his gun under the bed, yet could not confirm Reeva was on the bed, when he would be right next to her
2. I do not believe any reasonable person would hear a sound in the bathroom and not consider it is the person sleeping over
3. I do not believe Reeva would be at the door of the toilet rather then sitting on the toilet, unless she was in fact talking/arguing with Pistorius, because usually you go to the toilet to use the toilet, not the door, on the other side.
4. I do not believe Pistorius could aim so well, in such a sequence, first knowingly being able to hit Reeva at the position of the door, which requires knowing she was at the door,
instead of the toilet, then adjusting his aim to shoot at her fallen body which then fell on the toilet, instead of simply backwards from the door.



Given Pistorius' well known history of verbal abuse, both publicly in front of his girlfriend, and privately, it is clear and fact that Pistorius is mentally unbalanced with regards to relationships with women.

In that regard, nothing is outside the realm of reasonable possibility in his abuse of women.

Indeed.

Also, looking at OP's version from Reeva's perspective is beyond ludicrous :

- She is awake
- She sees OP moving the fans
- She decides to go to the bathroom
- She opens the bathroom window
- She goes to the toilet cubicle and leaves the door open
- She suddenly hears OP scream at intruders to get out

… Reeva was in the bedroom 10 seconds ago
… OP was alone in there
… She knows the bedroom door is locked with a cricket bat to prevent anyone from entering
… She knows the alarm system is ON
… She knows she is alone in the bathroom

- She hears OP screaming whilst facing in her direction AND moving towards her in the passageway
- She hears OP telling her to call the police

… She does NOT know OP assumed she was still in bed
… She knows OP knows that she was awake a few seconds ago because she talked to him
… She would assume that OP noticed she was no longer in the bedroom
… She does not know how OP knows she has her iPhone with her in the toilet

- She hears OP silently entering the bathroom breathing heavily

It's pitch dark… except for perhaps the iPhone being used as a flashlight in the toilet cubicle (which OP does not notice but could explain Stipps testimony)

… and Reeva says nothing to OP which she knows is a 1 to 2 meters away from her !!!

Ridiculous

 

[jay-jay]

Do you not find it a bit self-aggrandising to suggest that anybody disagreeing with your theory mustn't have watched the trial? Many of us have watched the trial more times than we care to remember. There shouldn't be any problem with the fact that some of us agree with the verdict, or aspects thereof. We'll never know the truth and you could be very very wrong - as could I.

BIB .. and are you happy that justice has been served, in view of that comment .. I'm not really sure how you can say that you agree with the verdict on the one hand, but then on the other hand, say that no-one knows or will ever know the truth .. the whole point of justice is to find out the truth and sentence accordingly and if the truth has not been established, then one cannot possibly be satisfied that justice has been done, unless of course one does not want it to be done.

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe the new owner couldn't find anyone else willing to rent it? lol

Perhaps Menelaou is keeping his own house but simply going to be an "on-site" caretaker, since he lives so close and has sentimental ties to the property. My guess is that instead of "rent", the new owner is probably paying Menelaou for this service.

Wonder if he'll be more careful with his ladders now.

 

[geevee]

One can see that both leg pants are not aligned… the jean is folded in half and the top leg is longer than the bottom leg, meaning that the waistband is open and the inside of the jean is exposed at the waistband

1- Belt loop on jean waistband, outside of the jean

2- Jean back pocket

3- Inside of the jean below jean waistband, lighter color

4- Waistband, inside of the jean

For those who see a belt, please point it out

View attachment 59958

I cropped, enlarged, swapped the colors around and increased the sharpness as much as I could and rotated it, do you still see the same things? Not challenging you, just trying to see what's there.

 

[wb180]

Do you not find it a bit self-aggrandising to suggest that anybody disagreeing with your theory mustn't have watched the trial? Many of us have watched the trial more times than we care to remember. There shouldn't be any problem with the fact that some of us agree with the verdict, or aspects thereof. We'll never know the truth and you could be very very wrong - as could I.

The truth is the guy is a provern liar but his story is still reasonably true. Thats so illogical and yet Masipa and yourself and others still asserts it.

With other witnesses, they aren't even proven liars and their evidence is totally dismissed.

Also any improbable explanation is taken to be reasonable doubt.

Websleuthing at it's finest.