General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[Carol70]

It is perplexing. I have practiced yoga for 10 years and have never seen anyone wear a "vest" to practice. Black shorts and sports tank/bra would be more appropriate. Perhaps the "vest" refers to the British word for undershirt?

I have every reason to believe she was wearing something like this:

http://www.very.co.uk/sorbet-shorts-and-vest-pyjamas-2-pack/1173629093.prd

 

[SweetT]

He did have to get out of the bed, around the bed, over to the balcony, to shut the doors and get the fan. Then he had to come back to the bed to get the gun that was on the same side of the bed as she was. He had to have looked in that bed at some point. I really have a hard time thinking, if he was newly in love, he didn't first glance over for that loving look when he first woke to shut the balcony doors.

This is what was said in court
"Botha said that Pistorius would have had to pass his bed to walk from the balcony to the bathroom, suggesting he would have noticed whether or not Steenkamp was in bed. He also claimed he had found a holster for the gun on the same side of the bed where he found Steenkamp’s overnight bag and slippers (presumably implying that was the side on which Steenkamp was sleeping).

Defence

Roux said Pistorius had a shoulder problem and so he slept on the other side of the bed than usual on the night in question. Steenkamp had spent the previous night there too, and had slept on her usual side that night. Nel expressed scepticism about this explanation."

To me this makes their excuse even weaker since he now has to go past her side of the bed numerous times, and would have more likely seen her if she got up to go to the restroom.

 

[Carol70]

I'm also curious to know if they feel she was sitting or standing when she was shot. Did they specify she was sitting? If so, when she was discovered in her shorts, were they pulled up or down? If the shorts were pulled up when she was found, what is the explanation for her sitting on the toilet with her shorts pulled up? Perhaps the defense would say she heard Oscar shouting about an intruder and she chose to remain seated in the bathroom amidst the chaos?

None of this has come to light yet, and even if her pants were down, Oscar carried her out the bathroom and down to the lounge and then covered her with towels...I'm not sure if anyone would have taken notice if her pants we up or down etc. I don't think she was on the loo, I think she was either crouched down or standing close to the door trying to hear what was going on outside. IMO.

 

[21merc7]

This is what was said in court
"Botha said that Pistorius would have had to pass his bed to walk from the balcony to the bathroom, suggesting he would have noticed whether or not Steenkamp was in bed. He also claimed he had found a holster for the gun on the same side of the bed where he found Steenkamp’s overnight bag and slippers (presumably implying that was the side on which Steenkamp was sleeping).

Defence

Roux said Pistorius had a shoulder problem and so he slept on the other side of the bed than usual on the night in question. Steenkamp had spent the previous night there too, and had slept on her usual side that night. Nel expressed scepticism about this explanation."

To me this makes their excuse even weaker since he now has to go past her side of the bed numerous times, and would have more likely seen her if she got up to go to the restroom.

True. I was too busy focusing on why there were talking about which side of the bed he usually sleeps on, until I realized it was b/c the gun holster was there.

If she got up, she would have asked him if he was okay or went over to kiss him, or made some announcement that she too was awake and on her way to the bathroom. At least I would think so.

He had to have looked in the bed when he got the gun, if it happened the way he says. Also, if he did not have his legs on, he would be looking directly at the bed to get there, right at that level. Even in the dark, after he closed the balcony door, wouldn't he notice if she was not there? I think she would have said something though, if she got up from sleep to go to the bathroom. If nothing else, to keep him from coming in there while she was peeing.

 

[Zinn]

None of this has come to light yet, and even if her pants were down, Oscar carried her out the bathroom and down to the lounge and then covered her with towels...I'm not sure if anyone would have taken notice if her pants we up or down etc. I don't think she was on the loo, I think she was either crouched down or standing close to the door trying to hear what was going on outside. IMO.

Considering the investigator made a point of stating she was dressed and described what she was wearing, I suspect he took note of whether her shorts were up or down.

Also, has it been stated he placed the towels on her after taking her downstairs? Or were the towels wrapped around her when he carried her downstairs? Do we know?

 

[21merc7]

None of this has come to light yet, and even if her pants were down, Oscar carried her out the bathroom and down to the lounge and then covered her with towels...I'm not sure if anyone would have taken notice if her pants we up or down etc. I don't think she was on the loo, I think she was either crouched down or standing close to the door trying to hear what was going on outside. IMO.

If her pants were down, I think he would have pulled them up before taking her downstairs. They are both used to being scrutinized for how they look, it would have been a natural reaction to clean up anything that didn't "look good". Even though I know she didn't "look good" shot and dead, I mean the simple things would be a natural instinct.

 

[Carol70]

Considering the investigator made a point of stating she was dressed and described what she was wearing, I suspect he took note of whether her shorts were up or down.

Also, has it been stated he placed the towels on her after taking her downstairs? Or were the towels wrapped around her when he carried her downstairs? Do we know?

No, no clue...I would imagine he carried her down in the towels? He doesn't state he carried her down and then ran back up the stairs.

 

[Carol70]

If her pants were down, I think he would have pulled them up before taking her downstairs. They are both used to being scrutinized for how they look, it would have been a natural reaction to clean up anything that didn't "look good". Even though I know she didn't "look good" shot and dead, I mean the simple things would be a natural instinct.

Lawd, I'm not sure...would he be in a state of mind to worry about her pants considering paramedics usually rip your clothes off when they try to save your life...I can't recall right now ( info overload today lol) but think she died before they got there?? So he may have straightened her up while he was cradling her ( he does say she died in his arms)

 

[Carol70]

Anyhow folks, I'm outta here for tonight, I'm bushed.

General mood on the ground: Surprisingly, most women seem to be more inclined to be believing of his story and huge amounts of sympathy for him, men in general are still utterly convinced he killed her in some kind of rage. This is a far cry from 2 days ago when the entire country had turned their backs on him and wanted to lynch him. As always, a country divided- go figure!!

Lets see what happens tomorrow.

 

[GreenTeam]

We rarely close our bathroom door, and would only lock it if we had people over. (What's there to hide when you're married? LOL!) If she was living with him, I don't know why she'd lock the door unless she was hiding from him.

And if I get up in the middle of the night, I don't turn the bathroom light on.

 

[Waddles]

I still think there are many people who lock the bathroom door, I mean, some people even do it when they're home alone out of habit-they are private about it and don't want to be walked in on. And moreover she was staying at his place not hers, and the relationship was relatively new. If there is a lock in someone's home, a lot of people use it. I leave mine wide open, I have a cat so doors stay wide open but I'm just saying a huge amount of people have just always locked their door out of habit, they just do it.

 

[Cherwell]

The black vest and shorts could very well have been sleeping clothes. We call it a vest, as pointed out to me somewhere else in this thread, you guys call it a camisole or tank top. It's a very common form of sleep wear here especially in summer. But it's hard to be certain without actually seeing the clothing.

Could be sleeping clothes, yes, but if it was a hot night, as I understand it was, I'd have thought they wouldn't be wearing anything in bed. For the same reason there was possibly only a sheet on the bed - it's unlikely there were bulky quilts or blankets.

A vest, which is basically a sleeveless top, and shorts could also easily be casual day wear in a hot climate. It could also be sports kit worn for, yes, yoga and exercise. So I don't think we can draw any conclusions from her clothing.

We rarely close our bathroom door, and would only lock it if we had people over. (What's there to hide when you're married? LOL!) If she was living with him, I don't know why she'd lock the door unless she was hiding from him.

And if I get up in the middle of the night, I don't turn the bathroom light on.

She wasn't living with him. And I for one would most likely lock the toilet door if I was staying over with someone I'd only been going out with for a few weeks. I'd want to keep a bit of mystery for a little longer As has been said, the locked door doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

[gxm]

We rarely close our bathroom door, and would only lock it if we had people over. (What's there to hide when you're married? LOL!) If she was living with him, I don't know why she'd lock the door unless she was hiding from him.

And if I get up in the middle of the night, I don't turn the bathroom light on.

I don't turn the bathroom light on in the middle of the night either. But, neither do I shut the toilet door, so I can still see by moonlight. However, in those instances I've closed the bathroom door at night, I always turn on the light because it's in one of those tiny separate rooms without a window and you have to turn the light on to be able to see.

The point about turning on the light that I've been trying to make is that if RS had shut the door to use the bathroom, she would have also turned on the light, and OP would have seen that the light was on and known RS was in there because an intruder (presumably trying to hide) would not turn on the light.

 

[sorrell skye]

The moon was waxing between a new moon and a first quarter moon on February 13/14, so there wouldn't have been moonlight to lend ambient light.

Has it been confirmed whether or not the toilet room light was on or off?

 

[TheDuchess]

I don't get that logic, a man with a gun versus a locked toilet door, or an attempt to get down the stairs, she would have known how little protection the toilet offered her

She may have just locked herself in there to get away from an argument, even if she didn't fear he would be violent. Or even if he was violent, she may have felt the door was enough protection and hadn't thought that he would actually grab a gun and shoot her.

 

[TheDuchess]

He did have to get out of the bed, around the bed, over to the balcony, to shut the doors and get the fan. Then he had to come back to the bed to get the gun that was on the same side of the bed as she was. He had to have looked in that bed at some point. I really have a hard time thinking, if he was newly in love, he didn't first glance over for that loving look when he first woke to shut the balcony doors.

I don't have the link handy, but I seem to remember him stating that he felt she must have gotten out of the bed to go into the bathroom while he was brining in the fan and closing the balcony door. That would make me think that he is saying she was in the bed when he got up and then somehow quietly got out of bed to go to the bathroom without him realizing it and hadn't put 2 and 2 together to realize it wasn't an intruder.

I don't know....like I've said before, I want to believe him, but honestly, who in their right mind would discharge a firearm 4 times without being very sure of the situation around them. Legs or no legs.

Also-for what it's worth, I wouldn't even think to completely wreck the door to my bathroom with 4 bullets unless I knew there was someone on the other side of that door-scared or not.

 

[TheDuchess]

Anyhow folks, I'm outta here for tonight, I'm bushed.

General mood on the ground: Surprisingly, most women seem to be more inclined to be believing of his story and huge amounts of sympathy for him, men in general are still utterly convinced he killed her in some kind of rage. This is a far cry from 2 days ago when the entire country had turned their backs on him and wanted to lynch him. As always, a country divided- go figure!!

Lets see what happens tomorrow.

Very interesting observation-I think a HUGE part of this case is going to be the legs. I would imagine that women could sympathize with him as he felt vulnerable, wheras a man would have a more difficult time understanding that type of vulnerability, i.e. they might be more inclined to think they would have bust down the door and beat the guy silly or something to that effect.

I guarantee right now that this case will ultimately come down to the legs. They will either prove or disprove his defense theory. Did he have them on when he shot or not?

 

[Inobu]

Reading his affidavit from a context perspective one can see that it is subjugated. Every comment is prefaced with situations that channels the thought process into one final outcome "mistaken identity."

His story appears to be true because he has inverted the situation. What is happy is really sad, what was passive was truly aggression. Often the guilty sweeps the truth only to lead someone to the truth.

Here are a few exerts from the affidavit.

On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

The first sentence point out that they had separate plans and that she chose to change it.

I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home.

The addition of content is a qualifier which one could detect as an inverted situation. He could have just said that I agreed. No one would have challenged that. Remember everything is prefaced.

By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom.
This time line is established for some reason. 11 PM has some significance. The neighbor's may be able to provide some insight

She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
For some reason he wants us to know that his legs were off and this point. Its relevance is moot in reality. She is doing yoga he is watching tv.

We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. Once again a preface but it was reported that they are arguing. (Inverted scenario narrative)

She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day. One would think that "we traded gifts" although its not required but it does speaks to the situation.

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 9 mm 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.

I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering.... Preface.

When someone fabricates a statement it normally has only one train of thought and does not cover all bases as you will see.

Fast forward

I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

Notice how this account sets up the entry method for the intruder but negates the "acute awareness of intruders" preface in the prior statement. In reality he would have had the ladder removed based on the prior comment acute awareness. His story does not have fluency as they are independent narratives and not narratives of what happened that night.

As you continue on reading the affidavit you will see how each segment only addresses its event solely but does not support the complete event.

The door, curtains and blinds were closed to black out the room supporting the motion that Reeva could not be located or verified. The lights come on only when it sets up the scene exit.

The reason he keeps reiterating the lack of prosthetic is to maintain the impression of vulnerability. If he says the legs were off chances are they were on.

That is why the status of the legs were interjected in the opening statement. They were fighting when they were in or by the bed. 3 shots at a closed door is aggression not vulnerability.

Inobu

 

[Xavier]

New clues from an article Part 1:

The second day of the bail hearing in a case that has riveted South Africa and much of the world appeared at first to go against the double-amputee runner, with prosecutors saying a witness can testify to hearing "non-stop talking, like shouting" between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. before the predawn shooting on Feb. 14. However, Botha later said under cross examination that the person who overheard the argument was in a house 600 meters (yards) away in Pistorius' gated community in the suburbs of South Africa's capital, Pretoria.


Later, prosecutor Gerrie Nel questioned Botha again and the detective acknowledged the distance was much closer. But confusion reigned for much of his testimony, when at one point Botha said officers found syringes and steroids in Pistorius' bedroom. Nel quickly cut the officer off and said the drugs were actually testosterone.

Pistorius' lead defense lawyer, Barry Roux, asserted when questioning the detective – who has 16 years' experience as a detective and 24 years with the police – that it was not a banned substance and that police were trying to give the discovery a "negative connotation."

"It is an herbal remedy," Roux said. "It is not a steroid and it is not a banned substance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ha-testimony_n_2725410.html?utm_hp_ref=sports

 

[Xavier]

New clues from article Part 2:


Botha said the holster for the 9 mm pistol was found under the left side of the bed, the side on which Steenkamp slept. He also implied it would have been impossible for Pistorius to get the gun without checking to see if Steenkamp was there. Roux later argued that Pistorius had suffered an injury to his right shoulder and wore a "medical patch" the night of the killing which forced him to sleep on the left side of the bed.

Steenkamp was shot in the head over her right ear and in her right elbow and hip, breaking her arm and hip, Botha said. However, Roux later asked Botha if Steenkamp's body showed "any pattern of defensive wounds." The detective said no.
Botha also said the shots were fired from 1.5 meters (five feet), and that police found three spent cartridges in the bathroom and one in the hallway connecting the bathroom to the bedroom. However, later on cross-examination by the defense, Botha said he wasn't a forensics expert and couldn't answer some questions.

Police also found two iPhones in the bathroom and two BlackBerrys in the bedroom, Botha said, adding that none had been used to phone for help. Roux later suggested that a fifth phone, not collected by the police, was used by Pistorius to make calls for a hospital and help. After the hearing, Roux told journalists that Pistorius' defense team had the phone, but did not elaborate


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ha-testimony_n_2725410.html?utm_hp_ref=sports


"Oh the webs do we weave, when we plan to deceive"