General Discussion Thread #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks ladies.

I guess I have seen too many movies in this regard.

But does anyone think the defense will try to use that?

Can you guess which movies I have in mind?
 
thanks ladies.

I guess I have seen too many movies in this regard.

But does anyone think the defense will try to use that?

Can you guess which movies I have in mind?

LOL-Not a clue
 
Oh, also on that site ...

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/door-is-key-to-oscar-defence-1.1476164#.USvdAGdBqCo

Door is key to Oscar defence

Durban - Oscar Pistorius’s defence team is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to examine the toilet door through which Reeva Steenkamp was shot, calling it one of the most critical pieces of evidence still outstanding.

The door was removed by police before Pistorius’s team had the chance to examine the crime scene.

Indeed it is. And as Alan Dershowitz so eloquently pointed out on Piers Morgan the other night, OP is now "married" to his affidavit in which he states that he had his prosthetic legs OFF when he shot through the door.

If ballistics show that the shots were fired downward, by someone standing at least 5'8" - then he's toast.

My money's on Toast.
 
LOL-Not a clue

I doubt this is the case here (but nothing would surprise me). But his "I go into full armed recon mode at the drop of a hat" may well be used as a defense strategem for the murder of Reena.

I thought of at least 2 movies where something was put out well ahead of a murder. In "Basic Instinct", the Sharon Stone character is thought to have written a murder just the way it would later happen so she could later say "do you think I would kill someone exactly as I wrote it earlier in my book?"

And in "Jagged Edge" something a bit similar. The Jeff Bridges character terrorizes a woman months earlier the same way his wife would later be tortured before being murdered--by him.
 
Of course we haven't heard from these witnesses directly, in their own words, yet. It's all hearsay, so far, and there may well be inaccuracies.



They probably wouldn't be certain at the time, but it might be possible after the event to eliminate all other possibilities.

Prosecution said that they had sworn affidavits from these witnesses. So the assertions would have come from the affidavits...no?
 
I doubt this is the case here (but nothing would surprise me). But his "I go into full armed recon mode at the drop of a hat" may well be used as a defense strategem for the murder of Reena.

I thought of at least 2 movies where something was put out well ahead of a murder. In "Basic Instinct", the Sharon Stone character is thought to have written a murder just the way it would later happen so she could later say "do you think I would kill someone exactly as I wrote it earlier in my book?"

And in "Jagged Edge" something a bit similar. The Jeff Bridges character terrorizes a woman months earlier the same way his wife would later be tortured before being murdered--by him.



LOL- OHH,I thought you were thinking of movies where people shoot at washing machines!!
 
Prosecution said that they had sworn affidavits from these witnesses. So the assertions would have come from the affidavits...no?

Yes, but my point is that we have only heard a summary of what they contain, via a third party. Not full accounts from the witnesses themselves.
 
Indeed it is. And as Alan Dershowitz so eloquently pointed out on Piers Morgan the other night, OP is now "married" to his affidavit in which he states that he had his prosthetic legs OFF when he shot through the door.

If ballistics show that the shots were fired downward, by someone standing at least 5'8" - then he's toast.

My money's on Toast.


My money's on toast also.

When I become discouraged, I remember back to when the prosecution said they had a very strong case. I believe they do.

Another thing that bothers me about his story is that the bedroom/bath area isn't that big. His home is a nice size but not a mansion by any standard. His not having been aware of Reeva's whereabouts at the time of the shooting is simply implausible to me.

Does anyone think he might kill himself?

.
 
LOL- OHH,I thought you were thinking of movies where people shoot at washing machines!!

LOL. But he didn't shoot the washing machine--it was not behind a locked door maybe. washing machine doesn't know how lucky it was not to get shot up. That Nigerian blogger will prob. blog on that.
 
My money's on toast also.

When I become discouraged, I remember back to when the prosecution said they had a very strong case. I believe they do.

Another thing that bothers me about his story is that the bedroom/bath area isn't that big. His home is a nice size but not a mansion by any standard. His not having been aware of Reeva's whereabouts at the time of the shooting is simply implausible to me.

Does anyone think he might kill himself?

.

I think he might have contemplated that in the 17 minute gap.
But not now esp. if attys tell him he has a good case of beating the rap or for other deep reasons.
 
My money's on toast also.

When I become discouraged, I remember back to when the prosecution said they had a very strong case. I believe they do.

Another thing that bothers me about his story is that the bedroom/bath area isn't that big. His home is a nice size but not a mansion by any standard. His not having been aware of Reeva's whereabouts at the time of the shooting is simply implausible to me.

Does anyone think he might kill himself?

.

Hadn't thought about the size of the place, but I'm not good with photos and real spaces. Can't figure them, I always think places look bigger than the really are when I see photos.

Killing himself, if he didn't get bond it was a huge consideration. On bond, no. Unless his attorneys tell him he will spend 15 years in jail, then someone will need to keep an eye on him.
 
'Roux says his forensic expert went through the toilet carefully on the afternoon after the shooting. "A spent bullet was found inside the toilet bowl," he says. That was not found by Botha's team, he says. Botha admits it.'

This comes from the minute-by minute account reported in The Guardian on the second day (probably) of the bail hearing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage (11:48 a.m.)

I see no use of the word "casing" here. And yet I do see quotation marks as if this were an actual quote by Roux, giving it at least some small veracity.

It is important in the extreme that one does know WHAT kind of projectile is involved. Finding a "bullet casing" in the toilet bowl would be a very remarkable occurrence, and would cast very grave doubt indeed on Pistorius's story - in fact it would destroy it almost entirely, as by no stretch of the imagination could a flying casing have travelled through a closed door - even one that might NOT actually have reached to the floor (I don't suppose we have anything on what kind of door it was and did it go all the way down to the floor level?) - and into a toilet bowl on which RS was apparently sitting.

A spent BULLET - a slug as I'd understand it - MIGHT have found its way in there after passing through Reeva's body or even without hitting her, although I must say that as a location it is a little puzzling. It would probably require a pretty high angle downwards to go through her and into the bowl, rather than into the wall, for instance. This would play into the theory of OP having had his legs on, though it is not actually a deal-breaker in that respect. I'll admit freely I have no idea whether a bullet of that type fired from that range would "go straight through" someone, say through their hand or hip (the head shot seems more unlikely to find its way into the WC bowl). I'll leave it to wiser heads to answer.

There seem to be a myriad of explanations for what Reeva was wearing (in which I suspect language usage [do "shorts" = "underwear" in the mind of the reader or do they not? "You say tomAto, I say tomAHto..." ] plays a significant part in causing the confusion), some of which suggest she was on her way home and others of which are seen to be perfectly normal wear for being snuggled up in bed. Please can we have closure on this one?

Anyway, by the same token there is far too much vagueness about the terminology of the foreign object found in the WC bowl.

Can anyone give us a firm answer? Or is that quote by Roux the firmest evidence we have that this was one of the four BULLETS?

One poster has taken umbrage at my sceptical remarks. I am sorry for this, and there was no intention to "mock", but when material like THIS (see link below) is out there in the wild, and when people are apparently "getting stuff off the media", and some even believe what they read, I think we could all be a tad more sceptical and perhaps slow down a bit and let justice (or whatever passes for justice in South Africa) run its course.

Bottom line: the newspapers, especially those outside South Africa, know next to farque all, and are in the business of selling copies. Sensation sells.

But now I give you the best, the ultimate, the real deal lowdown on what went down at Silver Lakes on Feb 13th/14th.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/new-details-oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-tragedy#

Surgeon-General's Warning: Article may contain small traces of facts. And lots of nourishing insiders. The insider who was present in the room at the time when Reeva "blurted out" her pregnancy is requested to come in for questioning by Pretoria Police Department.
 
I agree that points 5 and 6 (maybe 7 unless the first shot hit her head) are huge holes in his story. As for the others, some questions I had:

1 - How often does Reeva sleep there to where she's on 'her' side? Note they were only dating for 3 months.
2 - Do we know if it's normally pitch black in the room?
3 - This bothers me too, with one caveat. Is it possible she wasn't in the bed when he got up to get the fan, just didn't notice it?
4 - Not surprising, many times my spouse gets up to go to the bathroom and I don't hear nothing. Note that unless he was on the balcony for awhile, he should of saw her before hearing her if she got up at the same time.
8 - There's been a lot of discussion on this, is it verified what exactly she was wearing?

Thanks for this post. I have same questions. Her silence while all this was going on bothers me as well, but for now, I'm going to wait till I have more concrete evidence before I can say with 100% certainty, he's guilty of premeditated murder, rather than culpable homicide.

IMO, there is just too much tripe right now in the news, and some articles are so unbelievable, it truly boggles the mind.
 

Yes!!! EXACTLY!

Reminds me how we were just discussing over coffee that arguably we have FOUR victims here.

Naturally Victim #1 is Reeva, all too soon deprived of life.
Alongside her are her immediate friends and family, and apparently the gazillions who never knew who she was until February 15th but join in the universal mass grieving for someone famous that is second-nature today, now that we no longer know our neighbours' names.

Then we have Oscar himself as Victim #2.
Even if his team can prove he had no intention to kill his girlfriend, he still DID shoot her, and even if it eventually comes down to unlawfully killing a burglar, pumping four shots through a toilet door is pretty serious culpable homicide, and he's not going to get off as if it were a traffic offence.
And of course if his version is really what happened all along and it was all a ghastly cluster***k of blunders and misunderstandings, well, he's going to have to live with that for the rest of his days, which isn't much fun.
So he's a victim, too. His entire family as well, as they are going to get raked over the coals as this goes forward, and sooner or later we'll discover it was all the fault of his relationship with his dad/uncle/sister/dog/etc. that caused this mess.

Victim #3 is South Africa itself.

"As and aside, I have no desire any longer to ever visit SA or any part of the continent after hearing all theses stories of injustice and crime. So much for tourism and money. Before I thought it would be a wonderful place to visit, and some parts may be, as my boss' experience shows. However, I wish to take no chances on that, my luck is not so good."

21merc7's comment from earlier in the thread must have been echoed by a good many people in the wake of revelations about rampant gun crime, home invasions, shoddy policing, violence against women that goes to the very top of the political tree, widespread corruption, and heaven alone knows what else. The South African Tourist Board must be distraught: about the ONLY silver lining in any of this is that at least it happened AFTER the World Cup (and the African Cup of Nations), but in all honesty that's pretty cold comfort.
The picture presented is NOT an attractive one, and much image-polishing will have to be done before people lose the nagging, worrying thought that perhaps the past twenty years haven't seen much change at all in South Africa.
I still stand by my earlier remark, BTW, that the enthusiasm for opposing bail might have been tempered by a worry in government circles that it could all end in still more Bad-PR tears if Pistorius wound up in a remand prison.

But what of Victim #4, and who is it?
Step forward The Unknown Hack.
This poor journalist (please note: he/she is completely fictitious, but just as plausible as any of the murder theories) got a great assignment in early February.
A two-day, all access, no strings interview with Oscar Pistorius as he looks towards his next move after the Olympics and Paralympics of 2012.
Wow! Fab! Kewl!

Our Journalist goes to Pretoria and then returns to the office and writes up his or her copy on February 13th, anticipating that it will get a decent "human interest" spot in the coming Weekend Supplement.
Then, suddenly - dingggggggg - the AP and Reuters and AFP wire-service bells start ringing and Our Journalist is rapidly called up to the Editor-in-Chief's office.
"Hello Whatsyourname, I hear you've got a full-body scan on this Oscar Pistorius girlfriend-killer madman. We're going to run it on the front page tomorrow. We'll nail the guy. I hope it's got some juicy stuff about him being a loose cannon and ready to blow at any minute...", says the Editor, with much enthusiasm.
"Err, Well...Ummm. No. I'm afraid it didn't..."

Because our man had ALL the bad luck.
He found Oscar to be utterly charming.
Oscar had an infectious and disarming sense of self-irony, was self-deprecating in the extreme about his sporting achievements: "It's those amazing guys in wheelchairs like David Weir and Leo-Pekka Tähti that I really admire".
He actually cracked jokes about his legs and his blades, and seemed to have a remarkably grown-up head on his young shoulders.
Nobody, but NOBODY came up to Our Journalist and whispered that Oscar was spending too much time in bars or at the roulette table and not enough time in the gym or on the track. There was not a single whiff (or spliff) of substance abuse, and no suggestion that he was wound up like a coiled spring.
No former girlfriends sent Our Journalist SMS messages badmouthing Oscar.

And then there was the awkward business with the loss of half of that first day.
Our Journalist had got Oscar all to himself for two days, but Oscar very politely and apologetically INSISTED that he couldn't cancel a prior appointment on the Monday afternoon, and so the journo had to traipse along with him on his fortnightly visit to the children's leukaemia ward at George Mukari Hospital. As if that wasn't bad enough, one of the nurses actually broke down in floods of tears about how nice Oscar had always been with the kids and how he never missed his visits if he wasn't abroad, and on and on...
And of course when Our Journalist drove with him to and from the hospital there was none of that rushing about at 150 mph in the wet in some
embarrassingly expensive Top Gear McLaren supercar. Instead he chatted nicely about his family and said some unexpectedly sensible and even quite empathetic things about topics du jour, both local and international. The guy was likeable, dammit. And never one mention of guns, fercrissakes.
And finally, finally... when Our Journalist was back at Oscar's place and wrapping things up, and the runner's mobile rang, he looked at it in mid-sentence and then said (again very politely): "Do please excuse me, I really ought to take this, it's my girlfriend Reeva".
And as he walked out of earshot to another part of the room, Our Journalist overheard him say: "Hi darling. No, no, it's quite alright. I did say ring any time. OK. 6.30 it is then. I'll pick you up outside..."
And then Oscar came back all blushing beetroot-red and grinning and said: "Big evening tonight, off to meet the future in-laws, or well, at least I'm hoping that's what they'll be..."

Yep. No two ways about it. The entire interview was a complete and utter train-wreck from beginning to end. It would never EVER get into print.
The editor-in-chief was furious. He had to buy some crappy 2012 article from the New York Times and reprint it.
Our Journalist's career would be blighted for years to come - he'd end up on the Obituaries Desk - all because he failed to dig up the real Oscar Pistorius.

HE IS THE FOURTH VICTIM.
 
Then we have Oscar himself as Victim #2.
Even if his team can prove he had no intention to kill his girlfriend, he still DID shoot her, and even if it eventually comes down to unlawfully killing a burglar, pumping four shots through a toilet door is pretty serious culpable homicide, and he's not going to get off as if it were a traffic offence.
And of course if his version is really what happened all along and it was all a ghastly cluster***k of blunders and misunderstandings, well, he's going to have to live with that for the rest of his days, which isn't much fun.
So he's a victim, too. His entire family as well, as they are going to get raked over the coals as this goes forward, and sooner or later we'll discover it was all the fault of his relationship with his dad/uncle/sister/dog/etc. that caused this mess.

I'm not sure we have any call for labeling OP a victim just yet. Let's let the chips fall first.
 
I'm not sure we have any call for labeling OP a victim just yet. Let's let the chips fall first.

I know where you're coming from, and of course if he gets banged up for life for premeditated murder, the victim card will be passing hard to play, but right now we have to suspend all that, remember what Mummy and Daddy said about "innocent until proven guilty", and know that regardless of the outcome he and his lot are going to be scarred and tarred for life.

(There are some out there who imagine he's "going to get away with it". He's not. Not on this planet. Stick a fork in him already, 'cos he's done. Whatever any judge says.)
 
My money's on toast also.

When I become discouraged, I remember back to when the prosecution said they had a very strong case. I believe they do.

Another thing that bothers me about his story is that the bedroom/bath area isn't that big. His home is a nice size but not a mansion by any standard. His not having been aware of Reeva's whereabouts at the time of the shooting is simply implausible to me.

Does anyone think he might kill himself?

.

He should be toast, IMO. But I've seen celebrity justice meted out before. I'm going to assume he will find a way out of it. Cases that get a lot of exposure seem to unravel each and every time. And OP has a lot of supporters it seems, even after this horror story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
269
Guests online
2,627
Total visitors
2,896

Forum statistics

Threads
599,656
Messages
18,097,846
Members
230,897
Latest member
sarahburhouse
Back
Top