General Discussion Thread #2

[Estelle]

so much logic and reason today, nice to read, if he did bash her head in and did not mention it in affidavit then he stood no chance of getting bail, once his affidavit is read into the record he can't take it back,

so the state could then have stood up and said we have a copy of the autopsy and it states the victim had a fractured skull as well as bullet wounds, the affiant is lying,

bail denied,

he can't change the story at that point, so state gains nothing by keeping the bashing a secret as Oscar has just lied under oath when swearing to his affidavit,

For many reasons already mentioned pages back, it appears they did not want to put OP in gaol at this stage in case something happened to him while in there.

 

[cityslick]

I think it could be called non-disclosure actually.

Botha said he was present at the autopsy. At that point he would be well aware of any other injuries.

He then was asked point blank about any other injuries. He didn't say 'I can't disclose that' or 'it's still an ongoing investigation'. He said the affirmative 'no'. That is knowingly giving false testimony. If he's knowingly giving false testimony about that, what else did the state present as false testimony? The witnesses? Where he found the bullets?

 

[Estelle]

Do you have a link that backs up your statement? Otherwise it's opinion.

A police officer lied in court. Lied. That is not procedure. That is disobeying the rules of the court. I can tell you right now in most courts, LE or the state knowingly giving false testimony is going to get your case thrown out every time.

I have read legal opinion on this and posted it many pages back and this is what i learnt from them. It is a bail hearing and they want to know what the accused admits to without disclosing everything themselves.

 

[shane13]

Botha, of course, could have been mushroomed by his higher ups.

Botha could have been used by his higher ups--who knew they would be pulling him soon--as I have written here--to entrap the defense to give their side away and not have him know certain things. This could be results of X-rays or other things. And I recall he did say some of the time that he is not a forensics expert, or that something is ongoing, thus final results of things were not in.

At the same time I wrote here that his on the stand testimony indicated that the prosecution may really have wanted OP out on bail, as Botha contradicted himself and said OP's affidavit did not contradict the evidence--which his testimony on the bullets in the doors he had said did contradict the evidence.

So either Botha was mushroomed or else he is the second coming of Columbo--just appear to be a buffoon all the while getting things to happen the way he or higher ups want.

I have also written that with some things it appears that they did not expend much effort before the bail hearing. Like not checking that that homeopathic remedy was not a steroid. Again possibly because they wanted to lose and have him out on bail.

The prosecution--if not corrupt--is ultimately interested in one thing winning the actual trial. Losing the first battle in order to win the war, is a well known strategy.

 

[cityslick]

All of this is opinion with nothing to back it up. They knowingly gave false testimony which could (and should) result in their case being thrown out of court because they really didn't want him to go to jail and yet there is no sourcing of this information. OP hit her with a bat, 'crushed her skull' which not only result in contusions but a whole lot of blood in that bathroom yet OP gives an affidavit saying he just used it on a door, thinking nobody will pay any mind to the bruises and contusions on RS' head, which includes LE, his friends who showed up that night, his lawyer and the EMT.

 

[joe jones]

I do not know if SA jurisprudence is different than in the USA.

But in the USA, if a client tells his lawyer such and such happened, the attorney is not supposed then lie about what he was told. Therefore many attorneys actually tell their clients at first meeting NOT to tell them exactly what happened.

Rather the defense atty tries to get as much evidence of the crime from the prosecution. In other words, the defense does not have to ever get into "what really happened", only has to to refute the evidence that other side has.

Attorneys are also supposed to not subborn perjury. But if the atty first told the client not to tell him what happened, and the client did not tell, it is not subborning perjury.

Then too many defendants are too ashamed, or in shock, denial etc to tell their attorneys what happened anyway. ANd others, on their own, invent a *advertiser censored* and bull story.

But bottom line is that many attorneys tell their clients NOT to tell them what happened.

[For the record, I am not an attorney, but have been close to several.]

clever, experienced defence attys learn how to ask questions that get them the answers they need which means they are not left exposed by their client or they know enough of the facts to not be blindsided by the states case

they would have known to ask Oscar once the affidavit was finalised pre going to court is there anything the state may have which will completely discredit this affadavit,

and the defence forensics had been all over his house pre the bail hearing, so I think they may have seen signs of a fight and evidence that she was injured outside the bathroom,

 

[Estelle]

All of this is opinion with nothing to back it up. They knowingly gave false testimony which could (and should) result in their case being thrown out of court because they really didn't want him to go to jail and yet there is no sourcing of this information. OP hit her with a bat, 'crushed her skull' which not only result in contusions but a whole lot of blood in that bathroom yet OP gives an affidavit saying he just used it on a door, thinking nobody will pay any mind to the bruises and contusions on RS' head, which includes LE, his friends who showed up that night, his lawyer and the EMT.

The way i see it is that OP has got away with lying for years and thinks he can get away with it. He has always been let off before so he thinks why not now?

 

[Estelle]

Synoptic12•14 hours ago−

"Dear God,

I need you. Everyday,

Every moment, Every second

that I breathe, I need you.

I am not strong enough on my own.

Amen.

By

Reeva Steencamp

Written January 29, 2013

We shall always love you Reeva, for you are with us forever.
reeva-steenkamp-final-photo-oscar-pistorius

 

[shane13]

clever, experienced defence attys learn how to ask questions that get them the answers they need which means they are not left exposed by their client or they know enough of the facts to not be blindsided by the states case

they would have known to ask Oscar once the affidavit was finalised pre going to court is there anything the state may have which will completely discredit this affadavit,

and the defence forensics had been all over his house pre the bail hearing, so I think they may have seen signs of a fight and evidence that she was injured outside the bathroom,

Well assume for the sake of argument, that everything I've been saying happened, and OP did do the most horrific things to her. And that OP's forensic team did find evidence themselves that everything he was telling them was a lie--and that there was massive evidence that he did hit her with the bat and did deliberately shoot her. Other than drop out of the cse, which there are reasons for not doing, what else can they do escept try to get the other side to reveal what they have.

Put it another way, OP could well have been in denial, shock, embarassment and put out that *advertiser censored* and bull story. His only other option was to tell the horrific truth. But see my previous post, his attorney may well have said up front not to tell him the truth. So that is how we arrive at what has transpired.

 

[cityslick]

The way i see it is that OP has got away with lying for years and thinks he can get away with it. He has always been let off before so he thinks why not now?

Not even OP, what about his lawyer? He was at the scene, he would of saw a bloody bat. OP didn't have a chance to clean up the scene, would his lawyer not craft his affidavit more carefully to account for these things? Their own forensics team was in there, I'm sure they gave them plenty of information on the scene. He's not accounting for it saying it was just used on a door, not if her blood is on the bat.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm inclined to think that the idea that he hit her with the bat is just an early misapprehension based on her head wounds and the presence of the bloodstained bat. Someone has jumped to a conclusion and despite subsequent denials, the story won't lie down and die.

if the quote is a correct quote he (Myers) did say he saw the bullet wound in her head, so he saw more than her face, and he said the police never told the family her skull was bashed in

I don't think we know exactly where her head wound was. The entry wound could be visible to someone viewing her face. The exit wound is likely to have caused much more damage, hence the initial impression that she'd been hit with the bat.

 

[shane13]

I think in actual practice--again assuming no corruption for the moment--when an attorney knows or greatly suspects that he has a client who is guilty especially of a provable, horrific crime. What are the attorney's options? Go with the insanity plea if they have that in SA--and note that woman who came in during bail hearing and tried to get him a psych evaluation or whatever she was trying.

Or else the defense atty can try to drag it out or threaten to do so all the while try to make the best plea bargain they can for their monster of a client. Or else hope for a miracle like saying Botha contaminated the scene. I think that will not wash as the autopsy, door and other forensics he did not contaminate will prove the case.

The guy did it. It gets worse the more we learn. There are limits to what even the best attorney can do. OJ got off not because of innocent contamination, but because there was evidence that detectives may have deliberately planted things.

OP is not likely to be so lucky.

 

[cityslick]

I think in actual practice--again assuming no corruption for the moment--when an attorney knows or greatly suspects that he has a client who is guilty especially of a provable, horrific crime. What are the attorney's options? Go with the insanity plea if they have that in SA--and note that woman who came in during bail hearing and tried to get him a psych evaluation or whatever she was trying.

Or else the defense atty can try to drag it out or threaten to do so all the while try to make the best plea bargain they can for their monster of a client. Or else hope for a miracle like saying Botha contaminated the scene. I think that will not wash as the autopsy, door and other forensics he did not contaminate will prove the case.

The guy did it. It gets worse the more we learn. There are limits to what even the best attorney can do. OJ got off not because of innocent contamination, but because there was evidence that detectives may have deliberately planted things.

OP is not likely to be so lucky.

Like I said, if that's the case, you (the lawyer) don't put OP's story in an affidavit where you know it will be easily debunked. You just simply say 'not guilty', like every other accused.

I won't go into OJ, but if you think OJ got off simply due to what LE did and did not do, then I suggest reading up on the case.

 

[Estelle]

http://www.news24.com/Multimedia/South-Africa/Carte-Blanche-on-Oscar-Pistorius-20130225

This video is excellent.

 

[Estelle]

Oscar Pistorius did crush Reeva Steenkamp’s skull with a cricket bat, police told her family

Oscar Pistorius crushed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp’s skull with a cricket bat before shooting her dead, police have told her family.

Details of the post-mortem examination of South African model Reeva Steenkamp were withheld from last week’s bail application hearing.

The bloodstained bat, which is currently being examined by a police forensics team, will be key evidence when Oscar Pistorius goes on trial for premeditated murder.

Last week the prosecution did not mention any details about the bat and the role they believe it played in Reeva Steenkamp’s death, opting not to disclose their case against Oscar Pistorius. But to secure bail, Oscar Pistorius’ legal team had to detail his defence, which included why he had a blood-spattered cricket bat in his possession on the fatal night.

Her family, who saw her body before Tuesday’s cremation in Port Elizabeth described horrific injuries from the cricket bat, and entry wounds from 9mm bullets fired by Oscar Pistorius.

They were also briefed about the model’s death by police and lawyers from the state prosecutor’s office.

Read more: http://www.bellenews.com/2013/02/24...ket-bat-police-told-her-family/#ixzz2M1JsFYM6

 

[shane13]

Like I said, if that's the case, you (the lawyer) don't put OP's story in an affidavit where you know it will be easily debunked. You just simply say 'not guilty', like every other accused.

I won't go into OJ, but if you think OJ got off simply due to what LE did and did not do, then I suggest reading up on the case.

The affidavit was for bail. Perhaps they wanted bail at all costs for reasons we may see between now and trial... They got bail.

As for OJ, ultimately he got off because the Jurors had reasonable doubt---you would have to have a statement from each one as to what his or her basis was. As best as I recall, what I wrote was what some said. But it's been 20 years is it? If you have other info, let's hear it.

 

[cityslick]

The affidavit was for bail. Perhaps they wanted bail at all costs for reasons we may see between now and trial... They got bail.

As for OJ, ultimately he got off because the Jurors had reasonable doubt---you would have to have a statement from each one as to what his or her basis was. As best as I recall, what I wrote was what some said. But it's been 20 years is it? If you have other info, let's hear it.

Race/peer pressure of riots/etc. There is a reason there was cheering in the streets afterward. Nobody is going to admit this btw.

 

[Estelle]

Facts and Evidence Support the Following:

After lengthy argument (with or without other assualt) likely ending up in bathroom, where Pist strikes Reeva's phone from her grasp; She escapes into toilet closet and locks door.

Pist trots to bedroom, gathers gun; returns to 'hearing sounds' of Reeva flushing or urinating into toilet; fires 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th bullets diagonally, targeting 2-3 feet above toilet seat, to strike Reeva’s head/ upper body, until her screaming stops.

A well-conceived, perfectly executed, execution.. demonstrating considerable decision-making and specific intent in those final moments.. including concocting the only scenario which provides the "excuse" of 'I couldn't see the person I decided to shoot to death.'

Consider the probability that the person in the bathroom next to your bedroom at 3 AM is your bed mate who's not within your sight at the moment ? (I'd say, about 99.9999%)

And considering that the subject home has sophisticated security system and is within a walled, gated, armed-guarded complex; 99.99999999999%.

By the forensics,facts, Pist own affidavit, witnesses and Pist history of jealous aggression and violent threats, Pist killing of Ms.Steenkamp is likely one of the most well-documented cases of cold-blooded murder in history. It would take a buffoon to rule the killing to be an ‘accident’. We’ll see how SA trial judge does.

I believe Pist crocodile tears are real - for himself.
He's very sorry that he '******ed up' HIS life.

If Pist also crushed Reeva’s skull, ‘reinstatement’ of jail/ revocation of bail, should occur immediately upon filing of the autopsy report.

(And Botha should be arrested and charged with perjury, obstruction and conspiracy/ accessory to murder.)

http://www.bellenews.com/2013/02/24...ll-with-a-cricket-bat-police-told-her-family/

 

[Patticake]

This 2 page article is worth reading. I am posting the part about the scene of the crime and the smallness of the area where OP failed to figure out where Reeva was before he shot her.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...h_about_reeva_steenkamp_he_s_a_dangerous.html

The Slaughter of Reeva Steenkamp

QUOTE

snip

To appreciate the perversity of this story, you have to see the floor plan of Pistorius’ home. His bedroom door wasn’t down the hall, where he’d heard the purported burglar noises. It was in the entryway right next to him. All he had to do was wake Steenkamp and slip out with her. His “limited mobility,” which supposedly prevented him from making it 15 feet to the bedroom door, somehow didn’t deter him from maneuvering 20 feet down the hall toward the danger, and around a corner for another 15 feet to where he thought the intruder was. There, a homeowner ostensibly too terrified to turn on a light in his bedroom, or even unlock his bedroom door and flee, had no trouble firing four shots through the locked toilet door, which offered no escape route. If there really was an armed intruder, this was the course of action most likely to escalate the carnage.

Pistorius’ bedroom is 16 feet wide, with a couch to the side of the bed. If the bed is king-sized, that leaves less than four feet of space on either side. If it’s queen-sized, that leaves four and a half feet at most. Imagine trying to maneuver around that bed in total darkness, rapidly and on stumps, without bumping into it or waking Steenkamp. Roux claims that Pistorius, who normally slept on the bed’s right side, switched that night and slept on the left, even though that’s where Steenkamp’s slippers and overnight bag were found. Whatever. If that’s true, it means that Pistorius climbed out of bed, navigated around it to the balcony on Steenkamp’s side, brought in the fan, heard the scary noise, and went back around to his side to get the gun, without bumping into his sweetheart, saying anything to her, or checking to make sure she was there. He didn’t speak to her till he was off on his mission to the bathroom. Hearing no reply from her, he fired through the toilet door anyway. Not once, but four times.

snip

END QUOTE

 

[shane13]

I forget--is there an insanity defense in SA? Or diminished capacity, etc.?

And I trust everyone here knows what I meant above when I said Botha may have been mushroomed?