General Discussion Thread #2

[shane13]

Well for some of us who believe he is probably guilty of "losing it" and deliberately killing her, there are several elements.

1. I think there are many things in his affidavit--when thoughtfully examined or when some type of evidence (visual of the bedroom/bathroom) is seen--are revealed to be absurd, preposterous, improbable etc.

2. His behavior in court seems to fit that of a guilty man who cried whenever his actions seemed like they were going to land him in jail for a long time.

JMHO.

Update:

3. Here there is also no denial that he killed her, only intent. And it is not self-defense either.

 

[jjenny]

Can someone say something "finalistic" RE the first reported blunt force trauma to Reeva?

I read that even Mark Fuhrman wrote a piece for CNN on that--as it was reported the bloody bat and that in addition to the bullet wounds, there was blunt force trauma to her body (head IIRC.)

And this was not cited in bail hearing, correct?

So this was all fabricated?

1. The bloody bat.
2. Blunt force trauma wound.

Obviously there could end up being blood on the bat well after the act, as he moved her body etc. So I am more concerned at how blunt force trauma (non-bullet) injury was promulgated, and then ceased.

Thanks.

Bat was there, since he used it to break down the door.
Don't know if it was bloody or not.

 

[onthecounter]

Can you quote the post you want me to respond to? It's too hard to find!!!



Joe, you are totally right! I just relied on the other poster, believing it to be fact. He says nothing about the gun being dropped and in fact, he says he kept his eye on the door of the bathroom the whole way after he shot through the door!: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html

Based on this and the fact that the prior domestic call was about a drunk guest, I am firmly back on the fence!

After I had left the comment I did concede that I was wrong about that already by the way by leaving thanks for a previous poster who pointed it out to me. It's still a theory but that is all.

 

[writer411]

Not sure if this has been noted, aside from the links to the articles themselves, but the cover of the YOU mag certainly deals in pretty sombre, doom-laden vocabulary. One or two slightly ominous adjectives thrown in there as hand-grenades, too: :


I haven't dared look at the magazine itself for fear I might see Kate's t*ts or something (I'm very glad to see the Gravid Duchess still takes preference at the top of the page), but I'd say they are definitely not completely on board with the "accidental" thing.

i dont think hes ruined at all. even if he gets a slap on the wrist, nike has proven over and over again that ur good as long as u play a sport, are popular and not in jail. of course we're all here proving that if Pist gets his contract and starts doimg ads again, we'll be interested and looking. its the perfect crime in terms of him being able to send this woman to the afterlife and come out smelling like a rose.

 

[Xavier]

[QUOTE=writer411;8916486]i dont think hes ruined at all. even if he gets a slap on the wrist, nike has proven over and over again that ur good as long as u play a sport, are popular and not in jail. of course we're all here proving that if Pist gets his contract and starts doimg ads again, we'll be interested and looking. its the perfect crime in terms of him being able to send this woman to the afterlife and come out smelling like a rose.[/QUOTE]

Is it true, the neighbors hearing loud shouting, gunshots from 2am to 3am never occured?


It's pure BS horse hockey these conflicting stories coming out

Anyone know the true crime report, please provide a link...thanks alot:seeya:

 

[3doglady]

Well it was FOX:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...an-says-bladerunner-evidence-is-overwhelming/

It includes: "...and Steenkamp had a blunt-force trauma wound to her head."

Actually that was Mark Furman commenting on the 21st about reports made earlier by other media outlets. Yahoo was reporting this as early as the 17th, so let's give credit where credit is due.

But Fuhrman noted reports that a bloody cricket bat was found in the house, and Steenkamp had a blunt-force trauma wound to her head

Police sources close to the investigation told the City Press newspaper that Steenkamp's skull had been "crushed".

http://news.yahoo.com/bloodied-cricket-bat-found-pistorius-home-121020848.html

 

[Cherwell]

With the caveat that this is the Daily Mail ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html

Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius crushed his girlfriend’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.

But grieving relatives 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 Pistorius.

Don't know what to make of this, but I bear in mind the Joanna Yeates case in which the public were given the impression that there were no marks of injury on her at all. Until the trial began, when it was revealed that there were in fact multiple injuries. There's no reason to think that the prosecution revealed everything at the bail hearing.

 

[gitana1]

After I had left the comment I did concede that I was wrong about that already by the way by leaving thanks for a previous poster who pointed it out to me. It's still a theory but that is all.

I must have missed that, so I just rolled with your post!!

With the caveat that this is the Daily Mail ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html



Don't know what to make of this, but I bear in mind the Joanna Yeates case in which the public were given the impression that there were no marks of injury on her at all. Until the trial began, when it was revealed that there were in fact multiple injuries. There's no reason to think that the prosecution revealed everything at the bail hearing.

That's a big, significant deal. If true, how on earth would Pistorius think he could get away with it? I mean, a crushed skull is a crushed skull. That's it. A bullet doesn't create that kind of wound.

 

[shane13]

Great posts.

There is indeed the possibilty that initial local reports were the truth--before something else becomes "historical fact."

 

[Sarahlou]

I thought those reports about him bashing her skull in were probably true! Christ, this is sickening that he is on bail.

I know it's not been officially confirmed as true yet, but....

 

[Xavier]

I thought those reports about him bashing her skull in were probably true! Christ, this is sickening that he is on bail.

I know it's not been officially confirmed as true yet, but....

Yes Sarah it is, plus if OP was drinking the booze heavily along with testerone injections , you have trouble on your hands

If true poor Reeva's skull was crushed by OP swinging at her, then he's done

It's possible she fell and smacked her head on the toilet, causing the skull fracturing and OP could've laid th ebat down in the blood?

Just guessing

 

[shane13]

Somehow I don't think banging her head after being shot would have caused that.

Rather at first I thought-- assuming for the moment he hit her on the head with the bat--that he did that at first, then covered it up by shooting her and "having" to kill her so she could not testify.

But perhaps it makes more sense that he was so out of control that after shooting her, and maybe she was not dead yet, and still in a rage--blaming her for what "she made him do"--that he used the bat on her head as the final coup de grace.

Just speculation.

But why would the local cops tell this to reporters initially, if it were not true?

 

[emmavoberry]

Although I don't think their status as "Valentines" goes to show OP's guilt or lack of, it does go to his credibility, and if more discrepancies come to light, could become a piece in the circumstantial evidence the prosecution will present against him.

OP portrays his relationship with RS as a solid one. In his affidavit, he says, in effect, that they originally did not have Valentine's Day plans together. Rather, they had planned to go their separate ways. Why, if, as he proclaims, they were both very much in love, their status unambiguous, the relationship growing(rather than in decline) would they not have Valentine's day plans?

Where's the romantic dinner, OP's gift to RS, love- making, and the usual trappings of such a significant day we would expect of a couple mutually
(and increasingly) in love?

I suspect the last minute decision to spend the occasion together(whoever initiated it) suggests the course of true love had a) for whatever reasons, gone retrograde rather than advanced b) or gone seriously awry c)or the affair was on hold--with one or the other of them having declared his/her reservations. In other words, the lack of Valentine's Day preparations and activities when they did decide to spend it together, argue for trouble in paradise.

If so, OP is not forthcoming as to how things stood between them at this point.

OP's rosy account of their affair could show discretion or, understandable, desire to not arouse undeserved suspicion.

But, coupled with commotion so heated as to attract security the night of the murder, I am inclined to think relations between them were strained.

Right now, if true, doesn't prove anything--as a stand alone. Purely a speculation that only time and more revealing circumstantial evidence could bear out as relevant.

 

[shane13]

Does anyone think the restaurant event is very telling?

Firing a gun--even if under the table--in the restaurant could have killed someone via ricochet. And then able to get someone else to take the blame, and then was it totally dropped by the police?

Horrible impulse control, and able to get away with anything are the 2 things I come away with if he was the real culprit.

 

[Xavier]

Somehow I don't think banging her head after being shot would have caused that.

Rather at first I thought-- assuming for the moment he hit her on the head with the bat--that he did that at first, then covered it up by shooting her and "having" to kill her so she could not testify.

But perhaps it makes more sense that he was so out of control that after shooting her, and maybe she was not dead yet, and still in a rage--blaming her for what "she made him do"--that he used the bat on her head as the final coup de grace.

Just speculation.

But why would the local cops tell this to reporters initially, if it were not true

?

Good points....Still, if there's an intruder in the house with RS & OP arguing for about an hour or longer, then gunshots, why in the world would any intruder stick around in the house...You'd think an intruder would bolt out of the home really fast

 

[shane13]

Good points....Still, if there's an intruder in the house with RS & OP arguing for about an hour or longer, then gunshots, why in the world would any intruder stick around in the house...You'd think an intruder would bolt out of the home really fast

And didn't he have dogs?

With no one reporting their alarm at alleged intruder. Which also told him there was none.

And also he claims the tiny bathroom window could have been a source for an intruder. But he had the balcony open while sleeping?

The poor girl must have been in terror her last minutes. Trying to escape after his rage began. Then him going after her with a gun. And shooting and then maybe using the club at the end. And he claims she was still alive as he carries her down the stairs was it? How is that easy to do--carrying her down stairs--given his blades?

Just more desperation to alter the crime scene.

Just my speculation again.

 

[natsound]

With the caveat that this is the Daily Mail ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html



Don't know what to make of this, but I bear in mind the Joanna Yeates case in which the public were given the impression that there were no marks of injury on her at all. Until the trial began, when it was revealed that there were in fact multiple injuries. There's no reason to think that the prosecution revealed everything a

Right now, I don't believe this. RS's dad wouldn't have said "if he's not telling the truth...." If he knew OP wasn't telling the truth. I also think OP would have alluded to a head injury in his affadavit. And, it makes no sense to withhold this from the magistrate during the bail hearing.

 

[shane13]

With the caveat that this is the Daily Mail ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html



Don't know what to make of this, but I bear in mind the Joanna Yeates case in which the public were given the impression that there were no marks of injury on her at all. Until the trial began, when it was revealed that there were in fact multiple injuries. There's no reason to think that the prosecution revealed everything a

Right now, I don't believe this. RS's dad wouldn't have said "if he's not telling the truth...." If he knew OP wasn't telling the truth. I also think OS would have alluded to a head injury in his affadavit. And, it makes no sense to withhold this from the magistrate during the bail hearing.

But wouldn't family get her body back only after thorough autopsy?
Makes sense if covering up the one thing he could not have any excuses for. Because he would have to be seeing who he is bludgeoning.

Again why did the local cops tell this to the local reporters, if not true?

 

[natsound]

And didn't he have dogs?

With no one reporting their alarm at alleged intruder. Which also told him there was none.

And also he claims the tiny bathroom window could have been a source for an intruder. But he had the balcony open while sleeping?

The poor girl must have been in terror her last minutes. Trying to escape after his rage began. Then him going after her with a gun. And shooting and then maybe using the club at the end. And he claims she was still alive as he carries her down the stairs was it? How is that easy to do--carrying her down stairs--given his blades?

Just more desperation to alter the crime scene.

Just my speculation again.

.

Good point about the dogs. I forgot about his dogs. And they're really big too.

He wasn't wearing his blades when he carried RS down the stairs, he was wearing his prosthetics.

 

[shane13]

.

Good point about the dogs. I forgot about his dogs. And they're really big too.

He wasn't wearing his blades when he carried RS down the stairs, he was wearing his prosthetics.

Thanks. And I presume that the prosthetics look like regular legs. But still I would think carrying her down stairs on those was not easy?