General Discussion Thread #4

[Pisto_lius]

Family in murder case praises former Pistorius cop Botha

Ex-police officer Hilton Botha was at the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Tuesday to follow sentencing proceedings in a murder case he investigated, according to a report on Wednesday.

Botha, who was the original investigating officer in the Oscar Pistorius murder case, was however not at Pistorius's appearance, said The Star.

Botha attended the sentencing of Jimmy Mahlaba, 26, who murdered 55-year-old Denise Stratford in 2011.

He was jailed for life and another 20 years for stealing her car.

Botha was charged with attempted murder after allegedly firing shots at a minibus taxi which he believed was carrying a suspect in the case.

The charges against Botha made headlines during Pistorius's bail application earlier this year. He left the police shortly afterwards.

One of Stratford's sons, Duane, told The Star: "We have the highest praise for Hilton and the other police officer regarding how they handled my mother's case.

"They did not only act with professionalism, but also with compassion. This case has also taken its toll on Hilton."

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2013/06/05/family-in-murder-case-praises-former-pistorius-cop-botha

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes I did very good point that was indeed the case he put his hand on the bed at that side to steady himself. I wonder did this also happen in the actual defence reconstruction of the dark room. Could this be why Reeva was supposed to move to his usual side of the bed , the balcony side because he allegedly had a bad shoulder. Otherwise he would have known without a doubt that she was not in the bed if she were on the left her usual side. If the defence guy had have stumbled around the right side of the bed he would have put his hand right on top of the body that was lying on the right side of the bed in the video lol . IMO the whole affidavit is a concoction anyway to get off, so IMO none of this ever happened.

BBM - yes, I think the story of Reeva conveniently switching sides on the particular night she was murdered was to cover up the fact that OP would have felt her body in the bed on the right side if it had really been pitch black and he'd had to fumble around in the dark like the actor lawyer did. If it wasn't pitch black he'd have at least seen her outline under the covers. I agree with you that none of this ever happened and it's one giant lie with smaller lies put in place to cover every eventuality. But I don't understand why they didn't faithfully recreate the scene so we could have seen exactly what lighting OP saw. Disappointed with that re-enaction because it wasn't replicated and it gave a very different impression than the real one on the night.

 

[Estelle]

However, I think and suspect that OP's reputation (which could have spread) with the police force for POSSIBLY paying off the cops in the past as they knew that he did not want any negative media publicity for his misdemeanors re boat accident when his blood alcohol level was not taken and when he was arrested and then released by Botha after the slamming of the door incident with a neighbour, could have led more easily and quickly to corruption in this case due to possible expectations.

 

[kittychi]

<snipped>

I find it difficult to believe that these tests were ever meant to throw light on the questions of whether Pistorius could see in his bedroom or whether shouting could be heard from any predetermined distance. So much so, that I am concerned this programme was intentionally made with a Pistorius bias and that troubles me greatly. I am beginning to wonder who was involved behind the scenes in this 'documentary'.

BBM - excellent comments, IB

In the interest of full disclosure, the network should have revealed who paid for the program...these things are not cheap to make. If I wasn't headed to work right now, I would contact the station and ask the question, IOW, Follow the Money.

 

[Estelle]

Firstly, hello to everyone here. I have been following this thread for some long while now and am impressed by the objectivity of most. I am in the UK where there is much reporting of the case, mainly by the tabloids who, in general, can be viewed as a little sensational. However I watched the Channel 5 documentary about Pistorius and was very disappointed with its content.

This documentary seemed, to me, to have a strong pro Pistorius bias. There was not a great deal of new information except for the re-enactment of Pisorius' claim that it was so dark he did not see Reeva and sound tests to verify the distance from which shouting could be heard. There was a studio set for the lighting experiment which was brightly lit. Pistorius claimed he was in the dark. To replicate this darkness the bright studio lights were turned off and the lawyer playing the defence role was asked immediately what he could see. The prosecuting lawyer was asked to get into bed to try to determine if she could be seen.

My point here is that switching from bright studio lighting to total darkness causes one to be unable to see properly for some 15 minutes or so until the eyes adjust properly. Therefore the 'defence lawyer' inevitably would see nothing. Pistorius claimed he was in an already darkened room so his night vision would be functioning at its best. Any half decent lighting expert would without question know this. The test was therefore completely invalid.

Now to the sound test. It is known that the evening of the murder the weather was good and moonlit. The test, again conducted by a supposed expert, was carried out on a rainy night that necessitated the use of an umbrella. It is a fact that rain dulls sound quite considerably and the sound of rain on an umbrella would further reduce one's ability to hear properly. Again any decent sound recordist would know this. Again another invalid test.

There was also a test to try to determine the angle of the bullets. This was probably the nearest the program got to producing any useful information but, again, it was not compelling.

I find it difficult to believe that these tests were ever meant to throw light on the questions of whether Pistorius could see in his bedroom or whether shouting could be heard from any predetermined distance. So much so, that I am concerned this programme was intentionally made with a Pistorius bias and that troubles me greatly. I am beginning to wonder who was involved behind the scenes in this 'documentary'.

It appears to me that so far the supposed experts called on to support OP' affidavit have no idea of replication using exactly the same conditions as would have existed on that night regarding pitch black vs any light and the distances of possible sounds heard by the 12 neighbours. Let's hope that the experts used by the prosecution do replicate exactly the same conditions and/or do a proper reconstruction of what OP said happened vs what the evidence says happened.

 

[Carol70]

No cause for concern , this was to be expected and will not be the last delay.

I'm sure on August 19 the defence will make an application for postponement because the longer it takes until the beginning of the process, the longer OP is on the loose and can do whatever he wants.

Sadly Pisto, we have to hope that the pros don't ask for a remand, this will tell the defence that they don't have all their facts together yet ( and forensics and blood work take a notoriously long time to come back with results....alot of causes are thrown out of court because of this). The defence may see this as a good sign and push ahead for trial causing the pros not to be ready. The defence have their story, it's up to the pros to disprove it. IMO anyway.

 

[Carol70]

Firstly, hello to everyone here. I have been following this thread for some long while now and am impressed by the objectivity of most. I am in the UK where there is much reporting of the case, mainly by the tabloids who, in general, can be viewed as a little sensational. However I watched the Channel 5 documentary about Pistorius and was very disappointed with its content.

//respectfully sniped

I find it difficult to believe that these tests were ever meant to throw light on the questions of whether Pistorius could see in his bedroom or whether shouting could be heard from any predetermined distance. So much so, that I am concerned this programme was intentionally made with a Pistorius bias and that troubles me greatly. I am beginning to wonder who was involved behind the scenes in this 'documentary'.

Welcome IB and thanks for the interesting summary. Certainly food for thought even though I haven't seen the doc yet. It annoys me that they have wasted time doing these experiments with inaccurate conditions ( rain and lights). If they we going to go through the trouble, they should have done it properly.

Does anyone know if its playing yet for those outside of the UK??

Lol, and before some of you get all excited, I'm STILL on the fence I need more factual info so will reserve myself until when we hear the actual witness statements on distance or which houses they stay in relation to OP. and so far all we have heard is his neighbour friend saying he woke to what he thought was thunder but heard no fighting/screaming.

However, I still do take into consideration each and everyone's opinion, thoughts and possibilities on this forum with utmost respect!

 

[Carol70]

It seems police have big problems to recover the data of one of the 4 cellphones which is believed to have belonged to Reeva.

Why would her cell be encrypted?? Does anyone who has an iPhone know what that means??

 

[Carol70]

The more I think about the bullets, the more doubts come to me

Perumal said they (supposedly) have found a bullet inside the toilet bowl which was overlooked by investigators.

I can't believe this because the toilet lid was open (as you can see on the photos) so I'm sure the investigators also looked inside the toilet bowl and would see if there was a bullet inside.

/snipped

Did the prosecution ever seen this bullet??? Nothing heard about this.

I also wonder about this, surely they would have also checked the loo to make sure it had been used? She clearly didn't flush it so there should have at least been loo paper floating on the top and her urine in it (unless of course she never got a chance to use it but since her bladder was empty I would imagine she did).
Or maybe they did check and found it irrevalent.

 

[cityslick]

Why would her cell be encrypted?? Does anyone who has an iPhone know what that means??

Even if it was, LE has plenty of tools to retrieve data from a cell phone. At least they do in the states.

I have an iphone and it would probably have to be some sort of app that can encrypt the phone because you can't do that natively.

 

[Carol70]

BBM - yes, I think the story of Reeva conveniently switching sides on the particular night she was murdered was to cover up the fact that OP would have felt her body in the bed on the right side if it had really been pitch black and he'd had to fumble around in the dark like the actor lawyer did. If it wasn't pitch black he'd have at least seen her outline under the covers. I agree with you that none of this ever happened and it's one giant lie with smaller lies put in place to cover every eventuality. But I don't understand why they didn't faithfully recreate the scene so we could have seen exactly what lighting OP saw. Disappointed with that re-enaction because it wasn't replicated and it gave a very different impression than the real one on the night.

I wonder if forensics would be able to tell which side of the bed she was actually sleeping on that night?? Like hair on the pillows etc? Or do I watch too much CSI?

 

[Carol70]

Even if it was, LE has plenty of tools to retrieve data from a cell phone. At least they do in the states.

I have an iphone and it would probably have to be some sort of app that can encrypt the phone because you can't do that natively.

Thanks city, does that mean anyone who picks up the phone will not be able to read any SMS, texts or check anything on the phone?? Strange, I wonder why she had it encrypted?? It seems a strange thing for someone to do with their personal phone instead of just password locking it!

 

[Carol70]

An interesting comment from Ch 5 website

"surely he must have looked through the key hole and saw where she was crouching and most certainly must have been screaming for him not to shoot.

Having seen her position it looks obvious he was aiming at her as the target and was not shooting aimlessly. The four bullets are said to have been fired and only one missed. So whether he had the prosthetic legs or not is imaterial. He could aim at the target with or without the prosthetic legs. Its only material in the sense he had plenty of time to have thought about what he was doing. The first natural thing you do in that case of intruders you wakeup the person in a whisper to ask if they had heard the noise. You say Shhh be still or hide. Supposing the intruder was with someone larking in the bedroom? He would have wanted to make sure she was safe.. He would have felt for her. The case that is sited shows you the wife alerted her husband and he reached for the gun knowing his wife was safe with him. The poor girl must have been pertrified and most likely begging him not to kill her. He has to leave with his concious for the rest of his life."

If she was crouched down in the corner of the loo, if he had looked through the keyhole, surely he would not have been able to see anything except the wall on the other side?

Have we reached any agreement as to where we think she may have been...sitting on the loo or on the floor next to it?

To me, and by the clean space of blood on the floor next to the loo, I think she may have been there, maybe slumped onto the toilet seat?? Opinions?

 

[cityslick]

Thanks city, does that mean anyone who picks up the phone will not be able to read any SMS, texts or check anything on the phone?? Strange, I wonder why she had it encrypted?? It seems a strange thing for someone to do with their personal phone instead of just password locking it!

Is this a fact that it was in fact encrypted? There is so much white noise in this case I've pretty much stopped wondering what is and is not the truth and just see what comes out in trial.

 

[cityslick]

If she was crouched down in the corner of the loo, if he had looked through the keyhole, surely he would not have been able to see anything except the wall on the other side?

Have we reached any agreement as to where we think she may have been...sitting on the loo or on the floor next to it?

To me, and by the clean space of blood on the floor next to the loo, I think she may have been there, maybe slumped onto the toilet seat?? Opinions?

She either was sitting on it or crouched on the side with the blood on it. I don't think you can prove it one way or the other unless there is some other collaborating evidence pointing a certain way.

 

[soozieqtips]

I wonder if forensics would be able to tell which side of the bed she was actually sleeping on that night?? Like hair on the pillows etc? Or do I watch too much CSI?

I actually wondered if they could tell which side she slept on from the indentation marks! I thought maybe they could tell what body weight left which indentations on which side. And I don't watch any CSI so I have no excuse

 

[whiterum]

BBM - yes, I think the story of Reeva conveniently switching sides on the particular night she was murdered was to cover up the fact that OP would have felt her body in the bed on the right side if it had really been pitch black and he'd had to fumble around in the dark like the actor lawyer did. If it wasn't pitch black he'd have at least seen her outline under the covers. I agree with you that none of this ever happened and it's one giant lie with smaller lies put in place to cover every eventuality. But I don't understand why they didn't faithfully recreate the scene so we could have seen exactly what lighting OP saw. Disappointed with that re-enaction because it wasn't replicated and it gave a very different impression than the real one on the night.

Exactly, the whole documentary was dominated by the defence guy who constantly spoke over the prosecution lady. His entire argument , the acoustic test, the lighting test, proved nothing, it was all wind and bluster to try and dupe the viewer into thinking that these few set up scenarios proved OPs version. The few points the pros lady made when she managed to get a word in were more plausible than so- called re-enactments this documentary had set up.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I thought I should expand a little on my first rushed post to explain, for those who have not seen the video, that the lights in the bedroom were dimmed a little in the re-enactment and there was some discussion that the 16 per cent moonlight would have caused Pistorius to be blinded when he returned to the bedroom from the balcony. However, the dimming of the lights in the studio was minimal and could not possibly have been the equivalent of the amount of light from 16 per cent moonlight. We could all probably carry out our own experiment on this point and I shall on the next crescent moon. I would guess the dimmed lighting was more like a full moon and negated the argument. Also Pistorius was able to retrieve the fan from the balcony without a problem and close the sliding doors, pull down the blind and pull the curtains all without disturbing Reeva whom he 'thought' was in bed. If she had been there, would there have been no conversation at this point eg "what are you doing?" I can hardly think any of the above would be possible without creating some sort of sound. With the reported argument exactly prior to the shooting it is IMO very unlikely that Reeva was actually in bed.

If he was so security conscious why were the doors to the balcony open after they had retired to bed? Why did his dogs not bark? Why was the ladder not against the bathroom window if that was the entry point of the non-existent burglar. Would a burglar have kicked the ladder away from possibly his only safe exit route?

The audio test was carried out in "similar" surroundings to Pistorius' estate but it was raining. The conditions were so different from the night of the crime it would be impossible for the test to replicate, in any way, the distance sound would have travelled on a clear, dry night.

The tests to reproduce the bullet holes were made from both standing and kneeling positions, with the height of the kneeling position increased a little by a pad of some sort. There were no indications that the height of the ballistics expert was similar or not to that of Pistorius but I am assuming that as a pad was used to elevate him a little in the kneeling position that his height must have been similar. It was felt that the bullet holes could make or break Pistorius' sworn statement but have we not already heard that the door is no longer of great interest to the prosecution?

The mobile communications expert was very interesting and if any calls or texts were made they would be traced and possibly determined from which room they were made to an accuracy of about 9 ft but not on which floor they were made. I suspect it will also be possible for Reeva's calls/texts from her "locked" phone will also become available, such are the skills of the experts in these fields.

I confess that all along I have felt there is something very wrong with his version of events. His story is too rehearsed and convenient. Everything is in its place. His family/friends were on the scene before the police. WHY, I keep asking myself. The police should have been there first. Did he not call the police until sometime after the event? I think timing will become a very important aspect of this murder trial. If he called his family and friends before asking the security guards to call an ambulance and the police, IMO it would be very suspicious.

 

[whiterum]

An interesting comment from Ch 5 website

"surely he must have looked through the key hole and saw where she was crouching and most certainly must have been screaming for him not to shoot.

Having seen her position it looks obvious he was aiming at her as the target and was not shooting aimlessly. The four bullets are said to have been fired and only one missed. So whether he had the prosthetic legs or not is imaterial. He could aim at the target with or without the prosthetic legs. Its only material in the sense he had plenty of time to have thought about what he was doing. The first natural thing you do in that case of intruders you wakeup the person in a whisper to ask if they had heard the noise. You say Shhh be still or hide. Supposing the intruder was with someone larking in the bedroom? He would have wanted to make sure she was safe.. He would have felt for her. The case that is sited shows you the wife alerted her husband and he reached for the gun knowing his wife was safe with him. The poor girl must have been pertrified and most likely begging him not to kill her. He has to leave with his concious for the rest of his life."

Do you think he could have shot twice through the door in a rage, with one bullet hitting her. Then realising what he had done, bashed the panel off through which he had fired those shots and saw her injured. Could be then self preservation set in and fearing for his career and a long spell in prison, fired two final shots as marked in the door photo. Standing back from the door and viewing the target through the the open panel he could have fired those two shots, one of which was the head shot.

 

[shane13]

Do you think he could have shot twice through the door in a rage, with one bullet hitting her. Then realising what he had done, bashed the panel off through which he had fired those shots and saw her injured. Could be then self preservation set in and fearing for his career and a long spell in prison, fired two final shots as marked in the door photo. Standing back from the door and viewing the target through the the open panel he could have fired those two shots, one of which was the head shot.

Well the Pros. case is based on where the casings were and the earwitnesses etc.

This all indicates that a single shot from the entrance into the bathroom, apparently hit Reeva. Then the 17 minute gap--think of the 5th OP's phone now, not the diversionary Reeva phone--then a rapid set of 3 final shots.

So your scenario does not fit a single final volley.

That commenter was intelligently finding a way to see how OP knew exactly where she was when he fired the final volley. But there could be other ways how OP knew where she was for the final volley, if Pros version is true.