General Discussion Thread #4

[Estelle]

IMO

1. Police wouldn't remove the sofa or other pieces of furniture which are part of their evidence if that's not really necessary. Prosecutors must give documentary evidence to the court and for their case it's important to show where this sofa exactly was located. Only by this way they can prove how these blood drops could dropped on this sofa. E.g. either if OP carried Reeva downstairs (if it was located on his way downstairs) or if Reeva ran past the sofa (if it was located in the bedroom where, as OP and his DT claimed, no shot was fired).

2. For forensic people it's not necessary to remove the sofa because the only one who was wounded was Reeva, so it's clear it's her blood on the sofa.

The toilet door was removed by police for two reasons IMO:

a) The forensic/ballistic people couldn't conduct all their tests at the crime scene.
http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/firearms.shtml

b) Prosecutors/police wanted to prevent, that photos of the door were leaked and shown to OP's DT before they completed their investigations. Only then official crime scene pictures should be revealed to lawyers.





1. I'm not sure the crime scene pictures were all taken at the same time, but police and forensic people worked at the scene several days. E.g. Botha took the toilet door down and sent it away for forensics on the Saturday (following the shooting).

Perhaps they investigated the toilet and bathroom on another day than the rest of the house.

2. I noticed, that in the Sky News video parts of the house were shown which not really were taken on the day of the crime. E.g. they showed the passage to the bathroom (with a little corner of the bedroom). In the passage to the bathroom wasn't a single bloodstain, although OP carried Reeva downstairs through the passage.

So, I could imagine now, that the picture in the video that showed the stairs - without the tricky sofa we miss - also was not taken on the day of the crime.

Furthermore I noticed, that they say in their video



But in their written report they write



To me, that are two different locations they reported and may be that's the solution of the puzzle that confuse us so much :floorlaugh:

Are we to conclude now that the cream sofa was "downstairs" but not "under the stairs"?

So where could it have been and how did the blood get there?

 

[Estelle]

In this video, there is no sofa under the stairs.

http://video.vanityfair.com/watch/the-night-oscar-pistorius-shot-his-girlfriend

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Where is Shane ??? missed your thoughtful and interesting comments...
Hope you're fine Shane13 :seeya:

 

[Pisto_lius]

In this video, there is no sofa under the stairs.

http://video.vanityfair.com/watch/the-night-oscar-pistorius-shot-his-girlfriend

Not surprising . This is not a video about blood stains, but they only show what OP stated in his affidavit and what Botha found when he arrived at the scene.

The entrance hall is completely empty - no furniture, no pictures on the walls, so no blood-stained sofa

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

2. The smashed part of toilet door

* The hole OP smashed with the cricket bat is quite narrow but OP's arms and shoulders are very sturdy. And I would say the lower edge of the hole is at a high of approx. 80 cm. So, to me, it's impossible he would be able to grab through such a narrow hole a key that lay on the floor of the other side of this door.

He put his arm through the broken door and found the key which has miraculously fallen on the floor inside within his hands reach? Besides - I said it before - IMO Reeva sat at this place the key fallen down.

* OP smashed the door beside the lock. How could the key fall from the lock when he only beat on the door panel - even more when Reeva allegedly turned the key in the lock around?
Why didn't he directly smashed the lock with the cricket bat? This would open the door much faster.

IMO - he played for time, not only regarding opening the toilet door but regarding all his actions after the shooting.

[/B]

Very good points.. I also agree it seems too farfetched for a locked key to jump to a place within OP's arm reach..Just an arm from that broken panel could fit there , not even his shoulder but I think the defence can't be so fool and should have measured that OP's arm can touch the floor ..
Maybe from the perspective of the photo , that part of the door might seem higher to us. Don't know...

But what seems strange to me.. Why not mention in the affi that he broke a few panels , reached out the key inside and opened the door and why to mention a detail of a fallen key on the floor ? Like all words in the affi , this might have a reason to be put there..

some assumptions to build up a theory

*If she locked herself inside, he should have looked from the keyhole first.
*He didn't shot her from the head first otherwise he would't shot again
and again to the hip, arm etc..Head was the final shot IMO..
*From the place of the shots on the door, she was not sitting or lying on the floor .. If she was sitting initially to be shot from the hip and arm,
thet shots on the door should be much lower IMO

1st Scenario ''All shots in the toilet''

After the photo of the door leaked , we are now sure that lock part had a
hole from which he could see a portion of inside.. Was Reeva's hip/arm in his sight at the moment and did he shot what he saw with a reflex simultaneously once or twice and she started shouting and thenhe broke the panels and shot her from the target head to stop her shoutings ???
Cause it seems nearly impossible to me for him to shot her in the head behind the door ..so could he risk missing her head and her shouting going on and on ? dont think so...He saw where her head was IMO.

2nd scenario '' First shot out of the toilet ''

Reeva could lock herself in the toilet and the key got blood on it from Reeva's hand and it didn't jump on the floor which would apparently explain that Reeva was wounded before she got in the toilet ..We see no blood neither on the door nor upper walls of the toilet ?so a blodied key would be very questioning..moreover Reeva was unconscious inside acc to the affi and she couldn't move and touch the key ..For that reason OP might have said that the key had falled to the bloodied floor ...

 

[shane13]

Where is Shane ??? missed your thoughtful and interesting comments...
Hope you're fine Shane13 :seeya:

Thanks MS.
I'm OK.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Very good points.. I also agree it seems too farfetched for a locked key to jump to a place within OP's arm reach..Just an arm from that broken panel could fit there , not even his shoulder but I think the defence can't be so fool and should have measured that OP's arm can touch the floor ..
Maybe from the perspective of the photo , that part of the door might seem higher to us. Don't know...

But what seems strange to me.. Why not mention in the affi that he broke a few panels , reached out the key inside and opened the door and why to mention a detail of a fallen key on the floor ? Like all words in the affi , this might have a reason to be put there..

some assumptions to build up a theory

*If she locked herself inside, he should have looked from the keyhole first.
*He didn't shot her from the head first otherwise he would't shot again
and again to the hip, arm etc..Head was the final shot IMO..
*From the place of the shots on the door, she was not sitting or lying on the floor .. If she was sitting initially to be shot from the hip and arm,
thet shots on the door should be much lower IMO

1st Scenario ''All shots in the toilet''

After the photo of the door leaked , we are now sure that lock part had a
hole from which he could see a portion of inside.. Was Reeva's hip/arm in his sight at the moment and did he shot what he saw with a reflex simultaneously once or twice and she started shouting and thenhe broke the panels and shot her from the target head to stop her shoutings ???
Cause it seems nearly impossible to me for him to shot her in the head behind the door ..so could he risk missing her head and her shouting going on and on ? dont think so...He saw where her head was IMO.

2nd scenario '' First shot out of the toilet ''

Reeva could lock herself in the toilet and the key got blood on it from Reeva's hand and it didn't jump on the floor which would apparently explain that Reeva was wounded before she got in the toilet ..We see no blood neither on the door nor upper walls of the toilet ?so a blodied key would be very questioning..moreover Reeva was unconscious inside acc to the affi and she couldn't move and touch the key ..For that reason OP might have said that the key had falled to the bloodied floor ...

I can only return the compliment. - Very good assumptions

BIB - If we take OP at his words - and that's what we should do and what prosecutors are going to do

Reeva was slumped over but alive

this doesn't sound like Reeva was "unconscious".


He also claimed

I phoned Netcare and asked for help.

I went downstairs to open the front door. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital.

If he asked an operator of Netcare for help this person would put several urgent questions to him, e.g.

- what exactly happened?
- gunshot wounds? In what area the victim is wounded?
- is the victim conscious?

And if he told him the truth, NO ONE would tell him not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital - I never believed this!

If he told the truth about the gunshot wounds and that Reeva was unconscious, they would tell him

- Stay with the victim until help arrives!
- Don't move the victim!
- Don't pick her up or put pillow under her head, this could block the airway!
- Monitor responsiveness and breathing!

And for this reasons I guess, prosecutors will say - and the autopsy report will confirm this - Reeva already was dead when he opened the toilet door and he knew it.

 

[Pisto_lius]

I have been thinking anew about the Sky News report with the "leaked" crime scene photos

It is claimed these photos were leaked to Sky News by police officers involved in the investigation to make money. But Alex Crawford twittered

Alex Crawford ‏@AlexCrawfordSky - 31 Mai
#OscarPistorius Just to be clear Sky News has strict policy of not paying for stories and no money was paid for any pictures.
https://twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky

So, why someone should give these photos to Sky News if he wasn't paid for them?

However, if you read the report from Sky News regarding these photos it becomes clear who else could leaked these photos and paid for them because they haven't yet got the official crime scene photos (as they claimed).

It is striking that this report contains many details that are in the interest of OP’s DT - and that could be the reason why it's so unclear where exactly the bloodied sofa was located. It isn't in the interest of OP's DT that the public know about this.

* These photos (and the report) are leaked 4 days before the court hearing

* The report includes the allegation that police officers involved in the investigation stolen one of OP's watches from his house. “Two different sources have told Sky News that“…. Let me guess which sources this could be

There were only photos "leaked" which can reflect the version of the defense, and the whole report highlights this:

The images show a panel missing from the toilet door - and two police markers below the handle which indicate bullet holes - low down.
It is likely the defence will argue this backs up the runner's claims that he was on his stumps and shooting - from low down - at what he thought was an intruder.
The pictures inside the house show a trail of blood from the bathroom as the paralympian carried Ms Steenkamp downstairs after shouting for help, with flecks of blood on the wall, on the sofa downstairs and on the landing.

* There is also an image of the gift that Reeva had wrapped up ready to give OP. Why should a police officer, who wanted to make money with these photos, leak this photo, too?

* It is claimed "other photographs show footprints in blood" and it's supposed to suggest these are Botha's footprints. Sorry, but I can't really see footprints in the blood and IMO Botha - a 24-year police veteran - wouldn't be so stupid as to toddle in the middle of crime scene bloodstains.

* And the last sentence in this report clearly shows what it is all about:

To get a mistrial by reason of

- botched investigations by the police

- Investigators who admitted that information on unofficial channels were published

- all this scattering of “evidence”

- uninformed stories were published or broadcast

- constant speculation by media with various opinions of what happened in the house that night, each with a different twist and with widespread perceptions of guilt or innocence before any trial date was set.

I could be wrong, but I think I'm right

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Today, 06:14 PM
Pisto_lius

I have been thinking anew about the Sky News report with the "leaked" crime scene photos
It is claimed these photos were leaked to Sky News by police officers involved in the investigation to make money.



Right. Prob was serviced by the DT to be published along with OP's version of events to effect the public opinion , just like Reeva's suddenly emerging half naked photos on the date of the trail or so , sort of to disgrace her..
I also think that DT were also involved in Botha's being taken away from the case.. BTW speaking of Botha, maybe he was the one who stole OP's precious watch..wasn't he the scapegoat ??

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I wonder whether OP reads WS lease: if could find the time of course other than reading the Bible ?

 

[Pisto_lius]

Today, 06:14 PM
Pisto_lius

I have been thinking anew about the Sky News report with the "leaked" crime scene photos
It is claimed these photos were leaked to Sky News by police officers involved in the investigation to make money.

Right. Prob was serviced by the DT to be published along with OP's version of events to effect the public opinion , just like Reeva's suddenly emerging half naked photos on the date of the trail or so , sort of to disgrace her..
I also think that DT were also involved in Botha's being taken away from the case.. BTW speaking of Botha, maybe he was the one who stole OP's precious watch..wasn't he the scapegoat ??

Exactly! The "bombshell" of the semi-naket photos of Reeva. The release of them came on the same day that OP's trial has been postponed until 19 August and just a day after Reeva's mother June revealed in a new documentary that her late daughter fought with Oscar "a lot".

And Garreth Barclay, the photographer, said in an interview:

The photo of Reeva on the bed, never published, is one of a handful of photos as a tribute in a book he would compile it to Steenkamp's parents.

Whether Reeva's parents have ever received this tribute book from him?

Well, it seems, he sold the photos at precisely the right time - to whom, probably? - because in a tribute book for Reeva's parents they don't bring money.

But determined it was also Botha, the scapegoat, who paid for these photos

I wonder whether OP reads WS lease: if could find the time of course other than reading the Bible ?

Let him read! :great: But I guess he wouldn't be very amused about what he is reading :floorlaugh:

But he probably will not have time for reading WS for if he not reads the Bible he cries quite terrible because - as we know and, of course, believe - he's in so deep grief.:innocent:

 

[Estelle]

Today, 06:14 PM
Pisto_lius

I have been thinking anew about the Sky News report with the "leaked" crime scene photos
It is claimed these photos were leaked to Sky News by police officers involved in the investigation to make money.



Right. Prob was serviced by the DT to be published along with OP's version of events to effect the public opinion , just like Reeva's suddenly emerging half naked photos on the date of the trail or so , sort of to disgrace her..
I also think that DT were also involved in Botha's being taken away from the case.. BTW speaking of Botha, maybe he was the one who stole OP's precious watch..wasn't he the scapegoat ??

How can we know that this watch was actually stolen? IMO it could just another ploy to discredit the police.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Do you know this video inside this link?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/2...eaten-with-a-cricket-bat-before-she-was-shot/

It's interesting how Fox News legal consultant Lis Wiehl stutters while trying to sell the theory that Reeva's blood magically squirted in the cricket bat while Pistorius was breaking the bathroom door.

 

[Estelle]

I understand that the Steenkamps are poor people. I get that they looked to their beautiful daughter to help them with the bills.

But if that was my daughter, I would not want a penny from Oscar Pistorius.

In fact, I believe I would rather starve in the street than take a penny from the man who – *accidentally or otherwise – took my daughter’s life.

The Steenkamps should not be seeking compensation for their daughter. They should only be seeking justice

.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/tony-parsons-oscar-pistorius-reeva-2030403#ixzz2Z79gTGGh

 

[Pisto_lius]

.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/tony-parsons-oscar-pistorius-reeva-2030403#ixzz2Z79gTGGh

I read this comment days before and was speechless about as much feeling cold of this columnist.

What a stupid guy he seems to be if he don't understand that a civil lawsuit IS seeking for justice. It is the RIGHT of any surviving dependants to get compensation of the killer of their dearest and I really hope they will sue him !

They are not to blame. Reeva and her parents, relatives and friends are the victims - NOT OP this unprincipled liar and his arrogant family. :banghead:

 

[Estelle]

I read this comment days before and was speechless about as much feeling cold of this columnist.

What a stupid guy he seems to be if he don't understand that a civil lawsuit IS seeking for justice. It is the RIGHT of any surviving dependants to get compensation of the killer of their dearest and I really hope they will sue him !

They are not to blame. Reeva and her parents, relatives and friends are the victims - NOT OP this unprincipled liar and his arrogant family. :banghead:

I was outraged when I read it. It makes me feel that I want to put Tony Parsons in that same situation if he had a child subjected to what Reeva was. He obviously has no empathy but could have been paid by OP's team to write that article. In case, OP is incarcerated, the time is now to seek financial compensation in a civil court where the bonus of proof is not as crucial and when he has time to sell off one of his many assets in order to pay them.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Do you know this video inside this link?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/2...eaten-with-a-cricket-bat-before-she-was-shot/

It's interesting how Fox News legal consultant Lis Wiehl stutters while trying to sell the theory that Reeva's blood magically squirted in the cricket bat while Pistorius was breaking the bathroom door.

I wonder ... was the shot to the head intentional in order to disguise a prior beating with a cricket bat? Perhaps she ran to the toilet with a head injury and was shot through the door BUT, once the door was open, could there have been an intentional shot to the head in an attempt to destroy evidence?

 

[whiterum]

.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/tony-parsons-oscar-pistorius-reeva-2030403#ixzz2Z79gTGGh

Can't believe this guy, painting the Steenkamps as if they were standing with a begging bowl waiting for their daughters killer to drop something in it. What a statement 'If it were his daughter he wouldn't take a penny'. The Steenkamps are not looking for him to drop something their way from his overflowing pocket, its a completely different story altogether. They will certainly not be accepting some hand-out as he is implying they will be suing him and rightly so, for violently taking away their beloved daughters life. And this Parsons guy can be sure by the time it's all over it will be much more than a penny he will have to cough up, he will be lucky to have a penny left in his pocket. Not that he will be needing much when he's sweating it out in the slammer.

 

[Pisto_lius]

I wonder ... was the shot to the head intentional in order to disguise a prior beating with a cricket bat? Perhaps she ran to the toilet with a head injury and was shot through the door BUT, once the door was open, could there have been an intentional shot to the head in an attempt to destroy evidence?

I also believe this could be what happened.

Reeva ran to the toilet with a head injury caused by a beat with the cricket bat outside the toilet. And then OP shot her intentional in the head - maybe once the door was open or through the broken door panel - so he could claim her head shot was caused by the shots he fired through the door. Perhaps he hoped this gunshot wound would cover up the head injury caused by the cricket bat.

But if not, they will be saying later this injury must have been caused when he smashed the toilet door with the cricket bat, not knowing in doing so he also hit Reeva.


But let me note something else about the cricket bat:

Until now it's only a rumor that Reeva's skull was crushed by the cricket bat. But this rumor has persisted since 15 Feb up today even if OP's DT deny it.

For me there are several reasons why I believe that it's true:

1. Reeva's parents denied very fast the rumor Reeva was pregnant. But they never denied the rumor of her crushed skull. Even more: it's said that police told Steenkamp's family that OP used that cricket bat to crush her skull before killing her with a fatal gun shot. And relatives who saw her body prior to the cremation (allegedly) described horrific injuries on her body consistent with being hit with a bat.

Police never delivered an opinion on this rumor as on other (e.g. the leaked crime scene photos).


2. It was said there were three entry wounds (without exit wound) - these usually bleed only slightly because there is only a small bullet hole with relatively little leakage of blood in contrast to penetrating gunshot wounds.

But in the crime scene photos of the toilet there is a lot of blood (left side beside the toilet bowl on the floor and on the toilet seat). To me, too much for only gunshot wounds.


3. A photo of the bloody cricket bat would be at least as interesting as the photo of the toilet door. Therefore I'm very sure - whoever made the crime scene photos has also made a photo of the cricket bat.

So, why they showed us this in principle completely uninteresting photo with Reeva's valentine gift but not a photo of the bloody cricket bat this is interesting for the public much more?

IMO, the answer is very simple: there WAS a photo of the bloody cricket bat, taken by the guy who sold them all to OP's DT. But they only leaked those photos to Sky News that reflect their version. And a photo of the bloody cricket bat of course wasn't in their interest.


I'm really curious if we will ever learn the results of the autopsy report. Nearly everyday I trawl the internet whether it is leaked, too but found nothing as yet

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Pisto_lius

I also believe this could be what happened.

Reeva ran to the toilet with a head injury caused by a beat with the cricket bat outside the toilet. And then OP shot her intentional in the head - maybe once the door was open or through the broken door panel - so he could claim her head shot was caused by the shots he fired through the door. Perhaps he hoped this gunshot wound would cover up the head injury caused by the cricket bat.


Exactly.. this could be what happened..

And also Reeva's phone on the mat supports this theory too implying she was attacked in the bathroom before she got/taken in the toilet ..She had taken her phone with her running to the toilet not for nothing and seems was stopped violently preventing her making that call..