General Discussion Thread #4

[Deleted member 102539]

What do you mean by "unencrypted data"? Wouldn't all of it have been encrypted?

Yes, you are right. I know what I meant but got the wrong word. :smile:

Maybe they should put OP under hypnosis to recall the password??? :floorlaugh: [/quote]

That wouldn't be so stupid but probably not allowed. :smile:

 

[whiterum]

Do you think on 19 August the judge will set a date for when the trial begins?

I think that it's the prosecution who should be calling the shots. They should not be rushed until they have all the necessary evidence they can gather including the records of all OP's phones and any others who could possibly shed some light on his calls/ texts sent or received that night. I agree with Estelle that a trial this year will be far to early in comparison with the majority of murder trials. In the end it is not the prosecution but OP himself who IMO is deliberately holding things up by withholding vital evidence. So the prosecution should take their time and be ready when they are fully prepared and not before.

 

[whiterum]

Yes, you are right. I know what I meant but got the wrong word. :smile:

Maybe they should put OP under hypnosis to recall the password??? :floorlaugh:

That wouldn't be so stupid but probably not allowed. :smile:[/QUOTE]

If as he says he has genuinely forgotten it, then why not volunteer to be hypnotised to see if it works. If all else fails, they could try the thumb screws, no need for Interpol, it would be blurted out in a few seconds LOL.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Re Hacking I-Phones - this is current information and is interesting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...-apparently-be-hacked-with-malicious-charger/

 

[Pisto_lius]

It is obvious with his forgotten access code excuse, that there has to be something very damning on his phone that could quickly prove his affidavit a concoction of lies.

He gets out on bail with an absolute BS of a tale, now IMO he is deliberately withholding evidence again from the LE, he thinks he can get away with anything.

As, I think it was Shane who posted a while back, that the LE should have checked the phone records of his family members and close friends to see if OP or anyone had contacted any of them in the early hours of the 14th. Also they should have asked to come forward with details anyone who contacted or had been contacted by OP in the hours before ,around the time or after he shot Reeva.

Absolutely no-one will forget their access codes, especially someone in OP's position, since it would be important for him to keep in regular contact with his promoters, trainers etc.

If he had nothing to hide, then handing over all phones right away to the LE with all access codes would be the immediate act of a innocent person. Failing to do so IMO is another big pointer towards guilt but I believe the phones contents whilst very important to the case against him, will not be the be all and end all.

IMO the LE forensics experts will also have found other condemning evidence that will prove his affidavit a pack of lies.

I agree with you - without the market text

The LE can't check the phone records of his family members and close friends because these people are not accused.

All the LE can do is to ask them if and/or what time OP contacted them in the early hours of the 14th. And, of course, the LE can call them to the stand where they have to testify under oath.

But what would happen then?

Be sure - Family members and friends would tell they can't remember the time they contacted or had been contacted by OP because they all deleted those phone calls. They could even say it wasn't OP who contacted them, but any other person - e.g. Stander or one of the other neighbours who was at the scene - no one could prove this

To say: "Sorry, can't remember" is one of the best and most simply way for witnesses to withheld the truth and they can't be blamed for this.

So, there is no chance for prosecutors to prove the incoming and/or outgoing phone calls if OP insists that he forgot the access code and if forensics experts aren't able to unencrypt the data.


But prosecutors have the affidavits of OP's friends in which two of them stated they phoned with OP

- at 6.30 p.m. (13. Feb.) OP phoned with Alexandros Pilakoutos

- at 8.10 p.m. (13. Feb.) OP and Graham Binge exchanged various messages on the cell phone

- at 8.25 p.m. (13. Feb.) OP phoned Graham Binge and they spoke untill 8.45 p.m.

But OP didn't mentioned this phone calls in his own affidavit. He only claimed he and Reeva have had a quiet dinner together at home and by about 10.00 p.m. they were in the bedroom.

I know, this doesn't help for his calls/ texts sent or received later that night , but it's one more point that shows OP wasn't honest in his affidavit.

And along with the "forgotten" access codes, the withheld 5. cell phone and many other points it shows OP has a lot to hide what are big pointer towards guilt - as you also said

 

[Pisto_lius]

I think that it's the prosecution who should be calling the shots. They should not be rushed until they have all the necessary evidence they can gather including the records of all OP's phones and any others who could possibly shed some light on his calls/ texts sent or received that night. I agree with Estelle that a trial this year will be far to early in comparison with the majority of murder trials. In the end it is not the prosecution but OP himself who IMO is deliberately holding things up by withholding vital evidence. So the prosecution should take their time and be ready when they are fully prepared and not before.

Perhaps my question was a bit ambiguous - excuse me

It's also my opinion that the trial shouldn't start before prosecutors have all the necessary evidence because it's important for their accusation they are fully prepared.

But there is one point that worries me - section 35, 3d of South African Bill of Rights says:

Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay.

http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#35

I agree with you - it's OP who is deliberately holding things up by withholding vital evidence, but regarding section 35, 3j he can not be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.

So, what is if the defence refers to the fact that

- in March state prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court that he plans to serve OP with an indictment on June 4.

- on June 4. the National Prosecuting Authority said it expected to prepare an indictment for his next appearance (19. August)

- but on 19. August prosecutors still not be able to serve OP with an indictment because they still haven't all the necessary evidence?

I'm afraid the defence could claim prosecutors delay the beginning of the trial unreasonable, and they could bring forward a motion that the judge should set a date for the trial begin.

That would be a great disadvantage for the prosecution, but an advantage for the defence, who have been working since the beginning to shake the burden of proof for the prosecution.

So, let us hope this time the judge will give prosecutors the time they need so that the indictment and evidence be on sure ground - no matter how long it takes.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Re Hacking I-Phones - this is current information and is interesting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...-apparently-be-hacked-with-malicious-charger/

Maybe we should send this information to the prosecutor? :floorlaugh:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If as he says he has genuinely forgotten it, then why not volunteer to be hypnotised to see if it works. If all else fails, they could try the thumb screws, no need for Interpol, it would be blurted out in a few seconds LOL.

"Thumb screws" - I like that, OP deserves it. He should finally tell the truth!



-Justice for Reeva-

 

[Deleted member 102539]

So, let us hope this time the judge will give prosecutors the time they need so that the indictment and evidence be on sure ground - no matter how long it takes.

Yes, absolutely!!



-Justice for Reeva-

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...cious-charger/

"The researchers plan to present the Mactrans at the upcoming Black Hat security conference in July."

Maybe we should send this information to the prosecutor? :floorlaugh:

July - could work. Or not. hoh:

 

[whiterum]

Perhaps my question was a bit ambiguous - excuse me

It's also my opinion that the trial shouldn't start before prosecutors have all the necessary evidence because it's important for their accusation they are fully prepared.

But there is one point that worries me - section 35, 3d of South African Bill of Rights says:



I agree with you - it's OP who is deliberately holding things up by withholding vital evidence, but regarding section 35, 3j he can not be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.

So, what is if the defence refers to the fact that

- in March state prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court that he plans to serve OP with an indictment on June 4.

- on June 4. the National Prosecuting Authority said it expected to prepare an indictment for his next appearance (19. August)

- but on 19. August prosecutors still not be able to serve OP with an indictment because they still haven't all the necessary evidence?

I'm afraid the defence could claim prosecutors delay the beginning of the trial unreasonable, and they could bring forward a motion that the judge should set a date for the trial begin.

That would be a great disadvantage for the prosecution, but an advantage for the defence, who have been working since the beginning to shake the burden of proof for the prosecution.

So, let us hope this time the judge will give prosecutors the time they need so that the indictment and evidence be on sure ground - no matter how long it takes.

I understand what you are saying about SA law, and that his defence will try and get some leverage from any delays.

I would think that since he is not being detained, has no restrictions and as reported, can go out spending his cash on luxury cars and clubbing, a few more months delay in his trial will not affect his so called civil rights to any degree whatsoever, other than the expense of retaining high priced defence lawyers.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I understand what you are saying about SA law, and that his defence will try and get some leverage from any delays.

I would think that since he is not being detained, has no restrictions and as reported, can go out spending his cash on luxury cars and clubbing, a few more months delay in his trial will not affect his so called civil rights to any degree whatsoever, other than the expense of retaining high priced defence lawyers.

I guess he prefers to get rid of this this trouble (!) asap , so as to go on his life as if nothing had happened... Seems he already does so anyway..

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

That too big and regular missing block of door irritates me a lot..

After hitting and bashing I would assume an irregular breaking into pieces but that panel/s happened to break down as a whole big block miraculously helping OP - again- just leaning and getting the key .So even if that panel wasnt broken itself , OP would again go on bashing and make a big hole to lean thru it to get the key which was on the floor ready to be picked up

From the affidavit...

I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door.

We so far can see two of the bullet holes on the door. The distance between them and one of them being left down and the other righter up
suggests me those may be to the hip and the elbow ..What about the other bullet holes? i.e. the one to the head ? or maybe it doesn't exist on the door at all which I exactly believe.

So big absent piece of door- nonexistence of fatal shot hole on the door (I suggest) - key on the floor...all connected imo.

If the key was on the lock , a small breaking near the door handle would be sufficient and he would get the key .. But OP wanted to crash the door so big to hide evidence IMO .. and thats why that key on the floor was put there..For his leaning and squeezing inside the door there has to be a big hole...All those efforts are to hide the nonexistence of the shot to the head thru the door...Yepp No such shot at all..He tried to crash that part into pieces and we may hear that bullet hole was unfortunately on the breaking panel and disappeared while bashing.

Just my opinions..

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I also believe that OP wanted to cover up a lot. But I wonder all the time: how the hell has all come so quickly to his mind?? He had only minutes to decide everything. Is he a genius?









-Justice for Reeva-

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I'm brainstorming all the day wether OP case or Millard or Gleave.

Now OP and his affidavit:
"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise ....................
Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
......................... "
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit
Now MOO:
During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, OP had an terrible argument with Reeva and he knew the neighbours would hear everything so as wild hunts, screams and shots. Therefore OP had immediately to close the sliding doors. He didn't have his prosthetic legs on because the neighbours could eventually see him and later testify wether on stumbles or not.
The fan OP brought in to only cover the doors closing. Then he put his prosthetic legs on.

All MOO as written above.
:moo:

 

[whiterum]

I also believe that OP wanted to cover up a lot. But I wonder all the time: how the hell has all come so quickly to his mind?? He had only minutes to decide everything. Is he a genius?
-Justice for Reeva-

IMO certainly not a genius lol. It would not take a genius to try mess up a crime scene to save his own skin, then concoct a story later to suit with expert help. What else could he come up with, his GF is lying shot to death in his home , an intruder excuse was his only option but he failed to elaborate on those few words ' I thought it was an intruder' as Botha testified at the BH.

IMO his affidavit is an implausible story taking a while to put together after the killing. Apparently he did not sign his affidavit until 07:30 am on the 19th of February 2013. There was ample time to build a story around his original 'intruder in his toilet' concoction, IMO with the help of his hired experts familiar with the crime scene before it was presented and signed by him.

His affidavit is no more than a basic outline, he elaborates on nothing, leaves a lot hanging so that he is not tied to one but leaves a number of avenues open, written in such a way so he will have options, as and when pros evidence surfaces. Whereas an innocent person will tell the whole story and hand over all he can from the beginning because he has nothing to gain by holding back anything, as the truth will support his innocence.

IMO his affidavit is a story written down on paper, to try explain away the basic findings of his DT's investigation of the crime scene. As Nel said it has not been tested in a court of law and forensic tests etc had not been completed to refute it at the BH. So his affidavit may not hold water in light of the pros forensic team's results and any outside evidence, witnesses etc, who hopefully have not been scared off by the early accusations of the DT and OP's subsequent freedom to visit whoever, wherever and whenever he chooses.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I need help:

Why appears "Remove your thanks", what have I to do (or not to do)?

 

[Brassband]

I need help:

Why appears "Remove your thanks", what have I to do (or not to do)?

You must have "thanked" someone on a post. (Clicked the thumbs up button)
The "Remove your thanks" link is there in case you've changed your mind or accidentally thanked them. Clicking the Remove your thanks will undo the thumbs up and remove your name from "The Following User Says Thank You to (Poster) For This Useful Post".

 

[Deleted member 102539]

You must have "thanked" someone on a post. (Clicked the thumbs up button)
The "Remove your thanks" link ...................................

Thank you very much!
I am using the "Thanks" button since longer time, but I was of the opinion, that sometimes the text "Remove your thanks" doesn't appear. Now I do know it better.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

IMO certainly not a genius lol. It would not take a genius to try mess up a crime scene to save his own skin, then concoct a story later to suit with expert help. What else could he come up with, his GF is lying shot to death in his home , an intruder excuse was his only option but he failed to elaborate on those few words ' I thought it was an intruder' as Botha testified at the BH.

IMO his affidavit is an implausible story ..........................
............................. wherever and whenever he chooses.

I finally realize: I'm too naive.

(... and now please do not all users press the thumbs up button! I'm learning.) :blushing: