General Discussion Thread #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reminder, please provide a link if your posting as fact, otherwise state that it is your opinion.
 
Murphys_Law said:
I appreciate your efforts Shane, but if you could provide a link or two to substantiate your claim that DF was present in the car while OP was driving at high speeds with RS all would benefit.

Re the BIB: what an odd deduction. Nevertheless, if you extend your research/analysis into the Twittisphere , IMO you will find there was some degree of camaraderie with ST, DF and OP during the pre Reeva/relevant periods.
Click to expand...

Murphy:
The 2nd item you emboldened was facetious.

I will look and see what i can dig up. One problem is that some things are in videos and that makes it harder to get back hold of. Like when it was revealed that the Joburg restaurant gun belonged to DF.

Maybe you can find an original piece only about the sunroof that says there was a 3rd person who was DF. Because as I pointed out, these summaries the last couple of weeks are often poorly done. And this sunroof news is much more recent.

RE twittersphere: I do not know if this is allowed here as a legitmate source? It's like when some add the comments to a MSM piece--those comments could be from anyone claiming anything, and are not really part of the article per se. Could not someone on twitter post something not on the up and up? Claiming to be or know something or someone that is not true. But I will take your word about the acquaintnaces that you said you verified. I know they all ended up knowing each other. The question is just at what PIT in relation to the speeding incident, which I think occurred reatively early in the RS/OP relationship. But the actual date for that incident is or was also hard to find.
 
One last information for your ongoing discussions ;)


If you have read the indictment thoroughly, it also contains the time of death of RS:

The deceased [.....] was shot and killed in the home of the accused just after 03:00 a.m. on 14 February 2013.

The deceased had locked herself into the toilet cubicle [.....]. The accused armed himself with his 9mm pistol and through the locked door, fired for shots at the deceased. The deceased was wounded and died on the scene. [A/N: "the scene" was the toilet where the shots were fired just after 03:00 a.m. !]
Click to expand...



The leave-taking is not easy :D
.
.
 
I am trying to reply to Pisto's post #1463. But it appears not done properly. He had a quote in there that has the source removed. So that when I try to have that included it does not show up.

So I have no choice but to copy it:


____________________________
"The deceased [.....] was shot and killed in the home of the accused just after 03:00 a.m. on 14 February 2013.

The deceased had locked herself into the toilet cubicle [.....]. The accused armed himself with his 9mm pistol and through the locked door, fired for shots at the deceased. The deceased was wounded and died on the scene. [A/N: "the scene" was the toilet where the shots were fired just after 03:00 a.m. !]"
________________________________





BIB: Please, I don’t understand.
Why is this being applauded, when it goes against everything else published? And discussed here by many of us for months.

We had Dr. Perumal, Oscar’s DT’s pathologist say on the BBC3 doc that Reeva died on the stairway on route to the bottom of the stairway—where she was declared dead later by paramedics. Around the 4 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q


We’ve had numerous reports that Reeva was still breathing when first neighbors and estate security got there while Oscar was carrying her down the stairs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-downstairs-and-tried-to-resuscitate-her.html


“On scene” merely means in the house. If someone is claiming she died in the toilet, that is new and different from everything else and we all need a link. Thank you.
 
shane13 said:
I am trying to reply to Pisto's post #1463. But it appears not done properly. He had a quote in there that has the source removed. So that when I try to have that included it does not show up.

So I have no choice but to copy it:


____________________________
"The deceased [.....] was shot and killed in the home of the accused just after 03:00 a.m. on 14 February 2013.

The deceased had locked herself into the toilet cubicle [.....]. The accused armed himself with his 9mm pistol and through the locked door, fired for shots at the deceased. The deceased was wounded and died on the scene. [A/N: "the scene" was the toilet where the shots were fired just after 03:00 a.m. !]"
________________________________





BIB: Please, I don’t understand.
Why is this being applauded, when it goes against everything else published? And discussed here by many of us for months.

We had Dr. Perumal, Oscar’s DT’s pathologist say on the BBC3 doc that Reeva died on the stairway on route to the bottom of the stairway—where she was declared dead later by paramedics. Around the 4 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q


We’ve had numerous reports that Reeva was still breathing when first neighbors and estate security got there while Oscar was carrying her down the stairs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-downstairs-and-tried-to-resuscitate-her.html


“On scene” merely means in the house. If someone is claiming she died in the toilet, that is new and different from everything else and we all need a link. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I think exactly when and where Reeva actually died is still a matter of contention. IMO OP wanted everyone to believe that she died in his arms as he carried her down the stairs. Who can prove this other than OP's claims?
 
Murder-accused Paralympian Oscar Pistorius must be punished with the toughest sentence, South Africa's Minister for Women, Children and People with Disabilities Lulu Xingwana said.

"We are saying to the courts: we want to see the toughest sentences and we also want to make sure that the accused does not run away, that they finally face justice," Xingwana said Monday as Pistorius re-appeared at the Pretoria Magistrate's Court to hear murder charges against him. Xingwana was at the court, saying she was there to represent the Steenkamp family.
Click to expand...

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/...r-wants-toughest-sentence-for-oscar-pistorius

Lulama Xingwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Estelle said:
I think exactly when and where Reeva actually died is still a matter of contention. IMO OP wanted everyone to believe that she died in his arms as he carried her down the stairs. Who can prove this other than OP's claims?
Click to expand...

What I understood from the indictment is that she died in the toilet because of her head wounds as per the ballistic report and the autopsy the police had mentioned to be completed and so OP acted as if she was breathing and thats what I thought happened .

Anyway I feel so sad for how cheap the human life is in SA and in many parts of the world and this murderer being free under bail makes me think he will be found unguilty in the end .He is not jailed till now not because of his disability but because he is rich and powerful.
Money talks in SA and justice is of sale
NOt surprises me if the Bail Hearing date on Reevas funeral and
Next court day on Reevas birthday were fixed and dictated by the Defence for the family not to attend to the court.
I also really go mad thinking abt those negotiations on the level of USD300.000 which is ridiculous but seems lawyers try to hold it in the minimum as there are probably a lot of parties there volunteer to get a bigger slice from the cake including the lawyers themselves.
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
What I understood from the indictment is that she died in the toilet because of her head wounds as per the ballistic report and the autopsy the police had mentioned to be completed and so OP acted as if she was breathing and thats what I thought happened .

Anyway I feel so sad for how cheap the human life is in SA and in many parts of the world and this murderer being free under bail makes me think he will be found unguilty in the end .He is not jailed till now not because of his disability but because he is rich and powerful.
Money talks in SA and justice is of sale
NOt surprises me if the Bail Hearing date on Reevas funeral and
Next court day on Reevas birthday were fixed and dictated by the Defence for the family not to attend to the court.
I also really go mad thinking abt those negotiations on the level of USD300.000 which is ridiculous but seems lawyers try to hold it in the minimum as there are probably a lot of parties there volunteer to get a bigger slice from the cake including the lawyers themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree with your thoughts here too. IMO OP was slow to phone authorities making sure she was dead first. He then decided to behave like a hero as he had to justify moving her claiming she was still alive and she died in his arms - an excuse to contaminate the scene of the crime. RS should have been left where she was.

Yes you made two good points there - bail hearing on RS funeral date and indictment on her birthday.

There have been so many cases where OP acted violently and recklessly when he should have at least been fined, if not jailed, but he has got off mainly because he countersued.

Yes. Reeva's parents deserve more than USD$300,000 and would be better off waiting until the end of the trial but they are probably desperate for money now.
 
The noise that OP heard

I have often wondered what "noise" OP could have heard that immediately instilled him with terror..consider Reeva using the toilet..that "noise" IMO is an easily identifiable noise..ie..someone using the toilet..another "noise" might be her locking the door (?)as she entered the toilet..again..hardly the "noise" of an intruder..maybe Reeva opened the window..not likely IMO ..but still, a noise easily identified..did she turn on the taps to wash her hands..ie the "noise" of running water..I just can't think of any "noise" Reeva may have made whilst using the toilet that would cause him to react the way he did.

I wonder if the Prosecution will ask OP to describe the noise he heard....? and why it instilled him with such terror.
 
At first some information for a better understanding:

Death scene: The death scene is the location where a person died or where the chain of events began that culminated in death.

Altered scene: An altered scene is a death scene in which the body has been moved, the microenvironment has been changed, or materials have been displaced or deposited before the arrival of the investigator.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680358-overview
Click to expand...

Types of crime scenes

(a) Primary Crime Scene
In order to establish and reconstruct what occurred during the commission of the crime each officer has to reconstruct the area where the primary crime scene is located. For the most part the primary crime scene is the location in which the crime occurred. It is also the location in which the body may be located when a murder has taken place.

(b) Secondary Crime Scene
The secondary crime scene is all of the surrounding area outside of the primary crime scene. This officer examines and collects evidence that related to the scene of the crime.

If the crime took place in the bedroom of a home the secondary crime scene would be all of the other rooms of the home as well as the entry and exit areas in which the suspect may have left fingerprints or footprints evidence.

http://www.cbdiai.org/Articles/simlot_chris_fall-02.pdf
Click to expand...

----------

* OP, Perumal, OP's lawyers and friends claimed that Reeva died on the stairway - and media reported what all these persons claimed.

* There were also only claims that Reeva was still breathing when first neighbors and estate security got there.

* OP claimed (to the paramedic) that Reeva had stopped breathing three minutes before the ambulance arrived.

The medic said they immediately got to work on an already pale Steenkamp, who wasn’t breathing.

“When we attached the ECG (electro-cardiogram) monitor there was no sign of life, her heart had already stopped beating.”

The medic said Pistorius told them Steenkamp had stopped breathing three minutes before the ambulance arrived.

The wounds were fatal, and there was nothing they could do for the model. She was declared dead at the scene.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...of-blood-up-the-stairs-1.1471721#.UiHsr9K-2Sq
Click to expand...


The indictment provides the evidence that all these claims were unproved because the indictment is based on the autopsy report.


1. The cause of death is given in the post-mortem report as "multiple gunshot wounds"

2. The deceased was wounded and died on the scene
[Look at the above explanation = Death Scene]

3. The deceased was shot and killed in the home of the accused just after 03:00 a.m. on 14 February 2013.

Points 2 + 3 are also a result of the post-mortem report where those facts are determined.


And that's in fact is new and different from everything else that was reported, that we heard and/or discussed :)

It astonishes me that ironically the person who always points out we should not get married to what media or other unconfirmed sources reports, suddenly invokes on unproved reports and/or claims and doubts an official document.
.
.
 
Please do not leave us, Pisto, where would we be without you!
 
Estelle said:
I think exactly when and where Reeva actually died is still a matter of contention. BIB 1 - IMO OP wanted everyone to believe that she died in his arms as he carried her down the stairs. BIB 2 - Who can prove this other than OP's claims?
Click to expand...

BIB 1 - I totally agree with you!

BIB 2 - The post-mortem report! Because this report tells the truth.
OP can say/claim a lot if the day is long (an old German proverb) :D


MURDERER_SERVANT said:
What I understood from the indictment is that she died in the toilet because of her head wounds as per the ballistic report and the autopsy the police had mentioned to be completed and so OP acted as if she was breathing and thats what I thought happened.
Click to expand...

BIB - Exactly! :)
.
.
 
Estelle said:
I will miss your posts too.

I think we have covered most things now so I will be looking forward to March 2014 but we must keep our eyes on the news in case something new crops up.

Goodbye from me too.

:seeya:
Click to expand...

This is also a great pity, Estelle! You have also informed us well! :smile:
 
Pistolius, I like many others greatly appreciate your posts on this board and as such will miss your presence. *However, on the particular issue of interpreting *the indictment's phrase "on the scene" to mean specifically in the toilette room, I disagree strongly. The phrase "on the scene" is used twice (BIB1, BIB2) on page 3 of the indictment. *

From page 3 of the indictment.....

THE STATE versus OSCAR LEONARD CARL PISTORIUS
SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIAL FACTS IN TERMS OF SECTION l44(3)(a) OF ACT 52 OF 1977

1. The accused was involved in a relationship with the deceased. The deceased
chose to spend the night with the accused at his private residence. They were the*only occupants of that residence at the time.

2. The deceased, a 29 year-old woman, was shot and killed in the home of the
accused just after 03:00am on 14 February 2013.

3. The deceased had locked herself into the toilet cubicle, situated adjacent to the main bedroom. The accused armed himself with his 9mm pistol and through the locked door, fired four shots at the deceased. The deceased was wounded and died on the scene. The cause of death is given in the postmortem report as

"MULTlPLE GUNSHOT WOUNDS".

4. Some of the State witnesses heard a woman scream, followed by moments of silence, then heard gunshots and then more screaming.

5. The accused said to witnesses on the scene, that he thought she was an intruder.*Even then, the accused shot with the direct intention to kill a person. An error in persona, will not affect, the intention to kill a human being.

................
If one was to accept the narrow interpretation of the phrase "on the scene" to mean "in the toilette room", then one would also have to accept that OP said to multiple witnesses, while standing in the toilette room, that he thought she was an intruder. Highly improbable for a host of reasons.

My money is with a more generalized interpretation, that is, the scene is simply the house on Bushwillow.
 
Quote excerpted for brevity

Murphys_Law said:
The phrase "on the scene" is used twice (BIB1, BIB2) on page 3 of the indictment.
Click to expand...


That's right but it seems you don't understand that the indictment is used the phrase "on the scene" for two different areas ;)

In general, different areas are called "crime scene" but one distinguishes between

a) the primary "crime scene" - this is where a crime actually occurred.

b) the secondary "crime scene" - this is NOT where the actual crime took place but is in some way related to the crime

In fact, more than one crime scene may exist, depending upon how the crime was committed - not to mention where.

Crime scenes therefore are considered either primary or secondary. The primary crime scene is where a crime actually occurred. A secondary crime scene is in some way related to the crime but is not where the actual crime took place.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/forensics-assessing-the-scene-of-the-crime.html
Click to expand...

----------

The deceased was wounded and died on the scene
Click to expand...

termed the primary "crime scene" = the toilet where the deceased was wounded AND died. It does not say: the deceased was wounded AND declared dead at the scene - this could mean she died later, "anywhere else in the house"

The accused said to witnesses on the scene, that he thought she was an intruder.
Click to expand...

termed the secondary "crime scene" = somewhere in the house (or in the garage or in front of the house) where OP told witnesses what happened.

:D
.
.
 
Pistolious, perhaps you could point us to the precise place in the indictment that explicitly uses the term "primary crime scene" and "secondary crime scene" within the indicment rather than attempting to weave text from Wikipedia into a legal document.
 
Murphys_Law said:
Pistolious, perhaps you could point us to the precise place in the indictment that explicitly uses the term "primary crime scene" and "secondary crime scene" within the indicment rather than attempting to weave text from Wikipedia into a legal document.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I don't use text from Wikipedia as sources but different serious sources about "Forensic Investigations and Crime Scenes"

http://www.cbdiai.org/Articles/simlot_chris_fall-02.pdf

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680358-overview

None indictment differentiates the terms of "crime scene" in their text * like you expect as a "proof". It results from the context.

But I have no wish to argue longer - so, let us finalise this discussion. We will see whether I'm wrong or not ;)

* Addendum: An indictment isn't a dictionary for legal layman.
.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 105 more.
Total: 298 (members: 106, guests: 192)

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
192
Total visitors
298
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,014
Messages
18,248,498
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top