Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[Greater Than]

The show of remorse was for the benefit of Masipa. You will recall, I know, he was so remorseful at what he had done that about 6 weeks after he murdered Reeva he was seen out in Johannesburg chasing girls again.

And had a new girlfriend before the trial for killing his previous one even started.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-trial-accused-murdering-ex-girlfriend.html

 

[mhiforme]

Of course, it was deleted so who's to know other than CP and OP, which is a criminal offence in my eyes.

But everyone can speculate all they like, what difference can it make? CP wouldn't have deleted it if it wasn't important, imo.

1. It it entirely speculation that what was on the phone was related to the crime. It could just as well have been financial information or something personal and entirely unrelated.

2. The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department for failing to secure the crime scene. From the beginning, they have been shown as being incompetent.

 

[mhiforme]

I do appreciate that but my real point is that to remove anything from a crime scene is an offence and yet two members of the family did so and possibly the family lawyer who was at the opening of the safe from which a memory stick was taken. I do not believe that any one of them was naive enough not to know that to do so was an offence, especially the family lawyer. Have you never wondered why it was necessary to bring in a locksmith to open the safe in the early hours of 14th Feb? Nothing should have been touched!

Regardless of what was or was not on the phone it had been wiped and this is tampering with evidence which in itself is a crime. I find it impossible to accept that it was wiped for absolutely no reason at all.

IMO the second source from the NPA may have been excusing the fact that they had decided not to charge CP and to ameliorate the embarrassment which would likely arise, and did. By taking this route, it was imperative that nothing would break the agreement between Roux and Nel which would have caused Botha to give evidence.

Did you notice that the day Carice gave evidence, OP's sister was not in court; the only day she did not attend? One cannot help but think the embarrassment factor was too great to sit and listen to Carice saying that AP took RS's bag.

I really cannot believe that you are unaware it is a crime to remove objects from the scene of a crime but maybe you are able to explain to yourself that these happenings were innocent; something I cannot do. Three items disappeared. There is still the possibility that the watch too may have disappeared at the family's hands to throw suspicion on the police and cause a distraction. Everyone except the family was searched for the missing watch and nothing was found. A little odd methinks.

Apologies for taking so long to respond. Websleuths has been offline for me today until 13.00'ish.

BIB, There is no evidence that the family took the watch so it is just as likely that the police stole it, which wouldn't surprise me considering the low salaries that are earned in SA. In terms of the family not being searched, if that is true, the fault lies with the police department and an internal investigation needs to be done to clean house.

 

[mhiforme]

BIB - and wasn't this done before Reeva's family were even informed of her murder?

It is the job of the police department to notify next of kin, so they failed again.

 

[mhiforme]

i don't care what the stupid watch cost, I can't believe Pistorius or his family were crass enough to voice concern about a watch when Reeva's blood was still smeared all over his house.

It's not a matter about being crass, it's about following the correct process. If there are thieves in the SA police department, it needs to be reported. In addition, this is an expensive watch and it probably also needs to be reported stolen for insurance requirements.

 

[mhiforme]

The show of remorse was for the benefit of Masipa. You will recall, I know, he was so remorseful at what he had done that about 6 weeks after he murdered Reeva he was seen out in Johannesburg chasing girls again.

I don't believe there is any emotion that Oscar could have shown in court that would appease everyone.

In court, he has cried and many have said he's put on the waterworks for the judge.
In court, he's looked down at the book he was reading and some have said he's disinterested.
In court, he's looked at the witness and some have said he is staring down the witness.

There is really nothing he could do that would be right according to some.

 

[Belgarion]

1. It it entirely speculation that what was on the phone was related to the crime. It could just as well have been financial information or something personal and entirely unrelated.

2. The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department for failing to secure the crime scene. From the beginning, they have been shown as being incompetent.

In respect of point 2, I would suggest it is entirely irrelevant how efficient or not the SA police were on that occasion. The onus is for all individuals present not to deliberately thwart whatever controls are put in place and act so as not to disturb a crime scene.

Surely the important point is that persons intent on disturbing or removing any evidence from a crime scene are acting with a malevolent or criminal purpose. On this occasion those persons included Carl Pistorius and his sister Aimee.

 

[LemonMousse]

1. It it entirely speculation that what was on the phone was related to the crime. It could just as well have been financial information or something personal and entirely unrelated.

2. The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department for failing to secure the crime scene. From the beginning, they have been shown as being incompetent.

1) It is equally entirely speculation that the deleted information was not related to the crime, so what exactly is your point? Are you seriously trying to justify the deliberate removal of evidence from a murder scene? Pistorius lied to the police that he didn't remember the pin number, and then it turned out that it had been wiped by his brother. I struggle to see how anybody can possibly look at this with anything less than suspicion.

2) It's the police's fault that a phone they didn't initially know existed was sneaked off the premises and then wiped? Yes, they should have secured the crime scene but interfering with evidence is a criminal act. To try and pretend that Pistorius and his shady brother are blameless is quite extraordinary.

Good grief. And this is "objective reasoning", is it?

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB, There is no evidence that the family took the watch so it is just as likely that the police stole it, which wouldn't surprise me considering the low salaries that are earned in SA. In terms of the family not being searched, if that is true, the fault lies with the police department and an internal investigation needs to be done to clean house.

So....a police officer waited until the watches had been photographed and documented then helped themselves? Most peculiar that they were all searched thoroughly and it wasn't found, huh?

If they didn't have it, and it wasn't in the house then it must have been taken elsewhere. Maybe the phone thief (Carl) or handbag thief (Aimee) took it - this seems much more likely than a police officer.

 

[mhiforme]

In respect of point 2, I would suggest it is entirely irrelevant how efficient or not the SA police were on that occasion. The onus is for all individuals present not to deliberately thwart whatever controls are put in place and act so as not to disturb a crime scene.

Surely the important point is that a person intent on disturbing or removing any evidence from a crime scene is acting with a malevolent or criminal purpose. On this occasion this was Carl Pistorius.

With respect, I do disagree with this because the lay public may not always know what the rules are around a crime scene. While it may seem obvious to some, others may look at it as just removing personal belongings from a house, not knowing its potential relevance to an investigation.

This is why the police need to immediately secure a crime scene and ensure it doesn't get disturbed so that evidence is protected. Failing to do this is a clear failure on the part of the police department because this is something that they train for.

 

[DexterMorgan]

BIB, There is no evidence that the family took the watch so it is just as likely that the police stole it, which wouldn't surprise me considering the low salaries that are earned in SA. In terms of the family not being searched, if that is true, the fault lies with the police department and an internal investigation needs to be done to clean house.

Oscar gave them the watch after it was understood that they would get rid of the handyman who supposedly lived there. Jmo.

 

[mrjitty]

There is of course no evidence any watch was stolen.

This was simply a wild allegation from the defence for which no proof was introduced.

 

[mrjitty]

The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department

So there we have it.

The fault for destroying evidence from a murder crime scene is with the police - not those that tamper with the evidence.

I am glad that got cleared up!

 

[Marfa Lights]

It's not a matter about being crass, it's about following the correct process. If there are thieves in the SA police department, it needs to be reported. In addition, this is an expensive watch and it probably also needs to be reported stolen for insurance requirements.

Ha! I bet Oldwaddage also called Oscar's insurance agent to notify them of not just a theft, but of yet another potential liability problem at Oscar's house.

Yes, quite professional.

Seriously, who would be concerned about a watch (Aimee, will you please go upstairs and get my favorite expensive watch) in a moment like that? Did he think they would let him take it into his holding cell to keep track of the hours?

 

[Marfa Lights]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407

it was almost the template for pistorius to work from, right down to the sliding window noise.
"Mdunge rushed her to hospital immediately after the shooting, but doctors couldn’t save her life."
... imo op was hoping to copy this with reeva.

I kept expecting Nel to ask Oscar if he was familiar with this case...

 

[mrjitty]

There was also that very early version that suggested that Reeva had crept into the house to "surprise" him. That was soon dropped, but it's interesting.

This is one of the most fascinating areas - the use of the media to get a version out

Pioneered so well by the McC@nns

I notice the UK police very tightly control this now.

 

[Marfa Lights]

1. It it entirely speculation that what was on the phone was related to the crime. It could just as well have been financial information or something personal and entirely unrelated.

2. The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department for failing to secure the crime scene. From the beginning, they have been shown as being incompetent.

I suppose you would say that a bank robbery is the fault of the bank for failing to secure their premises and not the bank robber, hence you don't charge the bank robber??

 

[Colin de France]

....whoever removed the phone was told to do so .............

 

[Interested Bystander]

1. It it entirely speculation that what was on the phone was related to the crime. It could just as well have been financial information or something personal and entirely unrelated.

2. The fault for this information being deleted falls fully on the SA police department for failing to secure the crime scene. From the beginning, they have been shown as being incompetent.

Your points are groundless. To remove anything from a crime scene is an offence, regardless of whether the police had arrived or had time to secure the scene.

You seem to be sanctifying illegal behaviour. I ask myself why. Why would you do this?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....whoever removed the phone was told to do so .............

That's the big problem!! OP tells someone to do so - and they do, no matter who, no matter why, no matter if criminal. WTH??

Stander (friend and confidant) had no ambitions to take the dead Reeva in his car to the hospital - an exception and only in this case, I assume. All the other persons did, what OP remanded. Some even confirmed his "despair and brokenness" which he cleverly showed downstairs. Poor people skills or anything for HIS (hero-nice-guy) sake?