Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adelaide said:
I hadn't thought of that! I was just thinking that there is that apparent air rifle shot through the bedroom door and other damage to that door - if that happened on the same morning as he shot Reeva. Maybe she did lock him out of the bedroom and he was separated from his pistol, which he'd said he'd left in the bedroom before going downstairs for dinner. That would mean he had to have had the air rifle downstairs or outside the bedroom, in any case. Sorry if this isn't making sense - I'm very tired.

But, anyway, there can't just be a pellet-sized hole in the bedroom door and no pellet, can there? It would have to lodge somewhere - there'd be evidence of it (unless it happened on an earlier occasion and the place where it lodged has been patched over).

I was going to hold back on my other theory, but now I'm just thinking what the heck, I'll put it out there! I thought Reeva may have thrown the jeans out the bathroom window to try to set off the movement detectors to trigger the alarm.

I just read over my earlier sentences and they're not making a lot of sense, so I think I should just stop now!
Click to expand...

I like your thinking ... don't stop, your ideas are good, keep posting them ... it's refreshing to have some new thinking on here. I think there may have been a panic button in the bedroom but all this supposes that the alarm was ever switched on that night (I'm not convinced it was)
 
Thanks for that - I have no experience with air rifles (or other guns, for that matter), so I had no idea about the noise levels. That's interesting about the silencer too - it all seems a bit sinister to me.
 
Here is a video of several air rifles being shot. The shooter points out that they are being fired from a metal garage through a window and this causes a reverberation. Allowing for that and how near the camera obviously is if the video was filmed in a garage, there doesn't seem to be much more than a "puff" from some and they all looked very powerful models. You can see the testing from about 6 minutes into the video. I am uploading this not to labour my opinion but to give everyone an idea of just how quiet air rifles are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxWCjTq6j3Y
 
Mr Fossil said:
Hi Adelaide and welcome!

BIB1: I think the important bit for me is that if Johnson's call time is wrong (and even he was doubtful about it) then it's quite possible to take the Stipps' testimony at face value (Masipa treats it as unreliable), which means that the first sounds that they hear would come before the shots which kill Reeva. This is also consistent with Christo Menelaou's account (although he wasn't called as a witness). The first sounds don't have to be gunshots but I speculate that may be. Key questions explores this, amongst other things. The air rifle is a possibility (as are many things) but I see OP picking up the gun and brandishing it about, firing it (not to specifically to frighten Reeva but to say he can do as he likes, which of course does frighten Reeva) and the rest follows. I don't see him swapping weapons or even deliberately going to fetch the gun.

If anyone's testimony is likely to be unreliable it is that of Burger and Johnson, purely because of the elapsed time before they make any notes and a statement (6 March). During this time they discuss everything with each other, friends and colleagues, listen to the bail proceedings and read and listen to the media. This potential unreliability is further explored in, for instance, 'One or two sets of helps?' in Key questions.

BIB2: Here's the bit about the lights in cross examination (page 514 in the transcript) and you are correct about OP's reference to first shots (first shooting, to be precise). Well spotted. I've added a reference into Key questions and credited you:

Nel: No. Both said, immediately after the shots, when they looked, the lights were on. Both. Take it from me. Why? They said the lights were on. Even on your version, excepting what they said, the lights were on?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady. I think they did…I think they both did say that, M'Lady.
Nel: So, they must be lying?
OP: They must be, M'Lady. I do not remember the lights being on and I cannot remember when I switched the lights on, as I have said before.
Nel: That is a good answer. ‘I cannot remember the lights being on.’ That is what you said?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
Nel: Is it possible that the lights were on?
OP: No. After the shooting, I do not know when I put the lights on. So they said, immediately after the shooting, we worked through their time frame and remem….if I remember correctly, what Mr Stipp tried to put in as moments, became 10 minutes. That is why I am asking.
Nel: No. You see, this is now the best part of your argument. There is no way, that Mr Stipp’s moments for the lights, became 10 minutes. Why do you say that?
OP: I did not follow that question, I am sorry.
Nel: You said, ‘moments for Mr Stipp became 10 minutes’?
OP: It was Mr Stipp...[intervenes]
Nel: That is what you said?
OP: It was Mr Stipp or Mrs Stipp’s evidence, M'Lady.
Nel: No, it is...[intervenes]
OP: Where time was not a rel…was not of any relevance. It was not...[intervenes]
Nel: No...[intervenes]
OP: There was not a set point. If I remember their evidence, they said they heard, what was put to me on Friday, was that there was shouting between the gunshots, which was on the state’s version. But the cricket bat and the gunshots are different on their versions. When I was hitting the door with the cricket bat, I was crying out. I was screaming. So, I do not say Mr and Mrs Stipp are lying when they said that.
Nel: We dealing with the lights, sir. I know you want to argue and that has been how you have been giving your evidence. They must be lying about the light?
OP: They said they heard…they said they saw the lights on immediately after the shooting, M'Lady.
Nel: Yes?
OP: If that was the first shooting, that is incorrect. [Fossil: interesting expressions used by OP, especially 'first' shooting]
Nel: Then they heard screaming, as far as they were concerned, between the two shots they have heard. Was that also you?
OP: On the state’s evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?
Click to expand...

U&EBM

IMO..the use of the expression -->"First Shooting" is even more problematic for Pistorius. It refers to the ACT of "shooting", it implies there was a "second shooting"...because if the second act was striking the door with a cricket..then he wouldn't refer to the first act as the FIRST shooting?! On the other hand, when they talked about the first shots vs. the second shots they were referring to the sound of shots...and according to the defense the sound of the second set of shots was the cricket strikes..
 
AW2B said:
U&EBM

IMO..the use of the expression -->"First Shooting" is even more problematic for Pistorius. It refers to the ACT of "shooting", it implies there was a "second shooting"...because if the second act was striking the door with a cricket..then he wouldn't refer to the first act as the FIRST shooting?! On the other hand, when they talked about the first shots vs. the second shots they were referring to the sound of shots...and according to the defense the sound of the second set of shots was the cricket strikes..
Click to expand...
Exactly. Earlier in the exchange with Nel you can see that is how he uses the term.
 
Mr Fossil said:
Hi Adelaide and welcome!

BIB1: I think the important bit for me is that if Johnson's call time is wrong (and even he was doubtful about it) then it's quite possible to take the Stipps' testimony at face value (Masipa treats it as unreliable), which means that the first sounds that they hear would come before the shots which kill Reeva. This is also consistent with Christo Menelaou's account (although he wasn't called as a witness). The first sounds don't have to be gunshots but I speculate that may be. Key questions explores this, amongst other things. The air rifle is a possibility (as are many things) but I see OP picking up the gun and brandishing it about, firing it (not to specifically to frighten Reeva but to say he can do as he likes, which of course does frighten Reeva) and the rest follows. I don't see him swapping weapons or even deliberately going to fetch the gun.

If anyone's testimony is likely to be unreliable it is that of Burger and Johnson, purely because of the elapsed time before they make any notes and a statement (6 March). During this time they discuss everything with each other, friends and colleagues, listen to the bail proceedings and read and listen to the media. This potential unreliability is further explored in, for instance, 'One or two sets of helps?' in Key questions.

BIB2: Here's the bit about the lights in cross examination (page 514 in the transcript) and you are correct about OP's reference to first shots (first shooting, to be precise). Well spotted. I've added a reference into Key questions and credited you:

Nel: No. Both said, immediately after the shots, when they looked, the lights were on. Both. Take it from me. Why? They said the lights were on. Even on your version, excepting what they said, the lights were on?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady. I think they did…I think they both did say that, M'Lady.
Nel: So, they must be lying?
OP: They must be, M'Lady. I do not remember the lights being on and I cannot remember when I switched the lights on, as I have said before.
Nel: That is a good answer. ‘I cannot remember the lights being on.’ That is what you said?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
Nel: Is it possible that the lights were on?
OP: No. After the shooting, I do not know when I put the lights on. So they said, immediately after the shooting, we worked through their time frame and remem….if I remember correctly, what Mr Stipp tried to put in as moments, became 10 minutes. That is why I am asking.
Nel: No. You see, this is now the best part of your argument. There is no way, that Mr Stipp’s moments for the lights, became 10 minutes. Why do you say that?
OP: I did not follow that question, I am sorry.
Nel: You said, ‘moments for Mr Stipp became 10 minutes’?
OP: It was Mr Stipp...[intervenes]
Nel: That is what you said?
OP: It was Mr Stipp or Mrs Stipp’s evidence, M'Lady.
Nel: No, it is...[intervenes]
OP: Where time was not a rel…was not of any relevance. It was not...[intervenes]
Nel: No...[intervenes]
OP: There was not a set point. If I remember their evidence, they said they heard, what was put to me on Friday, was that there was shouting between the gunshots, which was on the state’s version. But the cricket bat and the gunshots are different on their versions. When I was hitting the door with the cricket bat, I was crying out. I was screaming. So, I do not say Mr and Mrs Stipp are lying when they said that.
Nel: We dealing with the lights, sir. I know you want to argue and that has been how you have been giving your evidence. They must be lying about the light?
OP: They said they heard…they said they saw the lights on immediately after the shooting, M'Lady.
Nel: Yes?
OP: If that was the first shooting, that is incorrect. [Fossil: interesting expressions used by OP, especially 'first' shooting]
Nel: Then they heard screaming, as far as they were concerned, between the two shots they have heard. Was that also you?
OP: On the state’s evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?
Click to expand...

Very, very interesting Mr Fossil. You may remember I have always felt there was a possibility of two sets of shots and I also think that Stipp would not have made a mistake between shots and batting a door. Stipp is a very level headed guy,if his testimony is anything to go by. I don't feel hitting a softwood door would have created the same sound as shooting a gun. I think we all watched the "doctored" test that Roux was going to use but was it not poor old Wollie who said the sound recordings had been adjusted and did not one of the other witness say they thought they heard 5 or 6 shots. Johnson, I believe (or have I misremembered).

Mr Fossil, SA needed you A LONG TIME AGO.
 
I've got no idea whether an air-rifle shot could be confused with a pistol shot.

No it can't...............totally different.
This has already been discussed................air rifle is ............Air,

Pistol is gunpowder explosion totally the opposite:)
 
Sherbert said:
Welcome, Adelaide, and well spotted!

Now you've got me thinking: If there were two sets of shots, could the first set have been a trapped Reeva firing the airgun out of the window, desperately trying to summon help?
Click to expand...

No way whatsoever................
 
Adelaide said:
I hadn't thought of that! I was just thinking that there is that apparent air rifle shot through the bedroom door and other damage to that door - if that happened on the same morning as he shot Reeva. Maybe she did lock him out of the bedroom and he was separated from his pistol, which he'd said he'd left in the bedroom before going downstairs for dinner. That would mean he had to have had the air rifle downstairs or outside the bedroom, in any case. Sorry if this isn't making sense - I'm very tired.

But, anyway, there can't just be a pellet-sized hole in the bedroom door and no pellet, can there? It would have to lodge somewhere - there'd be evidence of it (unless it happened on an earlier occasion and the place where it lodged has been patched over).

I was going to hold back on my other theory, but now I'm just thinking what the heck, I'll put it out there! I thought Reeva may have thrown the jeans out the bathroom window to try to set off the movement detectors to trigger the alarm.

I just read over my earlier sentences and they're not making a lot of sense, so I think I should just stop now!
Click to expand...

BIB..............
Yes ...earlier occasion definitely.
Why would she think of throwing her jeans out the window to activate the alarm ??
Why would 'you' think she would do that?
The alarm wasn't on that night......how could it be?
 
Regarding the jeans, I have been wondering if there was a chase involving his mobile, (as previously suggested by Mr Fossil), so, as she ran towards the bathroom, Reeva stuffed it into her jeans pocket and threw the jeans out of the window to prevent him snatching it out of her hands.
 
Sherbert said:
Regarding the jeans, I have been wondering if there was a chase involving his mobile, (as previously suggested by Mr Fossil), so, as she ran towards the bathroom, Reeva stuffed it into her jeans pocket and threw the jeans out of the window to prevent him snatching it out of her hands.
Click to expand...
He used the phone to call Stander etc. after shooting Reeva ... so did he in fact run downstairs earlier than he said, in order to go outside to fetch his phone rather than to open the door for Stander? Interesting thought. It could account for the front door being open, no blood that we have heard of on the front door handle and the jeans being slightly to the left of the bathroom window where OP threw them back down as he turned to go back inside. Hmmm.... need to dwell on this. What was Reeva doing carrying the jeans? Why hadn't she put them on? Did she get them out of her overnight bag? What about the other pair on the bedroom floor? Lots to think about ... but the jeans had to get there somehow and, it being an unusual thing to find on the ground outside, it's hard to believe they don't fit in the timeline somewhere.
 
Mr Fossil said:
He used the phone to call Stander etc. after shooting Reeva ... so did he in fact run downstairs earlier than he said, in order to go outside to fetch his phone rather than to open the door for Stander? Interesting thought. It could account for the front door being open, no blood that we have heard of on the front door handle and the jeans being slightly to the left of the bathroom window where OP threw them back down as he turned to go back inside. Hmmm.... need to dwell on this. What was Reeva doing carrying the jeans? Why hadn't she put them on? Did she get them out of her overnight bag? What about the other pair on the bedroom floor? Lots to think about ...
Click to expand...

And he would have set the house alarm off seemingly.......................yes?
In his house at first.................not forgetting the intruder would have set the 'gated community' alarm off as he entered above the barbed wire fence'ing etc..............c'mon fgs !!!!!
All the security were asleep or at a nearby concert/nightclub it appears..................give me a break!
Prosecution blew it big time IMO.
The alarm was never on that night simple as that.
Nel should have nailed that but didn't.

OP was 'bang to rights' several times but the state decided to blow on about who picked him up from an 'alledged' shooting on the highway ffs!
OP lied about this and it was proved he lied but Masipa ignored it all.....not Nel's fault but................
NEL should have banged on and on and on about who OP thought the intruder was and how he/she/they /not only got into the gated community/but how he/she/they eluded all the exterior burglar alarms................his for starters/his neighbours/the communities/all the dogs/cats/armed security..................prosecution thought they had it too easy IMO and stepped back on the gas expecting an easy prosecution.

Might be too late now IMO
 
Mr Fossil said:
He used the phone to call Stander etc. after shooting Reeva ... so did he in fact run downstairs earlier than he said, in order to go outside to fetch his phone rather than to open the door for Stander? Interesting thought. It could account for the front door being open, no blood that we have heard of on the front door handle and the jeans being slightly to the left of the bathroom window where OP threw them back down as he turned to go back inside. Hmmm.... need to dwell on this. What was Reeva doing carrying the jeans? Why hadn't she put them on? Did she get them out of her overnight bag? What about the other pair on the bedroom floor? Lots to think about ... but the jeans had to get there somehow and, it being an unusual thing to find on the ground outside, it's hard to believe they don't fit in the timeline somewhere.
Click to expand...

Would a set of jeans being thrown out of the window set the alarm off?
Or would the dogs do that?
Or would an intruder do that?
Or would frank do that?
Or was the alarm never on?

Why did the outside alarm never go off.....................or the inside alarm for that matter?
yup you guessed it...............now read the evidence again.

The alarm was never on that night or any other night..................his friends son nearly getting shot and chasing his dogs in kitchen etc !!
Never any mention of alarm activating ever.................NEL was so slow on this it beggars belief it really does IMO :)
 
44ALLAN said:
Would a set of jeans being thrown out of the window set the alarm off?
Or would the dogs do that?
Or would an intruder do that?
Or would frank do that?
Or was the alarm never on?
Click to expand...
I don't think the alarm was on
 
Oscar spends 28th birthday behind bars.

"I think his privileges at the moment are still very limited because he just started" said Piet du Plessis, a lawyer representing Radovan Krejcir.

"He is allowed five one-hour-long visits per month, and may receive cards for special occasions. But despite experiencing a prison life relatively easy compared to that of the country's 160 000 other prisoners, Du Plessis was adamant that the athlete's birthday wouldn't be a happy one".

"Legal analysts believe the state's case will likely be successful - but that it could take months to conclude".

Until then, it's likely OP will stay in jail, contrary to his defence's assertion he'll be eligible for house arrest after serving 10 months.

"It's not fair to let someone out of prison and then to re-imprison them because their sentence changes," said Martin Hood. (I'll drink to that! Especially if that someone is OP)

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Oscar-spends-28th-birthday-behind-bars-20141121
 
June told Outlook on the BBC World Service her memories of Reeva.

“I had her for 22 years, but you have to let your children go, you don't own them, you have to let them do what they want to do. We were very close, I'm very understanding.

Her father wasn't so understanding, he just wanted her to be out of danger. He didn't want her to be in Johannesburg because it's quite dangerous compared to Port Elizabeth (PE)”.

She said in a 3 month relationship “love makes you blind to everything, you're just happy - but that wasn't the case.

She couldn't understand why they were fighting, but he was trying to dictate to her, make her into maybe his arm candy or whatever”.

June rang Barry and told him to come home. “He came rushing in and when he learned the truth, oh it was terrible, terrible. He was shaking head to toe, you just go into shock”.
She said OP’s apology didn't mean anything. "Sorry" isn't good enough when you've killed someone, is it? How can you be sorry?”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30152974
 

Attachments

  • Reeva10.jpg
    Reeva10.jpg
    6.4 KB · Views: 97
Judgejudi said:
June told Outlook on the BBC World Service her memories of Reeva.

“I had her for 22 years, but you have to let your children go, you don't own them, you have to let them do what they want to do. We were very close, I'm very understanding.

Her father wasn't so understanding, he just wanted her to be out of danger. He didn't want her to be in Johannesburg because it's quite dangerous compared to Port Elizabeth (PE)”.

She said in a 3 month relationship “love makes you blind to everything, you're just happy - but that wasn't the case.

She couldn't understand why they were fighting, but he was trying to dictate to her, make her into maybe his arm candy or whatever”.

June rang Barry and told him to come home. “He came rushing in and when he learned the truth, oh it was terrible, terrible. He was shaking head to toe, you just go into shock”.
She said OP’s apology didn't mean anything. "Sorry" isn't good enough when you've killed someone, is it? How can you be sorry?”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30152974
Click to expand...
Listen to full interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02bq6j3 (first 22 minutes)
or download here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/outlook/outlook_20141120-1206b.mp3
 

Attachments

  • Barry.jpg
    Barry.jpg
    118.2 KB · Views: 97
Reference the June Steenkamp interview:

The inconsistency is that June Steenkamp has always maintained that she spoke to Reeva on the phone as Reeva was arriving at OP's house on the evening of 13th but this is not supported by Reeva's phone usage data. It's not hugely important in itself as I'm sure that the call took place but I'm guessing it was the previous evening (when Reeva was also arriving at OP's house).

The reason I'm interested in this small detail is that this either means June is misremembering the date (or time) of the call or that the police edited the phone usage data that was presented in court. I think it's probably the former - if it's the latter, I'd have to ask what else was edited?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 245 (members: 76, guests: 169)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
169
Total visitors
245
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,002
Messages
18,248,422
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top