Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Estelle said:
IMO it seems a coincidence that Easter Sunday was March 31, 2013 and the Appeal Bail Hearing at the Pretoria Court was held on March 28, 2013. On March 12, 2013, Uncle Arnold told the media that he would like to take Oscar with him to his farm in Mozambique when his passport was returned to him.

My guess is that the family had already planned this trip for Easter and did not want to leave OP home by himself. Roux could have assured them that there was a strong likelihood that OP would win his Bail Appeal so they could have even caught a late flight that Thursday night or early the next morning on Good Friday to Mozambique as Uncle Arnold might always go to Mozambique for Easter. Roux had probably already helped him to be able to get the right documents and permission to travel on the assumption that he would win his Appeal. It is quite possible that on Good Friday many journalists may not have been working or away themselves and no person who recognised him decided to report it to the media.

It all makes sense to me. The lady who told me is intelligent and studying her Masters Degree in Business here in Sydney and was returning from Europe but had to fly into Johannesburg first to catch another plane to Mozambique. She had to walk past him to get to her seat in First Class. She had no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...

That sounds very feasible, Estelle. I bet they didn't want to leave him "home alone"!
 
Lisa retweeted
Nick van der Leek @HiRezLife • 10h 10 hours ago

1st review of Carlin's book: "sookily sympathetic to Oscar P. Carlin makes a riveting story dull in uninspiring prose rushed to print"

After reading all the errors contained within one paragraph alone, as referred to by Mr Fossil on the previous page, I can't believe Carlin researched it at all, and certainly couldn't have watched any of the trial. I imagine it's found on the shelf with all the other newly released fiction books in a store near you.
 
Estelle said:
I think that could be a fake Barry Roux twitter person tweeting that. I do not think that the real Barry Roux would have the hide to twitter that.
Click to expand...

I thought we all established ages ago that it wasn't the real Barry Roux? I think it was back when Arnold Pistorius's wife (her name has slipped my mind now, oh yes .. Lois) retweeted something of his (and probably had no clue herself it wasn't actually THE Barry Roux).
 
Estelle said:
IMO it seems a coincidence that Easter Sunday was March 31, 2013 and the Appeal Bail Hearing at the Pretoria Court was held on March 28, 2013. On March 12, 2013, Uncle Arnold told the media that he would like to take Oscar with him to his farm in Mozambique when his passport was returned to him.

My guess is that the family had already planned this trip for Easter and did not want to leave OP home by himself. Roux could have assured them that there was a strong likelihood that OP would win his Bail Appeal so they could have even caught a late flight that Thursday night or early the next morning on Good Friday to Mozambique as Uncle Arnold might always go to Mozambique for Easter. Roux had probably already helped him to be able to get the right documents and permission to travel on the assumption that he would win his Appeal. It is quite possible that on Good Friday many journalists may not have been working or away themselves and no person who recognised him decided to report it to the media.

It all makes sense to me. The lady who told me is intelligent and studying her Masters Degree in Business here in Sydney and was returning from Europe but had to fly into Johannesburg first to catch another plane to Mozambique. She had to walk past him to get to her seat in First Class. She had no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...

But anyone can say anything .. even people on the internet, no especially people on the internet .. it's all just hearsay or rumour*. I think all that kind of speculation just takes away from finding out the real facts of the matter of the actual case itself, and in trying to establish exactly what happened that night. Trying to work out if he took a trip to Mozambique at Easter, just because someone on the internet says someone in a nail salon happened to mention something, is clutching at straws imo and sidetracking the main, horrific event and trying to find out what really happened to Reeva.


* a bit like how, a few weeks ago, someone here was saying how they knew someone, who knew someone else, who lived fairly near Arnold Pistorius and that this person knew this that or the other (I'm not saying what because I noticed the post was removed, presumably because it could've been libelous) .. anyone could basically say anything, and unless there is some actual proof of these things, then they should be taken with a pinch of salt. And I'm not exactly one to stick up for Pistorius, I just think we should be sticking to actual fact here.
 
AW2B said:
Barry Roux ‏@Barry_Roux 12h12 hours ago
June Steenkamp is an attention seeker, that cashes in on the death of Reeva.. She has no respect for the death..

:furious:
Click to expand...

We know it's not the real Barry Roux's twitter account but whoever it is, it's still a bluddy nasty thing to say, isn't it .. :furious:
 
Estelle said:
IMO it seems a coincidence that Easter Sunday was March 31, 2013 and the Appeal Bail Hearing at the Pretoria Court was held on March 28, 2013. On March 12, 2013, Uncle Arnold told the media that he would like to take Oscar with him to his farm in Mozambique when his passport was returned to him.

My guess is that the family had already planned this trip for Easter and did not want to leave OP home by himself. Roux could have assured them that there was a strong likelihood that OP would win his Bail Appeal so they could have even caught a late flight that Thursday night or early the next morning on Good Friday to Mozambique as Uncle Arnold might always go to Mozambique for Easter. Roux had probably already helped him to be able to get the right documents and permission to travel on the assumption that he would win his Appeal. It is quite possible that on Good Friday many journalists may not have been working or away themselves and no person who recognised him decided to report it to the media.

It all makes sense to me. The lady who told me is intelligent and studying her Masters Degree in Business here in Sydney and was returning from Europe but had to fly into Johannesburg first to catch another plane to Mozambique. She had to walk past him to get to her seat in First Class. She had no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...

I lived in Maputo Mozambique for eight years and travelled down to Joburg many times. There is no first class seats. There is only economy and business class both on S.A. airways and LAM (Mozambiques airline).
As its a while since I was there I just checked to see if this still applies and it is still the same.
 
KING Charles said:
I lived in Maputo Mozambique for eight years and travelled down to Joburg many times. There is no first class seats. There is only economy and business class both on S.A. airways and LAM (Mozambiques airline).
As its a while since I was there I just checked to see if this still applies and it is still the same.
Click to expand...

Useful to know, but in my head "business class" would equate to first class. It's just marketing terminology. It's still a two-tier system. If someone referred to "business class" as first class, it wouldn't cast doubt on their credibility to me.
 
I'm new to Web Sleuths, so I'm just going to jump in and hope I'm posting in the right place!

I read Mr Fossil's suggestion that the source of the first sounds could have been gunshots fired out the window, and wondered if it could be from the air-rifle being fired out a window. Air-rifles use pellets, don't they? So there wouldn't be any expended cartridges. I've got no idea whether an air-rifle shot could be confused with a pistol shot.

I remember at some stage during cross-examination, Pistorius sort of slipped and said something along the lines of that if the Stipps saw the light on during/after the first shots, then they would be wrong - I can't remember the exact words. I can't go back and check the trial video as we're on a temporary internet connection and it's slow. Does anyone else remember him saying something like that? I seem to remember he said 'first shots' rather than 'first bangs' or 'first sounds'. But I could be wrong!

Finally, (and I apologise for being all over the place) I was looking up the Cassidy Taylor-Memmory incident and found an article dated 9 February 2011 (here's the link: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Athletics/Pistorius-sues-woman-for-R22m-20110209).
Pistorius had been taken into custody over that incident. Here is a sentence that stood out to me: "Pistorius says that he had felt threatened, humiliated, scared and vulnerable because of the complaint, arrest and being in custody." Sounds familiar!
 
Adelaide said:
I'm new to Web Sleuths, so I'm just going to jump in and hope I'm posting in the right place!

(1) I read Mr Fossil's suggestion that the source of the first sounds could have been gunshots fired out the window, and wondered if it could be from the air-rifle being fired out a window. Air-rifles use pellets, don't they? So there wouldn't be any expended cartridges. I've got no idea whether an air-rifle shot could be confused with a pistol shot.

(2) I remember at some stage during cross-examination, Pistorius sort of slipped and said something along the lines of that if the Stipps saw the light on during/after the first shots, then they would be wrong - I can't remember the exact words. I can't go back and check the trial video as we're on a temporary internet connection and it's slow. Does anyone else remember him saying something like that? I seem to remember he said 'first shots' rather than 'first bangs' or 'first sounds'. But I could be wrong!

Finally, (and I apologise for being all over the place) I was looking up the Cassidy Taylor-Memmory incident and found an article dated 9 February 2011 (here's the link: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Athletics/Pistorius-sues-woman-for-R22m-20110209).
Pistorius had been taken into custody over that incident. Here is a sentence that stood out to me: "Pistorius says that he had felt threatened, humiliated, scared and vulnerable because of the complaint, arrest and being in custody." Sounds familiar!
Click to expand...

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?
 
Thanks, Mr Fossil, for the quick response! That last line of OP's you've quoted there is interesting too: "On the state's evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?"

I'd love to go back and listen to it all again - once we get our internet provider sorted out, I'll get to it!
 
Adelaide said:
Thanks, Mr Fossil, for the quick response! That last line of OP's you've quoted there is interesting too: "On the state's evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?"

I'd love to go back and listen to it all again - once we get our internet provider sorted out, I'll get to it!
Click to expand...

Why not just read the transcript? It can be found here.

I'm not so sure about the last line because OP is referring back to Nel's last question where Nel refers to two [sets of] shots.

First shooting is far more explicit. It is volunteered by OP, he references both 'first' and 'shooting' rather than shots. He uses 'shooting' earlier in the exchange with Nel to refer to his act of firing the gun so 'first shooting' is very interesting. Has he slipped up or is he simply confusing his words?
 
Adelaide said:
I'm new to Web Sleuths, so I'm just going to jump in and hope I'm posting in the right place!

I read Mr Fossil's suggestion that the source of the first sounds could have been gunshots fired out the window, and wondered if it could be from the air-rifle being fired out a window. Air-rifles use pellets, don't they? So there wouldn't be any expended cartridges. I've got no idea whether an air-rifle shot could be confused with a pistol shot.

I remember at some stage during cross-examination, Pistorius sort of slipped and said something along the lines of that if the Stipps saw the light on during/after the first shots, then they would be wrong - I can't remember the exact words. I can't go back and check the trial video as we're on a temporary internet connection and it's slow. Does anyone else remember him saying something like that? I seem to remember he said 'first shots' rather than 'first bangs' or 'first sounds'. But I could be wrong!

Finally, (and I apologise for being all over the place) I was looking up the Cassidy Taylor-Memmory incident and found an article dated 9 February 2011 (here's the link: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Athletics/Pistorius-sues-woman-for-R22m-20110209).
Pistorius had been taken into custody over that incident. Here is a sentence that stood out to me: "Pistorius says that he had felt threatened, humiliated, scared and vulnerable because of the complaint, arrest and being in custody." Sounds familiar!
Click to expand...

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?
 
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!
 
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...

I think air rifles make almost no noise but I have a feeling that his also had a silencer on it, so I don't think anyone would have heard it if it did happen. I thought it odd at the time that a non noisy gun would need to be silenced. Then I persuaded myself that he probably shot up the neighbourhood when he was bored and nobody would know where it was coming from. There was a lot of virgin ground on his estate during the time he lived there. He probably took pot shots from his balconies. All supposition on my part, of course. I think there are several videos on You Tube of air guns/rifles being used which show how much/little noise is associated. I know I watched one when the hole in the bedroom door came to our attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 135 more.
Total: 362 (members: 136, guests: 226)

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
226
Total visitors
362
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,983
Messages
18,248,190
Members
234,521
Latest member
Toni.Connell
Back
Top