Post sentencing discussion

[vansleuths]

It's Saturday and almost 8AM in Pretoria. I wonder who OP's limited visitors will be this weekend. Hard to believe it has already been a few days now that OP has been in prison. This 10 months will go quick unless Nel can get a murder conviction on appeal.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Is 4 Nov the NPA deadline to appeal (e.g. 14 calendar days after sentence on 21 Oct) or is it 14 working days?

 

[KarenUK]

I don't but I found this article with an interview with June's older daughter. I think she says basically what June says in the article that we can't read. Scroll down to the section under the photo with Reeva, her brother, and June holding wine glasses.

It's very interesting and explains the "grouping" of shots pretty well....good theory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...rs-asks-disabled-people-softer-sentences.html

Great article (even though it pains me to say it as I can't stand the Daily Mail!), thanks for posting that I hadn't seen it before

 

[emirates1957]

BiB

Mrs Stipps thought the screaming was coming towards her. She even looked out into the street to see if anyone was coming down the street. I have always thought OP threatened Reeva and chased her to the bathroom. She must have thought this was her nearest place of refuge . I am sure she would not have thought OP would shoot her.

I listened again to Mr Stipps evidence last night and he clearly said (in my words) after the first 3 bangs he went out on the balcony and heard 3-4 female screams. He made a point of saying this was AFTER the three bangs, not during. The bathroom light was on and he went in to try to ring security but he had to make a number of calls as the first one did not connect, he then tried 10111 which made a strange sound and so he assumed it was out of order. Whilst he was still trying to get through to Security he heard another three loud bangs which he thought were also shots.

This, to me, clearly indicates the first three bangs were not shots (unless out of the window) and it was probably OP bashing things hard enough to make very loud sounds (the bathroom being fully tiled will have enhanced those sounds). Hitting the door hard with a flat bat would probably make plenty of noise but little damage, if any, to the toilet cubicle door. We also have evidence the steel panel on the bath was badly damaged yet nobody asked him about this. He may have found that difficult to answer. Behind the panel was the void beneath the bath. This could have created quite a sounding box IMO.

In a privileged complex such as Silver Woods - I wonder how many times residents would hear gut wrenching screaming, in the middle of the night? Would it be common behaviour in this upper crust establishment? How many times has the dear Dr Stipp raced out in the middle of the night to attend a disturbance?

 

[emirates1957]

Hey guys,

So... are you looking for something new to read?

Nick van der Leek and I just co-authored a book called, Transcendence. It was released today

The book is pretty raw... we discuss our (unfiltered) thoughts about the trial, Oscar, the Pistorius family, other major players, and get in to a really deep discussion about the state of our world. I know most of you are just as horrified as me, not only at the lack of justice in many of these trials, but in the lack of humanity that seems to be getting worse with every passing year.

The book not only talks about our societies, but also about ourselves, and both mine and Nick's thoughts are intermingled on many of the topics. Trust me when I say it's unfiltered!

But there are some funny parts too, and definitely a lot of hope mixed in. It's intended to be something totally different than what's out there now.

It's an ebook, but you don't need to have a Kindle to read it. You can read it right from your PC with an Amazon account. If you're interested, here it is...

http://www.amazon.com/Transcendence...qid=1414187340&sr=1-15&keywords=transcendence

If you want to follow me on Twitter... @lisawJ13
And to follow Nick on Twitter... @HiRezLife

Count me in. Cant wait to read it.

 

[4MrsB]

It's Saturday and almost 8AM in Pretoria. I wonder who OP's limited visitors will be this weekend. Hard to believe it has already been a few days now that OP has been in prison. This 10 months will go quick unless Nel can get a murder conviction on appeal.

He is allowed up to (2) visitors, correct?

My guess would then be....Carl, Aimee & Uncle Arnold. :gathering:

Uncle will use his influence to allow all (3) in to speak to him at some point this weekend. You know, being it's his 1st week and he is disabled, suffering from PTSD, mother died when he was 15, etc, etc. (He'll probably be packing a "picnic lunch" from some 5 star restaurant, a few extra cell phones and perhaps an iPad baked into a homemade apple pie.)

Anyway, that would be my guess. (It WON'T however, be his agent or trainer there to discuss his non-existant future racing career plans, as some articles have suggested, IMO.)

Hopefully Roux & Oldwage have already checked in on him ....but if no longer on the payroll, perhaps not.

 

[4MrsB]

Count me in. Cant wait to read it.

Me too Lisa. Congratulations!!! :fireworks:

 

[4MrsB]

@MURDERER SERVANT

I don't think there were any warning shots.

Reeva was standing against the door when she was shot. IMO If there had been any warning shots before this, she would have made herself as small a target as possible, curled up next to the toilet perhaps.

Excellent point. We sometimes forget that simple common sense, usually makes the most sense and is the most likely answer to our questions.

If warning shots fired, Reeva would have been crouching behind toilet when the 1st shot into the door was fired. Not standing up facing the door and up close. I believe this same explanation by ckra1000 is confirmation that OP did not think it was an intruder and was not yelling for Reeva to call police. Because if this were the case, (A) she would have used her cell phone, OP said she had with her, to dial police or security and (B) she would have been crouching behind toilet - if she was fearful enough not to scream or tell OP she was in toilet, she was fearful enough of the severity of the situation to be crouching away from the perceived danger.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Excellent point. We sometimes forget that simple common sense, usually makes the most sense and is the most likely answer to our questions.

If warning shots fired, Reeva would have been crouching behind toilet when the 1st shot into the door was fired. Not standing up facing the door and up close. I believe this same explanation by ckra1000 is confirmation that OP did not think it was an intruder and was not yelling for Reeva to call police. Because if this were the case, (A) she would have used her cell phone, OP said she had with her, to dial police or security and (B) she would have been crouching behind toilet - if she was fearful enough not to scream or tell OP she was in toilet, she was fearful enough of the severity of the situation to be crouching away from the perceived danger.

I agree with this, as put. If the first sounds were gunshots, I would suggest that they're not 'warning shots' in the sense of OP threatening Reeva directly at that stage. I imagined a scenario where he had picked up his gun in the bedroom and Reeva had said to him to put it down, it's dangerous, that it might go off. He then nonchalantly fires it out of the window to say, in effect, he can do what he likes with it. This would frighten / terrify Reeva but it's not specifically a warning shot e.g. do this or I'll fire, then he fires to show he means it. So later in the toilet she perhaps doesn't see it as a real possibility that he will shoot her but she's still scared that he's brandishing the gun. She could easily be standing on the other side of the door, reasoning with him in this scenario before she decides to call someone.

Of course there may be many other explanations.

I think what is most important for me to explore is the following:

1. If it is realistic to assume Johnson's call time is wrong (fast) and accept the Stipps' evidence at face value then

a) does the revised interpretation of the sequence of events stack up?
b) is it feasible that no one would hear the bat striking the door?

2. Does the corroborating evidence (e.g. phone times) create a plausible timeline in which all other actions could reasonably happen?

3. What was the cause of the first sounds that the Stipps hear?

 

[WilliamMunter]

Some very interesting commentary about the judgement by Twitter user @GretaTigress who seems very knowledgeable about the legal aspects.

Amongst the many things that have caused so much confusion, she discusses this sentence in the transcribed judgement:

“Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.”

So much depends on that last comma, if indeed there was a comma there at all in her original written version of the judgement.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5t55nqbn1o1awag/Pistorius.pdf?dl=0

 

[JudgeJudi]

I got the impression that Christo was referring to a light in the house..because he said that it was all dark EXCEPT for one light. Normally an "outside light" is a given to be always on..
I don't recall Pistorius talking about a light that was always on..do you have that info? Thanks..
Do you know what part of Pistorius's house Christo would see from his window?

I'm certain this would be the light on the balcony. When OP was talking about the placement of the two fans in the open sliding doorway, he described how he draped the curtains around the pedestal fan because the light on the balcony attracted insects. By draping the curtains around the fan, that minimized the insects entering the bedroom.

 

[soozieqtips]

Some very interesting commentary about the judgement by Twitter user @GretaTigress who seems very knowledgeable about the legal aspects.

Amongst the many things that have caused so much confusion, she discusses this sentence in the transcribed judgement:

“Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.”

So much depends on that last comma, if indeed there was a comma there at all in her original written version of the judgement.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/c...4neaLSFdpkprybNOYnMKiDsrPazcVTwD3iGy3EQB?dl=1

The link doesn't work. Is that because the document is in your Dropbox account?

 

[JudgeJudi]

BIB - perhaps he'll restore his memory, and recall which of his version / versions was the truth?

He'll certainly have enough time for it.

How many times did he say, "I didn't have time to think". Now he has precious little time to do anything else but think. Who knows, if an appeal becomes a reality and if there is a re-trial, he may just have enough time to come up with a few more versions. I can hardly wait.

 

[WilliamMunter]

The link doesn't work. Is that because the document is in your Dropbox account?

Apologies, try this https://www.dropbox.com/s/5t55nqbn1o1awag/Pistorius.pdf?dl=0

 

[JudgeJudi]

I believe Christo lives at 284 Bush Willow*, which does look directly across an empty lot onto OP's house.

As I remember, it was OP's bedroom balcony light that was on.

Which explains perfectly why OP allegedly had to CLOSE the drapes to make it "pitch black" (although even then I'm not sure it would have been totally pitch black).


* Christo's house (?) blue roof - around the corner from OP

View attachment 62193

Yes, the balcony light was on. It's total rubbish that the room was pitch black. When OP was being cross-examined about the positioning of the fans, the curtains, blinds etc, I conducted my own experiment. I too have blackout curtains and in front of those I have separate curtains made from a woven cotton. Yes, they do exclude light but if you lift them up to drape over a pedestal fan, which I also have, they're too heavy and keep sliding off the fan. No matter how high I lifted them up, it was impossible to make them stay on the fan. The light streams in from immediately under the round part of the fan down to the floor.

Secondly, don't forget the blue LED light. I conducted a further experiment with this which was the absolute proof I needed to show his whole story of the pitch dark room was a lie, and the biggest lie of all IMO. Underneath my desk I have a small amplifier, with a blue LED light, for the speakers on my desk. I moved a bed so it was in the same position as his, i.e. with the foot of the bed nearest the light. I closed the curtains, turned off the light and covered my PC monitor. Blow me down, the room was flooded with light and would certainly have illuminated the whole bed. He had to have seen Reeva. It's 100% impossible for him not to have seen her, and that's why he changed his story from going onto the balcony to bring the fan in and thereby looking into the room, to one of facing the fan and walking backwards with it into the room.

After moving the bed away, I then got a chair and put it at the far end of the room facing the LED light, sat on it and closed my eyes. You couldn't see the light at all. Finally, I sat on the floor immediately in front of the LED light and closed my eyes. Guess what? You couldn't see a thing, even with your face 6 inches away from it.

If the PT had done these two experiments they would have nailed him.

1) He said the room was pitch dark. IT WAS NOT
2) He said the LED light bothered him when he was in bed. IMPOSSIBLE

 

[soozieqtips]

Apologies, try this https://www.dropbox.com/s/5t55nqbn1o1awag/Pistorius.pdf?dl=0

Thanks, William :smile:

 

[jay-jay]

Thank you so much..I did forget about the light in the balcony.

So Pistorius was in the habit of leaving the balcony light on all the time. Obviously he had a purpose for leaving it on?! Could it be to get some light in his bedroom?! Of course..so he had no reason to close the curtains..what purpose would that serve? Nothing! He simply lied about it to make his story fit as to the room being pitch black. In addition..the location of the fan proved that the curtains were never closed.

It's so obvious that he lied..yet judge Masipa believes that nonsense! AMAZING!

BBM .. and don't forget, to start off with, during OP's testimony and CE, he was at real pains to try and describe just how pitch black it was in that room (i.e. so he could be excused for not having seen/noticed Reeva swing over onto the LH side of the bed as you look at it from the foot of the bed, and then nip off down the corridor to the bathroom/toilet) .. then later on (I forget which bit it was .. it was when one of the defence 'experts' was testifying), that room suddenly wasn't pitch black any more (because whatever it was they were discussing at the time, didn't make sense for it to be pitch black). Talk about tailoring .. they were all doing it on that DT!

 

[Cherwell]

I agree with this, as put. If the first sounds were gunshots, I would suggest that they're not 'warning shots' in the sense of OP threatening Reeva directly at that stage. I imagined a scenario where he had picked up his gun in the bedroom and Reeva had said to him to put it down, it's dangerous, that it might go off. He then nonchalantly fires it out of the window to say, in effect, he can do what he likes with it. This would frighten / terrify Reeva but it's not specifically a warning shot e.g. do this or I'll fire, then he fires to show he means it. So later in the toilet she perhaps doesn't see it as a real possibility that he will shoot her but she's still scared that he's brandishing the gun. She could easily be standing on the other side of the door, reasoning with him in this scenario before she decides to call someone.

Of course there may be many other explanations.

I think what is most important for me to explore is the following:

1. If it is realistic to assume Johnson's call time is wrong (fast) and accept the Stipps' evidence at face value then

a) does the revised interpretation of the sequence of events stack up?
b) is it feasible that no one would hear the bat striking the door?

2. Does the corroborating evidence (e.g. phone times) create a plausible timeline in which all other actions could reasonably happen?

3. What was the cause of the first sounds that the Stipps hear?

I agree In this theory I have never thought that the first shots were "warning" shots, but something like you have described above. These could have been the first shots heard by the Stipps. If he'd fired from the side of the balcony, aiming into the ground of the empty plot, they would not have spotted him.

 

[soozieqtips]

Another article that puts it in black and white.

"The trial of Oscar Pistorius has been on our TV screens for six months, during which time the Olympic hero, between fits of amateur histrionics, tried to claim that he suffered from “generalised anxiety disorder”.

Psychiatrists slapped that one down, though they did say that Pistorius was “jealous and insecure”. Reeva Steenkamp knew all about that. In a text message, the law graduate turned model told her boyfriend: “I am scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me.”

Judge Thokozile Masipa, in one of several cockeyed decisions, discounted Reeva’s concerns and declared that such texts were part of “normal relationships”. But Reeva had good cause to be scared. She was dating a volatile athlete who was notoriously quick to anger, who had threatened to shoot a national footballer who crossed him, who had spent a night in jail for assaulting a woman at a party at his house (case dropped). A man who, according to the testimony of Samantha Taylor, a former girlfriend, would “punish” her by driving his Porsche at 200mph, put her on the Naughty Step and lock her in his apartment for hours at a time".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ck-day-for-Reeva-Steenkamp-and-all-women.html

If police hadn't dropped the assault charge, and the owners of Tasha's had reported the gun incident, then Masipa wouldn't have been able to say OP was a first-time offender, and maybe Reeva would still be alive. Masipa didn't seem to care about his past recklessness at all, even though he had a strong pattern of dangerous and aggressive behaviour. Unbloodybelievable.

 

[jay-jay]

I have a trial subscription, but not sure if the conditions rules disallow you from posting content. But I'm going to post a small section, as it's actually an excerpt from her book, "A Mother's Love".

Contrary to Pistorius’s claims that they were in love, Mrs Steenkamp said they had not slept together because her daughter “was scared to take the relationship to that level”.

She believes that her daughter knew “in her heart of hearts” that they would not be happy together. She writes: “Her clothes were packed. There is no doubt in our minds: she had decided to leave Oscar that night.”

Interesting .. ! I'm a bit unsure about the 'not sleeping together' bit though, because remember that text Reeva had sent to OP about where he would like to have sex? (it gave three choices, I forget what now .. I think something like the kitchen counter, the stairs, and the couch, and he answered with a boring 'the couch') .. it didn't sound from that that they'd never slept together, but then again, maybe she was just teasing him, dunno?

Also in a number of the other online papers ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...combustible-claims-reevas-mother-9817754.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-reeva-steenkamp_n_6045962.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/only-oscar-knows-reeva-steenkamps-4503137

.. these ones mainly focus on that apology OP made in the courtroom, and how June felt about that (i.e. that she was suspicious as to the reason why he chose to do it right at that point, in front of the whole world) and that she doesn't feel it was genuine. She also says that she feels that justice has NOT been done, but accepts the judges verdict.