Post sentencing discussion

[Mr Fossil]

When a person giving testimony gives added detail like this, red flags start going up. Another example is when he went upstairs to get Reeva's handbag and added words to the effect, "I didn't go through it". No-one suggested that he did. Immediately that raises the suspicion that that's exactly what he did.

Once you know the whole story and you listen to it again, you pick up so much more because you're listening to it in a totally different way, such as "Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house". If he was speaking to an unknown person he would have said, "Get the *advertiser censored** out". By adding "my house", to me that implies that he's saying it to someone he knows. He did, and it was Reeva.

Or put something in it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Studies about fatherless mice and sugar consumption?

What the hell is going on around here?!!! :doh:

This all basically started on p.48 #1183. See also p.49 #1203.


Mr Happy added #1275 further down the page:

"A little known fact, fatherless mice tend to be diabetic".

Don't you think it's far more entertaining that Derman's polar bears? :floorlaugh:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Or put something in it.

Maybe the second watch that disappeared? That would immediately throw suspicion on the police. Something he could use to infer the police were corrupt and therefore their evidence was not to be trusted.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Maybe the second watch that disappeared? That would immediately throw suspicion on the police. Something he could use to infer the police were corrupt and therefore their evidence was not to be trusted.

No, the 3 cartridge casings IMO. It cannot be a watch as the watches are all photographed by van Staden before one disappears. OP did not have the opportunity to go upstairs after the police arrive and the bag is already downstairs on the kitchen side (according to Carice)

 

[Interested Bystander]

No, the 3 cartridge casings IMO. It cannot be a watch as the watches are all photographed by van Staden before one disappears. OP did not have the opportunity to go upstairs after the police arrive and the bag is already downstairs on the kitchen side (according to Carice)

I thought OP was allowed to go and wash by one of the policemen? Unfortunately I can no longer remember exactly when this was. I have to admit the intricacies of the stories are fading rapidly and accept you diligently have been working on these recently.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I thought OP was allowed to go and wash by one of the policemen? Unfortunately I can no longer remember exactly when this was. I have to admit the intricacies of the stories are fading rapidly and accept you diligently have been working on these recently.

Yes, downstairs, probably in the kitchen (but I'm not certain of the location). He never went back upstairs once the police arrived.

 

[sleuth-d-]

sleuth-d-
for instance, three further shots not included in the bail statement - wouldn't that be a risk, not knowing at the time what any witnesses had heard? or what the police might find?
and conversely, three prior shots could have been woven into the bail statement, and helped the op defence - i.e. as warning shots to the 'intruder'.

IF OP had shot 3 x out of the window before the fatal shoots, then he also would have had to explain, why Reeva didn't scream. He didn't admit in bail hearing, but perhaps maybe, he thought to explain it away with some loud bat beating at his intentionally confusing scenario.

i agree that intentionally confusing the scenario was one of op's and roux's defence tactics. but, even under the current op 'version' he is invited to explain why reeva didn't make any sound. various explanations have been put forward to argue away her silence, including that she didn't want her position to be revealed [even though the door was slammed!], or that she was too scared to say a thing. these reasons could still be valid under the 'three warning shots' scenario.

[not that i believe any of this is what actually happened.]

 

[sleuth-d-]

You pose a good question but I believe it is necessary to start that approach from before the bail statement.

If OP had fired earlier shots and removed the cartridge casings (e.g. when he went up to fetch Reeva's bag) then he can't include the shots in the bail statement as there is no evidence of the shots and that would be difficult to explain.

He could be confident that the police wouldn't find evidence of the shots as the bullets could be anywhere (they can travel 2,300m apparently).

As to what the witnesses heard, how will anyone prove what those sounds were? In fact the Stipps say they hear sounds much earlier than the shots that killed Reeva if their evidence is taken at face value. These earlier sounds may also be supported by Christo Menelaou's account. So yes, he took a risk.

So why remove the cartridge casings? To have left them in place and include warning shots to the intruder in his story would lead to the question then as to why Reeva didn't speak up in the period between both sets of shots. You wouldn't fire warning shots without engaging with the intruder e.g. "I have a gun and will use it if you don't come out of the toilet" ... which can only lead to the response "Ozzy, you pillock, it's me". Even harder to explain if the shots were fired from the bedroom out of the balcony window and the cartridge casings are on the bedroom carpet.

bbm
but change that to "i have a gun and will use it [if you don't get out of the house]" and the existing scenario stands... i.e. that it is ambiguous enough for reeva to still be unsure as to who he is aiming the comment at. op would have easily 'tailored' a statement to fit. imo.

please also see my comment to FromGermany

 

[Mr Fossil]

bbm
but change that to "i have a gun and will use it [if you don't get out of the house]" and the existing scenario stands... i.e. that it is ambiguous enough for reeva to still be unsure as to who he is aiming the comment at. op would have easily 'tailored' a statement to fit. imo.

please also see my comment to FromGermany

One set of shots or two it makes no sense to me why OP wouldn't simply say to an intruder that he has a gun, the toilet door is covered and his girlfriend is calling the police. Stay there until the police arrive and he won't get hurt. Of course, he couldn't add that to his version because Reeva would have told him it was her. But then I think he already knew that.

 

[sleuth-d-]

One set of shots or two it makes no sense to me why OP wouldn't simply say to an intruder that he has a gun, the toilet door is covered and his girlfriend is calling the police. Stay there until the police arrive and he won't get hurt. Of course, he couldn't add that to his version because Reeva would have told him it was her. But then I think he already knew that.

indeed, sounds like what a reasonable man would do. i am with you on this version

 

[sleuth-d-]

more from revisiting the bail statement...

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.

I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet.

I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window.

As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.

I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger."

bbm
so here op establishes:
bold 1. he knew that person/s is/are in the toilet and behind a closed door.
bold 2. he knew the movement was inside the toilet. [i.e. not the door]
bold 3. he knew the intruder/s only becomes a danger when they come out of the toilet [i.e. when the door opens].

no wonder this was 'updated'.

 

[Mr Fossil]

One bit I spotted in his version when being cross examined by Nel was that he went on his knees when he was at the corner of the bathroom passage and the main bathroom itself. Nothing about this to Roux in his evidence in chief.

 

[vansleuths]

(snipped)

All right, you've made your point, thank you. As someone who lost their father to cancer as a young child, I don't need to keep being told this stuff.

Cherwell,

My sincere condolences to you and your family.

As someone that lost his own father at the age of 9, I can understand what you must have gone through. Every year on the anniversary of his passing, my family gets together to have a celebration of his life. The entire family gets together for this and while my kids may not have known their grandfather, I have always felt that his spirit still bonds our family together, decades after his passing.

 

[vansleuths]

I just want to go back to this post again, because I don't think that anything you have said there makes Uncle Pistorius special at all and I don't know anyone who wouldn't take in their nephews and/or nieces if something happened to their parents, and I certainly would've taken in my niece had something ever happened to her mother and father (my sister and her husband) .. there would've been no question about it .. and I'm not a saint, like you are trying to portray Uncle Arnold there, I'm just an ordinary person who would do the same thing as any other ordinary person would do. Obviously, if there were a number of children and you only had a two bedroomed house, that might prove difficult .. but what I'm saying is that if you have the means to do it, which Uncle Arnold clearly has with his huge great mansion, then you would do it .. and you would endeavour to do it, even if you didn't have all those things .. because who in their right mind would willingly allow their neices/nephews to go into care if there was something they could do about it to prevent it. I'm sorry, but this has made me quite cross now to suggest that he was being such a saint for taking them in when it is what any normal human being would do if they had the means to do it.

Jay-Jay

BIB I say this with all due respect. I have read your posts, I don't believe you could ever say a single kind word about anyone from the Pistorius family. Uncle Arnold is not the incarnation of evil.

You say in your comment that who in their "right mind would willingly allow their niece/nephew to go into care" and I would say that that there are many. It's part of the reason why we have so many homeless children or children that are in the custody of the state. Not everyone is willing to take in a troubled and/or disabled youth.

If you would happily take a troubled niece or nephew in, then just like Uncle Arnold, I truly commend you as it is a sign of generosity and kindness towards our fellow human beings.

 

[jay-jay]

If you would happily take a troubled niece or nephew in, then just like Uncle Arnold, I truly commend you as it is a sign of generosity and kindness towards our fellow human beings.

~snipped~

As I said, it's what most reasonable people would do if they had the means to do it .. it doesn't make a person a saint.

 

[jay-jay]

I don't really see what any of this has got to do with the trial, quite honestly.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

i agree that intentionally confusing the scenario was one of op's and roux's defence tactics. but, even under the current op 'version' he is invited to explain why reeva didn't make any sound. various explanations have been put forward to argue away her silence, including that she didn't want her position to be revealed [even though the door was slammed!], or that she was too scared to say a thing. these reasons could still be valid under the 'three warning shots' scenario.

[not that i believe any of this is what actually happened.]

It has been very nasty and evil with - possible - 3 shoots out of the window, to put Reeva in fear of death and he knew this. Furthermore his fairy tale re the intruders certainly wasn't mature until the bail hearing. That maybe 2 reasons for not telling about the 3 shots before the murder (IF he had shot). - I can't explain better, sorry.
I agree with you - NOTHING of all this might have happened. OP I don't believe a single detail. Without his testimony, only with Mr. Fossil's timeline, phone records, witness lists etc., the case would long since solved, including evidence. I'm sure. :smile:

 

[vansleuths]

~snipped~

As I said, it's what most reasonable people would do if they had the means to do it .. it doesn't make a person a saint.

Agreed, doesn't make them a saint, does show that they have a big heart.

 

[Mr Fossil]

It has been very nasty and evil with - possible - 3 shoots out of the window, to put Reeva in fear of death and he knew this. Furthermore his fairy tale re the intruders certainly wasn't mature until the bail hearing. That maybe 2 reasons for not telling about the 3 shots before the murder (IF he had shot). - I can't explain better, sorry.
I agree with you - NOTHING of all this might have happened. OP I don't believe a single detail. Without his testimony, only with Mr. Fossil's timeline, phone records, witness lists etc., the case would long since solved, including evidence. I'm sure. :smile:

I agree with your BIB, though not just my input. Even if we don't agree on specific events and detail (hardly surprising as we have to spend some of our time sleuthing evidence that the police should already have and are bound to reach different conclusions at times) there are other ways of looking at what happened that weren't explored by the State. This is my first trial and I would once have naively assumed that this was because the police have the facts that we are missing and they don't support any of our alternative scenarios. I'm not so sure any more.

'Crowd sleuthing', as I like to think of it, has the advantage of putting our collective minds to a myriad of possibilities. The police have limited resources. They perhaps constrain themselves by a preconceived view of the solution and therefore don't always recognise the need to think outside the box. A good example might be Johnson's call time (although we don't know for sure that it is wrong). If it fits both sides' scenarios why check it with the provider or Strubenkop Security? I think the misinterpretation of the GPRS data was a mistake though.

 

[vansleuths]

I don't really see what any of this has got to do with the trial, quite honestly.

There's a select group on here that has been hell bent to put down any opposing voice that doesn't view Pistorius and his ENTIRE family as pure evil. It was important to bring some balance to that discussion and highlight some of their positive attributes.