Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

[geevee]

I am not sure that necessarily follows. He might have had to bend down to pick up the holster on the right side but this would not necessarily created spatter but when he placed it at the back of the table by the bed head it looks as though it may have been tossed there. It certainly wasn't neatly placed. If he tossed it there, there could have been associated spatter from arm movement.

However, as the powers that be don't seem to know how it got there and didn't bring it up, it is only one of many possible reasons why the blood was on the wall just above the bedhead on the left side. I have wondered why he would have been in that area at all after the event, unless it was to do something very necessary for his alibi. There was actually no need for him to go near the bed on the left as far as I can see unless it was to create evidence. I am a firm believer that he never slept on the left. He needed the gun holster to be there to strengthen his alibi. It might have been better if he had moved his iPads and t-shirt instead and it would have been more convincing. He didn't sleep on the left the night before, as we know, so his excuse that it was because of his shoulder was a little feeble IMO as his shoulder had been bad for two weeks or so.

EDIT What I forgot to say was this would mean that OP at least wiped, if not washed his hands before going back into the bedroom. He did ask to wash his hands later but that may have not been the first time but we will never know and is only an aggravating factor for me as the blood spatter above the headboard was never explained away satisfactorily.

Is it known if the holster was ever tested for blood?

 

[AJ_DS]

With respect, maybe we just don't understand each other.

I DID answer your question directly. It is untrue to say I did not - in fact my whole post was an answer to your question!



If I'm asked to point out where I think there is a disagreement, I think it is perfectly normal to quote posts from both parties?? I was explaining how I formed the idea that you disagree and where exactly, that was your question wasn't it? I can understand you do not like me quoting these posts and you do not wish to discuss or explain them because they are nonsensical and show a 180 U turn you cannot admit to.

BIB : Outstanding !… your true nature and motivations predictably surface when you don't get your way… :tantrum:

Feel free to quote me to your heart's content… misinterpreting and misunderstanding my words as well as the Law… I could not care less even if I tried to.

Would me admitting to everything you are alleging bring you intellectual and moral comfort ?… Allow me to oblige and fulfill your needs :

- I do not like you quoting my posts
- I do not wish to discuss my posts
- My posts are nonsensical
- My posts show a 180 U-turn
- I admit and bow to your superior unmatched intellect
- also anything and everything else you might require to feel better

Cheers

 

[pandax81]

From the defence heads of arguments.... I nearly spat my coffee out:

The State also did not call the person who was employed by Dr and Mrs Stipp, Ms Makwanazi, as a witness, as she would also not have supported the State’s case

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is it known if the holster was ever tested for blood?

Not that I am aware. I have posted a photo of the blood spatter on the LH side of the bed to my earlier post no. 1155 which shows it is directly above where the holster was situated. I know this topic is past its sell by date but it is something that has always niggled me as it has not been explained satisfactory.

 

[Interested Bystander]

From the defence heads of arguments.... I nearly spat my coffee out:

Surely as she was on the list of witnesses Roux could have called her if it helped OP's Defence. How strange.

 

[AJ_DS]

With respect, this accusation is nonsense, and untrue, as anyone reading my post can see: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10900589#post10900589

I answered your question directly. I explained what it means to have in fact acted in putative private defence, and how in such a case one can be fully acquitted of murder and culpable homicide. I highlighted my specific disagreements with your statements and explained with example. For some reason you take issue with this and accuse me of not answering your question?

Obviously this conversation is over for all our sanities. I think the points have been made, lol. Sorry guys and gals, me and AJ pursued this with honest intentions I'm sure as we both found the discussion interesting for ourselves, but probably not for anyone else!

BiB… There must be a space-time rift which allows AJ and Pandax to communicate via Websleuth whilst being in separate parallel Universes…

My question : the requirements for a finding of PPD and an acquittal

Your answer : many scenarios and findings of 'guilty of murder', 'not guilty of murder', 'guilty of culpable homicide', 'not guilty of culpable homicide', etc… the words "acquit" or "acquittal" do not appear anywhere in your answer.

… I must be the one living in the bizarro Universe

 

[geevee]

Not that I am aware. I have posted a photo of the blood spatter on the LH side of the bed to my earlier post no. 1155 which shows it is directly above where the holster was situated. I know this topic is past its sell by date but it is something that has always niggled me as it has not been explained satisfactory.

It's bothered me as well, it seems such a large piece of evidence, blood spatter above where the holster was located but largely ignored by all of those who should have been paying attention. What explanation can there be for blood in that location, and why was no one apparently asking that question?

 

[AJ_DS]

Surely as she was on the list of witnesses Roux could have called her if it helped OP's Defence. How strange.

Exactly… this is very poor strategy and form from Roux… alleging the State's case is weak because they did not call upon ALL of the witnesses…

Stating this and then NOT calling said witnesses themselves is far more telling IMO

 

[AJ_DS]

Not that I am aware. I have posted a photo of the blood spatter on the LH side of the bed to my earlier post no. 1155 which shows it is directly above where the holster was situated. I know this topic is past its sell by date but it is something that has always niggled me as it has not been explained satisfactory.

Indeed !

The spatter above the bed was explained by OP by stating that it must have occurred when he retrieved BOTH his phones… but we know neither phones were on the bedside table…

… it's just one lie on top of the other… plug one hole and 2 more holes appear… that's precisely what one would expect to happen in a fabricated story.

 

[soozieqtips]

Guys. This is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day.

The constant bickering about PPD is getting no one anywhere.

 

[AJ_DS]

Guys. This is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day.

The constant bickering about PPD is getting no one anywhere.

I know… apologies.

I vow to never again post about or reply to post concerning PPD.

 

[sleuth-d-]

3:19:03 call to standar

3:20:05 call to netcare - operator says 'get reeva to hospital, i mustn't wait for him'

and then...
3:21:33 call to security????

can someone please explain why he would call security, one and a half minutes after being told that he must get reeva urgently and straight to hospital, even before an ambulance can be sent?

talking about things that are bugging. it has always bugged me that there is apparently no transcript of the netcare call. or any netcare operator/witness that could verify the content of the call.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

OP’s story of switching sides of the bed is a total LIE.

He slept on the left (this explains why the holster was found on the left nightstand) - she on the right. (Of course, he had to come up with Reeva sleeping on the left to get her away from the balcony doors, fans and any possibility of being seen by him when she supposedly got out of bed.)

Remember, after the shooting, he had X minutes to arrange the scene before he ever called anyone (he certainly wasn’t trying to save Reeva’s life) PLUS he went upstairs TWICE after he brought Reeva down. It was so easy for him to move Reeva’s slippers to the left side and his shirt to the right side.

His fatal mistake, though, was forgetting to also move the holster to the right side.

Under his version, he wants us to believe he went to the RIGHT side of the bed to get his gun (this would prevent any contact with Reeva on the other side) ... this is a flat-out LIE.

One assumes that an "anxious", “security-conscious” gun nut like OP would never get into bed without his gun on the SAME side he was sleeping.

Simple logic dictates that his holster being found where it was, the left side, the gun was also on the same side - the side he was sleeping. By logical extension and contrary to his story, this means when he went to retrieve the gun on the left side, he would have had direct access to Reeva (who he claims was sleeping on the left side) ... yet he never once spoke to or touched her!

Carelessly leaving the holster on the left side of the bed blew a hole in his whole story.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

From the defence heads of arguments.... I nearly spat my coffee out:

The State also did not call the person who was employed by Dr and Mrs Stipp, Ms Makwanazi, as a witness, as she would also not have supported the State’s case.

Neither did Defense call OP’s employee, Frank. LOL (Pot, meet kettle.)

Why do they claim Makwanazi would not support the State’s case?

If Makwanazi supported OP’s version, why didn’t Roux call her as a witness himself?

 

[Interested Bystander]

OP’s story of switching sides of the bed is a total LIE.

[B[/B]He slept on the left (this explains why the holster was found on the left nightstand) - she on the right. (Of course, he had to come up with Reeva sleeping on the left to get her away from the balcony doors, fans and any possibility of being seen by him when she supposedly got out of bed.)
Remember, after the shooting, he had X minutes to arrange the scene before he ever called anyone (he certainly wasn’t trying to save Reeva’s life) PLUS he went upstairs TWICE after he brought Reeva down. It was so easy for him to move Reeva’s slippers to the left side and his shirt to the right side.

His fatal mistake, though, was forgetting to also move the holster to the right side.

Under his version, he wants us to believe he went to the RIGHT side of the bed to get his gun (this would prevent any contact with Reeva on the other side) ... this is a flat-out LIE.

One assumes that an "anxious", “security-conscious” gun nut like OP would never get into bed without his gun on the SAME side he was sleeping.

Simple logic dictates that his holster being found where it was, the left side, the gun was also on the same side - the side he was sleeping. By logical extension and contrary to his story, this means when he went to retrieve the gun on the left side, he would have had direct access to Reeva (who he claims was sleeping on the left side) ... yet he never once spoke to or touched her!

Carelessly leaving the holster on the left side of the bed blew a hole in his whole story.

I think you have accidentally reversed the sides they slept. Reeva usually slept on the left and OP slept on the right (looking at the bed from the foot). He claims he changed sides that night due to a sore shoulder but he had had a sore shoulder for two weeks. He did agree, however, that they had slept the other way round the night before.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

SA Super Sleuth still convinced Oscar Pistorius is guilty

Brigadier Piet Byleveld is a retired South African Police officer and is undoubtedly one of the best detectives our country has ever seen. Listen as he sticks to his original verdict that it was premeditated murder and questions the sequence of events that led up to the fateful moment before 4 shots were fired through Oscar Pistorius’ bathroom door, killing Reeva Steenkamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su83BE8eCQE

 

[geevee]

I don't get why he had to reverse their sleeping positions to begin with, if he's on the left side of the bed, he has to walk around the end of the bed to get to the balcony doors, passing Reeva and being closest to her prone position, she has to roll over to the left of the bed to get out and to the bathroom without him hearing or seeing her, it would have all been much simpler, and at least a little believable, for him to have kept their positions where they really were, he on right, she on left. The only thing then that makes little sense is the holster on the left, but because of the blood spatter on the wall above it, he placed/tossed it there afterwards on one of his trips upstairs, why did he think that was necessary?

 

[Interested Bystander]

GeeVee, I think it was so that he could get out of bed to chase the imaginary intruder in the bathroom without the possibility of seeing RS on his way.

 

[geevee]

GeeVee, I think it was so that he could get out of bed to chase the imaginary intruder in the bathroom without the possibility of seeing RS on his way.

That does seem to be one of his versions but on the stand he says he wasn't in bed when he heard the "intruder", from his story he's either near the balcony doors to the right or in front of the receiver, and he tells it like he's 5 inches tall and can't see over the edge of the bed instead of 5 feet tall on his stumps. lol

 

[Interested Bystander]

That does seem to be one of his versions but on the stand he says he wasn't in bed when he heard the "intruder", from his story he's either near the balcony doors to the right or in front of the receiver, and he tells it like he's 5 inches tall and can't see over the edge of the bed instead of 5 feet tall on his stumps. lol

Yes, you are quite right. It would have made much more sense for him to have stuck to his normal side. I think my brain went AWOL for a while there. On his BH affidavit, in his Pretrial Statement and on the stand he said he was closing the doors, curtains and/or was placing the jeans over the blue light when he heard a sound in the bathroom. The statements differing and his evidence changing yet again when on the stand. How anyone can believe anything he said is beyond me. I think "I shot at her four times" is about as far as the truth goes.