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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
After re-listening to the Burger/Johnson and van der Mewre testimonies this week, I want to revise part of my theory above (which I snipped for space).

The screaming and the bangs, and who heard what, all makes sense to me now (see the sounds thread for my full thoughts).

These are my revised notes for the points above:

14. I do still think that the fighting begin in another area other than the bedroom/bathroom but I think it started somewhere downstairs, either in the kitchen or immediate surrounding area. Mrs. van der Mewre's bedroom faces the front of OP's house and the arguing voice was intermittent which tells me that the person likely changed locations in the house during the fight. She did not hear the blood-curdling screaming before the shots and that is because the final screams occurred in the bathroom on the backside of the house.

They also heard OP crying loudly some time after those last set of shots, most likely because he came down the stairs to open the front door, and also carried Reeva down the stairs. That's what they heard, and that's what Mr. van der Mewre identified when he said, "that's Oscar crying". We know he was sobbing at that point according to Stipp.

When they looked out the window a short time later, an ambulance and other vehicles were already outside. I absolutely believe the shots they heard were the actual gunshots around the 3:16am timeframe.

I have changed my mind about the airgun causing the first banging noises. I think that Mangena would have testified about that. I think that it was the cricket bat hitting wood and the Stipps are the only people who heard it earlier on because their open balcony directly faces OP's bathroom.

15. I still agree with my thoughts here, that OP and Reeva were running in to the bathroom towards the end of the fight, hence the closer screams.

18. and 19. This is when the Stipps hear the first set of bangs- wood on wood and maybe wood on metal plate.

I think the screaming from Reeva occurred over several minutes after that, there was a crack in the door from the bat strikes and she could see OP, and vice versa. The reason for the final climax of terrified screams is that she saw him come back in with the gun. She knew what was coming. He hit her in the hip. She was alive, she saw it, felt it and was in agony. The screaming continued throughout the next 3 shots and ended after the last one. The total silence after the gunshots was witnessed, and testified to, by both Stipps, Burger, Johnson and van der Mewre. All of their testimonies match exactly with that point.

I know we've talked about the bat hitting the door first for a very long time, and I have definitely entertained that as the first set of bangs, but I always was a little hesitant to say for sure that is what I thought it was. After really thinking about the ear witness testimonies all week, and re-listening to them, I am now a full subscriber to bat strikes first. Not that I ever doubted the gunshots seconds. I was always firm on that. Just wasn't sure what exactly caused those first noises. It makes perfect sense to me now though, and I get why the Stipps were the only ones to hear it. Part of my problem was the van der Mewres hearing gunshots around 3am, but after listening to Estelle's testimony again, I realize that she was always talking about the second set of bangs (the gunshots) and just didn't have the exact time.

Don't leave off on the air rifle.

Compare the wound in the back with the air rifle pellet. Both are 4.5mm.

Consider the hole in bedroom door. One source said the pellet was fired into the bedroom, another said it was fired the other way so it is hard to make an accurate judgment without knowing which is correct.

Also, it would be good to know if the height of the hole in the bedroom door lined up with the wound on the back.

At first I thought the striations on the wound might correspond to the striations found on most pellets but after looking closely at the pattern of the weave of the garment I now think it is the garment imprint we see. The striations in the wound look like the pattern on the garment being slapped into the skin by flat headed pellet after going through the bedroom door.

If you look closely at the wound you can see the imprint is a circular 4.5mm. There was enough energy left to tear the skin a little and cause the imprint. The second small wound could have been caused by a wood fragment from pellet going through the door.

Falling on the magazine rack or being impacted by ricochet bullet fragments would not in my mind give us the circular imprint.
 
Don't leave off on the air rifle.

Compare the wound in the back with the air rifle pellet. Both are 4.5mm.

Consider the hole in bedroom door. One source said the pellet was fired into the bedroom, another said it was fired the other way so it is hard to make an accurate judgment without knowing which is correct.

Also, it would be good to know if the height of the hole in the bedroom door lined up with the wound on the back.

At first I thought the striations on the wound might correspond to the striations found on most pellets but after looking closely at the pattern of the weave of the garment I now think it is the garment imprint we see. The striations in the wound look like the pattern on the garment being slapped into the skin by flat headed pellet after going through the bedroom door.

If you look closely at the wound you can see the imprint is a circular 4.5mm. There was enough energy left to tear the skin a little and cause the imprint. The second small wound could have been caused by a wood fragment from pellet going through the door.

Falling on the magazine rack or being impacted by ricochet bullet fragments would not in my mind give us the circular imprint.

Ugh, I know. I don't want to just let go of the air rifle and the holes in the bedroom door... and the contusions on Reeva's back (that certainly do look like they could be from pellet(s).

From reports that I've read, the Medical Examiner said the back contusions could have been caused by blunt force or projectiles (I have to paraphrase here of course because we didn't hear the report first hand.)

But why would Mangena and Nel not present the possibility of a pellet hitting her, considering the door evidence?

I just can't understand why it wasn't brought up at all while Mangena and OP gave their testimonies. Any thoughts?
 
My only thought is that Capt. Mangena investigated the pellet hitting her back and rejected the idea. He seemed to reject the idea of OP shooting with his legs on too, but ultimately allowed for the possibility while finding his being on his stumps was "more probable". I don't find it "probable" that Mangena overlooked the pellet in her back option.
 
Don't leave off on the air rifle.

Compare the wound in the back with the air rifle pellet. Both are 4.5mm.

Consider the hole in bedroom door. One source said the pellet was fired into the bedroom, another said it was fired the other way so it is hard to make an accurate judgment without knowing which is correct.

Also, it would be good to know if the height of the hole in the bedroom door lined up with the wound on the back.

At first I thought the striations on the wound might correspond to the striations found on most pellets but after looking closely at the pattern of the weave of the garment I now think it is the garment imprint we see. The striations in the wound look like the pattern on the garment being slapped into the skin by flat headed pellet after going through the bedroom door.

If you look closely at the wound you can see the imprint is a circular 4.5mm. There was enough energy left to tear the skin a little and cause the imprint. The second small wound could have been caused by a wood fragment from pellet going through the door.

Falling on the magazine rack or being impacted by ricochet bullet fragments would not in my mind give us the circular imprint.

I agree Noisy Fan... the air rifle remains a significant part of the story. The State had over 7000 photos to choose from...they distilled this vast collection to hundreds, of which only perhaps 200 were shown to the public in court. Of this reduced set, three were pictures of the air rifle, and five were of the 4.5mm holes in the bedroom door. That is a very significant time and space allotment, imo.

Initially, I too thought the striations of that particular back bruise were caused by the lined pattern often seen on the surface of pellets, but then I realized the pellet would be in motion, turning along its axis, and wobbling especially if it had gone through the door. Thus a reasonably smooth projectile impacting the fabric seemed to me the more likely scenario. Now Mangena has stated that he believed 2 of the bruises on her back were due to fragments from Shot/Hole B, the bullet that missed and hit the tiles at point E, then ricocheting to F, at which point it broke into several fragments (B4 fragments)2 of which, Mangena says struck Reeva in the back. Perhaps, since bullet B hit 3 hard targets before it struck Reeva in the back, it may not have opened its talons exposing the sharp edges as it would do with a soft target. What I don't know with certainty is whether Mangena's B4 related back bruise is the back bruise with striations. In fact, I do not know with any certainty precisely where on the back any of these bruises are located.

Roux had one of his witnesses demonstrate the location of some of the back bruises by pinning a poorly coloured paper copy of the bruises to his back. IIRC, it was mid to lower region and left of the midline of the back.

When Roux was discussing the bruises on the back, and holes in the vest, Nel interjected quietly and said there were NO holes in the back of the vest.
There are however, holes in the front of the vest. If the shirt was backwards much of this could be explained away.

The magazine rack as a source for the bruises is a NO GO. The main point of impact on that bruise is perfectly circular - 4.5 mm in diameter, ie a radius of 2.25mm, in contrast to the smallest arc on that mag rack (on the ends holding the handle in place) would not be less than 25mm ...not even in the same ball park.


BTW, Do you know what brand of air rifle it is?
 
Tiger Woods and Reeva Steenkamp are light years apart in terms of what they could get away with. Tiger was a decades proven international golf star, multi-million if not billionaire with a team of "people" protecting him at all times. He's been a sex addict for years to non one's knowledge, just for example.

Reeva was almost 30 and 5'7" - not model material by any standard. That's why she was doing reality tv I'd guess.


I strongly disagree. I think that your words are subjective, your personal opinion, not objective facts and so your words can not be debated.





I think that Reeva was not anywhere near as big of a success as she is being made out to be posthumously. Which doesn't give her life any less worth but the reason that this case has garnered such attention is due to Oscar's world renown celebrity. From everything I have read, Reeva was an unknown outside of SA until her death.

She was smitten with Oscar, he took her to an award ceremony the first day that they met and she called her friend Gina (whom she was living with in Gina's parents home) to say she was going to an award's ceremony with Oscar. Reeva didn't even need to say Oscar's last name.

Not that it matters in the larger scheme of things but a model hitting the big time at 30 would be atypical.

Beauty is subjective I don't think anyone would argue that point.
 
She may not have been able to call anyone, she may have been too embarrassed to call anyone, she may not have been able to even leave his locked bedroom (that he's uncertain she could have disengaged the alarm for if she didn't have access to the remote).

Her leaving to avoid a fight is extremely reasonable but him allowing her to is another entirely. She wouldn't have been considering what may happen on the roads but sensing instead a rising escalation she wasn't in control of - getting out of that would have trumped the potential of putting herself in possible harm driving home. JMO, having left more than once in the middle of the night, babies in tow, to avoid an escalating fight, in a very bad part of town in the city I'm from. The devil I didn't know was a lot less dangerous to me than the one I knew so well.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

That may well be true. All we know for a fact is that she did not call or text anyone to tell them that she and Oscar were having a row. Could it be because they were having a row and Oscar had her captive and would not allow here to use a phone. It could be.

But here is where I have a problem with a lot of theories being turned into Theories, it seems when the simple explanation is to the benefit of Oscars version, then the simple explanation is dismissed, but when the simple explanation seems to go against Oscars version of events it is deemed the only explanation possible.
 
I agree Noisy Fan... the air rifle remains a significant part of the story. The State had over 7000 photos to choose from...they distilled this vast collection to hundreds, of which only perhaps 200 were shown to the public in court. Of this reduced set, three were pictures of the air rifle, and five were of the 4.5mm holes in the bedroom door. That is a very significant time and space allotment, imo.

Initially, I too thought the striations of that particular back bruise were caused by the lined pattern often seen on the surface of pellets, but then I realized the pellet would be in motion, turning along its axis, and wobbling especially if it had gone through the door. Thus a reasonably smooth projectile impacting the fabric seemed to me the more likely scenario. Now Mangena has stated that he believed 2 of the bruises on her back were due to fragments from Shot/Hole B, the bullet that missed and hit the tiles at point E, then ricocheting to F, at which point it broke into several fragments (B4 fragments)2 of which, Mangena says struck Reeva in the back. Perhaps, since bullet B hit 3 hard targets before it struck Reeva in the back, it may not have opened its talons exposing the sharp edges as it would do with a soft target. What I don't know with certainty is whether Mangena's B4 related back bruise is the back bruise with striations. In fact, I do not know with any certainty precisely where on the back any of these bruises are located.

Roux had one of his witnesses demonstrate the location of some of the back bruises by pinning a poorly coloured paper copy of the bruises to his back. IIRC, it was mid to lower region and left of the midline of the back.

When Roux was discussing the bruises on the back, and holes in the vest, Nel interjected quietly and said there were NO holes in the back of the vest.
There are however, holes in the front of the vest. If the shirt was backwards much of this could be explained away.

The magazine rack as a source for the bruises is a NO GO. The main point of impact on that bruise is perfectly circular - 4.5 mm in diameter, ie a radius of 2.25mm, in contrast to the smallest arc on that mag rack (on the ends holding the handle in place) would not be less than 25mm ...not even in the same ball park.


BTW, Do you know what brand of air rifle it is?

A few things...

I was able to get a screen grab of Dixon holding up this photo (see below) - the white marker on her back indicates the location where the contusions were. I tried to be respectful and crop the bottom half, but I'm sure by looking at it you can figure out her anatomy.

The photo that Roux had held up to the lawyer's back was definitely blown up. Those contusions in real life were much smaller. I think that was a little defense trick. They wanted to give the optical illusion that the contusions were very large, hence the rack causing them. When in fact, they are small. I agree whole heartedly, no way in heck did the rack cause them. That's just silly.

As for the bullet (from hole B), the one that missed, the jacket could not still have been on that one as there were no full bullets found in that toilet room. The largest piece was found in the toilet and that was a core. Even that was missing a jacket. The jacket would not have come off just by the act of hitting Reeva's back.

Also, the shirt could not have been inside out on Reeva. Take a look at the photo - the tissue, bone and bullet fragments found on the front of it are definitely from the exit wound on the arm. You can see the labeling of the shirt at the top of it. Everything indicates that she was wearing the shirt the correct way.

But I'm guessing that a pellet could hit the back from a distance and not break skin or tear the shirt (I think). If I'm wrong on that, somebody please chime in. The pattern of the tank top could have caused those striations. But there was no mention of pellets found at the scene.
 

Attachments

  • location of abrasion on back.png
    location of abrasion on back.png
    172.9 KB · Views: 39
  • back contusions.png
    back contusions.png
    169.4 KB · Views: 44
  • close up of back wound.png
    close up of back wound.png
    770.3 KB · Views: 43
  • wounds on back.png
    wounds on back.png
    318.5 KB · Views: 37
  • black tank top.JPG
    black tank top.JPG
    81.7 KB · Views: 38
My only thought is that Capt. Mangena investigated the pellet hitting her back and rejected the idea. He seemed to reject the idea of OP shooting with his legs on too, but ultimately allowed for the possibility while finding his being on his stumps was "more probable". I don't find it "probable" that Mangena overlooked the pellet in her back option.

DebinGA, I do not recall them discussing pellets at all, certainly not during the evidence in chief... he was carefully being led by Nel. Mangena had a 54 page report and only a portion of it was discussed. Nel was careful to restrict Mangena on what bruise he was to show in the back bruise discussion.
Nel also constrained him from talking about all of Paragraph 18, the section that detailed all of his opinions and conclusions. Nel limited him to just subparagraph 18.1...

Mangena: My Lady, in paragraph 18.1, my opinion was that 4 shots were fired at the crime scene and all 4 bullets perforated the toilette door into the toilette cubicle.

Interestingly, Nel responds immediately with:
"And one hit someone"

Wow- was that a slip of the tongue or is there more come.?

Mangena, then goes on to talk about holes A, B, C, D A, the wounds, and the probable body positions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A31z0aNCNHs



QUESTION: What's in the remaining subparagraphs of paragraph 18?

--------
Re: Mangena rejecting the idea that OP was on his prosthetics
IMO, Mangena and Nel were setting a trap for the defence, and they fell right into it. What Mangena and Nel did for illustrative purposes, was to purposely set the laser (simulating a muzzle) at distance 220cm from the door and at a height of 130cm... OP's shoulder height without his prosthetics is only 123 cm, so if he was on his stumps he would have to be much closer (say muzzle at 160cm or less from the door). It starts to look very much like an execution at that distance. Thus the panicked, and numeracy impaired Roux started talking about primary residue his team found further away near the wall ... 3 meters away. Anywhere beyond 2.2m, OP had to be on his prosthesis or on a ladder.

Anyway Deb, I always enjoy your thoughtful and intelligent posts, we just have slightly different views on this one.
 
A few things...

I was able to get a screen grab of Dixon holding up this photo (see below) - the white marker on her back indicates the location where the contusions were. I tried to be respectful and crop the bottom half, but I'm sure by looking at it you can figure out her anatomy.

The photo that Roux had held up to the lawyer's back was definitely blown up. Those contusions in real life were much smaller. I think that was a little defense trick. They wanted to give the optical illusion that the contusions were very large, hence the rack causing them. When in fact, they are small. I agree whole heartedly, no way in heck did the rack cause them. That's just silly.

As for the bullet (from hole B), the one that missed, the jacket could not still have been on that one as there were no full bullets found in that toilet room. The largest piece was found in the toilet and that was a core. Even that was missing a jacket. The jacket would not have come off just by the act of hitting Reeva's back.

Also, the shirt could not have been inside out on Reeva. Take a look at the photo - the tissue, bone and bullet fragments found on the front of it are definitely from the exit wound on the arm. You can see the labeling of the shirt at the top of it. Everything indicates that she was wearing the shirt the correct way.

But I'm guessing that a pellet could hit the back from a distance and not break skin or tear the shirt (I think). If I'm wrong on that, somebody please chime in. The pattern of the tank top could have caused those striations. But there was no mention of pellets found at the scene.

Thanks very much Lisa ...I love your posts, and your website is outstanding. You should get a webbie award for that, if not a generous book offer.:loveyou:

Agree totally with the defence trick ...these bruises/lesions are mm in size.
Do you think the 2 images illustrating both bruises are the same set of bruises?

Re-the shirt
I'm not suggesting the shirt was inside out but that it was on backwards...maybe it was both:). Whether it was put on that way or switched after the execution, I don't know. But Roux seemed to be trying to match the back wounds to some imperfections on the back of the vest. ...

To Prof Botha on re-direct:
Roux (emphatically):What also was not shown or put to you was that there were holes in the shirt at the back. Now take that into account.
That's when Nel interjected with "there are no holes in the back of the vest"
about 31:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzkH1j2SzKQ



will post more later...thanks again!
 
Can someone explain why it matters where the magazine rack was and whether Reeva was on top of it or in front of it? TIA
 
Thanks very much Lisa ...I love your posts, and your website is outstanding. You should get a webbie award for that, if not a generous book offer.:loveyou:

Agree totally with the defence trick ...these bruises/lesions are mm in size.
Do you think the 2 images illustrating both bruises are the same set of bruises?

Re-the shirt
I'm not suggesting the shirt was inside out but that it was on backwards...maybe it was both:). Whether it was put on that way or switched after the execution, I don't know. But Roux seemed to be trying to match the back wounds to some imperfections on the back of the vest. ...

To Prof Botha on re-direct:
Roux (emphatically):What also was not shown or put to you was that there were holes in the shirt at the back. Now take that into account.
That's when Nel interjected with "there are no holes in the back of the vest"
about 31:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzkH1j2SzKQ



will post more later...thanks again!

interesting, on the image of the shirt that lisa posted [attached], there does appear to be a hole at the back. ref: the white area through the largest front hole.
 

Attachments

  • black tank top.JPG
    black tank top.JPG
    81.7 KB · Views: 78
I've been thinking about the marks on her back. Could it have happened after the shooting when he was carrying her downstairs? From a wristwatch or something in his hand?
 
interesting, on the image of the shirt that lisa posted [attached], there does appear to be a hole at the back. ref: the white area through the largest front hole.

If its the area I have circled in red on the attachment below, then imo its just an arrow marking the position of the hole.
 

Attachments

  • Reeva shirt front.jpg
    Reeva shirt front.jpg
    29.9 KB · Views: 66
Ugh, I know. I don't want to just let go of the air rifle and the holes in the bedroom door... and the contusions on Reeva's back (that certainly do look like they could be from pellet(s).

From reports that I've read, the Medical Examiner said the back contusions could have been caused by blunt force or projectiles (I have to paraphrase here of course because we didn't hear the report first hand.)

But why would Mangena and Nel not present the possibility of a pellet hitting her, considering the door evidence?

I just can't understand why it wasn't brought up at all while Mangena and OP gave their testimonies. Any thoughts?

I wish I knew the answer to your questions. It is possible they looked at the height of the wound compared to the pellet holes through the door. Maybe they didn't find the pellet or find any wood fragments from the bedroom door. I would yield of course to the medical examiner in regards to the imprint on skin but I am frustrated like you that this was not addressed in detail just to get it off the plate so to speak.
 
A few things...

I was able to get a screen grab of Dixon holding up this photo (see below) - the white marker on her back indicates the location where the contusions were. I tried to be respectful and crop the bottom half, but I'm sure by looking at it you can figure out her anatomy.

The photo that Roux had held up to the lawyer's back was definitely blown up. Those contusions in real life were much smaller. I think that was a little defense trick. They wanted to give the optical illusion that the contusions were very large, hence the rack causing them. When in fact, they are small. I agree whole heartedly, no way in heck did the rack cause them. That's just silly.

As for the bullet (from hole B), the one that missed, the jacket could not still have been on that one as there were no full bullets found in that toilet room. The largest piece was found in the toilet and that was a core. Even that was missing a jacket. The jacket would not have come off just by the act of hitting Reeva's back.

Also, the shirt could not have been inside out on Reeva. Take a look at the photo - the tissue, bone and bullet fragments found on the front of it are definitely from the exit wound on the arm. You can see the labeling of the shirt at the top of it. Everything indicates that she was wearing the shirt the correct way.

But I'm guessing that a pellet could hit the back from a distance and not break skin or tear the shirt (I think). If I'm wrong on that, somebody please chime in. The pattern of the tank top could have caused those striations. But there was no mention of pellets found at the scene.

I grew up with air rifles and am familiar with how 177 caliber (4.5mm) pellets go through doors, walls, clothing, garage windows etc. I have seen the more powerful ones go through half inch plywood. So, to invision one going through a door and having enough energy to cause that wound works for me. Most are in the 700 to 800 fps range with the most powerful at 1200 fps ... very close in energy to the common 22 caliber rim-fire cartridge.

To answer your question about Reeva being hit from a distance ... at any distance in the house if she was hit by a fully energized pellet, the pellet would have caused a much more significant wound. They would be finding the pellet embedded in the muscle of her back or in her right lung if it was a closer shot and didn't hit bone.
 
If its the area I have circled in red on the attachment below, then imo its just an arrow marking the position of the hole.

Maybe just me but I can't see a pellet going through a garment and still leaving an imprint of the garment weave. In my mind the pellet hit with just enough energy along with a bit of heat to stamp that pattern into the skin. I would be more inclined to check the garment in that area of the back for lead compound or gun oil residue.
 
I've been thinking about the marks on her back. Could it have happened after the shooting when he was carrying her downstairs? From a wristwatch or something in his hand?

Good thought but with the extreme blood loss you would probably not have any blood in the skin tissue that is evident in the photos.
 
Good thought but with the extreme blood loss you would probably not have any blood in the skin tissue that is evident in the photos.



Yeah, that's true. I've zoomed in on that pic and it's so odd that those little hairs aren't disturbed.

Does anyone know what way the bedroom doors open?

Could that mark be from the bedroom door handle?

Leaning up against the bedroom door handle trying to keep OP out?
 
Actually, it's more believable to me that it was OP's voice that Ms. Werwe heard during the 2:00 a.m. argument. I bet his angry voice is shrill, loud, and totally out of proportion to whatever irritation set him off. Where I live, it's socially unacceptable for a man to raise his voice in anger at a woman, especially if she's not loudly arguing back, but it seems to be OP's standard mo. If I'd heard what Ms. Werwe heard, my first thought would be that an abusive husband was berating his cowed wife with his window open.

So when he yells he sounds like a woman, but when he screams he doesn't?
 
Theory on the striations on the back wound:

Here's a side by side comparison of the wound pattern and the shirt pattern.

yz8qp.jpg
t000fl.jpg


I'm not seeing the shirt as the cause of those marks, but it's hard for me to visualize the wood making that pattern either and I haven't seen a close up of the wood grain.

So Mangena says that wound was caused by a ricochet fragment (tile fragment or bullet fragment?) and Botha says the wound was caused by the magazine rack? Or is he just saying the pattern was caused by the magazine rack?

This is so aggravating because it seems like with all these experts there ought to be someone who can give an opinion about what kind of wound that is and its etiology - to my very untrained eye it almost looks like a blood blister.

And TBH, I still do not really understand why this matters or how it affects either side's version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,507
Total visitors
1,595

Forum statistics

Threads
602,170
Messages
18,135,952
Members
231,260
Latest member
mamadeadhead
Back
Top