General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[Inobu]

There is an important factor that is not addressed.

The skull was "Crushed"

The term used in describing the skull fracture was "crushed". Crushed is indicative of a high velocity impact or excessive compression. The close quarters of the toilet room does not support a high velocity fall or excessive weight compression causing the skull to be crushed.

The affidavit accounts for the bullet wounds but has no accountancy for the skull fracture.

If evidence reveals a match between the skull fracture and bat contour then the affidavit is not creditable. The bat would be the primary assault weapon and the gun a secondary.

If the gun was the only weapon then the skull fracture opens another event that must be explained.

Inobu

 

[CountryGirl]

There is an important factor that is not addressed.

The skull was "Crushed"

The term used in describing the skull fracture was "crushed". Crushed is indicative of a high velocity impact or excessive compression. The close quarters of the toilet room does not support a high velocity fall or excessive weight compression causing the skull to be crushed.

The affidavit accounts for the bullet wounds but has no accountancy for the skull fracture.

If evidence reveals a match between the skull fracture and bat contour then the affidavit is not creditable. The bat would be the primary assault weapon and the gun a secondary.

If the gun was the only weapon then the skull fracture opens another event that must be explained.

Inobu

I haven't read the autopsy. If the skull was crushed and the bat was bloody, whoa!

 

[Estelle]

Pistorius' lawyer, Barry Roux, insisted that the shooting was an accident and that there was no evidence to substantiate a murder charge.

"Was it to kill her, or was it to get her out?" he asked about the broken-down door. "We submit it is not even murder. There is no concession this is a murder."

He said the state provided no evidence that the couple quarreled nor offered a motive.

Nel rebutted: "The motive is 'I want to kill.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...lympic-star-charged-with-premeditated-murder/

Is motive necessary to convict someone of Section 6 premeditated murder?

Motive, no. Why you did it is not important.

Intent is what needs to be established for a First Degree conviction.

Any crime can be broken down into separate elements, each of which needs to be established for a conviction. For Section 6 Murder, the elements are:

1. Cause the death of another
2. With prior planning, and
3. With intent to cause that death.

Motive can make it easier to prove, but it is not a requirement.

Top 5 motives

#5: Alcohol and drugs

#4: Revenge

#3: Money

#2: No apparent motive

#1: The domestic argument (includes jealousy, desertion/termination of relationship, and other domestic altercation.". It seems our favourite excuse to bump someone off is the crime of passion.

http://irrelevantvoice.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/top-5-reasons-to-murder-someone.html

Nel relied to Roux that the motive is "I want to kill" so the prosecution has to prove intent. Nel did that by saying that he put on his prosthetics, grabbed his gun and shot through the door. So that shows planning and intent. It does not matter who it was - intruder or Reeva. It is premeditation.

This surprised me as I always thought that motive had to be proven. In any case I am wondering what you think. If this is a case of premeditated murder, what was his motive in murdering his "baba" whom he told friends he hoped to marry one day and most thought they were very much in love. Reeva seemed like such a loving person. So what could have gone wrong that night - possibly the first time they had argued since they met 3 months before?

In this case, IMO there could be several motives according to media reports so this is pure speculation:

1. Domestic argument - It appears that there were messages on Facebook from her male friends and her iPad was still on at the foot of her bed when police arrived. https://www.facebook.com/ReevaSteenkamp?fref=ts Reeva had made a comment to a friend that OP was too possessive and was not happy about that. Francois Hougaard allegedly sent her a Facebook message that night and perhaps when Reeva was doing her yoga, OP took a look at her Facebook page and became jealous which led to an argument about his possessiveness - hence why neighbours called police. Maybe Reeva threatened to leave him so he locked the bedroom door and hid the key so she could not get out. He claimed in his affidavit that he did it for security reasons. It will be interesting to hear what the police who were called earlier have to say. After the police left perhaps the argument continued and OP made threats of violence so she went to the toilet and locked herself in and refused to come out. It would be interesting to know how long she had been in there. IMO he could have been holding her captive.

2. Alcohol and drugs (steroids) Reports have alluded to much alcohol having been drunk that night plus many steroids were found in his bedroom drawers. IMO if Reeva found out about his taking these steroids that night, there could be two possibilities - one is that she could have been totally terrified of his drunken and drugged behaviour that night and secondly she might have asked him if he had been taking them to enhance his performance and asked him to stop taking them or she would expose him as a possible sport drug cheat which would have been a big threat to his career and income. So in his irrational state, he could have decided that Reeva now knew too much and had to be silenced and/or she might now leave him and he decided that if he could not have her, no one else could. He then devised a plan for the next time she went into the bathroom to fire shots through the door and lie about his thinking she was an intruder. I don't think they had much sleep that night.

Is there proof of the ladders being there? Was the fan in the bedroom when police arrived? Why leave the balcony door open until 3am when you have locked the bedroom door?

3. Narcissism - feeling entitled - IMO OP is used to winning on the athletic field and expected to win in love as well. OP could not have faced being dropped by Reeva as he felt entitled to her love and attention. IMO that night she could have seen a different side of OP. Romantic love lasts from 3 months to 3 years! But once one of them sees the warts and all as Reeva could have done that night (if media) reports are true, then it's over.

This has been speculation only but would be very interested to hear what others think about this.

 

[cityslick]

Probably? He knew that he was not alone in the apartment. He knew the girl was in there. Yet when he hears noise in the bathroom he doesn't think she could be using the bathroom? I find that very bizarre.

Not if his mind was somehow compromised (steroids).

 

[cityslick]

That looks to be a completely different scenario, so I am not sure where is the parallel? In the Dallas case, the homeowner presumably shot an intruder climbing through the window. While Mr. Pistorius shot and killed his own girlfriend, who he knew was in his apartment.

It wasn't posted as a parallel, it was posted to illustrate the point that you don't necessarily have to 'fear for your life' to shoot an intruder. I don't know if SA has the same laws.

 

[cityslick]

I haven't read the autopsy. If the skull was crushed and the bat was bloody, whoa!

Is there a link to the autopsy?

 

[cityslick]

Nel relied to Roux that the motive is "I want to kill" so the prosecution has to prove intent. Nel did that by saying that he put on his prosthetics, grabbed his gun and shot through the door. So that shows planning and intent. It does not matter who it was - intruder or Reeva. It is premeditation.

This surprised me as I always thought that motive had to be proven. In any case I am wondering what you think. If this is a case of premeditated murder, what was his motive in murdering his "baba" whom he told friends he hoped to marry one day and most thought they were very much in love. Reeva seemed like such a loving person. So what could have gone wrong that night - possibly the first time they had argued since they met 3 months before?

In this case, IMO there could be several motives according to media reports so this is pure speculation:

1. Domestic argument - It appears that there were messages on Facebook from her male friends and her iPad was still on at the foot of her bed when police arrived. https://www.facebook.com/ReevaSteenkamp?fref=ts Reeva had made a comment to a friend that OP was too possessive and was not happy about that. Francois Hougaard allegedly sent her a Facebook message that night and perhaps when Reeva was doing her yoga, OP took a look at her Facebook page and became jealous which led to an argument about his possessiveness - hence why neighbours called police. Maybe Reeva threatened to leave him so he locked the bedroom door and hid the key so she could not get out. He claimed in his affidavit that he did it for security reasons. It will be interesting to hear what the police who were called earlier have to say. After the police left perhaps the argument continued and OP made threats of violence so she went to the toilet and locked herself in and refused to come out. It would be interesting to know how long she had been in there. IMO he could have been holding her captive.

2. Alcohol and drugs (steroids) Reports have alluded to much alcohol having been drunk that night plus many steroids were found in his bedroom drawers. IMO if Reeva found out about his taking these steroids that night, there could be two possibilities - one is that she could have been totally terrified of his drunken and drugged behaviour that night and secondly she might have asked him if he had been taking them to enhance his performance and asked him to stop taking them or she would expose him as a possible sport drug cheat which would have been a big threat to his career and income. So in his irrational state, he could have decided that Reeva now knew too much and had to be silenced and/or she might now leave him and he decided that if he could not have her, no one else could. He then devised a plan for the next time she went into the bathroom to fire shots through the door and lie about his thinking she was an intruder. I don't think they had much sleep that night.

Is there proof of the ladders being there? Was the fan in the bedroom when police arrived? Why leave the balcony door open until 3am when you have locked the bedroom door?

3. Narcissism - feeling entitled - IMO OP is used to winning on the athletic field and expected to win in love as well. OP could not have faced being dropped by Reeva as he felt entitled to her love and attention. IMO that night she could have seen a different side of OP. Romantic love lasts from 3 months to 3 years! But once one of them sees the warts and all as Reeva could have done that night (if media) reports are true, then it's over.

This has been speculation only but would be very interested to hear what others think about this.

Option 4, steroids drove him into an ultra paranoid state of mind and made him think an intruder was really in the house and then went into a rage shooting the door where said noise came from.

 

[Peliman]

about those ladders--

in one of the online articles (guardian or mail or sun i think) there was video of a flyover of his house... it did not look like work was being done nor could i see any ladders but of course it might not have seen by the camera angle. his house and property looked pretty complete compared to a property nearby...

does anyone know where that video can be found? thx

Hello redheadedgal,

I think the video you're looking for is halfway down this link. I'm also curious if he has dogs as pictured in the same link. If so, where were they that night?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pad-explosive-rages-procession-blondes-.html

 

[redheadedgal]

thankyou peliman!

i don't see any evidence of any work being done by contractors... property looks fully landscaped and the house looks finished. why else would there be a contractor... one who leaves a ladder overnight?

good question about the dogs...

 

[Wondergirl]

When a story is fabricated its perspective is dynamic but layout is one dimensional. The author only sees the event from a self preservation perspective and created the events based on the direction they want the story to go or look.

Here is his affidavit

Pistorius describes going to bed and waking up in the early hours of Feb. 14. He said he went out to the balcony to bring in a fan and close the sliding doors and blinds, according to the Associated Press, which obtained the affidavit.

He heard a noise in bathroom, and "felt a sense of terror rushing over me," the affidavit said.

Pistorius, who is a double amputee, said he was not wearing his prosthetic, but he has mobility on his stumps.

"I believed that someone had entered my house," the affidavit said. "I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed."

He said he screamed to Steenkamp to call the police, thinking she was still in bed. He noticed the bathroom window was open, and he thought an intruder was hiding in the separate enclosed toilet, according to the affidavit.

"As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself," the affidavit said. "I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger."

Pistorius said he fired shots and shouted again at Steenkamp. When he realized she wasn't in bed, "it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet," the affidavit said.

Pistorius then said he put on his prosthetic legs, broke the toilet door open with a cricket bat and found Steenkamp shot inside, then ran downstairs with her.

Because the story is fabricated it is one dimensional and he is the only person presented in the story.

He had three point of interaction or acknowledgment of Reeva's presents and none presented itself as being odd.

1. Leaving the Bed to retrieve the fan.
2. Returning to the bed for the gun,
3. Instruction to call 911 with no response.

In reality he would have had to repeat his instruction to call the police to Reeva. There is a transition from the sleep state to the coherent state. The command "Call 911 or what ever " would not have been processed by a sleeping person on the first statement. Reeva would have started a communication sequence with OP. He would have had to posed the situation brief to her (Someones in the house!) and and reiterate the "Call 911" command. This dialog would have verified Reeva location also identifying her location from her voice. This would have prevented her from being caught in the middle of the situation.

A non response would have initiated another dimension to the event. Which sets up an entirely different event sequence. Her non response would start another thought process placing her in the bathroom which would either be a lower threat or elevated threat which would pose a hostage situation.

In any case the story does not reflect a multi dimensional perspective. It is expressed in a singular perspective with no interaction with a second person (Reeva).

OP indicated that he suspected an intruder based on the open window in the bathroom. The toilet is in a secondary room of the bathroom. This means that the "intruder" would have been trapped in the smaller toilet room.

Most fabricated stories unravel because the mind does not register time. The elapsed time between events are not tracked even in real life.

Have you ever noticed on "Cops" that people are often bare footed during these crisis events. Why? because they don't have time to put on their shoes. The time to put on a prosthetic leg or two is longer than putting on a pair of slippers or untied sneakers.

In any case the sequence of events, the time laps and the lack of interaction with Reeva does not match up. The story is segmented and sets up a hypothetical situation

His need for a prosthetic leg hinders his story as it induces laps in time opening the door for thought processes that should have reduced the notion of an intruder.

I think the sequence of events is more in line with

The bat was first. The gun was second and the intruder story was last.

Inobu

Great post, Inobu, thank-you.

 

[Wondergirl]

Has it been disclosed what Reeva's Valentine present was to Oscar, that was not supposed to be opened until the following day, and was it found unopened?

 

[NocturnalLady]

Has it been disclosed what Reeva's Valentine present was to Oscar, that was not supposed to be opened until the following day, and was it found unopened?

I want to know this too! I don't think the Valentine's Day timing is any co-incidence in the sense that there are heightened expectations - especially with new couples! - if the day and/or Reeva was not meeting those expectations that could have set OP off.

 

[NocturnalLady]

well the defense atty has a point. when I get up in the middle of the night to use the potty, I never lock the door. I usually leave it open actually (only because I have 2 cats who think I can't go to the bathroom alone).

So -- why did she lock the door? Hmmmmm....habit maybe? Or was she trying to hide/get away?

MOO

Mel

I was thinking the same thing. Middle of the night & only two people in the house & you lock the door? Especially since with the layout of that little bathroom door (which was really a separate door to a small "water closet" that contained only the toilet) makes it so that if Reeva went in there an shut the door she was certainly private enough to use the bathroom. There would be no need under those circumstances to also lock the door.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Wow. She was in her nightgown. He shot her in the bedroom first, then she fled to the bathroom, he got up, put his legs on, shot her 3 more times. Just wow. I have no idea what they were fighting about, but this is rage.

I don't agree with the prosecutor that it was premeditated, unless they have more than is being released and can prove he was planning to kill his short term girlfriend. If they do, I will change my mind on that one.

Bedroom shot links:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...irlfriend-multiple-times-in-bedroom-bathroom/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57569823/new-details-emerge-in-pistorius-murder-case/

Premeditation is proved by OP putting his legs on and pursuing her to the bathroom and shooting her an additional 3 times.

 

[danzn16]

Which blows out the "I had to get up and shut the sliding glass door and heard a noise" theory. If he was so afraid of intruders, why did he allow both of them to get into bed without making sure the house was secure.

I live in a safe neighborhood, and we always lock up tight before bed.

MOO

Mel

I live in a safe apartment complex on the third floor (for the purpose of it being harder for breakins) while I'm at school and I would never sleep with my balcony door open. If SA was that dangerous, you were more vulnerable with stumps, and were paranoid about intruders you would never leave a door open unattended, especially while sleeping.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Is this a possibility:

He gets up to close the door...same time as she, unknown to him, goes to the loo..its a small loo...he hears a noise...and screams at the "intruder" and screams at Reeva to call police.

Reversal: Reeva is sitting on the loo..she hears Oscar screaming about an intruder and shouting to her to call police..she becomes terrified and quickly locks the door, keeping silent, thinking there is really an intruder, totally UNAWARE that Oscar thinks SHE is the intruder..something like that???

That's a totally reasonable scenario IF there is no evidence that he used the bat on her and that her skull had been crushed and if there is no evidence that any of the shots occurred outside the bathroom (all would have to be through the door). Also the fight which police were called to earlier in the day doesn't tend to give weight to that scenario either.

 

[Wondergirl]

NewsDayZimbabwe NewsDay 19 hrs


Reeva Steenkamp's body arrives at the Victoria Park Crematorium ahead of her memorial service in Port Elizabeth. pic.twitter.com/Xtl8GZmo

https://twitter.com/NewsDayZimbabwe/status/303788948935819265/photo/1

 

[Wondergirl]

Reeva Steenkamp's Funeral

Springboks rugby player Francois Hougaard arrives at a memorial service for model Reeva Steenkamp at the Victoria Park Crematorium in Port Elizabeth February 19, 2013.

http://www.indiatimes.com/sports/others/pics-of-reeva-steenkamps-funeral-61815-14.html#photo

 

[Xavier]

Nel relied to Roux that the motive is "I want to kill" so the prosecution has to prove intent. Nel did that by saying that he put on his prosthetics, grabbed his gun and shot through the door. So that shows planning and intent. It does not matter who it was - intruder or Reeva. It is premeditation.

This surprised me as I always thought that motive had to be proven. In any case I am wondering what you think. If this is a case of premeditated murder, what was his motive in murdering his "baba" whom he told friends he hoped to marry one day and most thought they were very much in love. Reeva seemed like such a loving person. So what could have gone wrong that night - possibly the first time they had argued since they met 3 months before?

In this case, IMO there could be several motives according to media reports so this is pure speculation:

1. Domestic argument - It appears that there were messages on Facebook from her male friends and her iPad was still on at the foot of her bed when police arrived. https://www.facebook.com/ReevaSteenkamp?fref=ts Reeva had made a comment to a friend that OP was too possessive and was not happy about that. Francois Hougaard allegedly sent her a Facebook message that night and perhaps when Reeva was doing her yoga, OP took a look at her Facebook page and became jealous which led to an argument about his possessiveness - hence why neighbours called police. Maybe Reeva threatened to leave him so he locked the bedroom door and hid the key so she could not get out. He claimed in his affidavit that he did it for security reasons. It will be interesting to hear what the police who were called earlier have to say. After the police left perhaps the argument continued and OP made threats of violence so she went to the toilet and locked herself in and refused to come out. It would be interesting to know how long she had been in there. IMO he could have been holding her captive.

2. Alcohol and drugs (steroids) Reports have alluded to much alcohol having been drunk that night plus many steroids were found in his bedroom drawers. IMO if Reeva found out about his taking these steroids that night, there could be two possibilities - one is that she could have been totally terrified of his drunken and drugged behaviour that night and secondly she might have asked him if he had been taking them to enhance his performance and asked him to stop taking them or she would expose him as a possible sport drug cheat which would have been a big threat to his career and income. So in his irrational state, he could have decided that Reeva now knew too much and had to be silenced and/or she might now leave him and he decided that if he could not have her, no one else could. He then devised a plan for the next time she went into the bathroom to fire shots through the door and lie about his thinking she was an intruder. I don't think they had much sleep that night.

Is there proof of the ladders being there? Was the fan in the bedroom when police arrived? Why leave the balcony door open until 3am when you have locked the bedroom door?

3. Narcissism - feeling entitled - IMO OP is used to winning on the athletic field and expected to win in love as well. OP could not have faced being dropped by Reeva as he felt entitled to her love and attention. IMO that night she could have seen a different side of OP. Romantic love lasts from 3 months to 3 years! But once one of them sees the warts and all as Reeva could have done that night (if media) reports are true, then it's over.

This has been speculation only but would be very interested to hear what others think about this.

Great post Estelle -- Is it possible after knocking open the bathroom door w/ cricket bat, OP laid the bat down in the pool of blood and never hit Reeva with the bat?

It's very possible Reeva fell and smacked her head hard on the toilet, counter after being shot, crushing a side of her skull

Any thoughts?

 

[Estelle]

Comment from http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-faces-another-gruelling-day-in-court-20130219

atholl.canterbury - February 20, 2013

The most significant evidence today was the locked door.
{locked from the inside - by the victim} or
{locked from the outside - by the accused} {premeditated}

Tommorrow the evidence will focus on only two issues
- the cricket bat (whether it was bloodstained)
- the scull condition of the victim (if there was a fracture).

If the bat condition/blood can be connected to an --alleged-- scull fracture then the intent of the accused would be clear --- {premeditated}

I had not thought of OP locking the door on Reeva from the outside.

But I had thought of his making her his captive. So he first gets her into the bedroom and locks it and then when she goes to the toilet, he locked that door too. Why? to stop her leaving him and/or to stop her exposing him for taking banned steroids IMO.

Another thought has crossed my mind now. That is that he crushed her skull earlier with the cricket bat until she died. Hence the screaming heard earlier by neighbours that he fended off possibly saying that they had had an argument and all was safe.

Then he could have sat down and planned how to set it up to best to get him off the hook. So the intruder plan begins as per his affidavit. He puts her on the toilet, goes out and locks the door. He then fires the 3 or 4 shots through the toilet door. Then gets the cricket bat to bash down the door. Then phones people and carries her down the stairs pretending she was alive and tying to save her like the hero.


"

As for the cricket bat, reportedly sources say that Pistorius either hit her with the bat before she ran to the bathroom, or that she used the bat to defend herself, or that he used it to smash his way into the bathroom. None of these theories particularly make sense: If he smashed her skull before she ran to the bathroom, how did she make it there? Why did he shoot her if he'd already "smashed her skull"? If she used it for defense, why would her blood be on it?"

"It doesn't make sense that he hit her with the bat before she ran to the bathroom, because if her skull was cracked (as is said) there would have been much blood spatter in the bedroom - though they DO suspect he shot her once in the bedroom, she ran/locked herself in bathroom, then he shot 4 times through the door with 3 more shots hitting her. Reeva was still breathing when he took her downstairs (odd for two reasons.. 1] it's not good to move an injured person unless you know what you're doing so you don't make it worse, and 2] he moved her from the crime scene). He admitted today that he used the bat to break through the door (he has no feet to "kick" in the door), but this wouldn't make the bat "covered with blood"... I think he beat her afterward (if her skull was cracked) because he was still enraged and still wanted to kill her. I'm still curious why the prosecutor didn't mention the bloody bat today (Pistorius is trying to get bail - the defense is trying to say the murder wasn't "premeditated" because if it is, he can't get bail).

Bottom line is she should have left him after the cops were called for the "domestic disturbance" 2 hours earlier, but I know this is hard to do. Cops always say if a guy shows a bad temper (esp this early in a relationship) things will only get worse"

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/151348/blade_runner_oscar_pistorius_reportedly?next=11