General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[Xavier]

I wonder why Reeva would need an iphone in the bathroom around 3am?

To try to call for help?

Police also found two iPhones in the bathroom and two BlackBerrys in the bedroom, Botha said, adding that none had been used to phone for help. Roux later suggested that a fifth phone, not collected by the police, was used by Pistorius to make calls for a hospital and help. After the hearing, Roux told journalists that Pistorius' defense team had the phone, but did not elaborate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ha-testimony_n_2725410.html?utm_hp_ref=sports

 

[SweetT]

quoted by inobu " kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night."


But investigators found he used a 38 special that night. ?????????????? HMMMM

EDIT: Botha said that Pistorius faced new charges of possession of unlicenced ammunition, since the police found .38 Special rounds in a bedroom safe. Pistorius has a licence for a 9mm pistol, not a .3

so they just found it in a safe..sorry I read this wrong earlier.

 

[Xavier]

More from the BBC News:

We have the statement of a person who said after he heard gunshots, he went to his balcony and saw the light was on. Then he heard a female screaming two-three times, then more gunshots," Detective Botha told the court.

But doubts were cast on the validity of that evidence when Det Botha told court the witness heard the alleged altercation from some 600m (1,800ft) away.

<modsnip>

He later amended his testimony, telling the prosecution after the lunchtime break the witness was 300m away, not 600m.

Mr Pistorius claims he was asleep until only moments before the shooting and that there was no argument between the couple.

But Det Botha's testimony demonstrated his belief that Mr Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

"I believe that he knew that Reeva was in the bathroom and he shot four shots through the door," he told the court.

Earlier, Det Botha said he arrived at the house at 04:15 and found Ms Steenkamp lying dead on the ground floor. She was wearing white shorts and a black vest, he said and was covered in towels.

<MODSNIP>



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21514428

 

[Estelle]

what i want to know is who called the lawyer and why was he at the scene so quickly with the borther?

the police may have problems with their case, but the fact is pistorius did kill a person. it was not an accident. he is no longer claiming that. it was intentional. it may not have all the tabloid interest as it may not be as the state would portray...high profile boyfriend murders beautiful accomplished girlfriend, but he did commit murder. does it really make any difference who the victim was?

What criminal has ever been able to get his advocate to the secne of the crime at 4.15am - about an hour after the crime occurred?

The police should have sealed off the crime scene. I did not know that the criminal's solicitor could inspect the scene even before the police did their investigations. Carl phoned that advocate immediately he got the call from Pistorius. Did he do some covering up? or make suggestions to Carl. The advocate found a bullet in the toilet which the detective did not know about. The police contaminated the scene so did Carl and the detective do so too? Did they remove banned steroids? Have they bribed witnesses? Pistorius had time to tell them what to do. No wonder the family feels strong!

 

[SweetT]

Why would you be lawyered up so quickly?

Earlier, Det Botha said he arrived at the house at 04:15 and found Ms Steenkamp lying dead on the ground floor. She was wearing white shorts and a black vest, he said and was covered in towels.

A lawyer and Mr Pistorius's brother were already at the scene.

 

[Estelle]

If he had shot an intruder, he would have been elevated to god status. Just read the comments on news24 when robbers are shot/killed. You won't find one ounce of sympathy.

How could he carry a fan from the balcony to the bedroom on his stumps?

 

[SweetT]

How could he carry a fan from the balcony to the bedroom on his stumps?

I also wondered this.

 

[Estelle]

Or her bladder was empty because they never actually went to bed but were up all night fighting and arguing. She could have urinated at any point in time depending on what version of events you believe.

How about this scenario? They are arguing - an argument that has been going on for hours. Reeva needs to use the bathroom. OP is controlling and insists that she doesn't "walk out on him". She goes and uses the bathroom anyway. That's when OP gets the gun and goes after her.

That is the scenario I agree with if he plannned this. He just waited for her to go to the bathroom. Cowards kill like that as cannot face seeing the victim die.

 

[Penelope]

How could he carry a fan from the balcony to the bedroom on his stumps?

That's the million-dollar question. Good catch, Estelle.

IMO he killed her in a fit of rage after an argument. He must have found out about the email/tweet/whatever from the ex-boyfriend. I don't believe anything else he says.

If (and I doubt it) he did shoot in "self-defense", it shows what a coward/wimp he is. He did not check on her first before he freaked out.

JMHO

 

[Estelle]

my biggest problem with the whole case is that if he really intended to kill her then he had ample opportunity to do so at any time that evening without having to shoot at her through a door not knowing if he was even hitting her, if they were arguing (and I have yet to hear any solid evidence they were) then at any point when she was in the same room he could have shot her, but he waits until she goes and locks herself in the bathroom,

he knew she would have to come out at some point so why shoot through the door,

maybe she went to bathroom to make private call/email and locked the door to do so in privacy, or maybe it was her practice to lock toilet door for privacy every time she went, and if phone/s were found in bathroom she did not use one to call the police to say Oscar was threatening her with a gun,

I think his explanation is plausible with the evidence that is so far available, whether it is the truth is a completely different matter

I am a relationship counsellor and have learnt that many relationships end becuase the other partner searches through their mobile phone or iPad when they are in the toilet or elsewhere. IMO he used her voice so he knew where to fire. He would not have done it face to face due to the images he would have had in his head the rest of his life.

 

[sorrell skye]

According to OP's affidavit, he claims he believed "someone" was in the toilet room, and claims he was in terror for his & Reeva's safety. Why then did he not announce to this "someone" that he had a gun?

IMO, in a home invasion scenario, he would have sought to gain the upper hand by informing an intruder that he had the ability to use deadly force to protect himself; yet, he did not do so, but instead claims that "he screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house" before shooting four rounds at the toilet room door.

I'm on the fence at this point, but the more I analyze his statements, the more I doubt his version of events.

 

[Estelle]

Estelle brought up a good point last night. The locked door, how would one know it's locked without trying it first? Why would an intruder lock himself/herself in the bathroom?

I'm also having trouble believing there was no communication between the two of them. He yells out at her to call the police, he yells at the intruder and fires though the door.

She's silent as a mouse after being hit by 3 bullets? Having trouble believing this.

He claimed the toilet door was locked. How did he know that?

She would have screamed until unconscious. He had to have heard her voice to know where to fire at her as each shot got her.

 

[Estelle]

IMO, she was in the bathroom hiding from him. I think he got aggressive and violent so she ran and locked herself in the bathroom out of fear. He was in a rage and shot through the door rather than wait for her to come out. That's just my gut feeling. But the lawyers' statement is very well-crafted, and leaves much room for reasonable doubt.

IMO Reeva could have been in the toilet for an hour or so while arguing refusing to come out hence the noise echoed from 2am to 3am on hard floors with bathroom window open with him getting angrier and angrier.

 

[Estelle]

They are fighting he pulls out a gun she runs away he runs after her in a fury and shoots her. Legs were already on because they'd been fighting not sleeping.

I've got a feeling he's going to get out of this via a bribe.

Yes I think they must have bribed Botha. Legs would have been on for sure.

 

[Estelle]

So the gun was maybe kept of the side of the bed where Reeva was sleeping?

He claimed that he slept on the other side of the bed that night as he had a sore shoulder!

 

[Estelle]

Did Reeva turn on the bathroom light when she went in there and locked her self in? Cause seems he might figure out she was in there and pottying if the light was on.

Whether lights were on or not has become a major issue with neighbours claiming that lights were on.

 

[Estelle]

Yea this was what I was getting at. These scenarios where he chased her into the bathroom and she locked the door to get away from him doesn't explain the reasons for breaking the door down after he was done shooting. She also had no defensive wounds on her or any indication she had been fighting with him.

It'll be interesting to see ballistics as well. I'm curious how the investigator is so confident on the angle of the shots. He didn't seem real confident in anything else he said today.

Well we will find out today about the cricket bat and crushed skull.

He shoots first, then silence, realises person is probably dead so kicks door in to find body to take to hospital. Maybe he should have rung 911 before doing that.

 

[Xavier]

Well we will find out today about the cricket bat and crushed skull.

He shoots first, then silence, realises person is probably dead so kicks door in to find body to take to hospital. Maybe he should have rung 911 before doing that.

So neighbors reported to police the loud shouting, screaming of a woman and man around 3 am

Then around 4am OP calls for help?

Who can sleep so soundly just about 1 hour after a heated argument?

 

[cityslick]

Reading his affidavit from a context perspective one can see that it is subjugated. Every comment is prefaced with situations that channels the thought process into one final outcome "mistaken identity."

His story appears to be true because he has inverted the situation. What is happy is really sad, what was passive was truly aggression. Often the guilty sweeps the truth only to lead someone to the truth.

Here are a few exerts from the affidavit.

On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

The first sentence point out that they had separate plans and that she chose to change it.

I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home.

The addition of content is a qualifier which one could detect as an inverted situation. He could have just said that I agreed. No one would have challenged that. Remember everything is prefaced.

By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom.
This time line is established for some reason. 11 PM has some significance. The neighbor's may be able to provide some insight

She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
For some reason he wants us to know that his legs were off and this point. Its relevance is moot in reality. She is doing yoga he is watching tv.

We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. Once again a preface but it was reported that they are arguing. (Inverted scenario narrative)

She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day. One would think that "we traded gifts" although its not required but it does speaks to the situation.

After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.

I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering.... Preface.

When someone fabricates a statement it normally has only one train of thought and does not cover all bases as you will see.

Fast forward

I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

Notice how this account sets up the entry method for the intruder but negates the "acute awareness of intruders" preface in the prior statement. In reality he would have had the ladder removed based on the prior comment acute awareness. His story does not have fluency as they are independent narratives and not narratives of what happened that night.

As you continue on reading the affidavit you will see how each segment only addresses its event solely but does not support the complete event.

The door, curtains and blinds were closed to black out the room supporting the motion that Reeva could not be located or verified. The lights come on only when it sets up the scene exit.

The reason he keeps reiterating the lack of prosthetic is to maintain the impression of vulnerability. If he says the legs were off chances are they were on.

That is why the status of the legs were interjected in the opening statement. They were fighting when they were in or by the bed. 3 shots at a closed door is aggression not vulnerability.

Inobu

The problem with this statement is there is no evidence of a fight, physically or just yelling at each other. We can assume all we want on scenarios but lets look at what the current evidence provides. They lead investigator, who supposedly has experience, got up there today and said there is no evidence that disproves OP's version of events. The reason for this is there is no evidence that goes against what he said. Nobody heard them screaming at each other, nobody heard a fight, she doesn't have defensive wounds, etc etc etc.

I agree completely that blind shooting at a door indicates a number of things, the very least of which is lack of judgement if his story is true. You can say there are holes in his story and I would believe you. The problem is there is holes in a whole bunch of other scenarios too.

 

[ontariolynn]

Very interesting observation-I think a HUGE part of this case is going to be the legs. I would imagine that women could sympathize with him as he felt vulnerable, wheras a man would have a more difficult time understanding that type of vulnerability, i.e. they might be more inclined to think they would have bust down the door and beat the guy silly or something to that effect.

I guarantee right now that this case will ultimately come down to the legs. They will either prove or disprove his defense theory. Did he have them on when he shot or not?

I agree totally, and he has an excellent Legal Team etc.... working for him, and I believe they are going to make mince meat out of all the other side, and the entire world is watching this, so his Team is going to make a Great Name for themselves, I think he will get off, and I am learning now towards that he is not guilty, that it was a terrible accident, but that is why I am against fire arms in a home!
JMO