General Discussion Thread #2

[21merc7]

BBM

The magistrate did make a good point today though. He said most accused put out an affidavit simply saying 'I'm innocent' and that's it. OP put his entire story in the affidavit, opening it to be broken apart in a ton of different ways. That means that he (and his lawyers) are incredibly confident in their version or he has very bad lawyers (which I doubt).

We shall see.

I think he has very good lawyers. They are doing what should be done in a murder case.

They may be quiet if the forensic evidence shows otherwise in time. Then they will try to tear that evidence down. It is their job. These are good lawyers though!

 

[Chewy]

It doesn't matter if they were hers or his, because if she had a phone there and he was flipping out in rage threatening to kill her, then why wouldn't she call anyone?

Why would she, if she was in fear for her life, lock herself into a place where there is absolutely no room for escape or avoiding him or running around him in order to leave?

Why would she sit down on the toilet?

 

[Carol70]

I can't find the other link I used and not sure how to upload pics yet but I believe Reeva was wearing something similar to this outfit...black vest, white shorts I recall.
https://touch.ebay.com/tablet/item?itemId=160786070226&rd=vi

Would the mods consider putting the link to his statement in the first post of this thread?? Will make it very easy to reference or when one wants to check something...although I'm sure by the time the trial rolls around, I will be able to recite his statement off the top of my head hehe

 

[Carol70]

You should all be aware that if the new top investigator finds no evidence to contradict OP statement, they could possibly offer him a plea bargain avoiding a trial!

 

[21merc7]

It doesn't matter if they were hers or his, because if she had a phone there and he was flipping out in rage threatening to kill her, then why wouldn't she call anyone?

Why would she, if she was in fear for her life, lock herself into a place where there is absolutely no room for escape or avoiding him or running around him in order to leave?

Why would she sit down on the toilet?

I agree if she was in there with a phone, him flipping out on her or intruder, she would have called someone for assistance.

Bathroom may have been only place to get away from very angry person you do not think is going to murder you, or, she was already in there as he says.

We do not know if she was ever sitting on the toilet.

 

[Zinn]

I can't find the other link I used and not sure how to upload pics yet but I believe Reeva was wearing something similar to this outfit...black vest, white shorts I recall.
https://touch.ebay.com/tablet/item?itemId=160786070226&rd=vi

Would the mods consider putting the link to his statement in the first post of this thread?? Will make it very easy to reference or when one wants to check something...although I'm sure by the time the trial rolls around, I will be able to recite his statement off the top of my head hehe

With all due respect, I don't know how we can possibly conclude with certainty that the prosecution is referring to sleep clothes, let alone what exactly the clothes looked like. I am willing to admit I don't know for sure either way (street clothes vs. sleep clothes), but the prosecution has emphasized Reeva was "dressed" and that her being "dressed" is significant in proving their case against OP or at least contradicts his version of events. This leads me to infer they are most likely referring to street clothes, not sleep clothes.

JMO.

 

[21merc7]

With all due respect, I don't know how we can possibly conclude with certainty that the prosecution is referring to sleep clothes, let alone what exactly the clothes looked like. I am willing to admit I don't know for sure either way (street clothes vs. sleep clothes), but the prosecution has emphasized Reeva was "dressed" and that her being "dressed" is significant in proving their case against OP or at least contradicts his version of events. This leads me to infer they are most likely referring to street clothes, not sleep clothes.

JMO.

The clothing issue just came out today, so now we are all confused.

Carol70 did explain what the clothing names meant in SA as she lives there for us when this first started, I asked her to re-explain.

Today's Court discussion may have changed the clothing options, but short pants could simply be the old fashioned term for shorts. Used not to long ago as a description for shorts in the U.S. too.

Sorry if I am at fault for more confusion.

 

[onthecounter]

It's already been mentioned how it seems odd that, according to OP's account, he goes from being incredibly fearful and on high alert to just dropping his gun and stumbling back to the bedroom.

According to his statement it only occurs to him that it might have been Reeva in the bathroom when he reaches the bed.

So before this point and after the shooting I would have expected him to still be on high alert, closing the bathroom window, holding his gun and not letting go of it until he gets to the bedroom.

But according to his statement he drops his gun, leaves the bathroom window open and goes back to the bedroom, with his back to this entry point (open window), with the light off.

 

[Zinn]

The clothing issue just came out today, so now we are all confused.

Carol70 did explain what the clothing names meant in SA as she lives there for us when this first started, I asked her to re-explain.

Today's Court discussion may have changed the clothing options, but short pants could simply be the old fashioned term for shorts. Used not to long ago as a description for shorts in the U.S. too.

Sorry if I am at fault for more confusion.

I agree they are referring to shorts, as in short pants, and that these terms are synonymous. This information did not just come out today, however. The prosecution has mentioned this point every day for three days.

I'm not trying to place blame for any confusion. I'm just trying to add context as I've been following this case very closely and I'm particularly interested in this element of the prosecution's case.

 

[21merc7]

It's already been mentioned how it seems odd that, according to OP's account, he goes from being incredibly fearful and on high alert to just dropping his gun and stumbling back to the bedroom.

According to his statement it only occurs to him that it might have been Reeva in the bathroom when he reaches the bed.

So before this point and after the shooting I would have expected him to still be on high alert, closing the bathroom window, holding his gun and not letting go of it until he gets to the bedroom.

But according to his statement he drops his gun, leaves the bathroom window open and goes back to the bedroom, with his back to this entry point (open window), with the light off.

Yeah. Even lawyer prepared statements intentionally leave out things, or maybe not intentionally. There is a mix in the timeline that the defense is not willfully exposing.

 

[Chewy]

It's already been mentioned how it seems odd that, according to OP's account, he goes from being incredibly fearful and on high alert to just dropping his gun and stumbling back to the bedroom.

According to his statement it only occurs to him that it might have been Reeva in the bathroom when he reaches the bed.

So before this point and after the shooting I would have expected him to still be on high alert, closing the bathroom window, holding his gun and not letting go of it until he gets to the bedroom.

But according to his statement he drops his gun, leaves the bathroom window open and goes back to the bedroom, with his back to this entry point (open window), with the light off.

This is a great observation worth considering that points to his guilt.


I'm still not sure if he's guilty or innocent.


Another issue raised was him not putting on his prosthetic legs. I'd think that he'd be worried he'd be interrupted halfway through thereby rendering him immobile. Better to have two short legs than one.

 

[21merc7]

I agree they are referring to shorts, as in short pants, and that these terms are synonymous. This information did not just come out today, however. The prosecution has mentioned this point every day for three days.

I'm not trying to place blame for any confusion. I'm just trying to add context as I've been following this case very closely and I'm particularly interested in this element of the prosecution's case.

I think initial reports said "sleep vest" and none of us U.S. citizens knew what the heck that meant. I could be wrong, but that is how it was perceived by many of us.

 

[Patticake]

Here we go for those in the SLEEPING VEST and SHORTS camp. As I said before, I have no idea what she was wearing:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-bail-decision-live-coverage

QUOTE

Botha, Nair recalls, said he saw Steenkamp lying dead at the bottom of Pistorius's stairs in shorts and a vest.

Botha said Pistorius was a flight risk.

He said the accused spent time overseas and had a house in Italy. He said there was a safe in the kitchen and the accused's attorney arrived with a locksmith to open it and get a memory stick with account numbers for offshore accounts.

Botha said it was a very serious offence in that a defenceless woman was shot three times through a closed door and she was unarmed.

Botha said he had taken statements from neighbours and witnesses.

Botha said there were wounds in Steenkamp's head, elbow, and hip.

There was also a bullet hole through her shorts.

He said rounds of .38 ammunition were found and Pistorius had no licence for these. Pistorius would be charged for these, he said.

Botha said it was a two-storey dwelling. Up the stairs you turn right to the main bedroom. A woman's slippers were there.

END QUOTE

Something for everyone!

:woohoo:

 

[Zinn]

I think initial reports said "sleep vest" and none of us U.S. citizens knew what the heck that meant. I could be wrong, but that is how it was perceived by many of us.

Understood. I was confused by initial reports, as well. That's why I've been making a point of reporting the newer information that has been reported the last 3 days.

 

[Patticake]

Where did the nighty thing come from?

Inbou

I'm giving an edge to the sleep vest and shorts. Although the information is attributed to the dreaded Botha by Nair.

As the lead detective at the time, I'm assuming he is more in tune with the real scene.

The black pants information comes from the medic who showed up to check for heart activity. He may have gotten her mixed up with an earlier or later shooting victim.

.

 

[onthecounter]

She had her shorts pulled up when she was shot in the toilet cubicle. This is interesting because she wasn't in the process of urinating, pulling them on, or pulling them up at the time she was shot. But there is no sink in there, so if she was going to the toilet, only a fraction of the time she was in that room her shorts would have been pulled up.

It is therefore improbable that she was in the toilet to use it to relieve herself at during the time frame of shooting.

Defence will concede that she wasn't in there at that time going to the toilet but that she was hiding from perceived threat of burglar when she heard Oscar shout out.

 

[21merc7]

Oh boy.

I hope they just automatically take photos or videos of crime scenes there.

If not, I for one, will be running in more aimless circles, even though I do speak English. Of my own variety. Lol.

 

[onthecounter]

Going with OP's story, the noises that he heard that might have startled him could only have been a few things: Toilet door closing, key turning in the lock, flipping down toilet seat, usage, flush.

But seeing as she would have closed the door quietly, and only turned the key in the lock after she heard him shout, we can assume that the accidental slamming of toilet seat, usage and flush are the only sounds.

Like the prosecution argued, what burglar comes to use your toilet?

 

[21merc7]

Going with OP's story, the noises that he heard that might have startled him could only have been a few things: Toilet door closing, key turning in the lock, flipping down toilet seat, usage, flush.

But seeing as she would have closed the door quietly, and only turned the key in the lock after she heard him shout, we can assume that the accidental slamming of toilet seat, usage and flush are the only sounds.

Like the prosecution argued, what burglar comes to use your toilet?

Weak point for the defense in the locked toilet.

If the crime is very bad there, as stated in articles, most burglars would come in with some type of weapon and ready to do harm to get the goods. They would not lock the door. How do they know if the security guard with the machine gone is coming or not. Would not know if house had the locking doors/gates and panic buttons in high priced neighborhood.

The balcony window and bedroom window were open. Sure that is an invitation to a burglar, but not in a high priced "secure complex" neighborhood. Again, burglar would know enough to be armed and to fight to get the goods, and not lock self in the bathroom with no escape. Burglar would have taken time to watch the building for a long time before entering a place that should be known as secure, and know if there were dwellers inside.

If there was known alarm system, as was in an article, they would do what they do here. Cut the wires or enter the digital/electronic system and scramble the codes.

Or we just have criminals that learn too much from each other in jail and come out with more knowledge on how to get away clean here.

 

[onthecounter]

I just thought of something else...

He says 'get out of the bathroom', he thinks someone is in the bathroom but he doesn't know where, all he states is the general bathroom.

This is the point at which the defence will say Reeva becomes silent out of fear.

So then OP goes in to the bathroom, but what makes him believe that there is anyone in the toilet at all? He doesn't try the door, because according to him he doesn't know it's locked until after the fact.

The reason he is sure there is someone in the toilet is because it was a distinct toilet noise such as aforementioned flush, etc. that he heard, the defence might have to say.

However if it was identifiably a distinct noise of toilet usage then OP will now have to argue how he still thought it was a burglar when he was sure the noise he heard was someone using the toilet.