General Discussion Thread #4

[Interested Bystander]

The following is worth reading.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/oscar-pistorius/

Using his clever lawyers maybe he will get away with murder. If so, the law is an .

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Oscar Pistorius Nears Trial Date in Girlfriend’s Killing
Up to now potential list of witnesses (from older reports):

Mr. Myers, Reeva's Joburg father:
http://www.zimbio.com/Oscar+Pistori.../Reeva+Steenkamp+Joburg+Dad+Cecil+Myers+Oscar

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/i-could-have-saved-reeva/

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I cannot really see a passionate relationship or a jealousy motive on both parts ending up his intentionally murdering Reeva either..

As you said it is well possible that Reeva found out some secret abt OP ,
and that escalated the tension and he hit with the bat /shot Reeva with range and anger and after a while being afraid of the circumstances killed her .

What could she have found abt him that night?Just Brainstorming now .....
Except for the offshore acct numbers and memory stick ,I rather think
if he had any kind of secret/illegal things to hide , like stereoids ,he would hide it in his safe ... As Botha said safe was in the kitchen.. Did Reeva find that safe and wondered what was inside it ? .. or did she see him taking something from it and then it was somehow I dont know accidentally locked and why did he need a locksmith ? I wonder if it is an electronical one or does it have a key and was it lost? or again a forgotten password ?
BTW to tell the truth that locksmith thing annoys me from the beginning of the case..Maybe he hadn't forgotten tha password and took out what he was hiding before police arrived and then called the locksmith , so as to make Botha think he couldn't have taken anything from it as he even couldn't open it..

I know that may sound a bit paranoid but i simply cannot believe anything
told by OP and his team after seeing all those lies..JMHO

On the eve of Valentins day RS and OP wanted to meet their friends , but separated from each other (odd in a newly amorous couple?).
Instead, the two stayed at home. I can well imagine, that this was already the starting of the dispute. Perhaps there were debates, with whom each of them had planned to make party. I think, that it was about jealousy. MOO

 

[Estelle]

On the eve of Valentins day RS and OP wanted to meet their friends , but separated from each other (odd in a newly amorous couple?).

Instead, the two stayed at home. I can well imagine, that this was already the starting of the dispute. Perhaps there were debates, with whom each of them had planned to make party. I think, that it was about jealousy. MOO

The way I see it is that Reeva could have already planned to go out with Justin Divaris' girlfriend to the movies, and OP had had lunch with Justin who had later invited Pistorius to have a boys' night out with him and another guy. It is not clear who phoned who first as there are two different versions. I think OP said Reeva phoned him but Justin or his girlfriend said that OP had phoned her.

One of my theories on this is that they could have had a lover's tiff the night before and even broken up but had not told anyone yet. My guess is that it began with Erin Stear's pursuit of OP and RS felt uncomfortable about her so had called it off unless OP gave his commitment to exclusivity with her.

As Divaris and his gf had introduced them in the first place and enjoyed going out with them both in a foursome, his gf could have initially invited Reeva to have a girls' night out with her as Reeva could have been upset and needed to talk to someone. Perhaps neither Divaris or his gf liked Erin Stear so they individually encouraged one (or both of them) to be the peacemaker and try to resolve their differences on 13th Feb.

So how does Reeva's gift fit into that? Perhaps RS had already ordered the Valentine's gift up to a week before when things were rosy between them or it was a last minute thought that she put together that afternoon as a gift of peace as she would have had many photos she could have used and only needed the frame and for it to be wrapped. IMO that could be why OP had not purchased a gift for RS because as far as he was concerned it was over with RS.

I have forgotten when the tweet was sent by RS saying something like, "What have you got for your love?" But that tweet could have been sarcastic and sent to make Erin Stear jealous or insecure or to make everyone think she and OP were still an item. Perhaps that night was either going to be their last supper (if they could not resolve their differences) or the beginning of a more committed relationship.

The fact is that RS was going to be busy the next two nights - 14th the talk about domestic violence at her old school and on the 15th she would be watching the TV show she was appearing in. Perhaps OP was planning to see Erin Stear on the 14th!

Now we know about Erin Stear and that OP and RS had both met her about a month earlier, I would predict by OP's behaviour that night, he was not really giving Reeva much quality time and basically ignoring her.

He arrived just after 6pm and spent some time on the phone with a young guy at 6.30pm and again at about 8pm for over half an hour to his cousin whom he persuaded not to visit OP that night.

It always sounded to me as if OP was ignoring Reeva otherwise he would have told these guys to phone back the next day. Perhaps he took calls in the bathroom from others (even Erin Stear) that night and Reeva overheard them.

OP's behaviour that night never sounded to me like a guy in love with a woman he wanted to marry as was said in court.

As I said before, I do not think that just this would escalate from a tiff to domestic violence then murder. I think that OP's talking on the phone could have given Reeva a lot of time to check him out while he was preoccupied on the phone. Perhaps OP left the safe open and she had an opportunity to take a sneak look inside it and was shocked with what she found there. Perhaps he was on an illegal drug such as cocaine that night and his behaviour became more and more bizarre plus the possibility of alcohol.

But instead of leaving, Reeva could have decided to confront him with what she had found out about him and threatened to report him. This angered him and he became more and more out of control but he would not let her leave and the rest is history.

I have always thought there could be another level to this case to explain OP's motive or intent. Once OP's behaviour afterwards had been exposed where he definitely did not act like a remorseful man in love with Reeva and we then found out about his seeing Erin Stear even in public, then simply explaining it by OP's jealous rage as a result of Reeva seeing Lahoud or Hougard did not make any sense to me. I think if there was any jealousy, it would have been on Reeva's side.

I agree with Murderer_Servant who is also curious about the significance of that safe and the locksmith.

 

[Estelle]

The following is worth reading.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/oscar-pistorius/

Using his clever lawyers maybe he will get away with murder. If so, the law is an .

This is an excellent and long article so I have paraphrased it. It talks about:

Specific Legal Principles

Based on the version of events provided by Pistorius and his lawyers at the bail hearing, the disputed element of the crime will be fault.

1. You can only be found guilty of murder if you unlawfully and intentionally killed another person. You can be found guilty of culpable homicide if you unlawfully and negligently killed another person.

2. There is no dispute that the killing of Reeva Steenkamp was unlawful as it would be impossible to argue that Pistorius acted in self-defence (or private defence, as it is known in law). No such attack occurred or was imminent in this case.

3. The question then is whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill another person. Intention must not be confused with motive. The person’s motive is the reason why he acted in the manner he did and is usually thought of as irrelevant for determining guilt. Motive can explain why an accused formed the intention to kill another person, but is separate from that intention.

4. The state can prove the direct intention by proving that the accused actually meant to kill the deceased.

a) Evidence that the accused and the victim were involved in a stormy argument before the killing or

b) that the accused had previously threatened the life of the victim could be important.

5. The state can also prove intention via the concept of dolus eventualis.

a) This form of intention exists where the state can prove that while the accused might not have meant to kill the victim, he nevertheless foresaw the possibility and nevertheless proceeded with his actions.

b) Forensic evidence about the trajectory of the bullets and the other evidence at the crime scene could be important — especially if this contradicted the version of events put up by the accused.

c) it would be difficult to escape conviction for murder unless the accused is found to have acted in putative self-defence. Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.

d) As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim.

e) If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder.

f) It commences from the premise “that no reasonable man in the circumstances in which the appellant found himself would have believed that his life or property was in imminent danger”.

g) the accused must testify in his own defence. There has to be prima facie proof that the appellant could not have entertained an honest belief that he was entitled to act in private defence. If the appellant fails to testify as to his state of mind and to refute this prima facie proof, his silence weighs heavily against him.

h) If the State can makes out a prima facie case that a reasonable person in Oscar Pistorius’ position could not honestly have believed that he was acting in self-defence, that a defence of putative self-defence would not easily succeed unless Pistorius himself testified as to his state of mind.

If this defence of putative private defence succeeds, that would not, however, be the end of the matter.

6. A court could still find that a reasonable person would have foreseen that his actions would have caused the death of a person and would not have proceeded with his actions despite foreseeing the consequences. In such a case the accused can be convicted of culpable homicide. In other words if a court finds that a reasonable person would not have proceeded with the conduct, then he would be found guilty of culpable homicide.

 

[Estelle]

I have often wondered about whether there is any difference in law between Pistorius saying he found out later that he had killed the love of his life, Reeva, rather than the intruder and there is no difference.

TRANSFERRED MALICE

The concept of transferred malice is one that would appear to be in direct conflict with the rule that the actus reus and mens rea of an offence must coincide in order for criminal liability to arise. Under the doctrine of transferred malice, a person may be guilty of an offence if her intention is to harm one person but she in fact harms another person.

it is common knowledge that a man who has an unlawful and malicious intent against another, and, in attempting to carry it out, injures a third person, is guilty of what the law deems malice against the person injured, because the offender is doing an unlawful act and has that which the judges call general malice, and that is enough.

(2) Unless the intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element of the offence constituted, in whole or part, by an act or omission, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial.

If you accept as true or as something which may be true, the evidence of the accused as to the killing, then you must consider what the position is in law. If, while the accused was striking his wife he intended to cause her death or to do grievous harm to her and if in the course of that action, he accidentally caused the death of his son then malice aforethought is deemed to be present. A man who shoots another intending to kill or cause grievous harm to him is guilty of murder of any other person who is killed by his bullet.

The Court of Appeal went on to consider the relationship between transferred malice and a charge of manslaughter rather than one of murder:

Even in case of manslaughter where no such express words appear in the Code ‘accident’ cannot be raised by way of defence where a deliberate and unlawful act results in the death of a person other than the one at which the act was directed.

‘We can see no reason of policy for holding that an act calculated to harm A cannot be manslaughter if it in fact kills B. The criminality of the doer of the act is precisely the same whether it is A or B who dies. A person who throws a stone at A is guilty if, instead of hitting and killing A, it hits and kills B.

The position would be no different if the person throwing the stone was unaware of B’s presence.

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/la205_topic10.html

 

[Estelle]

OSCAR FACES BANISHMENT

According to Sowetan live, Oscar Pistorius faces a possible ban from sports if the drugs found in his bedroom assisted him in enhancing his performance during his sporting career.

A former chairman of the SA institute for Drug-Free Sport informed The Sowetan that Oscar could be charged for doping offences, as well as other infringements such as trafficking and tampering with samples.

Boxes of drugs and several syringes were reportedly found in Pistorius’s home after he shot and killed his girlfriend the late Reeva Steenkamp.

Do you think the IOC should strip Pistorius of his Olympic medals?

http://zalebs.com/post/oscar-faces-banishment/

This article was written on 20 February, 2013 even after Roux claimed that the drugs were "herbal supplements". My gut feeling has always been that he either took them in front of Reeva that night (and he could have gone into a steroid rage later) or she found out some sort of secret about his using performance enhancing drugs. Perhaps not all of them were herbal supplements and Roux just said that as a decoy or to discredit Botha. If one of his trophies was smashed as one MSM reported, I can imagine that Reeva could have done that as she then realised he was a fake.

This makes more sense to me now than its being a crime of passion.

I realise that most of us have taken Roux' word as gospel before and Shane could berate my for this speculation so I am running for cover now! :scared::scared:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The way I see it is that Reeva could have already planned to go out with Justin Divaris' girlfriend to the movies, and OP had had lunch with Justin who had later invited Pistorius to have a boys' night out with him and another guy. It is not clear who phoned who first as there are two different versions. I think OP said Reeva phoned him but Justin or his girlfriend said that OP had phoned her.

One of my theories on this is that they could have had a lover's tiff the night before and even broken up but had not told anyone yet. My guess is that it began with Erin Stear's pursuit of OP and RS felt uncomfortable about her so had called it off unless OP gave his commitment to exclusivity with her.

As Divaris and his gf had introduced them in the first place and enjoyed going out with them both in a foursome, his gf could have initially invited Reeva to have a girls' night out with her as Reeva could have been upset and needed to talk to someone. Perhaps neither Divaris or his gf liked Erin Stear so they individually encouraged one (or both of them) to be the peacemaker and try to resolve their differences on 13th Feb.

So how does Reeva's gift fit into that? Perhaps RS had already ordered the Valentine's gift up to a week before when things were rosy between them or it was a last minute thought that she put together that afternoon as a gift of peace as she would have had many photos she could have used and only needed the frame and for it to be wrapped. IMO that could be why OP had not purchased a gift for RS because as far as he was concerned it was over with RS.

I have forgotten when the tweet was sent by RS saying something like, "What have you got for your love?" But that tweet could have been sarcastic and sent to make Erin Stear jealous or insecure or to make everyone think she and OP were still an item. Perhaps that night was either going to be their last supper (if they could not resolve their differences) or the beginning of a more committed relationship.

The fact is that RS was going to be busy the next two nights - 14th the talk about domestic violence at her old school and on the 15th she would be watching the TV show she was appearing in. Perhaps OP was planning to see Erin Stear on the 14th!

Now we know about Erin Stear and that OP and RS had both met her about a month earlier, I would predict by OP's behaviour that night, he was not really giving Reeva much quality time and basically ignoring her.

He arrived just after 6pm and spent some time on the phone with a young guy at 6.30pm and again at about 8pm for over half an hour to his cousin whom he persuaded not to visit OP that night.

It always sounded to me as if OP was ignoring Reeva otherwise he would have told these guys to phone back the next day. Perhaps he took calls in the bathroom from others (even Erin Stear) that night and Reeva overheard them.

OP's behaviour that night never sounded to me like a guy in love with a woman he wanted to marry as was said in court.

As I said before, I do not think that just this would escalate from a tiff to domestic violence then murder. I think that OP's talking on the phone could have given Reeva a lot of time to check him out while he was preoccupied on the phone. Perhaps OP left the safe open and she had an opportunity to take a sneak look inside it and was shocked with what she found there. Perhaps he was on an illegal drug such as cocaine that night and his behaviour became more and more bizarre plus the possibility of alcohol.

But instead of leaving, Reeva could have decided to confront him with what she had found out about him and threatened to report him. This angered him and he became more and more out of control but he would not let her leave and the rest is history.

I have always thought there could be another level to this case to explain OP's motive or intent. Once OP's behaviour afterwards had been exposed where he definitely did not act like a remorseful man in love with Reeva and we then found out about his seeing Erin Stear even in public, then simply explaining it by OP's jealous rage as a result of Reeva seeing Lahoud or Hougard did not make any sense to me. I think if there was any jealousy, it would have been on Reeva's side.

I agree with Murderer_Servant who is also curious about the significance of that safe and the locksmith.

I read sooo many articles about OP and RS and thought, I had learned about the case, what ever to learn. But you know much more!! Now I understand your opinion and the opinion of others too! - Allways interesting!

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

How his dropped charges suddenly reappeared after bringing his findings to the South African Prosecution and how hurriedly he was removed from the case is really stunning.. and also is Prosecution's bungling a few times and their trying to blame Botha , the scapegoat makes me think SA and SA courts do not want their golden boy convicted of premeditated murder..

Experienced eagle Botha was the one who saw the crime scene within an hour . He saw Reeva's body with bare eyes..He sighted and listened to OP and his staff at the crime scene and listened the witnesses stories there.. Had a better sight to know and evaluate the case more than anybody IMO.. Is that why he was tried to be discredited by his socalled mistakes and his previous dropped charge ? I believe yes.

Will BOTHA be a witness for pros ? Prob he will be ..

Below is an interesting article clarifying that...

What impact will the charge of attempted murder faced by the former chief investigator in the Pistorius case have on the Olympian's trial?
Grant said the charges against investigator Hilton Botha would have little if any impact on the Pistorius case, bearing in mind that in countries around the world, the testimony of convicted persons is used against fellow inmates.
"The defense would need to undermine his credibility as a witness, and I don't see how this shows that he is an untrustworthy witness," he said.
"The charges do not, in my view, undermine the credibility of the investigating officer as an honest witness relating to what he discovered at the Pistorius home. If the officer faced charges or had been convicted of crimes of dishonesty, that may well be a different matter."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a

However the biq question is that later Botha had to say in court that nothing in Pistorius' version of the fatal shooting contradicted what police had discovered, even though there have been some discrepancies:facepalm:
And then resigned from the police force what he said for private reasons and now a relatively free man than ever .I hope he will testify for justice
for victim Reeva...JMO

 

[whiterum]

I thought myself originally that Botha must be in cahoots with the DT, with him agreeing with them without question that OP's affidavit did not contradict the police findings when he could have answered that evidence forensic testing was not yet concluded. Also the 600 metres, etc. but after hearing that he was an excellent detective spoken highly off by the families of murder victims etc, I believe now he did not want to disclose much information to them or give away the true location of witnesses. He also had the door removed as well, which was a wise move. I think he will have to be called otherwise as he said in interview, everything would be classed as hearsay.

The DT point out the bungles of the police, Botha' s shoe covers etc, but this would have no effect on the big picture since OP has admitted that he was the shooter and as Pisto posted earlier when police arrived all in-sundry had plodded through the house. Also with his lawyer and others apparently searching for a safe key, I would wonder where in the house they were supposedly searching before police arrived and before supposedly having to resort to a locksmith.

Who knows either if that supposed missed bullet was in the bowl in the original police search. I would not put anything past this DT, since they deliberately withheld evidence and did not disclose they were in possession of a fifth phone and revealing a few calls OP made the day of the BH which Botha was unaware of, trying to discredit him. It would not surprise me with the unscrupulous withholding of the phone, that the three bullets found by police in their original search were correct, then a suspicious fourth bullet suddenly appears in the toilet bowl. It is also fishy IMO that a supposedly missed bullet is found in the toilet bowl and one bullet casing was found in the passageway situated apart from the other three casings near the toilet door.

 

[Estelle]

How his dropped charges suddenly reappeared after bringing his findings to the South African Prosecution and how hurriedly he was removed from the case is really stunning.. and also is Prosecution's bungling a few times and their trying to blame Botha , the scapegoat makes me think SA and SA courts do not want their golden boy convicted of premeditated murder..

Experienced eagle Botha was the one who saw the crime scene within an hour . He saw Reeva's body with bare eyes..He sighted and listened to OP and his staff at the crime scene and listened the witnesses stories there.. Had a better insight to know and evaluate the case more than anybody IMO.. Is that why he was tried to be discredited by his so-called mistakes and his previous dropped charge ? I believe yes.

Will BOTHA be a witness for pros ? Prob he will be ..

Below is an interesting article clarifying that...

What impact will the charge of attempted murder faced by the former chief investigator in the Pistorius case have on the Olympian's trial?
Grant said the charges against investigator Hilton Botha would have little if any impact on the Pistorius case, bearing in mind that in countries around the world, the testimony of convicted persons is used against fellow inmates.

"The defense would need to undermine his credibility as a witness, and I don't see how this shows that he is an untrustworthy witness," he said.
"The charges do not, in my view, undermine the credibility of the investigating officer as an honest witness relating to what he discovered at the Pistorius home. If the officer faced charges or had been convicted of crimes of dishonesty, that may well be a different matter."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a

However the biq question is that later Botha had to say in court that nothing in Pistorius' version of the fatal shooting contradicted what police had discovered, even though there have been some discrepancies :facepalm:
And then resigned from the police force what he said for private reasons and now a relatively free man than ever .I hope he will testify for justice
for victim Reeva...JMO

Botha's role in this case '

At the bail hearing, I thought Botha seemed to be on both sides at the one time. IMO he acted in a very naive and unprofessional manner as if he could have been bribed by OP to bring up some doubts to get him off on bail but also to get him off the charge of premeditated murder as he did not seem to be consistent with his answers. Roux took advantage of this. Botha answered questions naively instead of saying, "We don't know yet as we haven't got the tests back yet or we have not interviewed all the witnesses yet."

IMO he was either
a) paid to act like that or
b) he purposely did it because he felt sorry for OP due to his hero status as he knew OP because of that past incident or
c) he was told to act like that as they did not want to jail OP then
d) he was just plain stupid

We have always been told the purpose of the bail hearing was to get as much out of OP as they could without revealing what the Prosecution knew. It became a mini trial only because OP had decided not to testify but to submit a written affidavit which locked him into this version of events for the eventual trial.

Botha admitted he felt like he’d been “thrown in the deep end” during the week-long bail hearing and had been humiliated in front of the world’s media. “It was supposed to be a bail application. A bail application is there to say, ‘would this person stand bail, would he not leave the country, would he not interfere with the witnesses’.

But “that was not the question being asked of me. The question was, ‘Is he guilty or not?’ All the statements and stuff we were waiting for, forensics and ballistics, I didn’t have. I feel I was thrown in the deep end and I had to try to answer all questions.”

Why did he feel he had to try to answer all the questions if he did not really know the answers?

Botha's answers at the bail hearing surely cannot be taken as fact if the tests they conducted later or statements made by witnesses reveal a different story eg distance of witnesses that heard the arguments between 2 and 3am and that there was nothing in Pistorius' version of the fatal shooting which contradicted what police had discovered at that stage.

All the expert witnesses have to say is that that was in the early stages of the investigation that Botha made these comments but we now know otherwise. So surely Botha's answers would then be discounted by expert witnesses with factual analysis.

So what is the purpose of an article with a heading like the one above? Has OP's Public Relations Company been involved with the writing of this article to try to discredit the investigation and Botha been paid for these views or have his views been tampered with later? We have often been told that in South Africa, what is written in the MSM has no bearing on the case as there is no jury and a judge makes up his mind based on the factual evidence. But I did not notice that Mr Bam said at the second bail hearing that even he reads newspapers which concerned me as Judges are not supposed to be influenced by MSM in SA. I have always read that fact are facts and the Judge make up his mind on the facts.

Oscar Pistorius trial: Detective Hilton Botha reveals star could go free because of shocking pictures of the scene 1 Jun 2013

Officer says leaked photos of the bloodied bathroom and bullet-riddled door could play into the hands of the sprinter’s *defence team

The detective at the centre of the Oscar Pistorius murder probe today sensationally reveals the Blade Runner could go free because of shocking pictures of the scene, the Sunday People can reveal.

Why would OP go free just because someone illegally took and sold pictures of the crime scene?

Unless the person who took them is found and charged, it could have been the Defence team who paid someone to take these photos. They could have even been taken by Botha himself in order to make some money if Botha is as corrupt as I think he could be - especially as these photos were given to MSM much later and after Botha had left the police force.

Botha claims:

1.

Leaked photos of the bloodied bathroom and bullet-riddled door could play into the hands of the South African sprinter’s *defence, leaving the prosecution broken. He believes they were taken within 48 hours of the killing by a corrupt policeman before being sold. It looks like the pictures have been taken one or two days after the scene because on the Saturday (following the shooting) I took it down and sent it away for forensics. The door is critical to the case and he personally ordered it to be removed and sent for analysis. This is why I took the door down. I knew that anyone could come in and take pictures and both our cases could be buggered.

Why did Botha says that "both our cases could be buggered"? Why both cases?

Botha said:

I also wanted to make sure if there were fingerprints on the inside of the door – maybe Reeva was trying to keep it closed. I’d heard there was money being offered for pictures of the door and that’s why I took it down. Someone made money out of this but hopefully they will be caught. Botha said the pictures – which also show the door panel smashed in – were not official police pictures and he believed they were taken with a mobile phone. It means the defence team may have seen raw crime scene photos BEFORE they were officially disclosed to lawyers – potentially impeding the police investigation.

Why is it important that the Defence team may have seen raw crime scene photos BEFORE they were officially disclosed to them? This also suggests that the Defence team could have paid for them to be taken.

They were going to see them anyway - again surely facts are facts!

The photos show marks on the door which suggest the bullets went through below the handle – allegedly backing up Pistorius’s claim that he was on his limb stumps as he went to confront an intruder. The prosecution claim he had put on his prosthetic legs, indicating it was a premeditated killing. Botha said *forensics teams are trying to *establish exactly which way the bullets entered the door. But he said it was not a case of where the blood was or how many shots were fired.

But another report said it did not matter now whether OP had his prosthetic legs on or not. I also read that he had time to fetch his gun and think about what he was going to do whether he had his legs on or not. I think which way the bullets went through the door matters as Gerrie Nel claimed that the shots were fired down towards the toilet bowl which suggested that OP knew exactly where Reeva was and he was shooting to kill.

I also disagree that it is not a case of where the blood was or how many shots were fired. How many shots were fired points to intention to kill as one shot would have been enough to either maim or put fear into the intruder and where the blood was is also important as OP moved the body from the crime scene.

2. The high-profile nature of the crime has scared off two potential key witnesses. Botha claimed that he knew of two people who had changed their minds about talking to police. “At that stage I had witnesses who I wanted to keep on my side,” Botha said. “There were witnesses I’d heard of that I wanted to get statements from but then they changed their minds. “It sounds to me like someone spoke to them and they don’t want to get involved.”

But I thought that witnesses could be subpoenaed so that statement is nonsense.

A court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoena:

a) subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.

b) subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.

3. Botha said: “The question is why he fired the shots. He said he did. It was his gun. It was him and her. He is the only one alive. The question is why? “The gun laws in South Africa says that if your life is in danger you are allowed to shoot. A person behind a closed door is not endangering your life. “So the question is why did he shoot? And this is news that it was a burglar. How did he know it was a burglar? Because someone was behind the door?”

That statement sums up OP's intent to kill.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-detective-hilton-1926756#ixzz2c6bcKCeH

 

[Estelle]

OSCAR FACES BANISHMENT

http://zalebs.com/post/oscar-faces-banishment/

This article was written on 20 February, 2013 even after Roux claimed that the drugs were "herbal supplements". My gut feeling has always been that he either took them in front of Reeva that night (and he could have gone into a steroid rage later) or she found out some sort of secret about his using performance enhancing drugs. Perhaps not all of them were herbal supplements and Roux just said that as a decoy or to discredit Botha. If one of his trophies was smashed as one MSM reported, I can imagine that Reeva could have done that as she then realised he was a fake.

This makes more sense to me now than its being a crime of passion.

I realise that most of us have taken Roux' word as gospel before and Shane could berate my for this speculation so I am running for cover now! :scared::scared:

I just found this MSM article about testoconpasupium coenzyme.

Amid speculation by outsiders to the case that steroids or other drugs could have somehow played a role in the shooting, Botha testified that investigators found two boxes of testosterone and needles at Pistorius’ home.

Under questioning by Roux, however, Botha said he hadn’t read the full name of the substance — which Roux said was an herbal remedy called testoconpasupium coenzyme — when investigators took the materials into evidence.

The Mayo Clinic website says coenzyme is produced by the human body and is necessary for the basic functioning of cells. Coenzyme can be taken in supplement form to boost levels of it in the body.

A quick Internet search on the full name of the substance yielded no results.

http://fox8.com/2013/02/21/pistorius-investigator-charged-with-attempted-murder/

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is produced by the human body and is necessary for the basic functioning of cells. CoQ10 levels are reported to decrease with age and to be low in patients with some chronic diseases such as heart conditions, muscular dystrophies, Parkinson's disease, cancer, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. Some prescription drugs may also lower CoQ10 levels.

Levels of CoQ10 in the body can be increased by taking CoQ10 supplements, although it is not clear that replacing "low CoQ10" is beneficial.

CoQ10 has been used, recommended, or studied for numerous conditions, but remains controversial as a treatment in many areas.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/coenzyme-q10/NS_patient-coenzymeq10

(http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._learned_and_what_we_didn_t_during_today.html)

It's a non-steroid that is not banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency called testoconpasupium coenzyme according to Barry Roux.

They are therefore running lab tests on it to be sure that what's actually in the box is actually what's on the label.

Boxes of Testosterone:

The most headline-ready revelation from today's action was that police recovered what they said was testosterone from Pistorius' bedroom. The prosecution did not specifically accuse the Paralympic superstar of directly using or abusing the substance, but they did note that they found two boxes of it, along with needles that could have been used to inject it, so the implication was pretty clear. Barry Roux, Pistorius' defense attorney, meanwhile, said that the substance was merely an "herbal remedy" and not a steroid or anything else on the list of banned substances for Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

It's possible that both sides are technically correct. At one point during today's proceedings, prosecutor Gerrie Nel was quick to correct detective Hilton Botha when the latter initially called the substance "steroids" instead of "testosterone." The International Paralympic Committee spokesman Craig Spence, likewise, told the AP that Pistorius passed two drug tests last year. Still, that doesn't clear up all of the confusion, as nearly a dozen forms of testosterone are among the banned substances on the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2013 list of prohibited drugs for athletes, and at this point it's also pretty obvious that international drug testers are far from perfect when it comes to spotting drug cheats.

UPDATE: South African officials now say that the detective who testified earlier today that police recovered two boxes of testosterone from Oscar Pistorius' bedroom spoke too soon. Medupe Simasiku, a spokesman for South Africa's National Prosecution Agency, told the AP after today's hearing that it was too early to say for certain what the substance was, and that it was still undergoing laboratory tests. "It is not certain (what it is) until the forensics." Simasiku said, adding that it is yet unclear whether it was "a legal or an illegal medication for now."

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have read the indictment is 5 pages long. Is this long by legal standards or the norm? Can we read anything into its length (assuming the information to be correct)?

see http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1297102/oscar-pistorius-due-back-court

 

[Estelle]

I have read the indictment is 5 pages long.

Is this long by legal standards or the norm?

Can we read anything into its length (assuming the information to be correct)?

see http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1297102/oscar-pistorius-due-back-court

The indictment of Ariel Castro was 576 pages long! but was over a period of over ten years.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/lo...suspect-ariel-castro-indicted-on-more-charges

 

[whiterum]

The other morning, I heard the tail end of a conversation on Sky News where an athlete was commenting on a newspaper article about OP's next court appearance, saying that he hopes this case is not going to be pushed under the radar, as there are murmurs out there that he is going to get away with it. So obviously he thinks he is guilty but is going to walk. Hopefully this is not the case, as this would be an absolute travesty of justice for Reeva and her grieving parents.

 

[Interested Bystander]

LOL, Estelle, 5 pages seems relatively insignificant, does it not.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The other morning, I heard the tail end of a conversation on Sky News where an athlete was commenting on a newspaper article about OP's next court appearance, saying that he hopes this case is not going to be pushed under the radar, as there are murmurs out there that he is going to get away with it. So obviously he thinks he is guilty but is going to walk. Hopefully this is not the case, as this would be an absolute travesty of justice for Reeva and her grieving parents.

Oh dear, I find that quite depressing.

 

[Estelle]

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/08/...2-extra-charges-for-shooting-a-gun-in-public/

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-to-face-two-more-charges-20130816

Pistorius to face two more charges

Johannesburg - Murder accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius will face two additional charges when he appears in court on Monday.

Pistorius will be charged for two counts of recklessly discharging a firearm in public, eNCA reported.

1. At a restaurant in Johannesburg in January, Pistorius accidentally fired a gun shot and almost hit a friend.

2. When driving with friends, he allegedly discharged a gun through the car’s sunroof just moments after being stopped by metro police officers in Gauteng. One of Oscar Pistorius' ex girlfriends has turned state witness and told SAPS about him shooting through sunroof of car.

http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-to-face-two-more-charges-20130816

Bulelwa Makeke
‏@BulelwaMak
OSCAR PISTORIUS: on the chance that I'll get many calls to confirm NPA is adding 2 more charges - there has been NO SUCH communique from NPA

I think this story must have been leaked to the MSM

So I do not know what to believe now as News24 is a reliable news source.

Some people who are commenting are so suspicious that he will get off but others are not

1. Is this perhaps an indication that the NPA has failed to build a case strong enough to see Oscar being jailed on the initial charge of murder? He is likely to get a slap on the wrist for either one of the additional charges and get acquitted on the murder charge.

2. Talking about firearms....he shot his girlfriend 4 times so the news says but only 2 bulletholes are in the door (that is not correct, is it?)

3. I have to consider that this might be damage control by his legal team, who would rather argue that their client is a fool, who is reckless and shouldn't own a gun, thereby downplaying the whole "murder with premeditation" charges.

4. Would they be adding these charges if their murder charge was strong ??

5. It's astonishing that no one within his family and close friends picked up all those red flags. But then again it boils down to rich families thinking money can replace personal parenting and personal touch. When kid screams for attention and tender care they throw money at his direction thinking problem will go away. That leads to adults who don't value other people because no one valued them.

6. How can you charge some one "after the fact"? He should have been charged then and there. Looks like the NPA is clutching at any straw to back up an already flawed case.

7. Perhaps it is their way of making the case so solid with periphery charges that he will go down for not one but many firearm related offenses, they may even request his bail to be revoked, either way I don't see him walking free

8. It seems that they are trying to add as many charges and hope some of them stick. They're just throwing what they can to make their case stronger against this guy....

9. I don't support what transpired in Pistorius' home and yes I also hope the truth comes to light for everyone involved yet it makes me wonder why there are 2 new charges all of a sudden. Perhaps prosecution it trying to add validity to their argument in order to get a conviction and if so why? Could it be that there is perhaps reasonable doubt about Pistorius' guilt? Had Pistorius recklessly discharged a firearm in public he should have been prosecuted at the time it happened, not during this court case! What if, by some strange set of circumstances this man really is innocent? Respectfully said towards Reeva's family, no-one really know's what happened on that tragic night.

10. What have those other incidents got to do with murder charges? They are unrelated to the main charges pertaining to the death of Reeva Steenkamp. The only reason why they are bringing those incidents is to bring his credibility into dispute. But they have nothing to do with events on that fateful and tragic night when Reeva died.

11. This guy is a ticking time bomb and poses danger to the public, he must be put away for a long time.

 

[Estelle]

Which ex-girlfriend spilled the beans to the police?

None other than Samantha Taylor!

Exclusive: Oscar’s ex turns state witness

16 August 2013 12:14

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/exclusive-oscars-ex-turns-state-witness/

City Press can reveal that Samantha Taylor, who dated the Paralympian athlete before he started seeing model Reeva Steenkamp at the end of last year, has turned state witness. Taylor told the police about an incident during which she and Pistorius were driving on the highway with the sunroof open. Taylor was behind the wheel.

<modsnip>


Samantha said she would reveal &#8220;what (Pistorius) made me go through&#8221;, but later sent a lawyer&#8217;s letter, refusing to comment further. In February, Taylor&#8217;s mother Trish wrote on Facebook she was grateful her daughter was no longer in Pistorius&#8217; &#8220;claws. There were several incidents in the time when they were a couple when things could have gone wrong with her and his pistol. She further said Pistorius needed help but didn&#8217;t keep to his promises of seeing a psychiatrist.

 

[Estelle]

Oscar Pistorius Fast Facts

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/06/w...ex.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter