General Discussion Thread #4

[Estelle]

A comment I found about the gun:

The Firearms Control Act of 2000 (Chapter 6 Sections 13 - 16) only allows 4 firearm licenses by an individual, so the story of seven firearm applications is probably not credible.

Chapter 2 Section 4 prohibits "Any fully automatic firearm" so the story of him sleeping with a "machine gun" is also not credible (might be a semi automatic that a stupid reporter thought looked like a fully automatic).

Section 104 States "It is an offence to handle a firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun while under the influence of a substance, which has an intoxicating or a narcotic effect."

Section 102 States "The Registrar may declare a person unfit to possess a firearm if .. that person has expressed the intention to kill or injure himself or herself or any other person by means of a firearm or any other dangerous weapon"

He had previously threatened a soccer player, there could be a question of why he was not declared unfit then.

http://www.acts.co.za/firearms/index.htm

So was OP's gun fully or semi-automatic?

I then found this: "Police have rubbished speculation that Pistorius – who is known to have kept a pistol by his bed and a machine gun at his bedroom window" .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yre-hooked-reality-TV-show.html#ixzz2Qv7dNcTf

 

[Estelle]

This question has been bugging me: when the police came to investigate a "domestic disturbance" earlier in the evening did they see both Oscar AND Reeva?

Did they speak to both of them? Did they offer for Reeva to be taken out of the house for her safety?

I'm asking this as I once reported a domestic disturbance and the man was told to leave as he did not officially reside in the flat.

Or was it just the complex security guard who investigated and OP fobbed him off without talking to or seeing RS?

 

[Estelle]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents talk about love, loss and the man who took their daughter away

http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/Latest...bout-love--loss-and-the-man-who-took-her-away

 

[Estelle]

In the show, Miss Steenkamp competes alongside seven South African celebrities and seven other contestants to win a prize of one million rand prize (£72,500).

'She's alive, she's happy, she's swimming with dolphins,' Mrs Steenkamp told Grazia magazine.

'When I watched the first episode, where Reeva greets everyone and blows kisses, it felt as if she were talking to me. She was saying goodbye.'

TV bosses were accused of cashing in on her death after it emerged the television network was charging news outlets up to $3,000 for short clips of the show.

Producers argued its broadcast was a 'fitting tribute' to the law graduate, but they have been accused of insensitivity for showing her post-eviction interview, where she discusses her 'journey in life' and the 'way you go out.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yre-hooked-reality-TV-show.html#ixzz2Qv8zlczy

 

[Estelle]

http://first-thoughts.org/on/Reeva+Steenkamp/

 

[shane13]

It’s a race that fits the Blade Runner playbook: five authors working on three “definitive accounts” all hurtling towards one deadline.

The subject of this research-and-write-up contest is Oscar Pistorius. And that deadline is as soon after the conclusion of his murder trial as possible.

Here is a précis of three book contenders:

1. Mandy Wiener and Barry Bateman will write Behind the Door: The Oscar and Reeva Story which “will follow the background to the case, the events of the trial itself, and [take] a broader look at violence and criminal justice in South Africa”.

2. Jacques Steenkamp and Gavin Prins with No More Heroes: Oscar Pistorius’s Fall from Grace. “This is the definitive account of the murder case that will define this decade and, perhaps, the society we live in”. It “will also investigate broader social concerns: the high level of violent crime in SA, particularly against women and children; the controversial *matter of gun control; and the fallen-hero syndrome”. “Based on in-depth interviews with eyewitnesses, police officers, blood-spatter analysts and forensic experts who were involved at the scene of the crime, as well as family and friends of RS and OP, this book will uncover the actual events that led to Reeva’s death. It will expose the startling allegations of bribery and corruption that permeated the case just hours after the shooting, as well as Oscar’s alleged drug use.”

3. John Carlin is to write The Oscar Pistorius Story. The book will detail the rise and fall of OP.

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-19-...ius-story?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

That 2nd one sure sounds like a hype job. What gonna resurect testosterone again?
Unless they mean alcohol, I don't think the frequently tested athlete was on any drugs.

They probably do not comprehend chemical imbalance, allergies etc involved in anomalous behavior.

Already proclaiming itself as "the definitive account." Gonna "define the decade." Jeez, why not just say it will be the book of the century or of all time.

Like the BBC3 "doc" that explained "What Really Happened? NOT
LOL

 

[shane13]

This question has been bugging me: when the police came to investigate a "domestic disturbance" earlier in the evening did they see both Oscar AND Reeva?

Did they speak to both of them? Did they offer for Reeva to be taken out of the house for her safety?

I'm asking this as I once reported a domestic disturbance and the man was told to leave as he did not officially reside in the flat.

Or was it just the complex security guard who investigated and OP fobbed him off without talking to or seeing RS?

I have thought about this too.

Some reports say it was the cops, other that it was estate security who dropped by. The latter would be more interested to know if their resident (OP) were OK, the police more likely to inquire about all parties.

But did Reeva have one last chance to live?
Did she perhaps in her new role as advocate believe she could confront OP and change his "thinking"?

She had been warned numerous times By Cecil Myers.
She was there in January when OP "accidentally" fired the gun.

You shouldn't try to argue with someone a lot bigger than you who is armed.

Be a "coward" and flee to fight another day.
If she really were given the chance to flee his house by cops or security?

THis one we will end up learning in several months.

 

[Estelle]

REEVA Steenkamp was worried lies could ruin her relationship with Oscar Pistorius, the model said in her final interview – a week before she was shot dead in her boyfriend’s house.

In the interview with Heat magazine, Steenkamp said she “respects and admires” Pistorius. But she also feared that negative publicity could harm the so-called Blade Runner’s career on the track. “We haven’t been talking to the media because I don’t want to get it tainted,” she told the magazine.

http://www.empowernetwork.com/perth...with-pistorius-jacque-taylor-perth-australia/

However, we can read RS' comment in many ways - literally - or had RS become unsure of her own future commitment to OP the week before and was beginning to back off but pretending otherwise in the meantime to everyone?

Was it really that she was worried that their relationship would get tainted by the media? Or were there other issues such as his lying to her that she had found out about OP that she felt she needed to address but had been reluctant to do so beforehand in case it might affect his career?

Did she address these lies (if they were his lies) that fatal night OR did OP find out what she had said to the media and confronted her about it that night?

What negative publicity could there have been otherwise that motivated her to comment on lying - supposedly by the media?

One would have felt that for OP and RS any positive publicity and photos would have been beneficial to both their careers?

How could it have been negative publicity for OP's career that she feared unless she was preparing to either confront the lying and/or back off from the relationship - hence there was no point in the interview until it was resolved?

Just a thought......

 

[Estelle]

Reeva Steenkamp felt 'less stressed' after shooting gun at range, reveal photographs

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/03/...ssed_after_shooting_gun_at_ran/#/related_news

 

[Estelle]

The Alleged Killing of Reeva and the Cult of Celebrity Sports

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-mckenna/the-killing-of-reeva-and-_b_3090269.html

"But there is also a broader dynamic at work here. The culture of the celebrity sportsperson has in the last few decades grown unhealthy, even perverse. We are talking about young men who find themselves propelled into the limelight; who are given almost limitless press and adulation and raised to the status of gladiators enacting out life and death tussles in the Roman coliseum. But they are not gladiators. They are often immature, inexperienced and ill-equipped -- overwhelmed by the vortex of prestige and wealth they are so suddenly pulled into. This unqualified, almost hysterical admiration can produce a gross sense of entitlement equalled only, perhaps, by the rage the celebrity evinces when their needs are not met. "

 

[shane13]

Deeper Questions on the Medical Patch

Barry Roux stated that OP slept on a different side of the bed that one night because of a shoulder injury for which he was wearing a medical patch.
Botha said he didn't see any patch.

I have a question for any attorneys reading.

What Roux did appears to this non-attorney as a back door way to in effect offer testimony without being under oath. I thought such things are strictly prohibited.

But I note that Pros. attorney Nel did not object, as I think maybe he should have.

Such as ":Your worship, attorney for the defense has in effect offered testimony. We object to this. If OP is averring that he wore a medical patch that day, let him say so under oath, and we ask that your worship bar Mr. Roux from offering testimony for his client in this back door way."

But Nel did not object...

 

[Carol70]

The Oscar Pistorius trial LIVE

Six pages of the bail hearing for those who wish to refresh their minds about it.

http://live.firstpost.com/Event/The_Oscar_Pistorius_trial_LIVE?Page=0

Jacques Steenkamp was one of the tweeters on the trial and I am trying to find out if he was related to Reeva. That is how I came across this article.

I doubt it, Steenkamp is a relatively popular surname in SA.

 

[Carol70]

This question has been bugging me: when the police came to investigate a "domestic disturbance" earlier in the evening did they see both Oscar AND Reeva?

Did they speak to both of them? Did they offer for Reeva to be taken out of the house for her safety?

I'm asking this as I once reported a domestic disturbance and the man was told to leave as he did not officially reside in the flat.

Or was it just the complex security guard who investigated and OP fobbed him off without talking to or seeing RS?

Estelle, there has been nothing to suggest that police where in fact there earlier in the evening bar the press release which stated "previous domestic incident at the residence".

 

[Carol70]

Deeper Questions on the Medical Patch

Barry Roux stated that OP slept on a different side of the bed that one night because of a shoulder injury for which he was wearing a medical patch.
Botha said he didn't see any patch.

I have a question for any attorneys reading.

What Roux did appears to this non-attorney as a back door way to in effect offer testimony without being under oah. I thought such things are strictly prohibited.

But I note that Pros. attorney Nel did not object, as I think maybe he should have.

Such as ":Your worship, attorney for the defense has in effect offered testimony. We object to this. If OP is averring that he wore a medical patch that day, let him say so under oath, and we ask that your worship bar Mr. Roux from offering testimony for his clent in this back door way."

But Nel did not object...

Shane, I've said before, do you think Roux would have brought up the patch if he couldnt back it up by at least having a doctors report that OP did have a shoulder injury? Perhaps Nell didn't object because he knew this himself ???

 

[shane13]

Shane, I've said before, do you think Roux would have brought up the patch if he couldnt back it up by at least having a doctors report that OP did have a shoulder injury? Perhaps Nell didn't object because he knew this himself ???

Well none of that is the point of my post.
My point is that Roux was offering testimony which I thought is strictly aganst court procedure.

It is a separate matter as to whether OP actually had a shoulder injury. We can address that separately such as the evidence of him carrying her down the stairs.

But I was asking attorneys for an answer and I PMed one here at WS and am waiting.

 

[shane13]

Estelle, there has been nothing to suggest that police where in fact there earlier in the evening bar the press release which stated "previous domestic incident at the residence".

Well there is Carol.

Beeld said that police and security were there 2 hours before the shooting.
http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Dood-agter-deur-20130215

I did a translation via Google and that is what seemed to come up.

Of course, I welcome your translation, at least on this one issue please, not the whole article.
Thanks.

 

[shane13]

<snipped>

IMO Its unbelievable that an experienced detective doesn't wear protective gear. The first time was lame enough, "Botha said he should have worn them, 'but they were not around'&#8221;. A second time? Of course people are suspicious of a payoff, especially now after his resignation and immediate new job. At the very least, it has the appearance of impropriety.

Its maddening. :maddening:

Well I guess you are right Kitty. Botha should have worn them both times.
But more important the first time.

But remember the interview strangely was with Botha's wife not Botha.
And 3 days later both sides were prob. well done with forensics.

Dr. Perumal was there the next day and prob completed DT forensics then.
If the interview was with Botha, not his wife, maybe he would have said something like this.

To me the most interesting thing about the YOU mag interview, is that it said the first time OP met Botha it was when Botha had OP released from jail in the door slamming 2009 incident, because he only saw a scratch on the young woman.

Everything else said Botha arrested him at the house.

So that is a big discrepancy, and I don't know what to believe??

Maybe I figured it out?

Botha has learned from some of the shenanigans he was put through.

E.g. RE the "medical patch" claim put forth in Court by Roux not OP himself.

Here if Botha's wife gets something wrong, Botha can later say, "hey I did not say that, that was my wife."

Of course, there is something else--maybe Botha is barred from discussing certain things--ongoing cases?

We will have to see what's in his Vanity Fair interview.
Could be about his new job maybe?

Afterall I am sure that's what people want to know about.

 

[Estelle]

'It helps a defendant when your lawyer arrives at the crime scene before 4.15am when the lead detective, Botha, himself arrives.' - Charles Waterstreet, a Sydney barrister
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...whole-truth-20130223-2exzr.html#ixzz2QpA3U5Xl

So can anyone tell me at what time the lawyer arrived and when Botha arrived please?

Also what is the name of the lawyer who arrived?

By the way, let me introduce you to a new member - Laurie A Claase (see name above)

Welcome to this thread, Laurie.

This is her biography:

Laurie A. Claase is an investigative journalist, freelance writer, editor and public speaker. She writes for both local and overseas publications and is the author of several books. Her exposé of corruption in international cricket, Caught Out, was long-listed for the Alan Paton non-fiction award in 2008. She appears regularly on television, radio and conference platforms, speaking on corruption in sport. Laurie lives in Cape Town and can be reached at [email protected] She encourages readers to take a few minutes to write a review on Amazon.com

This is a link to her book Pieces of the Puzzle: A Guide to the Oscar and Reeva Case [Kindle Edition):

Amazon.com: Pieces of the Puzzle: A Guide to the Oscar and Reeva Case eBook: Laurie A Claase: Books

 

[Estelle]

The article written by Sydney barrister, Charles Waterstreet, cited in my previous post has made the following points so this is a précis using points:

ABOUT ROUX: 1. The price of liberty is eternal litigation and the work of the best barrister in the land, Barry Roux. Roux is a man for all seasons. He has litigated in civil matters, tax matters and administrative matters, and was described on Twitter as a ''genius''. In his cross-examination of detective Hilton Botha, journalist Karyn Maughan described it as ''like watching a baby seal getting clubbed''. There is no substitute for a withering cross-examiner who knows his brief better than the lead detective. The way in which Roux pulled the threads apart from the prosecution case is a masterclass in forensic cross-examination.

2. It helps a defendant when your lawyer (Roux?) arrives at the crime scene before 4.15am when the lead detective, Botha, himself arrives.

3. It also doesn't hurt the defendant's case that Botha has earlier been to the house and arrested Pistorius for the assault of another woman. Roux made the most of this and Botha was forced to admit that that case had collapsed and that the defendant was suing the police, and the woman, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

4. It also didn't hurt Pistorius's case that the lead detective himself was charged with seven counts of attempted murder, which he did not reveal until he was called back for further cross-examination.

5. By that time, Botha was already dead in the water. He had been picked apart by Roux, going through the ''facts sheet'' that Botha had prepared as to the reasons why bail should be refused taking on the police facts one by one.

6. Botha walked through the crime scene without foot covers, thereby contaminating it.

7. They did not find a fourth bullet, which the defence ballistic team found in the toilet.

8. Botha seemed to have lost the first urine sample taken from the accused.

9. Botha confused how far away ear-witnesses were from the house and eventually chopped the distance in half.

10. The post-mortem exam showed Steenkamp's bladder as being empty, indicating that she had been to the toilet recently; bladders are normally full at that time of night.

11. Police had not seized the accused's phone or retrieved records by the time of the hearing.

12. Roux was able to assert that Pistorius's affidavit was exactly the same as the version he gave to his sister shortly after the shooting.

13. Botha claimed that he was going to charge Pistorius with possession of unlicensed ammunition Roux was able to assert that the ammunition belonged to the accused's father.

14. Botha claimed that he was going to charge Pistorius with possession of containers of testosterone injectables but Roux was able to assert that the drugs were a legal, herbal remedy.

15. Roux also asserted that the criticism about making no emergency calls was false, as they had been made on another phone.

16. Initially the prosecution asserted that the shots had been fired over 17 minutes, however, Roux was able to cross-examine Botha to prove the ear-witnesses must have been wrong, as they seemed to have heard more shots than were fired.

The only leg that the prosecution has left to stand on is the trajectory of the bullets, if they were fired down and from height. This might be an inconsistency with Pistorius's affidavit, as he swore that he only put on his prosthetic legs after the shooting and after he found the toilet locked using his cricket bat to bash open the toilet door.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...whole-truth-20130223-2exzr.html#ixzz2R1XNu1kQ

We then have to add the medical patch to this list.

Was the bail hearing held too early before the Prosecution had had a chance to get their facts straight and Roux knew this do took advantage of it? Roux seems to have thought of everything.

 

[Mango33]

So can anyone tell me at what time the lawyer arrived and when Botha arrived please?

Also what is the name of the lawyer who arrived?

By the way, let me introduce you to a new member - Laurie A Claase (see name above)

Welcome to this thread, Laurie.

This is her biography:

Laurie A. Claase is an investigative journalist, freelance writer, editor and public speaker. She writes for both local and overseas publications and is the author of several books. Her exposé of corruption in international cricket, Caught Out, was long-listed for the Alan Paton non-fiction award in 2008. She appears regularly on television, radio and conference platforms, speaking on corruption in sport. Laurie lives in Cape Town and can be reached at [email protected] She encourages readers to take a few minutes to write a review on Amazon.com

This is a link to her book Pieces of the Puzzle: A Guide to the Oscar and Reeva Case [Kindle Edition):

Amazon.com: Pieces of the Puzzle: A Guide to the Oscar and Reeva Case eBook: Laurie A Claase: Books

The name of the lawyer is Kenny Oldwage, the main lawyer of the Pistorius boys. He is referenced during the testimony. Scroll down to 8:24 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2013/feb/20/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-day-two-live-coverage


As for when he arrived, I have yet to see any exact time. Botha's testimony always seemed to suggest to me that they arrived after him (so after 4:15):

"While we were on the scene, the lawyer and brother came to the house because we called them and asked . . . to open the safe. They brought a locksmith for a safe in the kitchen,&#8221; Botha said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/shooting_down_ade_gunner_iYxJ1sFBTxXzNuIXXooN5L

I have seen news articles, like the one linked to by LaurieAClaase that suggest the lawyer arrived first but these do not seem to be based on first-hand accounts. Not sure what evidence they are based on.

Hope that helps...