General Discussion Thread #5

[Pisto_lius]

Some of these must have heard quite a lot. The security guards heard shots and that must be at least 250 yds away. I did measure it on google maps at one point but have forgotten what I posted. I will have another look. It does make it possible that the neighbour from some distance away, quoted in the bail hearing, really did hear something. It will be interesting to hear the technical statements during the trial.

BIB - In the bail hearing Botha was laughed at when he stated, there are witnesses who heard non-stop shouting and shots in the distance of 300 metres.

But now PT has 3 witnesses who have heard this in a distance of 50 metres :S. I hope they also remain strong under cross-examination of the DT raying:

 

[Pisto_lius]

I cannot help thinking that it is the OP camp that is leaking the information. They will have had all the court papers by now telling them exactly what the PT are going for.

I totally agree, but prosecutors also have the documents of the DT, knowing what they are going for - and nothing of this is leaked....

Only documents of the PT are leaked. With a lot of important information regarding their case. That says it all, doesn't?

I'm surprised for a long time that nothing yet of the autopsy report was leaked. It seems this contains results the DT wasn't at all happy about it

What about the *empty bladder*, for example, Roux and Perumal claimed in the bail hearing ? Or Reeva's head injuries ? Nothing about this !

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have attached a screen shot of the estate on which OP lives. I think the Red A indicates roughly where his house is. The yellow marker shows the security gate. The map has a convenient distance scale which shows, as the crow flies, it to be over 300 metres away. If they heard it, it would make sense that the person who claimed to have heard shots from 300 metres away would have been telling the truth. What we don't know is whether somebody nearer called security or whether they did hear the shots themselves.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am curious what all of you think OP may have been doing online. Browsing a dating site? ? Chatting with another woman or women? Or ???

We already had the impression that Reeva was somewhat neglected by him because of a long phone call. Now we learn he was also browsing the internet, apparently amounting to more than just looking up something on Google. So she was neglected more than we first heard.

What do you think?

It is known that the drug that was found at his house was usually marketed as a sex stimulant.

"Testis compositum is usually marketed for sexual enhancement, muscle recovery and low stamina. Some marketers advertise it as a testosterone booster, according to the Associated Press."

Some men look at to derive a similar stimulation. Perhaps his performance left something to be desired! Will we ever know and more importantly did Reeva know he did this? Maybe she caught him and this was what caused the argument.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have been pondering the phone issue again and am wondering whether he hid it before the police arrived and left all the other phones around so as to look as though these would be the ones he would have likely used. I am fairly sure I have read somewhere that there were no calls on these phones after the event, further leading me to believe that there is something very valuable on the phone for which he cannot remember the all important code.

The other alternative is that this is a very old phone and had not been in use and the production of it in court was purely to embarrass the PT.

 

[bajas]

Hello everyone, I have been following this case from South Africa for the past year. I am not the only one who believes that Oscar's version of events is highly probable. I watched the BBC Panarama programme and found it interesting that tests revealed that Reeva's bladder was empty, which meant that she did indeed go to the toilet. That she was standing up against the door when she was shot could simply mean that she was ready to leave the toilet, he heard the noise and shot at the door. Tests confirmed that Oscar was on his stumps, as he stated at the bail hearing; the prosecution claimed he took the time to put on his prostheses indicating premeditated murder but now agree that he was on his stumps; the prosecution would not hand over the toilet door to the DT yet it is the key to so much evidence and was apparently left in someone's office so that anyone could tamper with it...why? I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that he shot her thinking it was an intruder....people who live in South Africa know the very real threat of violent crime and the fear of it. It makes one absolutely paranoid and I would imagine that if you have lost the bottom part of your legs, you would feel even more paranoid and vulnerable. I don't think it is unusual that Reeva was wearing shorts and a t shirt in bed, and I don't think that because he was browsing the internet or making a phone call while Reeva was there indicates that she was neglected by him. I don't believe that these facts need any particular analysing at all; if anything, it shows that they were very comfortable and at home with each other. This is just another way of looking at the facts......

 

[Interested Bystander]

We are all entitled to an opinion but would you please explain how you feel 5 neighbours heard screaming during a volley of 4 shots, with the closest hearing an ongoing argument preceding the shots. You mention a few very insignificant points to promote your view, one being totally wrong. The door was released for inspection to OP's Defence Team's chosen forensic team who examined it in situ. It is impossible to allow evidence to be examined other than under controlled conditions which is what happened.

The point about an empty bladder is weak. During the argument she may well have used the toilet. From the arguing it seems as though they may never have even reached the point of going to bed together so there would have been plenty of time to go to the toilet. When a person dies urine is expelled from the corpse when the muscles relax. There may well be evidence of this on the shorts she was wearing. It would not be unusual to find an empty bladder in a dead body.

Although I feel your argument is very weak indeed, you are entitled to hold it. Soon we will hear the findings of various experts and the picture will become very clear.

 

[bajas]

Hi, I was just going on what was raised in the BBC Panarama programme which was a while ago. I still maintain it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he fired shots thinking it was an intruder. I know how people live with the very real threat of violent crime in S Africa because my family still live there and I go back about three times a year and experience it myself. I seem to recall at the bail hearing that the prosecution got a lot of facts wrong about the neighbours apparently hearing arguing/screaming which meant that it could not be ascertained that it came from OP's house but we shall wait for the actual trial. A lot of sensationalism occurs in the media so it is best not to accept everything you read as being factual. I don't believe Oscar intended to kill Reeva. Sorry if my opinion isn't in line with everyone else's in this thread but I think he is a decent person from a good background who has overcome huge obstacles to achieve all that he has in his life and he wouldn't want to just throw it all away by intentionally killing his girlfriend! I believe it was a tragic accident that he now has to live with for the rest of his life.

 

[Estelle]

I am curious what all of you think OP may have been doing online. Browsing a dating site? ? Chatting with another woman or women? Or ???

We already had the impression that Reeva was somewhat neglected by him because of a long phone call. Now we learn he was also browsing the internet, apparently amounting to more than just looking up something on Google. So she was neglected more than we first heard.

What do you think?

A few days ago, you might remember that I posted that OP was on the internet and this showed that it was not the loving relationship that OP said it was at the bail hearing.

I then alluded to OP possibly accessing car websites. That is true. OP was accessing used car websites. I guess he was trying to sell one of his cars as he only buys new ones. But I must admit I also thought he could be accessing and that is now confirmed.

My gut feeling since the bail hearing when we were privy to his friend's statements about a call from one at 6.30pm when he and Reeva had only arrived home about 6.10pm and another about 8pm which went on until about 8.45pm was that OP neglected and ignored Reeva in the early part of the night. Note that his Affidavit only begins at about 10pm with Reeva supposedly doing yoga with him in bed watching TV. That gave me the impression that they were neglecting each other. I also wondered what Reeva was doing while he had these long phone conversations. A man with any manners would have told these guys to phone back the next day.

But people in OP's defence, said that is what most couples do! I say that most couples who have only known each other such a short time do not act like an old married couple neglecting and ignoring the other person especially not on the eve of Valentine's Day.

Now we have been told that OP was accessing websites on his phone as well! Again people have come out in his defence trying to say that that is normal too and it is not a sin to access on the internet.

Again in the early days, my gut feeling told me that there was something amiss in their sex life. Then we heard about the sex stimulant beside his bed.

I wondered what was going on? I even thought that they may never had sex before either because Reeva was not ready for it or because he had sexual problems. Then I would be told by others that they were sleeping together and she often stayed overnight. But her female friend, Gina, said that this was the first night that Reeva stayed over. Usually Gina's father met Reeva half way in his car about 10.30pm and followed her home so she would be safe.

I can only guess that OP must have been in a dark mood that night over something and purposely avoided, neglected and ignored Reeva to hurt her and get back at her over something. Perhaps it was because she met up with Lahoud the day before or that she did not want to have sex with him. But why didn't she leave? Did he stop her? As the bedroom door had been locked, had OP locked her in there? Did she hope to resolve it before she went home? If he had locked her in the bedroom, it is hardly likely that she would admit it to Gina when she sent that text message about 10pm saying she would not be home.

It will be interesting to learn at the trial how long he spent surfing these websites and which websites he visited. Some of these websites could have been depicting violent sex - not the soft that most people access. Also the times he spent accessing these websites might reveal that they had not gone to bed as he claimed in his Affidavit. Their arguments might have been triggered by his spending a lot of time accessing these websites especially if she learned about the type of websites he was accessing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Hi, I was just going on what was raised in the BBC Panarama programme which was a while ago. I still maintain it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he fired shots thinking it was an intruder. I know how people live with the very real threat of violent crime in S Africa because my family still live there and I go back about three times a year and experience it myself. I seem to recall at the bail hearing that the prosecution got a lot of facts wrong about the neighbours apparently hearing arguing/screaming which meant that it could not be ascertained that it came from OP's house but we shall wait for the actual trial. A lot of sensationalism occurs in the media so it is best not to accept everything you read as being factual. I don't believe Oscar intended to kill Reeva. Sorry if my opinion isn't in line with everyone else's in this thread but I think he is a decent person from a good background who has overcome huge obstacles to achieve all that he has in his life and he wouldn't want to just throw it all away by intentionally killing his girlfriend! I believe it was a tragic accident that he now has to live with for the rest of his life.

"A lot of sensationalism occurs in the media so it is best not to accept everything you read as being factual." Very true. You have proved this in your post.

Have you not read the published prosecution list of charges that was recently released to the press? IMO probably by his team with the purpose of trying to go for a mis-trial. If the guards on the gate heard the shots, and they are over 300 metres away, there is a good chance that the original report was correct, but leaving that aside, near neighbours, within feet, are going to testify they heard hours of argument/fighting, two series of shots and a woman screaming.


I have friends who live on a secure site, like OP does, who never have a hint of trouble. Apparently his estate is one of the most secure in his area and does not suffer from this type of crime. Security records confirm that there has been only one burglary in the last 3 years (I think that is what I read) and it did not involve guns. This is less than the burglaries we have had in the expensive area in which I live in the UK. We can expect several a year but, of course, no guns, though there is violence on occasions. SA is unsafe in most areas but he is a priveleged man who does not live in those circumstances.

 

[Estelle]

Hi, I was just going on what was raised in the BBC Panarama programme which was a while ago. I still maintain it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he fired shots thinking it was an intruder. I know how people live with the very real threat of violent crime in S Africa because my family still live there and I go back about three times a year and experience it myself. I seem to recall at the bail hearing that the prosecution got a lot of facts wrong about the neighbours apparently hearing arguing/screaming which meant that it could not be ascertained that it came from OP's house but we shall wait for the actual trial. A lot of sensationalism occurs in the media so it is best not to accept everything you read as being factual. I don't believe Oscar intended to kill Reeva. Sorry if my opinion isn't in line with everyone else's in this thread but I think he is a decent person from a good background who has overcome huge obstacles to achieve all that he has in his life and he wouldn't want to just throw it all away by intentionally killing his girlfriend! I believe it was a tragic accident that he now has to live with for the rest of his life.

Welcome baja!

The problem I have with what you are saying is that you are not up to date with all the evidence.

At the bail hearing, they had only had a few days to get the evidence to prevent OP getting bail. OP's solicitor, Barry Roux, even admitted that in the post I did on him a page back. Botha's evidence will not be presented at the trial and nor will he be giving evidence. Admittedly, some of the so-called evidence was proved to be wrong. Also, the Prosecution did not want to tell all at that stage as the bail hearing was not a trial. Their aim was to get OP to tell his story in the form of his Affidavit.

While some people might believe the BBC Panorama IMO that was put together in co-operation with OP's Public Relations Consultants at the time so it was slanted in favour of OP IMO. They also did not have the full evidence and just went on the bail hearing.

Since then experts were employed in the ballistic and forensic teams and they have statements from over 100 Prosecution witnesses.

One earwitness heard the screams and shots from 98 metres away.

While I realise that many people in SA live in fear of intruders, the law says that one should not shoot unless it is in self-defence. This was not the case with OP. He said he did not know who the intruder was and IMO did not face any real threat. All he heard was a noise in the toilet. Did he simply hear the flushing of the toilet? OP not only fired his gun once but three more times.

 

[Pisto_lius]

I thought again about why prosecutors don't demand judicial consequences for the leak of their case documents but try to play down the issue ?

I think I found the answer :

If such important documents are leaked to the public before the trial starts there is a considerable risk that the judge may dismiss the whole case.

And this increases the likelihood that these documents were leaked by the DT because there is no doubt this would be in their interest.

With all evidence it looks the defence' case isn't nearly as strong as the prosecutors' case and they are aware of this.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I invite you to answer these questions as I think some of us already know the answer to them:

Here are the 21 questions that need to be answered during the trial.

1. Why did Steenkamp decide that evening not to go out with her friends?

2. What did Steenkamp give Pistorius for Valentine’s Day?

3. What were the death threats that, according to Pistorius's statement, he received?

4. What violence and break-ins had he been a victim of and why did he not, according to the State, report these incidents?

5. Why did Pistorius not realise Steenkamp was not next to him in bed? He slept next to her and walked past the bed again to get his handgun.

6. Had it never happened before that he woke in the middle of the night with Steenkamp or one of his former girlfriends using the bathroom?

7. If he believed that he and Steenkamp were in grave danger with at least one robber in the toilet, why did he not tell her to flee or go downstairs before he confronted the danger?

8. If Pistorius was as scared of intruders as he said in his statement, why did he confront them instead of fleeing?

9. After he had fired the shots and saw Steenkamp was not in the bed, he bashed open the door with a cricket bat. Why did he suddenly know Steenkamp was behind the door, while a minute earlier he was convinced it was at least one robber? Why did he not look to see if she was somewhere else in the house before he broke down the door, behind which there could still have been robbers, according to his version of the events?

10. Why did he at no stage call the police or the estate’s security services?

11. The estate’s security guards called him after the shooting to ask if all was in order. Why did he tell them, according to the State, that everything was “fine”?

12. What is Pistorius's relationship with Johan Stander, the man he called first?

13. Why did Pistorius take the time to go downstairs and open the front door while Steenkamp was dying upstairs?

14. If he was convinced that there were intruders behind the toilet door, why did he drop his handgun? The State says it was found on the floor near the shower.

15. Why did Steenkamp take her cellphone to the bathroom? Why was the cellphone outside the toilet and she inside?

16. Why was the toilet door locked?

17. Why did Steenkamp, according to the State, stand fully clad behind the locked bathroom door?

18. If Pistorius’s version is true, why did Steenkamp not answer when he yelled at her to call the police? Why did she not scream after the first shot?

19. The State referred in court papers to Pistorius's internet activities on the night of 13 February and said these conflicted with the idea of a couple who spent the night together. What did Pistorius do on the internet? The Sunday Times reported he visited several pornographic websites on his phone while Steenkamp was with him.

20. If Pistorius's version is true, what were the screaming and sounds of fighting that the neighbours reported hearing?

21. What had happened in Pistorius and Samantha Taylor’s relationship? They went out for a year and six months, and Taylor had plans to tell Rapport what Pistorius had subjected her to, but she then decided against this. What will she testify about Pistorius?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-trial-21-questions-to-be-answered-20140224

There is one more salient question I would ask. How come he/they went to bed and to sleep with his verandah doors wide open and he got up to close them during the night?

If he is so itensely aware of safety this must have been the most reckless act OR, as I believe, it was the norm and he felt very safe indeed and the "exercise" of closing the doors, the blinds and the curtains was yet another falsehood to try to encourage the Prosecution to think he could see nothing. Of course, when he got up the curtains, blinds and doors were all open and his night vision should have been pretty good under those circumstances, ie he would have seen that Reeva was in bed, if indeed she was. By closing everything up he is trying to pursuade the prosecution that he couldn't see a thing. Closing doors, pulling blinds and curtains would have entailed some degree of noise. I am sure she would have stirred and asked what was going on.

There is still the question of a cartridge casing being found in the hallway between the bedroom and the bathroom. We don't seem to have heard much of that recently. If there was a casing there, surely he must have shot at something?

 

[Estelle]

I thought again about why prosecutors don't demand judicial consequences for the leak of their case documents but try to play down the issue ?

I think I found the answer :

If such important documents are leaked to the public before the trial starts there is a considerable risk that the judge may dismiss the whole case.

And this increases the likelihood that these documents were leaked by the DT because there is no doubt this would be in their interest.

With all evidence it looks the defence' case isn't nearly as strong as the prosecutors' case and they are aware of this.

IMO This does not answer why the NPA are playing down the issue, does it?
Or demand that there are judicial consequences to leaking the NPA case? especially if there is a considerable risk that the Judge would dismiss the whole case. It is in the interests of the Prosecution to have the trial to go ahead.

Yes IMO they have definitely been leaked by the DT NOT THE PT as they have more to gain by doing so because, as you say, the DT case must not be very strong so they are trying to damage the PT case before the trial begins.

But surely if the PT can prove it was the DT who leaked, then there should be consequences.

However, what we have always been told is that it does not matter in a Judge only trial if there is a so-called media circus because the Judge is not influenced by what is in the media whereas if there was a jury, it would be.

So can you explain your point of view better for me please Pisto_lius?

 

[Estelle]

There is one more salient question I would ask. How come he/they went to bed and to sleep with his verandah doors wide open and he got up to close them during the night?

f he is so itensely aware of safety this must have been the most reckless act OR, as I believe, it was the norm and he felt very safe indeed and the "exercise" of closing the doors, the blinds and the curtains was yet another falsehood to try to encourage the Prosecution to think he could see nothing. Of course, when he got up the curtains, blinds and doors were all open and his night vision should have been pretty good under those circumstances, ie he would have seen that Reeva was in bed, if indeed she was. By closing everything up he is trying to pursuade the prosecution that he couldn't see a thing. Closing doors, pulling blinds and curtains would have entailed some degree of noise. I am sure she would have stirred and asked what was going on.

There is still the question of a cartridge casing being found in the hallway between the bedroom and the bathroom. We don't seem to have heard much of that recently. If there was a casing there, surely he must have shot at something?

Good point about the fan. I read a comment tonight from a South African who said the temperature that night at 2am was only 14 degrees Centigrade so why would he have needed a fan? IMO it's laughable.

Yes I have found that little information has been given about the casing found in the hallway nor have we heard about the autopsy or the toxicological tests.

I'm sure that there is a lot we have not been told yet.

I wonder who OP's witnesses are?

 

[Pisto_lius]

Beeld on Monday quoted experienced criminal procedure attorney Marius du Toit as saying that he doesn't believe OP will have a choice. Only OP can say exactly what happened that night, and it is up to him to explain why he thinks his actions were not illegal. The State already has prima facie evidence, and if the defence does not offer any other evidence, it will be a proven case.

However, Du Toit predicted that OP's defence lawyers will probably only decide on whether he will testify after the State has presented all its evidence and has closed its case.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Chances-good-that-Pistorius-will-testify-20140224

BIB - Sorry, but this statement of Du Toit is BS !

OP gave a (written) affidavit and told his version. It is now up to the prosecutors to refute his version.

OP doesn't have to explain anything more than he said in his affidavit !

If OP takes the stand it even becomes much worse for him than it already is. I'm sure, OP gladly will abstain from this *choice*

I wonder why every fool believe he must tell the public something about the OP case ?
.
.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I thought again about why prosecutors don't demand judicial consequences for the leak of their case documents but try to play down the issue ?

I think I found the answer :

If such important documents are leaked to the public before the trial starts there is a considerable risk that the judge may dismiss the whole case.

And this increases the likelihood that these documents were leaked by the DT because there is no doubt this would be in their interest.

With all evidence it looks the defence' case isn't nearly as strong as the prosecutors' case and they are aware of this.

I am with you all the way there. If this is the case, I hope the DT can be disbarred from practising but I suspect they will have paid someone else to do it (possibly steal it or hack it) and it will be untraceable. I am also sure this forum is read. We must have asked every question anyone could think of so they will be primed for everything.

 

[Estelle]

Now for a bit of light relief!

The Onion's Tips For Not Accidentally Murdering Your Girlfriend

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onions-tips-for-not-accidentally-murdering-you,31359/

 

[Estelle]

I am with you all the way there. If this is the case, I hope the DT can be disbarred from practising but I suspect they will have paid someone else to do it (possibly steal it or hack it) and it will be untraceable. I am also sure this forum is read. We must have asked every question anyone could think of so they will be primed for everything.

I don't see it your way. My understanding is that it is protocol for the PT to give the DT the documents before trial. The once they got them, the DT leaked them to the media probably in return for cash.

 

[Pisto_lius]

IMO This does not answer why the NPA are playing down the issue, does it?
Or demand that there are judicial consequences to leaking the NPA case? especially if there is a considerable risk that the Judge would dismiss the whole case. It is in the interests of the Prosecution to have the trial to go ahead.

Yes IMO they have definitely been leaked by the DT NOT THE PT as they have more to gain by doing so because, as you say, the DT case must not be very strong so they are trying to damage the PT case before the trial begins.

But surely if the PT can prove it was the DT who leaked, then there should be consequences.

However, what we have always been told is that it does not matter in a Judge only trial if there is a so-called media circus because the Judge is not influenced by what is in the media whereas if there was a jury, it would be.

So can you explain your point of view better for me please Pisto_lius?

BIB - I will try it

The publication of court documents which the public is not allowed to attend has nothing to do with the possible influence of the judge because of a so-called media circus.

The leaked written pleadings were not made available to the press and public.

The publication of court documents which the public is not allowed to attend could result in contempt of court. (Magistrate Daniel Thulare complained about this in the bail hearing when the crime scene photos were leaked.)

Contempt of court

Contempt of court consists in unlawfully and intentionally -

- violating the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or a judicial officer in his/her judicial capacity; or

- publishing information or comment concerning a pending judicial proceeding which has the tendency to influence the outcome of the proceeding or to interfere with the administration of justice in that proceeding.

http://www.saps.gov.za/crimestop/common_offence_definitions.htm

So, if prosecutors are sure their case documents were leaked by the DT and ask the judge for judicial consequences against the defence because they feel this could damage their case, it would be the only choice of the judge to dismiss the whole case because of the above quoted reason.


Further information:

Press should not forget dangers of contempt of court

It is not necessarily the most dramatic publications that can cause the most damage to the defence case or the prosecution case (both must be protected to allow for a fair trial).

http://thejusticegap.com/2013/06/can-justice-fight-back/

.
.