Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[zwiebel]

Ah, my apologies, my response must have sounded a bit odd. I was interpreting it as left and right of the back wall, facing the door.

Yep, the right side of the toilet (facing the toilet) would appear to be the most natural place for the rack, as the left would seem a bit cramped.

I'm lost, Lol. Where it is in this pic, seems a bit crowded to me. I'd never leave it there for fear of Mr Z cracking his ankles or stubbing his toe on it or something.

Original link for photo, I think.
https://twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky

 

[DebinGA]

Yes, OP said left hand side of toilet (whilst in a seated position).....but more pushed forward centered in the wall facing the door.

Yep. OP claimed he found Reeva sitting on the floor, her head resting on her shoulder, and lower body not on magazine rack, which would have elevated her enough that he wouldn't have needed Stander's help picking her up. Nel showed Dixon pic of Reeva's broken hair/ brains on toilet seat and he then disagreed with OP's "version".

 

[Really?]

Carole70 confirmed to the forum last week that 90% of South Africa hates OP and believes that he is guilty.

The lady that cheers him and hugs him and gives him flower bouquets is his super fan, she is looney!

All of the cheering in the overflow rooms today was apparently for Mr. Nel as he was destroying that fake expert! :smile:

BBM:

whaaaaaaaa.........:floorlaugh:

lady>...this time next year.where is oscar?:scared:

 

[zwiebel]

BBM:

whaaaaaaaa.........:floorlaugh:

lady>...this time next year.where is oscar?:scared:

A journalist tweeted this morning that she shouted out, 'I love you Oscar!' as he entered court.

 

[Really?]

I'm lost, Lol. Where it is in this pic, seems a bit crowded to me. I'd never leave it there for fear of Mr Z cracking his ankles or stubbing his toe on it or something.

Original link for photo, I think.
https://twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky

True.....good point....perhaps OP is correct to where it usually is....however...after he riddled her body w.....sorry...got carried away there...humph...after she was shot the first time in her hip....she fell down and back onto the magazine rack...and sliding it along with her body weight more towards the toilet. moo

:jail:

 

[TipDog]

I still don't see any smoking gun. All I see is an aggressive prosecutor who is good at making the accused LOOK guilty with cheap, below the belt, statements like "you're a liar", or "you're lying", which to me is a terrible distortion of the ideal that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. These are smear tactics in my opinion, not true legal arguments. Nel comes across as cantankerous and rather weak at arguing his case, which will only satisfy those who don't really understand what persuasive argument should set out to achieve.

The chronicle of minute details and so called inconsistencies is neither here nor there and a proof of nothing very much because memories fade over time and one can in all innocence believe a certain fact that never happened, not because you're lying but because the human mind has a tendancy to remember things inaccurately after the passage of time (surely Nel knows this, so is he willfully ignorant?)

I'm assuming you are responding to my post? If so, thank you.

As for memories fading, I find it interesting that you say that.

OP actually added details in his testimony a year after his original statement (concocted by his DT, who surely walked through it with him at a time when his memory would have been the freshest). E.g., suddenly remembering that he thought he heard the bathroom door open but, nope, it was the magazine rack, but nope, it "must have been" the magazine rack is not just a little slip of memory. Nor is changing "Get out of house!" to "Get the f*** out of my house!" Nor is adding in that RS spoke, asking "Can't you sleep, Baba?" Nor is adding that he saw the duvet over RS' legs, that it was on the bed, but then not recalling where the duvet was....and so on, and so on.

I might be willing to go with the memory fading notion if OP didn't recall a darn thing. Instead, he seemed to recall only the details that supported his version and then blamed the details that don't on either his fading memory, the cops, his friends or _______________ (fill in the blank).

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in '<modsnip>' - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the '<modsnip> is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that <modsnip> is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for Osky, this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned <modsnip> was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of <modsnip>. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of Osky but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found <modsnip> to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) <modsnip> did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting <modsnip> and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

 

[Really?]

hehe....are the margins blown?...this page looks different....smaller print???

 

[sleuth-d-]

What if....on his stumps, as Vermeulen suggested, he uses the bat to hit the door three times. In the process the door breaks as he (OP, I mean) described in his testimony. The neighbours hear three loud sounds. And lots of bloodcurdling fearful screams.

Then, still on his stumps, he gets his gun and shoots Reeva through the door. The fearful screams stop.

He then goes to the bedroom, puts on his legs and goes back to the toilet to break open the door with hands and/or using the bat as a lever.

It is possible, no?

with the bat
the arc of a cricket bat swing compensates for two different body heights.

with the pistol
body position [crouch, squat, combat position, commando position or whatever op wants to call it], position/angle of arms, and position/angle of hands compensates for two different body heights.


so imo as you say, but:
not on his stumps.
no need to go back to put them on.

never went to sleep
bat. gun. and very angry in the bathroom.


i assume he wore his legs around the house? and only took them off for sleeping.

 

[Really?]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in '<modsnip>' - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the '<modsnip> is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that Osky is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for <modsnip>, this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned <modsnip> was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of <modsnip>. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of <modsnip> but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found <modsnip> to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) <modsnip> did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting <modsnip> and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

well hello there and..........:wagon:.....thanks for taking part in this discussion.

 

[Viper]

A journalist tweeted this morning that she shouted out, 'I love you Oscar!' as he entered court.

The press or someone, maybe herself, have given her a funny nickname. But I cannot remember it at the moment.

 

[steveml]

I'm lost, Lol. Where it is in this pic, seems a bit crowded to me. I'd never leave it there for fear of Mr Z cracking his ankles or stubbing his toe on it or something.

You've got me thinking now. I didn't realise there was more space on the opposite side from where the rack is pictured.

The other side would seem quite likely, the only reason I might not put it on the opposite side than in the picture is if it is wider than the width of the small wall.

i.e if it extended past the wall towards the door. This is purely a personal aesthetic choice though.

(I'm not sure why or how I'm equating a magazine rack and a toilet with anything of artistic beauty...what's happened to me?)

 

[strydohj]

From just reading here, Dixon demolished OP's moving mag rack claim iirc. I think he also admitted the guy he'd chosen to play OP on stumps for his "Did Dr. Stipp really see a figure walking right to left in the bathroom?" test was quite a bit shorter than OP is on stumps. And rather than look from the higher height from which the Stipps were looking at OP's lighted bathroom, Dixon's test was done from ground level. Oh, and I think Nel used Dixon to disprove OP's claim that he'd found Reeva sitting on the floor.

I was surprised that Nel let him of the hook so easily on the elevation mistake. Except if Nel was of the opinion he had made his point and it would be on record already.

 

[zwiebel]

Pic of the undamaged/repaired bathroom. Unfortunately, the sink obscured the view of any mag rack.

That sink wasn't visible in any forensic photos, was it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-first-pictures-bathroom-1719498

 

[Mr Fossil]

They were having an argument. OP is on his prosthetics throughout. He wants Reeva to leave and they are screaming at each other. Reeva is scared

He chases Reeva upstairs and she locks the bedroom door. He has his gun with him and this is consistent with his later story about running about with the gun - it's just that it was earlier. He barges the bedroom door to open it (the primary door would give, that's why he offers that information to the judge as he's using it in his lies) which leads to the marks on the second door, which probably didn't give because of the latch into the floor.

Reeva picks up the bat at the bedroom door as a naturally defensive reaction and runs to the bathroom with it (as he breaks the bedroom door open). Remembering the ladders that had been up earlier in the day, she drops the bat and opens the bathroom window thinking that it might be a way to escape. Realising the ladder has gone and she can't escape, she locks herself in the toilet. She has her phone with her. She doesn't really expect to be shot at even if OP is wielding a gun so is standing at the door arguing with OP.

OP is mad. He screams "get the f*** out of my house" at Reeva as he follows her to the bathroom. He hears her opening the window and slamming the toilet door.

He arrives at the bathroom and switches on the light. Reeva is screaming at him from the toilet.

The first shot was to scare her and isn't 'aimed', it's just at the door, but it hits Reeva in the leg and she falls. He immediately picks up the discarded bat to get in the toilet because he finds that the door is locked. He strikes the door three times (this is the first set of 4 bangs). She is screaming at him (they are screaming at each other). She tells him she is badly hit and is going to phone the police. He sarcastically screams "call the police" at her. OP can tell where she is because of where her voice is coming from. He even hears the scrape of the magazine rack as she falls on it. He has completely lost the plot at this stage and can only think he has to stop her calling the police. Three aimed shots follow (the second set of 3 bangs).

The crack that deviates through one of the bullet holes is then caused by OP prising the panel out with the bat to get into the toilet. He drags Reeva out and in this short period of time concocts the basis of the intruder story. He may well be crying but he's no longer screaming. He's thinking ... fast. This is later refined a number of times (as we know). He may even have taken a later trip upstairs (as Stander saw) to rearrange/remove something incriminating. Anyway, it is after both sets of bangs that Dr Stipp hears OP screaming "help, help, help" (which makes more sense to me than OP's version which he says is after the first 'bangs'. What would he be calling out for?).

She dies quickly from the head wound as he carries her downstairs but is alive long enough to create the arterial spurts that are found.

 

[jay-jay]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in '<modsnip>' - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the '<modsnip> is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that Osky is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for <modsnip>, this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned <modsnip> was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of Osky. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of <modsnip> but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found <modsnip> to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) <modsnip> did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting <modsnip> and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

:goodpost:

'execution' is the word I've started to use to describe it now, because that's how it seems to me to have been.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

The press or someone, maybe herself, have given her a funny nickname. But I cannot remember it at the moment.

I know what I call her, but I believe there are moderators on this forum.

Lunatic Fringe, David Icke type folk those are.

She (and her like minded minions) are going to start posing a huge threat the further we get in these proceedings (Verdict, sentencing etc) In fact, security services are going to be deployed in numbers for those phases of the trial.

The Osky loons are unpredictable, and the 'Justice 4 Reeva' people will be stepping out a little more. Add to that the political impact this judgement will have and it's vital that some planning is done.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

well hello there and..........:wagon:.....thanks for taking part in this discussion.

Thank you very much. Very happy to be here. :tyou:

 

[Really?]

I'm assuming you are responding to my post? If so, thank you.

As for memories fading, I find it interesting that you say that.

OP actually added details in his testimony a year after his original statement (concocted by his DT, who surely walked through it with him at a time when his memory would have been the freshest). E.g., suddenly remembering that he thought he heard the bathroom door open but, nope, it was the magazine rack, but nope, it "must have been" the magazine rack is not just a little slip of memory. Nor is changing "Get out of house!" to "Get the f*** out of my house!" Nor is adding in that RS spoke, asking "Can't you sleep, Baba?" Nor is adding that he saw the duvet over RS' legs, that it was on the bed, but then not recalling where the duvet was....and so on, and so on.

I might be willing to go with the memory fading notion if OP didn't recall a darn thing. Instead, he seemed to recall only the details that supported his version and then blamed the details that don't on either his fading memory, the cops, his friends or _______________ (fill in the blank).

BBM:

hehe.....that was a sad attempt to impress any Hollywood talent scouts. moo

 

[TipDog]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in '<modsnip>' - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the ' <modsnip> is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that Osky is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for <modsnip>, this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned <modsnip> was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of Osky. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of <modsnip> but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found<modsnip> to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) Osky did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting <modsnip> and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

Very informative, thank you.

Especially BIB.