Page 6 of 111 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 16 56 106 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 1665
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    392
    excerpted quote
    Quote Originally Posted by Patticake View Post

    I believe the videos are from the Dateline special
    Those are from the ABC show 20/20. I think Dateline (NBC) also did a special on this, but I haven't seen it.


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Feynman For This Useful Post:


  3. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,373
    Let me thank whoever found and posted this link.
    http://www.dispatch.co.za/oscars-bloody-valentine/

    Oscar’s bloody Valentine
    "...Police yesterday sealed off the house, which sources described as a bloodbath. A policeman said there was blood everywhere, in several rooms...."

    I have speculated on what would have made Botha state--after leaving the cops--that he knew immediately that there was only one way it could have happened. The "one way" is an extremely strong statement—as is the “immediately”. And of course it is in stark contradistinction to what he said in court that OP's affi also fits the evidence. I think once no longer controlled, those later statements are more likely to be true as he is no longer part of the Pros trying to force the DT to get married to all sorts of claims.

    But what could the "several rooms" mean? I speculated from the outset that one thing Botha might have had in mind was blood where it could not be in OP’s affi claims. This could include the bedroom, and other places. This—if true— also ties in with those various early printed reports of cricket bat or shot in the hip in the bedroom.

    Of course earlier reports are unconfirmed. Everything alas is unconfirmed until all forensics and autopsy are divulged at trial.

    Things claimed by the DT are also unconfirmed. There appears to be no proof yet of the medical patch on OP’s shoulder.

    But to play Devil's advocate, several rooms could still fit OP's affi as the bathroom, the stairs, the living room after she passed can be construed as several rooms.

    So perhaps back to square one with nothing absolutely definitive still.


  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to shane13 For This Useful Post:


  5. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
    excerpted quote
    But Botha also pointed out there *was* something to contradict OP's version of events: the downward trajectory of the bullets, indicating the prosthetics were on as the shots were fired. Under oath does not imply competence, or logical coherence.
    yes I know, that's why I added in my original post "at that time and more would have come to light by now" (The results of ballistics was not even finalized at that stage). But at first glance, according to Botha, there were no inconsistencies...she was not shot anywhere else in the house but the loo, she was not beaten with a cricket bat and Botha conceded that the story was plausible.... Hence him telling the family he didn't foresee bail being denied...what he may have believed happened in the house is not really relevant if there was no evidence to back it up. and I've made no secret of my opinion that Botha was totally out of his league to take the stand and totally incompetent in the way he handled the scene. I hope I am making sense


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Carol70 For This Useful Post:


  7. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,373
    New article (April 12) from Beeld, the Afrikaaner language paper in SA.
    Used Google for translation—it’s free so can’t complain, but…

    Article indicates that SA teachers are now telling students that the OP case shows that heroes should not be unconditionally idolized or such.

    Translation: http://translate.google.com/translat...uteer-20130412

    Original: http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuu...uteer-20130412

    Maybe Carol can give a real translation?


  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to shane13 For This Useful Post:


  9. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by shane13 View Post
    New article (April 12) from Beeld, the Afrikaaner language paper in SA.
    Used Google for translation—it’s free so can’t complain, but…

    Article indicates that SA teachers are now telling students that the OP case shows that heroes should not be unconditionally idolized or such.

    Translation: http://translate.google.com/translat...uteer-20130412

    Original: http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuu...uteer-20130412

    Maybe Carol can give a real translation?
    My Afrikaans is not the best but this is my interpretation of the article:

    Many teachers struggle over how the theme of sports heroes in the school curriculum should be addressed after the athlete, Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February at his home in Pretoria. He was, before the tragedy, often portrayed as a role model in school tasks, assignments and discussion in the classroom. Ted Townsend, spokesman for the South African Teachers Union (SAOU), said teachers should be responsible and professional with the case, or go to heads of department for guidance where necessary. According to him, the curriculum is not as narrowly prescriptive that teachers do not have other sports heroes to use as examples , especially where younger pupils are involved and a discussion of the events could be potentially traumatic for them. "Given the media coverage the case has so far received, it will not be possible to focus on sports heroes without the shooting also coming into play. "Teachers need to handle the case sensitively. Pistorius's case, we see violence that ended in death. Teachers should ask themselves what values they carry him as a sports hero . " Prof. Elda de Waal, education expert from the North-West University (NWU), said teachers should not avoid the topic. "This is a golden opportunity to debate among pupils and stimulate the message that no role model ever has 100% integrity and that all people, one time or another, make mistakes and that there are lessons to learn from this. "


  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Carol70 For This Useful Post:


  11. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol70 View Post
    My Afrikaans is not the best but this is my interpretation of the article:
    Thanks for taking the time to do that, Carol.


  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to shane13 For This Useful Post:


  13. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol70 View Post
    yes I know, that's why I added in my original post "at that time and more would have come to light by now" (The results of ballistics was not even finalized at that stage). But at first glance, according to Botha, there were no inconsistencies...she was not shot anywhere else in the house but the loo, she was not beaten with a cricket bat and Botha conceded that the story was plausible.... Hence him telling the family he didn't foresee bail being denied...what he may have believed happened in the house is not really relevant if there was no evidence to back it up. and I've made no secret of my opinion that Botha was totally out of his league to take the stand and totally incompetent in the way he handled the scene. I hope I am making sense
    I respectfully disagree .IMO what Botha said 'there were no inconsistencies'
    does not automatically mean that she was not shot elsewhere but the loo or
    she was not beaten with the cricket bat. It rather means to me that there is no proof to say the contrary what's been told for now but no proof that what is said is true and exactly fact either. it is an openend expression. he says the case just suits imo.

    OTOH, I think that OP did destroy the scene more than Botha did given his changing Reeava's place from point to point and his own movements in the room and in the house up and down .

    Just my opinions.


  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MURDERER_SERVANT For This Useful Post:


  15. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
    excerpted quote
    Those are from the ABC show 20/20. I think Dateline (NBC) also did a special on this, but I haven't seen it.
    There is. It's called "Oscar Pistoriis: Life and Death in the Fast Lane". They interviewed RS's former long-time boyfriend.... I believe the same one she had coffee with.


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to natsound For This Useful Post:


  17. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
    excerpted quote
    But Botha also pointed out there *was* something to contradict OP's version of events: the downward trajectory of the bullets, indicating the prosthetics were on as the shots were fired. Under oath does not imply competence, or logical coherence.
    To which Nell (the prosecutor) effectively diminished by saying that Botha was not a forensic/trajectory expert and was just using his own opinion as that type of ballistics testing had not been completed yet at the time of the bail hearing.


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  19. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by MURDERER_SERVANT View Post
    I respectfully disagree .IMO what Botha said 'there were no inconsistencies'
    does not automatically mean that she was not shot elsewhere but the loo or
    she was not beaten with the cricket bat. It rather means to me that there is no proof to say the contrary what's been told for now but no proof that what is said is true and exactly fact either. it is an openend expression. he says the case just suits imo.

    OTOH, I think that OP did destroy the scene more than Botha did given his changing Reeava's place from point to point and his own movements in the room and in the house up and down .

    Just my opinions.
    If there is blood anywhere else in that apartment other than the bathroom, that is an inconsistancy in his affidavit, I don't see how it's not otherwise. His statement indicates he shot her in the bathroom. If he states he shot her in the bathroom, how did blood get in the bedroom? So when Botha says 'there are no inconsistancies in his statement, that means there was no evidence at that time that contradicted what OP said. Blood anywhere else other than the bathroom contradicts what OP says. The defense was in that apartment after LE, they know if LE found blood anywhere else other than the bathroom. So they are not going to ask Botha if there are any contradictions if they know there is evidence (blood in the bedroom) that there is.

    Same goes for the cricket bat. Botha said, under oath, that she had no injuries other than the bullet wounds. And the defense knew that or else they wouldn't have pressed Botha on that answer. If there was a hint that she had other injuries (head), they would not have asked him that question. That wouldn't be withholding evidence, that would be outright lying.

    I think a huge issue with this case is some are still relying on early MSM articles which we know now were filled with inaccurate or just plain wrong information.


  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  21. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    If there is blood anywhere else in that apartment other than the bathroom, that is an inconsistancy in his affidavit, I don't see how it's not otherwise. His statement indicates he shot her in the bathroom. If he states he shot her in the bathroom, how did blood get in the bedroom? So when Botha says 'there are no inconsistancies in his statement, that means there was no evidence at that time that contradicted what OP said. Blood anywhere else other than the bathroom contradicts what OP says. The defense was in that apartment after LE, they know if LE found blood anywhere else other than the bathroom. So they are not going to ask Botha if there are any contradictions if they know there is evidence (blood in the bedroom) that there is.

    Same goes for the cricket bat. Botha said, under oath, that she had no injuries other than the bullet wounds. And the defense knew that or else they wouldn't have pressed Botha on that answer. If there was a hint that she had other injuries (head), they would not have asked him that question. That wouldn't be withholding evidence, that would be outright lying.

    I think a huge issue with this case is some are still relying on early MSM articles which we know now were filled with inaccurate or just plain wrong information.
    agg thank you!! I was not getting my point across but this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say!!


  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Carol70 For This Useful Post:


  23. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    close to Munich, Germany
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by MURDERER_SERVANT View Post
    I respectfully disagree .IMO what Botha said 'there were no inconsistencies'
    does not automatically mean that she was not shot elsewhere but the loo or
    she was not beaten with the cricket bat. It rather means to me that there is no proof to say the contrary what's been told for now but no proof that what is said is true and exactly fact either. it is an openend expression. he says the case just suits imo.

    OTOH, I think that OP did destroy the scene more than Botha did given his changing Reeava's place from point to point and his own movements in the room and in the house up and down .

    Just my opinions.
    I totally agree with you.

    And this interesting statement made by Perumal confirms it, although Perumal tried to construe it for the benefit of the defence - IMO

    We decided to get as much of our evidence as we could through the investigating officer so that I did not need to be called as a witness during the bail application.

    But it is not only the post-mortem that Perumal relied on as he also assessed the crime scene. In fact, it was he who, through seeing a particular mark on the toilet wall, realised that a bullet cartridge was in the toilet and suggested it be retrieved.

    Perumal also told how bloody swipes from Steenkamp’s hair – as well as other blood markings in the house – supported Pistorius’s story of where he picked her body up and carried it.

    “There was a lot of blood on the scene. We can tell when Oscar picked Reeva up by the blood from her hair swipes.And from the blood markings we can see she was still alive at that time. There were also swipes on the wall where he carried her down the steps. And we can tell that by the time she got to the bottom of the steps she was already dead.”
    http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cour...4#.UWfX16K-2Sp
    All these blood markings maybe already previously occured - when OP hunted Reeva through the house. - IMO


  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Pisto_lius For This Useful Post:


  25. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Pisto_lius View Post
    I totally agree with you.

    And this interesting statement made by Perumal confirms it, although Perumal tried to construe it for the benefit of the defence - IMO



    All these blood markings maybe already previously occured - when OP hunted Reeva through the house. - IMO
    The second part of that statement (the blood markings supported OP's story) effectively kills the idea she was killed or struck anywhere other than the bathroom. He says right there the markings are consistent to where he would of logically carried her down the stairs. If there are blood markings in the bedroom, bedroom door handle, etc, I don't see how that supports OP's story IMO.


  26. The Following User Says Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  27. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    close to Munich, Germany
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Patticake View Post
    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...Reeva-20130411




    I find this allegation false.

    Their relationship was too new for OP's family to claim she was an intimate member.

    And he never met her family. I say this was a very early relationship with no connections.

    IMO
    I agree with you.

    OP's family didn't know Reeva before the tragedy. Take a look at the tweets of Carl - he never mentioned Reeva's name during the period she dated OP through to 14 Feb. But he mentioned Samantha Taylor several times during her relationship with OP.
    http://topsy.com/twitter/carlpistori...aaaaaa&page=21

    And OP's father also confirmed that's not true

    13/02/16 | Last Updated: 13/02/17
    The suggestion that Pistorius’ family was close to Steenkamp runs counter to comments from Pistorius’ father, Henke, who told the New York Times he had never met his son’s partner.

    “I don't discuss my son's relationships. I have, in fact, not met the lady,” he was quoted as saying.
    http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/...mp-uncle-says/


  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Pisto_lius For This Useful Post:


  29. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    The second part of that statement (the blood markings supported OP's story) effectively kills the idea she was killed or struck anywhere other than the bathroom. He says right there the markings are consistent to where he would of logically carried her down the stairs. If there are blood markings in the bedroom, bedroom door handle, etc, I don't see how that supports OP's story IMO.
    I think we should remember that for OP to carry RS from the bathroom to the stairs he would have had to cross a small corner of the bedroom to get out the bedroom door. I have said previously that I think blood drops in this corner would still be consistant with his version.

    But no one brought up blood in the bedroom in the hearing.

    If Botha had see blood in other parts of the bedroom, blood in the kitchen or the trophy room etc, he would have had to admit there was evidence that did not support the affadavit. imo


  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Mango33 For This Useful Post:


Page 6 of 111 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 16 56 106 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. General Discussion-Thread No. 25
    By christine2448 in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 460
    Last Post: 03-09-2009, 02:55 PM
  2. General Discussion-Thread No. 24
    By christine2448 in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 534
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 09:24 AM
  3. General Discussion Thread No. 18
    By colomom in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 599
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 03:35 PM
  4. General Discussion Thread No. 17
    By Jeana (DP) in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 433
    Last Post: 10-20-2007, 07:06 PM
  5. General discussion thread #14
    By chicoliving in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 279
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 09:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •