sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
Thank you soooo much Kimster!!! You're the BEST!!!
I actually would find it strange if there was no blood on the door knob. He must have had blood on his hands when opened that door if he had pulled Reeva out the loo??
MURDERER_SERVANT, This is response to your last post on the previous thread.
Could you provide a few links to reports that blood was found in many places around the house? I have never seen one, although I know those reports have been discussed here. Thanks!
Yep, I think the testimony of the ex, Sam Taylor is going to be very telling. I'm not sure if CTM will take the stand as I believe they reached some kind of settlement with their case and I'm sure the conditions would be confidentiality?? Could she be forced to take the stand??
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-clan-unhappy-with-talk-about-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
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.I also think alot of people are forgetting that Botha stated, under oath, that there was nothing to contradict OP version of events ( at that date of bail hearing)
~snipped~I don't believe the claim that Reeva was an "intimate member of the Pistorius family", either.
After only 9 weeks of dating?
Yes. That's why I was surprised when it was later decided that it was irrelevant whether he had his legs on or not at the time of the shooting.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.
Thanks, Nats,
I'm still trying to find out. Although my dogs are small, I rely upon them to alert me to trouble. They are going nuts.
But it may just be the LAPD doing their thing, so to speak ...
Harumph ..
If CTM has settled with OP (I've read media reports that OP & legal team have reached a "confidential settlement agreement" with her), then I doubt she'll testify @ his trial (if this case goes to trial) regarding his current charges.
Regarding ST: after it was reported in the media that she was "prepared to reveal what (Pistorius) made me go through", she retracted her statement on the advice of her attorney (according to what I've read & has been linked/discussed in the previous threads).
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-15-...on-haunt-oscar-pistorius-social-relationships
BBM 1: I am reading the book "Pieces of the Puzzle: A Guide to the Oscar and Reeva Case" by Laurie A Claase, it just came out on Kindle only, I believe. They state in that book that OP dropped the CTM case. I'm new to reading a book this way and don't see how to find sources within the book. I'm not very far into the book yet, but so far it is very objectivly laying out the known facts.
BBM 2: I have read about that statement by ST in two different contexts: one that she said it months ago, another that she said it after Reeva's murder. I would like to know which is correct; not sure how to verify that.
In the absence of news on this case, I happened upon this 7 minutes clip:
The Fast Times of Oscar Pistorius: Valentine's Day - YouTube
I know you all have seen it before, but it was interesting to see the early stuff again. It says the case may revolve around the cell phones in the bathroom.
I really like this series of videos. There are 5 parts, and each one is chock-full of info.
The prosecution raises a valid point: why were there 2 cell phones on/near the bath mat (one of which was spattered with blood), if Reeva had simply gotten up in the middle of the night to use the toilet for its intended purpose?
IMO, it points to a scenario in which she fled to the toilet in terror, cell phone in hand with the intention of calling for help. I envision a struggle in which she dropped her phone before she was able to make a call for help, but was still able to lock herself in the toilet, with an enraged OP on the other side of the door.
Yes. That's why I was surprised when it was later decided that it was irrelevant whether he had his legs on or not at the time of the shooting.
Those are from the ABC show 20/20. I think Dateline (NBC) also did a special on this, but I haven't seen it.I believe the videos are from the Dateline special
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 senseexcerpted 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.
My Afrikaans is not the best but this is my interpretation of the article:New article (April 12) from Beeld, the Afrikaaner language paper in SA.
Used Google for translationits free so cant 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/transla...r-wys-nou-dat-ook-rolmodelle-fouteer-20130412
Original: http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Lemnaeler-wys-nou-dat-ook-rolmodelle-fouteer-20130412
Maybe Carol can give a real translation?
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. "