General Discussion Thread #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
BIB
Hey Shane

That's exactly what I'm trying to say for a few days ! Why the affidavit is so absurd is because it is designed to reinforce an undefinable intruder with
' a noise in the toilet ' and at the same time cover RS's struggling in the house IMO ..

I also wonder when he phoned the brother /lawyer ? He doesn't mention that in his affidavit. But we so far know that no calls were made from the phones that the police could take that day.. So, if he called them after EM and the neighbor arrived, they would see him calling brother/lawyer possibily. Perhaps
he made second calls to them pretending that was the first call.

IMO he made those calls before he called the EM anyway..

I wonder if was that the reason that phone was not given to the police when asked .Can that be forgotten ? the only phone used.. But strangely
other/no call phone of OP were put in the crime scene .. and was given to the police.. ?????????????????????

Can those calls be deleted ? Can clean phone calls report be given ?
That wouldn't surprise me at all.

What bothers me is the intent and attempt to hide things? JMO
Click to expand...

Exactly,why not hand over the most important of all his phones to the police, the only one withheld is the one he used that night. IMO the reason being is that he had something to cover up and both he and the defence needed this record of his calls to help them devise his affidavit before police got their hands on it. It is also very suspicious and underhand for a defence team to withhold evidence from the police authorities.
 
natsound said:
Is it too far-fetched to surmise that when Botha said there was only one way this could have happened, what he meant was that OP shot RS through the bathroom door in anger and purposely killed her? What is the reason to believe a prior assault occurred elsewhere in the house?

The bat had blood on it, and something was used to break down the door. If RS did not have her skull bashed in, as her brother has stated, and if she did not have defense wounds on her, which we have also learned, then it seems sensible to surmise that the bat got blood on it in the commission of breaking down the door. The blood spatters on the phones, just a few feet away from the bathroom door, may have come from the swinging bat.

IIRC, we don't know how much blood was on the bat. A bloody bad could mean a red dripping nightmare, or it could mean a few sprays.
Click to expand...
Any items laying on the floor could have got blood on them, he pulled her out the loo and lay her on the floor. For all we know, he could have pulled her out the loo and after making his calls, placed the phone right next to her body ensuring they would more than likely get blood on them. And as I have mentioned, blood on his hands.
 
I don't think that you can have Botha both ways. You can't say he was this great detective who somehow had figured out how the crime went down other than the affidavit, yet excuse his testimony because he knew he was going to get charges against him. He still told OP's family he didn't think bail would be an issue and it was brought to light that his investigation was pretty shoddy work. Botha and all of his assumptions/quotes/opinions are damaged goods to the state, which is why he didn't last long on the case.
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
BIB
Hey Shane

That's exactly what I'm trying to say for a few days ! Why the affidavit is so absurd is because it is designed to reinforce an undefinable intruder with
' a noise in the toilet ' and at the same time cover RS's struggling in the house IMO ..

I also wonder when he phoned the brother /lawyer ? He doesn't mention that in his affidavit. But we so far know that no calls were made from the phones that the police could take that day.. So, if he called them after EM and the neighbor arrived, they would see him calling brother/lawyer possibily. Perhaps
he made second calls to them pretending that was the first call.

IMO he made those calls before he called the EM anyway..

I wonder if was that the reason that phone was not given to the police when asked .Can that be forgotten ? the only phone used.. But strangely
other/no call phone of OP were put in the crime scene .. and was given to the police.. ?????????????????????

Can those calls be deleted ? Can clean phone calls report be given ?
That wouldn't surprise me at all.

What bothers me is the intent and attempt to hide things? JMO
Click to expand...

But that's the point, he can't hide that kind of stuff. If he made calls to his brother or lawyer, even if it was with a phone that the police don't have, they can find out when those calls were made by simply looking at call logs for his lawyer and brother. There are a number of cases, very recent in fact, that highlight the technology LE has available to them to track cell phones or even regular phones. Not giving a phone to LE doesn't hide anything. The defense team isn't stupid, they know this.
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes OP's affidavit is just his written outline of events and as Nel said it has not yet been tested in the witness box. This is when inconsistencies will be truly identified when he gets up there and is questioned on the things that join it all together, the full account spoken from his own mouth of how everything went down that night.
 
cityslick said:
What if she went to the bathroom and relieved herself before OP shot the door or even called out to the 'intruder'? That still satisfies the notion that BIB1 she could still technically be alive when he found her. I disagree with you BIB2 that all that would of took 20 minutes, especially in a state of panic. Also, BIB3 the bloody swipes could of came from her hair if there was blood on it.
Click to expand...

BIB1 - I agree with you, she could still technically be alive when he found her. But not even when he reached the entrance hall with her. And THAT'S I tried to explain.

BIB2 - You forget the 2 calls he did. First he had to explain Stander what happened. And Stander would ask questions to understand. Second he had to explain Netcare exactly what happened. Netcare would ask any more questions and would tell him what to do next. So, 20 minutes not too much - IMO

BIB3 - If bloody swipes on the wall where he carried her down the steps came from her bloody hair, OP must have shaken her body when he carried her downstairs. Otherwise her head movements wouldn't be strong enough to give bloody swipes on the wall. - IMO
 
Pisto_lius said:
BIB1 - I agree with you, she could still technically be alive when he found her. But not even when he reached the entrance hall with her. And THAT'S I tried to explain.

BIB2 - You forget the 2 calls he did. First he had to explain Stander what happened. And Stander would ask questions to understand. Second he had to explain Netcare exactly what happened. Netcare would ask any more questions and would tell him what to do next. So, 20 minutes not too much - IMO

BIB3 - If bloody swipes on the wall where he carried her down the steps came from her bloody hair, OP must have shaken her body when he carried her downstairs. Otherwise her head movements wouldn't be strong enough to give bloody swipes on the wall. - IMO
Click to expand...

1. The lack of urine in the bladder does nothing to further the theory one way or the other. Your speculating not only how long it would of taken that whole series of events, but also how much urine she needed to produce to have it leave her body upon death. Remember, the lack of urine in her bladder does not disprove OP if you go by the notion she was in there not due to an argument, but to go to the bathroom. I have not seen one scenario yet that explains how they got into this incredible fight yet somehow found a way to go into the bathroom to take a pee before shots were fired. You can assume all the urine came out of her at death, but where is the evidence of that? We haven't heard it yet, if it's there at all.

2. If he's running in a panic, holding a woman, especially someone who is on prosthetic legs, why is it unreasonable to this that her head would be swaying to cause blood streaks via hair?
 
cityslick said:
1. The lack of urine in the bladder does nothing to further the theory one way or the other. Your speculating not only how long it would of taken that whole series of events, but also how much urine she needed to produce to have it leave her body upon death. Remember, the lack of urine in her bladder does not disprove OP if you go by the notion she was in there not due to an argument, but to go to the bathroom. I have not seen one scenario yet that explains how they got into this incredible fight yet somehow found a way to go into the bathroom to take a pee before shots were fired. You can assume all the urine came out of her at death, but where is the evidence of that? We haven't heard it yet, if it's there at all.

2. If he's running in a panic, holding a woman, especially someone who is on prosthetic legs, why is it unreasonable to this that her head would be swaying to cause blood streaks via hair?
Click to expand...
If she lost her urine in death, that will be very easy to tell, she was shot with her shorts on, there should be evidence in her panties/on her shorts of urine if she released in death. IMO
 
natsound said:
Is it too far-fetched to surmise that when Botha said there was only one way this could have happened, what he meant was that OP shot RS through the bathroom door in anger and purposely killed her? What is the reason to believe a prior assault occurred elsewhere in the house?

The bat had blood on it, and something was used to break down the door. If RS did not have her skull bashed in, as her brother has stated, and if she did not have defense wounds on her, which we have also learned, then it seems sensible to surmise that the bat got blood on it in the commission of breaking down the door. The blood spatters on the phones, just a few feet away from the bathroom door, may have come from the swinging bat.

IIRC, we don't know how much blood was on the bat. A bloody bad could mean a red dripping nightmare, or it could mean a few sprays.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion it is not as far fetched as killing a person with 3-4 shots on the moving target in complete darkness behind a door not knowing which corner he is hiding and not hearing a single scream even sighing even not understanding from his shouts that she is a female in between that 4 shots..
.
Just shot yr eyes one can not even hold his arm straight let alone when too scared to switch a light on with the stumps with limited mobility with a gun in hand ... It is not farfetched. It is impossible. IMO

What you say is slightly possible . The lights would be on and OP could hear noise..

But why not taking her out ? Why shotting behind the door ? Shotting
one when not seeing her seems so weird. It is more plausible a face to face argument , fighting, shouting to each other's faces ..and my supporting ideas to that is the lost bullet then suddenly found in the toilet. It would be put to where the killing is aimed to occur and that was the toilet a proof with brain tissues.
And secondly from the affidavit I tried to explain before ' I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked. ' IMO she tried to run away from that room touching the key and the door handle with her bloody hands.. and OP mentioned that in his affidavit as if he himself touched there with his bloody
hands when battling and pulling RS out

JMO
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
In my humble opinion it is not as far fetched as killing a person with 3-4 shots on the moving target in complete darkness behind a door not knowing which corner he is hiding and not hearing a single scream even sighing even not understanding from his shouts that she is a female in between that 4 shots..
JMO
Click to expand...

snipped

I appreciate your opinion, and all differing opinions when they're presented in respectful and friendly fashion. Thank you for that.

It's been said many times that, in the toilet room, "she had nowhere to go".

I picture the two of them exchanging words before shots were fired, i.e. "I'll shoot you b**ch if you don't come out!" "Noooooo!!! Get ahold of yourself!" so he knew where she was in the toilet room.

We don't know if it was dark in the bathroom.
 
cityslick said:
1. The lack of urine in the bladder does nothing to further the theory one way or the other. Your speculating not only how long it would of taken that whole series of events, but also how much urine she needed to produce to have it leave her body upon death. Remember, the lack of urine in her bladder does not disprove OP if you go by the notion she was in there not due to an argument, but to go to the bathroom. I have not seen one scenario yet that explains how they got into this incredible fight yet somehow found a way to go into the bathroom to take a pee before shots were fired. You can assume all the urine came out of her at death, but where is the evidence of that? We haven't heard it yet, if it's there at all.

2. If he's running in a panic, holding a woman, especially someone who is on prosthetic legs, why is it unreasonable to this that her head would be swaying to cause blood streaks via hair?
Click to expand...

BIB - I respectfully disagree. The empty bladder is one of the most important facts in this case, because it shows WHEN and WHERE Reeva died. - IMO
 
natsound said:
The segment of your post that you say is the most salient is the part I've been commenting on, not ignoring.

I don't accept OP's affidavit as true, but I believe he would hesitate to say he spoke to someone when he didn't. That would be akin to him swearing that he used weapon A, when bullet casings prove he used weapon B.

Perhaps you're right about it all.. but there's good reason to believe he did speak to someone and was told to take her to the hospital.
Click to expand...

I wonder did he tell him them the truth, not just that she had been shot but multiple times, once in the side of the head which could have fractured her neck and upper spine, the hip, possibly fracturing the lower spine, the profuse bleeding at the scene. IMO he knew what he was doing when he did not wait a few minutes for help to arrive. No he'd rather lift her all on his own, her head dangling, her blood soaked hair brushing the walls. IMO a criminal act on it's own but he had to show how he wanted to save her and what a finale for his affidavit " she died in my arms ".
 
Pisto_lius said:
BIB - I respectfully disagree. The empty bladder is one of the most important facts in this case, because it shows WHEN and WHERE Reeva died. - IMO
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I disagree. We all know she died on that hallway floor in the presence of paramedics/a doctor.

Anyhow, for all we can speculate, Reeva hadn't even had a chance to sit down on the loo yet for a whizz when OP started screaming about intruders. So maybe, just maybe, she never got the chance to relieve herself on the loo as she intended. Just to throw another angle on the story :D
 
whiterum said:
Yes OP's affidavit is just his written outline of events and as Nel said it has not yet been tested in the witness box. This is when inconsistencies will be truly identified when he gets up there and is questioned on the things that join it all together, the full account spoken from his own mouth of how everything went down that night.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with SA rules of evidence, but in the US, an affidavit is considered hearsay (with exceptions) and under specific circumstances is inadmissable.

If SA rules of evidence are similar to US rules of evidence, I think the only way OP's affidavit can be admitted as evidence is if he testifies, and then the affidavit can be used to impeach his testimony and/or statements. If OP doesn't testify, I don't believe his bail hearing affidavit can be admitted as evidence, since a document cannot be examined or cross-examined.

I don't think OP can be compelled to testify - it would be his choice, if SA has the same constitutional rights that protect a criminal defendant from self-incrimination.

When & if this case goes to trial, it will be interesting to see if he takes the stand, won't it?
 
natsound said:
snipped

I appreciate your opinion, and all differing opinions when they're presented in respectful and friendly fashion. Thank you for that.

It's been said many times that, in the toilet room, "she had nowhere to go".

I picture the two of them exchanging words before shots were fired, i.e. "I'll shoot you b**ch if you don't come out!" "Noooooo!!! Get ahold of yourself!" so he knew where she was in the toilet room.

We don't know if it was dark in the bathroom.
Click to expand...


She had nowhere to go means to me that she was trapped there.. doesn't mean just a one and only one place to stand .There were 4 corners there..and a middle part.. lalso she could be hiding in sitting position or standing position in one of those corners ..

If the bathroom lights were on, how could the bedroom be pitch dark ?
There is not a door for the bathroom at the end of the hallway as far as I know? only the toilet has a seperate door ...

BTW you are welcome..:p I also appreciate every single post that could move us a little further..
 
Regarding the empty bladder: when a person suffers a traumatic injury that results in severe blood loss, the body goes into hypovolemic shock, which would affect organ function. The kidneys would cease urine production in an effort to sustain blood pressure.

If Reeva had emptied her bladder shortly before being shot, her kidneys would have immediately ceased urine production after being shot, due to the severe blood loss.

I have to concede that the lack of urine in her bladder could support the Defense.

However, if forensic tests show that her shorts were urine-soaked, it supports another scenario, IMO. Also, if urine was found in the abdominal cavity @ autopsy (I have no idea, since the autopsy report hasn't been released to the public), it could mean a bullet pierced her bladder (perhaps the bullet wound to her right hip?), causing its contents to be released internally.

I know it may sound gruesome to some, but I wish the AR (autopsy report) was public. In following past cases, I've learned an incredible amount from reading them.
 
The Defense still has to explain the 2nd phone on the bathroom floor on/near the bathmat. OP would have only needed his phone to call for help or to call whomever he called.

If the 2nd phone on the bathroom floor is Reeva's - I think it means Reeva may have been trying to call for help before she locked herself in the toilet, but either dropped the phone during a struggle or OP snatched the phone out of her hand to prevent her from calling for help. If so, it can only mean that a violent confrontation of some sort occurred prior to her locking herself in the toilet.

If one of the phones on the bathroom floor is Reeva's, that's in the prosecution's favor, because there would be no logical reason for it to be on the floor. On the counter - yes. On the floor - no, IMO.
 
MURDERER_SERVANT said:
[/B]

She had nowhere to go means to me that she was trapped there.. doesn't mean just a one and only one place to stand .There were 4 corners there..and a middle part.. lalso she could be hiding in sitting position or standing position in one of those corners ..

If the bathroom lights were on, how could the bedroom be pitch dark ?
There is not a door for the bathroom at the end of the hallway as far as I know? only the toilet has a seperate door ...

BTW you are welcome..:p I also appreciate every single post that could move us a little further..
Click to expand...

Aha, we differ here. To me "she had nowhere to go" means you can't hide in a toilet closet. If there are shots, chances are you will be hit. Especially if your voice tells the tale of where you're located in that small space. It could be that the stalemate between them lasted a little while, and they exchanged words during that time with the door between them.

The bathroom and the bedroom are separate rooms, so no one knows if the light was on in the bathroom. I think it was.
 
whiterum said:
I wonder did he tell him them the truth, not just that she had been shot but multiple times, once in the side of the head which could have fractured her neck and upper spine, the hip, possibly fracturing the lower spine, the profuse bleeding at the scene. IMO he knew what he was doing when he did not wait a few minutes for help to arrive. No he'd rather lift her all on his own, her head dangling, her blood soaked hair brushing the walls. IMO a criminal act on it's own but he had to show how he wanted to save her and what a finale for his affidavit " she died in my arms ".
Click to expand...

Good point W. How much did he disclose on the phone? Kinda hard to say, "yes, THE Oscar Pistorius. Oops, I think I shot her four times". What did he say in these calls?
 
sorrell skye said:
The Defense still has to explain the 2nd phone on the bathroom floor on/near the bathmat. OP would have only needed his phone to call for help or to call whomever he called.

If the 2nd phone on the bathroom floor is Reeva's - I think it means Reeva may have been trying to call for help before she locked herself in the toilet, but either dropped the phone during a struggle or OP snatched the phone out of her hand to prevent her from calling for help. If so, it can only mean that a violent confrontation of some sort occurred prior to her locking herself in the toilet.

If one of the phones on the bathroom floor is Reeva's, that's in the prosecution's favor, because there would be no logical reason for it to be on the floor. On the counter - yes. On the floor - no, IMO.
Click to expand...

SS, my theory has been that the argument began in the bathroom. RS was on her phone texting or checking a text. OP enters and goes nuts, grabs her phone from her hands, somehow his phone lands where he throws hers down, because IIRC the phone on the mat is not the phone he used to call for help.

From that point, RS runs into the loo (shout out to Carol). A standoff ensues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 240 more.
Total: 3,899 (members: 241, guests: 3,658)

Online statistics

Members online
241
Guests online
3,658
Total visitors
3,899
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,552
Messages
17,954,724
Members
228,532
Latest member
GravityHurts
Back
Top