Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you mean by having done something illegal/dodgy in the course of this investigation or by something else?

All i can find from Judge Nair on Botha at bail is this:
It was “astounding” that Warrant Officer Hilton Botha thought his key witness lived “600 metres” from Pistorius’s house – and still could have heard an argument inside.
The police “blundered” over the substance found in Pistorius’s home, wrongly identifying it as testosterone.
W/O Botha “did not bother” to check Pistorius’s mobile phone to see whether the athlete had made emergency calls after shooting Miss Steenkamp."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9881941/Oscar-Pistorius-live.html

Suppose we should throw in watches going missing - but personally I wouldn't be surprised if one of the family took them, maybe inadvertently ( for Oscar himself) at first, and then this later became another convenient, suspicious loss, ( somewhat similar to the extension cord which is probably in a box in the attic at Arnolds)
Throw in the fact that SAPS were taking photos of OP on their mobiles ( before they were confiscated) , as press were offering many months salary to get an OP picture before bail hearing...

As Jay- Jay says though, even still, it's still a hill of beans in comparison to the phone tampering
 
Carl's still at it. I wonder if he pauses to consider that God also willed him to have a near-fatal car crash. As someone suggested in the comments, maybe it was a warning from on high for evidence tampering but if so it doesn't seem he has heeded it. I also like his tags - his brother got 'committed' to an institution and is learning '2 serve' his (albeit short) sentence. Somehow I get the impression irony goes way over CP's head.


‏@carlpistorius
You and I are here because the Lord wills it. What AMAZING GRACE!
#getcommitted #learn2serve

https://twitter.com/carlpistorius/status/528951356611362817

So, by that same token (CP's tweet) Reeva is not here now because his 'Lord wills it'?? How does that one work then ..

I just cannot believe his sheer insensitivity with all these tweets of his .. does he really not see it? :scared:
 
So, by that same token (CP's tweet) Reeva is not here now because his 'Lord wills it'?? How does that one work then ..

I just cannot believe his sheer insensitivity with all these tweets of his .. does he really not see it? :scared:

BIB , I'm starting to think it might be baiting. Is that possible do you think?
 
All i can find from Judge Nair on Botha at bail is this:
It was “astounding” that Warrant Officer Hilton Botha thought his key witness lived “600 metres” from Pistorius’s house – and still could have heard an argument inside.
The police “blundered” over the substance found in Pistorius’s home, wrongly identifying it as testosterone.
W/O Botha “did not bother” to check Pistorius’s mobile phone to see whether the athlete had made emergency calls after shooting Miss Steenkamp."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9881941/Oscar-Pistorius-live.html

Suppose we should throw in watches going missing - but personally I wouldn't be surprised if one of the family took them, maybe inadvertently ( for Oscar himself) at first, and then this later became another convenient, suspicious loss, ( somewhat similar to the extension cord which is probably in a box in the attic at Arnolds)
Throw in the fact that SAPS were taking photos of OP on their mobiles ( before they were confiscated) , as press were offering many months salary to get an OP picture before bail hearing...

As Jay- Jay says though, even still, it's still a hill of beans in comparison to the phone tampering


The mistakes seem innocuous enough, but are they?

We now know those witnesses would be Stipps and VDM (if I am not mistaken, Johnson/Berger got in touch with PT after the bail hearing). both were less than 100 meters away from OP's house. How could a Police investigator with 16 years experience concede that they lived 600m away? That is not sloppiness, that is clearly to damage State's case.

Similarly, about the `substance' - it should be a fairly trivial task to find out what exactly it was. Making a wrong claim there is clearly giving DT a huge advantage. If you are in the Police force for 16 years and are the lead investigator in a high profile case, I do not believe you can make such a trivial mistake.

We all know now what happened with Oscar's phone. So being so sloppy with such a crucial piece of evidence immediately casts doubt on him, doesn't it?

We also know now that Botha was replaced as the investigator. On what grounds? There were murder charges against him. The charges were not new, so it is not possible that the Police Department had no knowledge of it when he was made the investigator. Then why suddenly revive the charges and replace him? If he was merely sloppy, it would be so much better to just give him a firm shove and ask him to carry on properly. Being the one in charge in the initial stages, and one of those at the scene, he could have been such an asset to the State. To me, it had to be something beyond sloppiness that prompted this action.

Soon after this I think, Botha left the Police force. Again, seen together with all these other things, that is an indication to me that he was not just being simply careless.

We also saw how desperate the State was to avoid having to produce him as a witness during the trial. Again, he was at the scene early, he was the lead investigator at that stage. He could have been such a help. Why avoid him then? Those sloppiness (misreading the distance, misjudging the substance) would not have had much effect on the trial any more. And DT wouldn't have complained much about him being lazy about properly investigating OP's phone either. Why then?

Now imagine a scenario where DT has paid him off, to make small but crucial mistakes that would render the State's case hopeless. Assuming this, take a look at all the above. They all now seem to fit in, don't they?
 
A few more mistakes by Botha, just for sake of accuracy, again from Judge Nair- same source- live bail hearing.

"13.50 After being told there were offshore accounts, he did not deem it necessary to seize the memory stick with the information on it.
13.49 Poor Mr Botha. "He may well have contaminated the crime scene by not wearing protective covers on his shoes", he could have established if Pistorius had a history of violence. He blundered on the testosterone issue. "Did he write testosterone in his notebook? No. Did he write in in his clipboard? No."
13.48 "He does not verify the cell phone information of the deceased. It is of crucial importance to show that there were calls or sms that might have been made up to 2am".
13.47 Magistrate Nair now picks apart Mr Botha: "He made several errors and concessions. He didn't bother to ask for the other cellphones that might have been present, nor did he check the records given by the defence."
 
BIB , I'm starting to think it might be baiting. Is that possible do you think?

Some of his tweets seem so clueless that it does make you wonder. Generally though I think that it's more likely a combo of being not overly bright in tandem with an overriding focus on his family's issues and their supposed faith to the point where these things exclude the sensitivities or opinions of anyone else. Uncle Arnold doesn't appear to be a stupid man yet his tweet about 'goodness destroying evil' was quite lacking in intelligence IMO, especially for someone who seems so concerned about the public perception of his family. Essentially I think they just can't (or won't) see or appreciate much beyond what is happening in their own lives. CP's accident was a good case in point where all the PR statements were about him and how he was doing and nothing at all IIRC about the guy in the other vehicle. So to add to Carl not 'doing' irony, it would seem empathy is largely beyond them as well.
 
The mistakes seem innocuous enough, but are they?

We now know those witnesses would be Stipps and VDM (if I am not mistaken, Johnson/Berger got in touch with PT after the bail hearing). both were less than 100 meters away from OP's house. How could a Police investigator with 16 years experience concede that they lived 600m away? That is not sloppiness, that is clearly to damage State's case.

Similarly, about the `substance' - it should be a fairly trivial task to find out what exactly it was. Making a wrong claim there is clearly giving DT a huge advantage. If you are in the Police force for 16 years and are the lead investigator in a high profile case, I do not believe you can make such a trivial mistake.

We all know now what happened with Oscar's phone. So being so sloppy with such a crucial piece of evidence immediately casts doubt on him, doesn't it?

We also know now that Botha was replaced as the investigator. On what grounds? There were murder charges against him. The charges were not new, so it is not possible that the Police Department had no knowledge of it when he was made the investigator. Then why suddenly revive the charges and replace him? If he was merely sloppy, it would be so much better to just give him a firm shove and ask him to carry on properly. Being the one in charge in the initial stages, and one of those at the scene, he could have been such an asset to the State. To me, it had to be something beyond sloppiness that prompted this action.

Soon after this I think, Botha left the Police force. Again, seen together with all these other things, that is an indication to me that he was not just being simply careless.

We also saw how desperate the State was to avoid having to produce him as a witness during the trial. Again, he was at the scene early, he was the lead investigator at that stage. He could have been such a help. Why avoid him then? Those sloppiness (misreading the distance, misjudging the substance) would not have had much effect on the trial any more. And DT wouldn't have complained much about him being lazy about properly investigating OP's phone either. Why then?

Now imagine a scenario where DT has paid him off, to make small but crucial mistakes that would render the State's case hopeless. Assuming this, take a look at all the above. They all now seem to fit in, don't they?

BIB Actually, we don't know that this refers to the Stipps or Mrs vdM. It could conceivably have been other witnesses who were never called.
 
BIB , I'm starting to think it might be baiting. Is that possible do you think?

I don't think he's baiting. He presents as a man who is not in touch with himself and detached from people. He can't express himself so he utters religious tracts to cover up. In the interview with Aimee he wears a pained expression, but is wooden, and objectifies feelings rather than owning them. The circumstances aside I don't think he's a man who is at ease in his own skin. There's something about him that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Here's the interview with Aimee.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/big-interview-oscars-siblings-carl-and-aimee-speak-out
 
Colonel Mustard: Last thread now closed: Comparing Oscar sentence with poaching rhinos for their horns.

I am an admirer of your posts, with the exception of this comment: #1451 "And, I understand, life without parole if you poach a rhino."

I do wish that people here, on twitter, and everywhere it seems, would stop this comparison. I'm sure there are others which don't involve cruel killing and the destruction of a species. Rhinos are intelligent sociable animals. They have remarkable vocal communication with each other and the baby rhinos are left distraught after their mothers are killed in front of them.

Anyone who has read my comments on the Pistorius trial knows my views on the farcical injustice of it, but please can we retain our humanity and reason on other evils as well. Thank you.
 
I don't think he's baiting. He presents as a man who is not in touch with himself and detached from people. He can't express himself so he utters religious tracts to cover up. In the interview with Aimee he wears a pained expression, but is wooden, and objectifies feelings rather than owning them. The circumstances aside I don't think he's a man who is at ease in his own skin. There's something about him that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Here's the interview with Aimee.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/big-interview-oscars-siblings-carl-and-aimee-speak-out

Sorry - i got distracted.
BIB - I agree.
On that baiting issue . Reason I don't think it is just delusion, insensitivity and being blinkered etc. - although I have seen a lot of that - when he tweets that Hebrew word of the devil =prosecutor, I think that's quite a direct and pointed comment.
"In hebrew the name Satan (שָּׂטָן) means prosecutor (accuser) under the law. Know your identity under the blood of Christ!"

"Through the Death of Jesus Christ we were saved from the Devil (death). Know your identity under the blood of Christ by which we are saved!"
Remember this is the man who re-tweeted the Addams family joke in ref to appearance of Batchelor, Myers etc. That is antagonistic too. The pressure, understandably is getting to him. ( Doubt it's the conscience re the phone.)

Anyway it's by the by, as another twitter user corrected him on his Hebrew, the next respondent tweeted
Hans Chanjack " ...& what's the evidence that 1's been saved by the power of the Blood of Jesus? Is it thru tossing or flaunting of Scriptures?"
 
In a nutshell this is what OP said in his bail affidavit on pp.6-7.

He felt a sense of terror rushing over him. There were no burglar bars on the bathroom window and he knew that the contractors who'd been working on his house had left ladders outside. He thought someone had entered his house but was too scared to turn on the light.

He then went and got his gun. He screamed for the person/s to get out of the house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark and he thought Reeva was in bed. He noticed the bathroom window open and the toilet door was closed. It filled him with horror that an intruder/s may be in the toilet and that he/they must have entered through the unprotected window.

He fired shots at the door and shouted at Reeva to phone the police. She didn’t respond. While keeping his eyes on the bathroom entrance, he walked backwards into the pitch dark bedroom. He was still too scared to turn on a light. Reeva was still not responding.

When he reached the bed he realised Reeva was not in bed. That’s when he realised she may have been in the toilet. He returned to the bathroom calling her name. He tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. He rushed back to the bedroom, opened the sliding door, exited onto the balcony and screamed for help.

He put on his prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. He thinks he must have turned on the lights. He went back to the bedroom and grabbed the cricket bat and tried to bash the toilet door open. A panel or panels broke off. He found the key and unlocked the door.
 
Sorry - i got distracted.
BIB - I agree.
On that baiting issue . Reason I don't think it is just delusion, insensitivity and being blinkered etc. - although I have seen a lot of that - when he tweets that Hebrew word of the devil =prosecutor, I think that's quite a direct and pointed comment.
"In hebrew the name Satan (שָּׂטָן) means prosecutor (accuser) under the law. Know your identity under the blood of Christ!"

"Through the Death of Jesus Christ we were saved from the Devil (death). Know your identity under the blood of Christ by which we are saved!"
Remember this is the man who re-tweeted the Addams family joke in ref to appearance of Batchelor, Myers etc. That is antagonistic too. The pressure, understandably is getting to him. ( Doubt it's the conscience re the phone.)

Anyway it's by the by, as another twitter user corrected him on his Hebrew, the next respondent tweeted
Hans Chanjack " ...& what's the evidence that 1's been saved by the power of the Blood of Jesus? Is it thru tossing or flaunting of Scriptures?"

I think we are both in agreement, that's what I mean about the religious tracts. Instead of saying 'I hate Nel and hope he suffers for the way he's treating my brother' or worse, he finds a religious tract, objectifying his feelings. In the interviews he talks about responding to the haters with 'love', clearly a lie. He can't say I hate them. He can't say 'I' at all regarding feelings. If he was baiting he would be wanting a response and I'm not sure he does. Hope I'm making sense here.
 
I get it - I hadn't thought of that- objectifying. An interesting insight, thanks- seems very valid.
Pity he won't ever let slip and allude to the phone!
 
Man, if I don't get in before a thread closes, I have to copy and paste here to ask questions, etc. on things back over there.

Thus, a whole string will follow.
 
FromGermany... a question for you.

You posted this in the previous thread. It had four (4) pics of the family sobbing away.


# 1468

The day, when OP testified about the "really" drama in the bathroom, the Psychologist cried fiercely like the whole family. That seems also to be as unprofessional as holding hands with the client or warmly embracing him. I had the impression, all family members and Lore H. were very in shock this day; I will never forget.


How did you get those photos in there?

It didn't seem like they were connected to URLs. If they were, THAT I can do.
But, if they are from your computer...

When I click to upload a photo , I get two choices. URL and Computer.
Computer has "select file."
I select, hit OK, and the file appears in the little window.
But that's it.
There's no other button in that window that I think might say "upload".

Thanks in advance.
 
Col Mustard - when I insert an image, I select it from my computer and then I get this pop up with the upload option.

file.JPG

Do you see a different page?
 
JudgeJudi, from last thread...

I wasn't suggesting that was the sole reason lawyers engage in pro bono work. Goodness no! Many are very, very altruistic. It was just that I thought we were talking about some of the big cases/celebrity cases. I hope that G. Bing's post, which was written later in reply to your post, was helpful.


Judgejudi # 1772

This is a question best answered by mrjitty. He's not here at the moment so I'll try.

Some may do it because they see it as a public duty.

Others may work for self-interested reasons – either to enhance their reputation, to market their services (obviously not in the case of a person such as Roux), as a loss leader for an important client (ditto), to impress someone more senior (ditto), or for other special reasons.

If the perspective of the client is paramount, then meeting the client's needs irrespective of the lawyer's motivation.

To assist individuals or organisations whose matter raises an issue of public interest which would not otherwise be pursued.

To assist charities or other non-profit organisations which work on behalf of low income or disadvantaged members of the community or for the public good.daToday, 02:14 AM
1468y, 02:14 AM

#1477 G.Bing

What?! Never heard of in recent cases,
1477 G.Bing What?! Never heard of in recent cases, George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony (part pro bono) or theInnocence Project that represents persons wrongly convicted pro bono, especially those facing a death sentence ? Or of the so called, Guantanamo Bay Bar Association that represents, or tries to when ever more draconian laws permit, Guantanamo detainees ? And there's many whose work goes unknown since bar associations in both the US and the UK recommend member advocates to take on a minimum percentage of pro bono work each year.
George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony (part pro bono) or theInnocence Project that represents persons wrongly convicted pro bono, especially those facing a death sentence ? Or of the so called, Guantanamo Bay Bar Association that represents, or tries to when ever more draconian laws permit, Guantanamo detainees ? And there's many whose work goes unknown since bar associations in both the US and the UK recommend member advocates to take on a minimum percentage of pro bono work each year.
 
Colonel Mustard: Last thread now closed: Comparing Oscar sentence with poaching rhinos for their horns.

I am an admirer of your posts, with the exception of this comment: #1451 "And, I understand, life without parole if you poach a rhino."

I do wish that people here, on twitter, and everywhere it seems, would stop this comparison. I'm sure there are others which don't involve cruel killing and the destruction of a species. Rhinos are intelligent sociable animals. They have remarkable vocal communication with each other and the baby rhinos are left distraught after their mothers are killed in front of them.

Anyone who has read my comments on the Pistorius trial knows my views on the farcical injustice of it, but please can we retain our humanity and reason on other evils as well. Thank you.

The comparison does not compromise our humanity, to be fair.

Rhinos are indeed wonderful and poachers do deserve life without parole. But there is certainly something amiss when a man can execute a woman in a toilet and potentially get only 10 months in prison.

The issue is not that rhino poachers should get less, but that killers of girlfriends should get more.
 

Lemon Mousse replied to:

1490 Squoozitips
You remember Henke finally admitting the ammo was his? I wasn't sure if I imagined hearing that!

------------------------------
The answer seems to have been yes AND that it was NOT Henke's ammo.

Questions:

1. Was it Oscar's? (logical guess)

2. Even so, why would Henke refuse to sign a (bogus) affidavit (to save his son's a$$)?

If his dad wouldn't help him - and frankly, never had, I can relate to that. My parents were exactly that way ( and it hurt). Some people/some parents are like that. "While [almost] anyone can have kids, not everyone should."





 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
852
Total visitors
932

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,722
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top