General Discussion Thread #4

shane13 · Apr 12, 2013

Carol70 said:
My Afrikaans is not the best but this is my interpretation of the article:

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Carol.

MURDERER_SERVANT · Apr 12, 2013

Carol70 said:
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.

natsound · Apr 12, 2013

Feynman said:
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.

cityslick · Apr 12, 2013

Feynman said:
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.

cityslick · Apr 12, 2013

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.

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.

Carol70 · Apr 12, 2013

cityslick said:
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!!

Pisto_lius · Apr 12, 2013

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.

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 Steenkamps hair as well as other blood markings in the house supported Pistoriuss 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-courts/door-is-key-to-oscar-defence-1.1476164#.UWfX16K-2Sp

All these blood markings maybe already previously occured - when OP hunted Reeva through the house. - IMO

cityslick · Apr 12, 2013

Pisto_lius said:
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.

Pisto_lius · Apr 12, 2013

Patticake said:
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

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/carlpistorius?nohidden=1&offset=200&om=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa&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 sons 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...nning-future-with-reeva-steenkamp-uncle-says/

Mango33 · Apr 12, 2013

cityslick said:
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

natsound · Apr 12, 2013

Mango33 said:
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

Could someone post a diagram that depicts that small part of the bedroom that OP would have had to cross?

On another subject we're discussing here... I fully discredit Botha's statement that he saw no inconsistencies in OP's version of events. I think he was under pressure and his mind was elsewhere when he made that statement, and he just wanted to get off the stand. The statement contracts his other statement that there was only one way the shooting could have happened, and it contradicts OP's arrest for premeditated murder. He wouldn't have been charged for premeditated murder if there were no inconsistencies in his version of events.

Mango33 · Apr 12, 2013

natsound said:
Could someone post a diagram that depicts that small part of the bedroom that OP would have had to cross?

On another subject we're discussing here... I fully discredit Botha's statement that he saw no inconsistencies in OP's version of events. I think he was under pressure and his mind was elsewhere when he made that statement, and he just wanted to get off the stand. The statement contracts his other statement that there was only one way the shooting could have happened, and it contradicts OP's arrest for premeditated murder. He wouldn't have been charged for premeditated murder if there were no inconsistencies in his version of events.

Sure. Here is the link to the floorplan of the back half of OP's second floor.

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/02/20/for-your-review-floorplan-of-oscar-pistorius-crime-scene/

You can see how he has to come out of the "walkthrough closet", cross a bit of the carpeted floor of the bedroom, go out the door and into the "informal lounge"..etc There is no other way out of the room.

This blueprint is cut off through the informal lounge and the second bedroom, so we don't see exactly where the stairs to the first floor are. But he has to go through the informal lounge to get there.

shane13 · Apr 12, 2013

Mango33 said:
Sure. Here is the link to the floorplan of the back half of OP's second floor.

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/02/20/for-your-review-floorplan-of-oscar-pistorius-crime-scene/

You can see how he has to come out of the "walkthrough closet", cross a bit of the carpeted floor of the bedroom, go out the door and into the "informal lounge"..etc There is no other way out of the room.

This blueprint is cut off through the informal lounge and the second bedroom, so we don't see exactly where the stairs to the first floor are. But he has to go through the informal lounge to get there.

Again Botha's strong statements afterwards that he knew immediately that there was only one way it could have happened are very telling. Botha walked thru the area. He would have seen if blood was in an area that had to be traversed in carrying Reeva.

Indeed I would add that this may even be one reason that OP carried her down the stairs to try to cover up blood from an initial assault (gun, bat, other) in the bedroom! And maybe Botha was able to immediately discern 2 separate blood trails--in the bedroom!

Botha is not a stupid man, contrary to belief or media portrayal. In fact some higher up said after he quit that he was one of the best detectives, or words to that effect.

There was also immense pressure NOT to arrest the nation's #2 icon. That is why OP got away with so many previous incidents where the average person would have gone to jail. (Indirectly this may have guaranteed that a final event such as the shooting of Reeva would eventually occur.) Botha had to be without any doubt to arrest him.

And I've said many times here that I surmise that the Pros. wanted OP out on bail for several good reasons.

Just 2:
1. Poor or no facilities for someone with his disability.
2. Maybe couldn't protect him from some other prisoner trying to become famous for killing him or such.

natsound · Apr 12, 2013

Mango33 said:
Sure. Here is the link to the floorplan of the back half of OP's second floor.

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/02/20/for-your-review-floorplan-of-oscar-pistorius-crime-scene/

You can see how he has to come out of the "walkthrough closet", cross a bit of the carpeted floor of the bedroom, go out the door and into the "informal lounge"..etc There is no other way out of the room.

This blueprint is cut off through the informal lounge and the second bedroom, so we don't see exactly where the stairs to the first floor are. But he has to go through the informal lounge to get there.

Thank you. Now I have a new question: is the bedroom door located where that horizontal red arrow is pointing and do we know this for a fact? Is there a door where the bedroom proper ends, and leads to the walk-in closet?

Mango33 · Apr 12, 2013

natsound said:
Thank you. Now I have a new question: is the bedroom door located where that horizontal red arrow is pointing and do we know this for a fact? Is there a door where the bedroom proper ends, and leads to the walk-in closet?

The main red horizontal arrow is pointing from the bedroom down the "walk through closet" that leads to the bathroom. (The arrows show OP's path to the toilet room) None of the mock ups of the bedroom/bathroom that I have seen on the TV documentaries ever showed a door between the bedroom and walkin closet, so I had assumed there was none.

The exit to the bedroom itself is right near the base of the longest red arrow, at the numbers that seem to say "968". However, it is not clear to me exactly where the door with the lock itself is placed, though. Some have suggested it might be in that crooked space between the bedroom and the informal lounge.

This blueprint is the one that was shown in court. This version below shows the placement of the door more clearly. The notation on the plan looks like a quarter circle, the width the door can open.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-20/floor-plan-of-pistorius-home/4530914

Here is "drawing" version of the bedroom entrance:
http://www.680news.com/2013/02/20/p...istorius-arrives-for-2nd-day-of-bail-hearing/

natsound · Apr 12, 2013

shane13 said:
Again Botha's strong statements afterwards that he knew immediately that there was only one way it could have happened are very telling. Botha walked thru the area. He would have seen if blood was in an area that had to be traversed in carrying Reeva.

Indeed I would add that this may even be one reason that OP carried her down the stairs to try to cover up blood from an initial assault (gun, bat, other) in the bedroom! And maybe Botha was able to immediately discern 2 separate blood trails--in the bedroom!

Botha is not a stupid man, contrary to belief or media portrayal. In fact some higher up said after he quit that he was one of the best detectives, or words to that effect.

There was also immense pressure NOT to arrest the nation's #2 icon. That is why OP got away with so many previous incidents where the average person would have gone to jail. (Indirectly this may have guaranteed that a final event such as the shooting of Reeva would eventually occur.) Botha had to be without any doubt to arrest him.

And I've said many times here that I surmise that the Pros. wanted OP out on bail for several good reasons.

Just 2:
1. Poor or no facilities for someone with his disability.
2. Maybe couldn't protect him from some other prisoner trying to become famous for killing him or such.

I just want to point out to posters that OP's affidavit states he was told to take RS to the hospital, suggesting that's why he carried her down the stairs. It will be verifiable whether or not it's true.

Also, RS's brother has stated that reports she was hit in the head with the cricket bat are not true.

cityslick · Apr 12, 2013

natsound said:
Could someone post a diagram that depicts that small part of the bedroom that OP would have had to cross?

On another subject we're discussing here... I fully discredit Botha's statement that he saw no inconsistencies in OP's version of events. I think he was under pressure and his mind was elsewhere when he made that statement, and he just wanted to get off the stand. The statement contracts his other statement that there was only one way the shooting could have happened, and it contradicts OP's arrest for premeditated murder. He wouldn't have been charged for premeditated murder if there were no inconsistencies in his version of events.

Didn't Botha initially tell OP that evening that he didn't think he was going to face serious charges (or something to that effect)?

natsound · Apr 12, 2013

cityslick said:
Didn't Botha initially tell OP that evening that he didn't think he was going to face serious charges (or something to that effect)?

I think Botha told a family member that OP should have no problem getting bail. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Carol70 · Apr 12, 2013

cityslick said:
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 would imagine there would had to have been blood on the door handle to exit the room. He pulled her out the bathroom and surely would have had blood on his hands from touching her, he then unlocked the bedroom to open the front door etc etc. I would personally find it strange if there was no blood there as if he washed his hands after pulling her out the bathroom?

shane13 · Apr 12, 2013

natsound said:
I just want to point out to posters that OP's affidavit states he was told to take RS to the hospital, suggesting that's why he carried her down the stairs. It will be verifiable whether or not it's true.

Also, RS's brother has stated that reports she was hit in the head with the cricket bat are not true.

I point out to posters that the police have said they have no evidence of that. Everything in OP's affidavit is likely part of a coverup, and should not be used as "evidence" of anything.

General Discussion Thread #4

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics