General Discussion Thread #4

[Carol70]

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)?

It would be standard practice for OP to be arrested immediately, someone was dead. Botha told OP family that he saw no reason why bail would be opposed indicating that the charge would not be serious. This would have been after the arrest and after Botha had gone over the scene completely contradicting that he knew "immediately" what had actually occurred and ordered OP's arrest. OP would have been arrested anyway regardless of circumstances.

 

[natsound]

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.

But would he lie in his affidavit about something that can be quashed with a simple phone call to the parties he claims to have spoken with... that's the sticking point.

If he lied about someone telling him to immediately take her to the hospital, it can be proven that he lied through talking to that individual. For that reason, I think OP carried her down the stairs because someone told him not to wait for paramedics, not to cover up a prior violent incident that happened in a place other than the toilet.

 

[Pisto_lius]

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.

BIB - I totally agree with you.

The day, Botha changed his statements under cross-examination by Roux was the day he learned, the DPP has reinstated the charges against him.

 

[natsound]

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/

:gthanks:

OK. This diagram is much more clear as to where everything is. I can see now that OP would have had to carry RS back through the walk-in closet, back to the bedroom, turn a corner, then head out the bedroom door. So yes, it makes sense that there would be blood at least in the walk-in closet area (corridor, whatever we want to call it), the bedroom heading out the door, and the informal lounge. So this is where the "blood everywhere, in several rooms" comes in.

 

[natsound]

BIB - I totally agree with you.

The day, Botha changed his statements under cross-examination by Roux was the day he learned, the DPP has reinstated the charges against him.

That's right. He was "useless" that day, in a sense.

 

[shane13]

But would he lie in his affidavit about something that can be quashed with a simple phone call to the parties he claims to have spoken with... that's the sticking point.

If he lied about someone telling him to immediately take her to the hospital, it can be proven that he lied through talking to that individual. For that reason, I think OP carried her down the stairs because someone told him not to wait for paramedics, not to cover up a prior violent incident that happened in a place other than the toilet.

Defendants, when desperate (here to get out on bail) lie with provable absurdities all the time in their affidavits and testimonies. What else can they do--if they did it?

If one cites any part of OP’s affidavit it should necessitate acceptance of all of it as being true.

I for one see it as a set of cover-ups as was his actions after killing Reeva. When the affi contains such an absurdity as claiming to be in great fear of his life, yet announcing ahead of time he is going into the place that several armed intruders could be lying in wait with machine guns, indicates great improbability for all of the affidavit. And I do not cite any of it as evidence of anything.

Interesting that the most salient point of my post is ignored. I put it in bold above. It is far more likely IMO to be the basis of why OP carried her. I repost that part. I believe this understanding of post-shooting events is far more likely to be the reason for carrying her.

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!

And again so far the police said IIRC there is no record found of his alleged call. Just as Botha said there was no evidence he saw that OP was wearing a patch as Roux claimed.

 

[natsound]

Defendants, when desperate (here to get out on bail) lie with provable absurdities all the time in their affidavits and testimonies. What else can they do--if they did it?

If one cites any part of OP’s affidavit it should necessitate acceptance of all of it as being true.

I for one see it as a set of cover-ups as was his actions after killing Reeva. When the affi contains such an absurdity as claiming to be in great fear of his life, yet announcing ahead of time he is going into the place that several armed intruders could be lying in wait with machine guns, indicates great improbability for all of the affidavit. And I do not cite any of it as evidence of anything.

Interesting that the most salient point of my post is ignored. I put it in bold above. It is far more likely IMO to be the basis of why OP carried her. I repost that part. I believe this understanding of post-shooting events is far more likely to be the reason for carrying her.

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!

And again so far the police said IIRC there is no record found of his alleged call. Just as Botha said there was no evidence he saw that OP was wearing a patch as Roux claimed.

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.

 

[Carol70]

at:

BIB - I totally agree with you.

The day, Botha changed his statements under cross-examination by Roux was the day he learned, the DPP has reinstated the charges against him.

Actually, it was not! It was the following day after he was made out to be such a fool on the stand. In fact, on this very board, on the day he took the stand, I predicted he would be packing bags at a grocery store by the end of the week and what do you know, the very next day the bombshell dropped. Botha admitted it took him by surprise too!

 

[Carol70]

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.

Yes because they never followed up but the defence did. Netcare confirmed that OP called at 3.20am and I'm sure they confirmed what exactly was said else OP would not have added in his statement that he was told to rather bring her in.

 

[natsound]

at:
Actually, it was not! It was the following day after he was made out to be such a fool on the stand. In fact, on this very board, on the day he took the stand, I predicted he would be packing bags at a grocery store by the end of the week and what do you know, the very next day the bombshell dropped. Botha admitted it took him by surprise too!

The articles that came out during that time suggest that Botha was already charged when he had that crazy day on the stand, but no one else knew it, including Nel.

"The prosecution said they were unaware of the charges against the detective when they put him on the stand to explain why Pistorius, who is charged with murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, should not be given bail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-hilton-botha-attempted-murder

 

[Pisto_lius]

I like to remember again the "empty bladder".

Roux hammered Botha about fact that Reeva’s bladder was empty when she died – evidence consistent with Pistorius’s claims that she’d gone to the toilet.

So, Reeva must been already dead when it "dawned" on OP that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet.

And now remember all of OP's actions after he fired the shots at the toilet door:

1. I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance

2. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed

3. returned to the bathroom calling her name

4. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked

5. I rushed back into the bedroom

6. I opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help

7. I put on my prosthetic legs

8. I ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open

9. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door

10. I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive

11. I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom

12. I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander”) and asked him to phone the ambulance

13. I phoned Netcare and asked for help

14. I went downstairs to open the front door

15. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up

16. I carried her downstairs. On my way down Stander arrived

17. I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms

If Reeva was alive during all these actions and died in the entrance hall only after he carried her downstairs, her bladder couldn't be empty!

All the above named actions took a lot of time - I guess 20 minutes or even more - and during all this time her bladder would produce urine. So, Reeva was dead long before OP and Roux stated or make us believe.

And if Reeva died in the toilet room or any other location at the second floor, there was not any longer pressure in her blood vessels. That means, her wounds did not bleed any more and there could be only small blood marks on OP's way downstairs.

No way, that there were "bloody swipes" on the wall where he carried her down the steps or "a lot of blood on the scene" as Perumal stated.

 

[cityslick]

Defendants, when desperate (here to get out on bail) lie with provable absurdities all the time in their affidavits and testimonies. What else can they do--if they did it?

If one cites any part of OP’s affidavit it should necessitate acceptance of all of it as being true.

I for one see it as a set of cover-ups as was his actions after killing Reeva. When the affi contains such an absurdity as claiming to be in great fear of his life, yet announcing ahead of time he is going into the place that several armed intruders could be lying in wait with machine guns, indicates great improbability for all of the affidavit. And I do not cite any of it as evidence of anything.

Interesting that the most salient point of my post is ignored. I put it in bold above. It is far more likely IMO to be the basis of why OP carried her. I repost that part. I believe this understanding of post-shooting events is far more likely to be the reason for carrying her.

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!

And again so far the police said IIRC there is no record found of his alleged call. Just as Botha said there was no evidence he saw that OP was wearing a patch as Roux claimed.

Still doesn't explain why Botha told OP's family that he should have no issue making bail.

I question everything about Botha's 'investigation' and the notion that he saw two 'blood trails' is laughable to me, considering he didn't feel the need to wear protective footwear in the crime scene, follow up on cell phone calls, etc.

 

[cityslick]

I like to remember again the "empty bladder".

Roux hammered Botha about fact that Reeva’s bladder was empty when she died – evidence consistent with Pistorius’s claims that she’d gone to the toilet.

So, Reeva must been already dead when it "dawned" on OP that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet.

And now remember all of OP's actions after he fired the shots at the toilet door:

1. I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance

2. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed

3. returned to the bathroom calling her name

4. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked

5. I rushed back into the bedroom

6. I opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help

7. I put on my prosthetic legs

8. I ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open

9. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door

10. I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive

11. I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom

12. I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander”) and asked him to phone the ambulance

13. I phoned Netcare and asked for help

14. I went downstairs to open the front door

15. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up

16. I carried her downstairs. On my way down Stander arrived

17. I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms

If Reeva was alive during all these actions and died in the entrance hall only after he carried her downstairs, her bladder couldn't be empty!

All the above named actions took a lot of time - I guess 20 minutes or even more - and during all this time her bladder would produce urine. So, Reeva was dead long before OP and Roux stated or make us believe.

And if Reeva died in the toilet room or any other location at the second floor, there was not any longer pressure in her blood vessels. That means, her wounds did not bleed any more and there could be only small blood marks on OP's way downstairs.

No way, that there were "bloody swipes" on the wall where he carried her down the steps or "a lot of blood on the scene" as Perumal stated.

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 she could still technically be alive when he found her. I disagree with you that all that would of took 20 minutes, especially in a state of panic. Also, the bloody swipes could of came from her hair if there was blood on it.

 

[Carol70]

The articles that came out during that time suggest that Botha was already charged when he had that crazy day on the stand, but no one else knew it, including Nel.

"The prosecution said they were unaware of the charges against the detective when they put him on the stand to explain why Pistorius, who is charged with murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, should not be given bail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-hilton-botha-attempted-murder

In fact, the charges were "apparently" reinstated on the 4th of February, however the NPA neglected to let anyone know...not Botha, not his superiors, friends, family, no one. I call bullshyte! When someone is going to be facing a multiple murder charge...you let them know! I think Botha took the stand on the 19th of Feb. I would imagine he "conveniently" found out that afternoon after the fact. I think he "resigned" a few days later.

 

[Pisto_lius]

The articles that came out during that time suggest that Botha was already charged when he had that crazy day on the stand, but no one else knew it, including Nel.

"The prosecution said they were unaware of the charges against the detective when they put him on the stand to explain why Pistorius, who is charged with murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, should not be given bail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-hilton-botha-attempted-murder

Also from your link:

The revelation of charges against Botha presents additional difficulties for the prosecution and raises further questions about Botha, who crumbled under cross-examination in court on Wednesday, when his assertions about Pistorius's guilt unravelled one by one.

Malila said police learned on Wednesday that the director of public prosecutions (DPP) has reinstated the charges against Botha. He said police were waiting for details from his case file from the prosecutor.

It was the same day, when Botha was under cross-examination and police was informed that the charges against Botha has reinstated. But police were waiting for more details, so they publicised this information the next day.

 

[Carol70]

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.
#Respectfully snipped#

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.

But Shane, if they pros wanted him out on bail, why on earth would they have denied him bail causing a 4 day media circus?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Defendants, when desperate (here to get out on bail) lie with provable absurdities all the time in their affidavits and testimonies. What else can they do--if they did it?

If one cites any part of OP’s affidavit it should necessitate acceptance of all of it as being true.

I for one see it as a set of cover-ups as was his actions after killing Reeva. When the affi contains such an absurdity as claiming to be in great fear of his life, yet announcing ahead of time he is going into the place that several armed intruders could be lying in wait with machine guns, indicates great improbability for all of the affidavit. And I do not cite any of it as evidence of anything.

Interesting that the most salient point of my post is ignored. I put it in bold above. It is far more likely IMO to be the basis of why OP carried her. I repost that part. I believe this understanding of post-shooting events is far more likely to be the reason for carrying her.

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!

And again so far the police said IIRC there is no record found of his alleged call. Just as Botha said there was no evidence he saw that OP was wearing a patch as Roux claimed.

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

 

[Carol70]

BIB
Hey Shane
{respectfully snipped}


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

I don't see how to be honest, everyone who has a cellphone can request an itemized bill that records the time, length etc of each number called. Even if he made the calls from a landline.

 

[natsound]

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.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I don't see how to be honest, everyone who has a cellphone can request an itemized bill that records the time, length etc of each number called. Even if he made the calls from a landline.

Of course that can be given. I was not clear enough I think..

As I said clean reports, I mean a bill in favor of OP not showing that he called the brother and the lawyer perhaps before the EM .. which is likely true IMO because he seemd to hide the phone he made calls and in the bathroom found the unused phone..:banghead: