Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

BIB - we can only speculate. However, his reckless behaviour had been escalating in the months before the killing, and he was somehow always permitted to get away with it. Almost a perk of being such an icon. On the night Reeva was killed, it's not hard for me to believe he saw red when she wouldn't come out of the toilet and things just happened from his rage. He didn't know if she was calling the police, so if he was screaming at her to come out and she was yelling back (if she was) you can just imagine how mad he'd have been. First, her not obeying his instructions, and secondly, the possibility she was calling the police to report him for violence. Some people, when they are in a red mist, will do the most extreme thing to gain back control of the situation.

I think the fact OP hadn't shot anyone up to that date was because he hadn't been in that specific situation before. Once he was in it, I think his rage took over and all he could think about was getting Reeva out of the toilet and away from the phone. The smashing of the bat on the toilet door (rage), and the final bullets put him back in control and kept whatever Reeva might have been going to tell the police, secret. I can totally see him killing her in order to protect himself and his image. He's a cold unfeeling human being (shoots dogs and drives off without a word to the dog's owner who's standing there...) - so the 'why' for me is more about 'why not'. He did what he did to protect himself, just like the Tasha's incident when he got someone else to take the blame as he didn't want negative publicity. Maintaining his image was more important to him than Reeva was.

Great points - and re Bold text

This is the way DV always goes.

The cycle continues, perhaps over years but escalating until the abuser does something that cannot be covered up.

Usually in a country like NZ (few gun murders), the signal abuse will be GBH that the women will survive. Kids may not be so fortunate.

The point though is that the first time this comes to light will usually appear to be "the first time"

My speculation

1. OP has a long history of abuse - escalating to this assault. However Reeva takes the priors to her grave and only one other has talked.

2. Numerous abusive incidents are documented. e.g the drunken gun incident at home. The behaviour etc etc

3. As you point out - he was in a cycle of reckless escalation - Tasha's, the sunroof, the boot incident. Had he shot someone at Tasha's then that would have been his moment

4. His association with a macho/criminal gun toting element

5. The background problems in their relationship (see the work by J13)

 

[elfie]

Two panels by the bath? Can you point me to them please. I only know of the one wide, middle panel. Then, of course, the panel in the toilet.

Re. marks on Oscar's torso: consider the height of the middle strut across the door. It is very low, much lower than you'd expect. We recreated it and it is relatively easy to lean over and pick a key up off the floor without touching the strut.

2nd attempt on this. With the cross bar or strut so low it may have been possible for him even without the prosthetics, but I'm slightly taller (but without the reach) and I'm not sure that I would clear it.

 

[mrjitty]

Mr Fossil

What about the 2 blackberrys found in the bathroom in addition to the hidden iPhone under the mat?

Further staging?

 

[janicelongbright]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story doesn't add up.

If you would like to see the evidence that only one small board had been removed at the crime scene : not three , as said:

See: The Telegraph Wed 11 Nov 2015

Headline : Oscar Pistorius leaked Photographs Show Crime Scene For THe Fist Time ( That's today's paper )

 

[janicelongbright]

If I remember correctly those photos are where forensics had replaced the door panels so that they could determine exactly where the bullet holes were. I think there were markers on the panels too.

For ref: see today's Telegraph 11 Nov , Leaked Photographs , and see if you think you could get your arm through that gap and retrieve a key on the floor ?

Not today;s sorry 31st May 2013

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thankyou I have looked at the reference you give now , I have to say , I don't really understand it Though .


I can only give one reference at the moment which supports my assertion that Pistorius claimed to have the gun as I said , with arm bent out in front , and close to his body . IE about 3 ft or 90 cms high . He specifically denied holding the gun at either shoulder height or his arm straight .

Oscar trial Day 21 April 14th 'juror 13 .

From Lisa's blog:

Nel asks Oscar one last time how he held his gun when he fired the shots. Oscar holds his arm up (which we can’t see because it is off camera) and Nel demonstrates the position that he is showing the court.

Nel says to him that he now has his arm at normal shooting position and Oscar says that he does not think that is a normal shooting position. Nel asks, but it’s at least at shoulder-height? Oscar says probably around shoulder height. Nel says, you didn’t shoot from the hip? Oscar says the gun can be around shoulder height whether the arm is extended or it is bent.

 

[Interested Bystander]

For ref: see today's Telegraph 11 Nov , Leaked Photographs , and see if you think you could get your arm through that gap and retrieve a key on the floor ?

Unfortunately you are looking at a newspaper article where it shows a reconstruction of the door and not the crime scene evidence presented in court of what was seen on the morning of the crime. I think perhaps you have not seen much of the actual court proceedings or videos of the same. Those of us posting here, apart from a very few, were fortunate enough to be able to watch the entire court proceedings and are very aware of almost everything that was shown in evidence.

I have searched this out for you so that you can watch the court in progress where the photographs of the crime scene are being recorded into evidence. I hope it is of some help. There are videos on You Tube produced by SABC of the entire trial. If it helps I will find the appropriate link and post it for you.

This is the video of Vermeulen being taken through the photographic evidence. If you forward to circa 12 minutes 18 seconds you will be able to see the door as it was found at around 6am on the morning of 14[SUP]th[/SUP] February.

[video=youtube;ovA-k3pO3Dk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovA-k3pO3Dk[/video]

 

[Mr Fossil]

I can refer to a Guardian report quoting Mangena, "On prosthetic limbs he measures 1.84 metres ,compared to 1.55metres on his stumps"

This would contradict your figures of, I think ,'9cms ' difference ? , anyway by this source Mangena gives 29 cms difference .

The height of the bulletr holes are given as A 93.5cms : B 104.3cms: C 99.4cms; D 97.4 cms .

Guardian Tues 18th March 2014 .

Why do you quote a newspaper rather than Mangena's actual ballistics report?

The 7cm difference I referred to was the difference in Mangena's calculated gun height to shoulder height on prostheses, which is what we were discussing. This is the difference that Mangena explains in his report.

 

[janicelongbright]

the reference you give is in respect of how op says he walked down the corridor between the bedroom and the bathroom. he had a detailed discussion with nel around this.

this was not a discussion about how he was positioned when he fired the shots.

there are youtube videos for each day/session of the trial if you wish to double check.

I have double checked and Yes you Are correct he says this Re: the corridor ,BUT then AFTER a GaP on other things , Nel , says Ok what did you do when you entered the bathroom , how did you hold the gun ? and Nel demonstrates with his arm straight out , at shoulder height , NO No! protests Pistorius etc etc as said ...

 

[Mr Fossil]

There are photograghs of the crime scene with only one narrow panel removed . and that is important to establish , because leaning over , where you arm is constricted is very much different than ' being able to bend over ' .

The 'crime scene' photos with only the narrow right hand panel missing are after the larger central panel has been put back in place by the police as they try to reconstruct what happened. You need to check the times of the photos.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I thankyou very much for your reply , but I do wish you would read Juror 13 Day 21 14 th April , which agrees withwhat I say precisely about , how he said he held the gun , as well as agreeing with what I recall .

I am really sorry to appear to be contradicting , and I'm not trying to waste your time , or be flippant.

Pistorius also says explains his reason that he 'wouldn't hopld his gun away from his body ,' 'because on assailant could easily knock it from his hand etc.'

And he is vehement about it , because he is flatly denying that he had an aggressive aimed syance that Nel is demonstrating .

I have to say that the video is wrong , or at least contrdicts other reliable sources, and I can only hope you will look at it for me .

See my earlier reply. I'm afraid you're confusing the testimony. We're talking about how Oscar says he held the gun when he fired the shots.

 

[Mr Fossil]

2nd attempt on this. With the cross bar or strut so low it may have been possible for him even without the prosthetics, but I'm slightly taller (but without the reach) and I'm not sure that I would clear it.

I am exactly the same height as Oscar (when on prostheses, which is what he says he was on at the time) and I can assure it is easy to reach over a bar that height and touch the floor on the other side.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil

What about the 2 blackberrys found in the bathroom in addition to the hidden iPhone under the mat?

Further staging?

They were found in the bedroom, are old and had not been used.

 

[jilly]

.......because she warned him off when he was trying to break the door with the bat ......

What evidence can you refer to that Reeva would even have a gun? Are you aware that she was an advocate for domestic violence? In fact, on the night she was killed, she was preparing a speech for violence against women.

So what are you saying? - she fought fire with fire and lost? Are you blaming the victim?

 

[WilliamMunter]

For ref: see today's Telegraph 11 Nov , Leaked Photographs , and see if you think you could get your arm through that gap and retrieve a key on the floor ?

Do you mean http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-photos-show-crime-scene-for-first-time.html ?

They are from Telegraph issue 31st May 2013 and show the door after partial reconstruction by forensics team. Note the stickers on the door and the moved magazine rack.

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/crime_24.jpg is crime scene as found showing all but one panel removed.

 

[DexterMorgan]

If Massipa daughter was killed in the same fashion. I doubt she would have called negligence on the case.

Btw. I heard that if you get 5 years or less in SA; you only need to serve a tiny portion. But 6 or more and you have to serve about 75% of that sentence before being eligible for parole.

So now i see why she only went for the 5 years for both counts of negligent homicide along with the illegal ammunition.

She was either bought or Oscars family had dirt on her or one of her relatives. Jmo

 

[janicelongbright]

Why do you quote a newspaper rather than Mangena's actual ballistics report?

The 7cm difference I referred to was the difference in Mangena's calculated gun height to shoulder height on prostheses, which is what we were discussing. This is the difference that Mangena explains in his report.

Because I'm doing my best to re-find things , and I'm not good with a computer to say the least , and my connection is very poor and very very slow , living out oin the sticks ,

But it makes no difference , I really think you have allowed one source to dominate your thinking , probably Wolmarans > But you have to hear what I'm saying first if we are to get anywhere .

I read the original ballistics reports , and I realized that the 2 of them had tried to get around the anomolies they found by stating one thing and then its opposite , which really had no logic except that it matched what the door '/crime scene as said' , and with a few added possible but impossible scenarios in court , when Nel asked awkward questions , like ' and how would this projection have hit Reeva / the wall here ,etc ,at which , it was very plain that they were thinking on the hoof .

It is by looking at those reports , as well as what they said in court , spot where they make up a , eg : wpossible explanation fot what they can't explain eg. Wolmarans ' the bullets" must have" deflected in the door , to an upward projection . " that is , by definition speculation and the other side of that which he doesn't say , is that the bullet holes in the door , do not match the 'crime scene'.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Because I'm doing my best to re-find things , and I'm not good with a computer to say the least , and my connection is very poor and very very slow , living out oin the sticks ,

But it makes no difference , I really think you have allowed one source to dominate your thinking , probably Wolmarans > But you have to hear what I'm saying first if we are to get anywhere .

I read the original ballistics reports , and I realized that the 2 of them had tried to get around the anomolies they found by stating one thing and then its opposite , which really had no logic except that it matched what the door '/crime scene as said' , and with a few added possible but impossible scenarios in court , when Nel asked awkward questions , like ' and how would this projection have hit Reeva / the wall here ,etc ,at which , it was very plain that they were thinking on the hoof .

It is by looking at those reports , as well as what they said in court , spot where they make up a , eg : wpossible explanation fot what they can't explain eg. Wolmarans ' the bullets" must have" deflected in the door , to an upward projection . " that is , by definition speculation and the other side of that which he doesn't say , is that the bullet holes in the door , do not match the 'crime scene'.

BIB What precisely are you referring to?

I agree that Mangena and Wolmarans differ in their opinions of what happened, which is to be expected, but much of what they said is in their reports and wasn't made up on the hoof. Can I suggest if you want to make specific points that you provide references.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Recently Judge Masipa gave a talk in London about the South African judicial system. It's 80 mins long. I only skimmed it and I highly doubt any reference is made to the Pistorius case. Something to watch with a cup of tea and a digestive.

[video=youtu;cUV1b8z2ZDE]http://youtu.be/cUV1b8z2ZDE[/video]

 

[jilly]

Re BIB - IMO there is always an answer, we just don't know what it is in this case or the one you cited. As you say, the motive may not be understandable from our POV, or even within the perpetrator's complete understanding, but there still is one, as meaningless as it might appear.

I doubt that up until that point he had been physically abusive to Reeva, unless you mean on the night in question, because I doubt she would have still been there if he had. And though I would be one of the last to defend him, Sam Taylor did testify that he had never been physically abusive to her. Maybe Reeva was different to his exes - older and a bit wiser and not about to put up with his crap, or at least not any longer. The only way we will ever know what really happened would be if he confessed and I think we are probably in agreement that that is not likely to happen.

No we won't. What we do know, from the evidence is that he was previously verbally abusive to Reeva. It's no secret that verbal domestic abuse can escalate to physical abuse.

By all accounts, we know that Reeva was a loving person. It's no secret that women involved with abusive partners see the good in abusive men, even after a physical beating. Unfortunately, it's a fact.
Reeva, according to the evidence, didn't call the police on that fateful nite. Obviously, she had no idea (behind that closed door) that he had retrieved his gun.

Imo, she ran into that cubicle to escape his angry abuse. Had she had an inkling that he was going to kill her, I think she would have run down the stairs