General Discussion Thread #4

[Carol70]

Again, as I replied to cityslick, here are the words of Botha [who you have denigrated in the past}:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-himself.html

Quote:


So, is Botha credible, or not credible?

Oh yes, I have stated numerous times that I think he is a complete idiot for his bungling of the case and still stand by that however, I have also stated that what he said in court should be taken as truth..he was under oath, I have no problem with him giving his opinion but the fact he stated there were no inconsistencies should be taken seriously. If he lied, he would get into a heap of trouble besides it being detrimental to the case. I have stated this numerous times too, over all the OP threads. And no, I don't think what he says now is credible, he is no longer a detective because of the OP case. Also he told OP's family before bail he saw no reason that bail would be denied ( he agreed in court he said this) however, then goes on to say that he knew "immediately" that OP was guilty. If he really knew that, he knew that bail would be denied.

 

[sorrell skye]

It is strange that RS had a Valentine's gift for OP, but he did not mention having anything for her. And obviously she was excited about Valentine's Day, hence her tweet. Yes, a woman her age, falling in love, marriage on her mind (according to her friends, anyway), and wondering what's "up everyone's sleeve" for V-Day... yes, I think she was expecting SOMETHING from her boo.

From OP's affidavit:

16.4 ...We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

I think it's odd that he made an effort to mention how "deeply in love" they were & how he "could not be happier", and that Reeva had given him a gift, but he doesn't mention anything about a gift from him to her. He wants the Court to believe he loved Reeva & would not have intentionally harmed her, let alone murder her, yet he offered no physical evidence of his affection for her in his affidavit.

His affidavit was submitted to the Court as a defense for his actions. He made it a point to mention Reeva's gift to him, but that is only physical evidence of Reeva's affection toward him, not a demonstration of his affection toward her.

IMO, if OP had purchased/made/planned a Valentine's gift for Reeva, I think he would have included it in his affidavit, to bolster his claim of affection for her & to bolster his claim of his happiness in the relationship, & to bolster his claim that he would not have intentionally killed her. The omission of any such gift from him to her is glaring in its absence.

Perhaps he had planned on going out & purchasing a gift for her the day she met her ex for coffee (remember he called her 2x during the first 20 minutes, which could be indicative of possessiveness, jealousy, checking up on her). If so, perhaps he cancelled any Valentine's gift-buying shopping plan, and instead sulked & stewed about the coffee get-together for a couple of days.

If he's prone to jealousy (which I think he is, based on media reports that I've read about how he reacted to ST dating someone after they broke up), it's not unlikely that he convinced himself that he had a justifiable reason to be jealous & angry about Reeva having coffee with her ex. I wouldn't be surprised if he considered Reeva's ex (or any other male with whom Reeva may have shared time) as a rival. I suspect that he obsessed over an innocent coffee get-together between friends and decided that he had been betrayed.

I think that morning coffee meeting between Reeva & her ex has everything to do with why he shot & killed Reeva on Valentine's Eve, and could be the reason why he apparently had no Valentine's gift for her.

 

[Patticake]

Oh yes, I have stated numerous times that I think he is a complete idiot for his bungling of the case and still stand by that however, I have also stated that what he said in court should be taken as truth..he was under oath, I have no problem with him giving his opinion but the fact he stated there were no inconsistencies should be taken seriously. If he lied, he would get into a heap of trouble besides it being detrimental to the case. I have stated this numerous times too, over all the OP threads. And no, I don't think what he says now is credible, he is no longer a detective because of the OP case. Also he told OP's family before bail he saw no reason that bail would be denied ( he agreed in court he said this) however, then goes on to say that he knew "immediately" that OP was guilty. If he really knew that, he knew that bail would be denied.

I'm trying to understand:

We are to believe there are no inconsistencies ... yet disbelieve that Botha was totally convinced of OP's guilt?

[BTW ... my home right now is a part of a complete police lockdown. This is happening right out my bedroom window. My dogs, okay, two sub-5 pound chihuahuas are going nuts right now. We are flooded with police cars, bicycle police and helicopters]

 

[natsound]

I actually would find it strange if there was no blood on the door knob. He must have had blood on his hands when opened that door if he had pulled Reeva out the loo??

I believe we were discussing blood on the bedroom door knob, which might alter the chain of events that night if it's true. It could mean that the violence began in the bedroom, or had taken place at some point in the bedroom.

 

[natsound]

snipped

[BTW ... my home right now is a part of a complete police lockdown. This is happening right out my bedroom window. My dogs, okay, two sub-5 pound chihuahuas are going nuts right now. We are flooded with police cars, bicycle police and helicopters]

What's that all about??

 

[natsound]

From OP's affidavit:

16.4 ...We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

I think it's odd that he made an effort to mention how "deeply in love" they were & how he "could not be happier", and that Reeva had given him a gift, but he doesn't mention anything about a gift from him to her. He wants the Court to believe he loved Reeva & would not have intentionally harmed her, let alone murder her, yet he offered no physical evidence of his affection for her in his affidavit.

His affidavit was submitted to the Court as a defense for his actions. He made it a point to mention Reeva's gift to him, but that is only physical evidence of Reeva's affection toward him, not a demonstration of his affection toward her.

IMO, if OP had purchased/made/planned a Valentine's gift for Reeva, I think he would have included it in his affidavit, to bolster his claim of affection for her & to bolster his claim of his happiness in the relationship, & to bolster his claim that he would not have intentionally killed her. The omission of any such gift from him to her is glaring in its absence.

Perhaps he had planned on going out & purchasing a gift for her the day she met her ex for coffee (remember he called her 2x during the first 20 minutes, which could be indicative of possessiveness, jealousy, checking up on her). If so, perhaps he cancelled any Valentine's gift-buying shopping plan, and instead sulked & stewed about the coffee get-together for a couple of days.

If he's prone to jealousy (which I think he is, based on media reports that I've read about how he reacted to ST dating someone after they broke up), it's not unlikely that he convinced himself that he had a justifiable reason to be jealous & angry about Reeva having coffee with her ex. I wouldn't be surprised if he considered Reeva's ex (or any other male with whom Reeva may have shared time) as a rival. I suspect that he obsessed over an innocent coffee get-together between friends and decided that he had been betrayed.

I think that morning coffee meeting between Reeva & her ex has everything to do with why he shot & killed Reeva on Valentine's Eve, and could be the reason why he apparently had no Valentine's gift for her.

Yes! You worded it much better than I did.

I have scrutinized what the mood might have been in his house that entire evening. Was he sulking and stewing? I tend to think so, because of everything you stated.. RS's coffee with the friend, his history of a jealous outburst or two. And he's pretty young... perhaps still prone to sulking like a child.

But.... RS spent the night with him voluntarily. Would she want to stay the night with someone giving her the icy shoulder on Valentine's eve?

Maybe. Just to try and smooth things over. But he wouldn't have it, and his mood escalated into tragedy.

All speculation.

 

[Carol70]

I'm trying to understand:

We are to believe there are no inconsistencies ... yet disbelieve that Botha was totally convinced of OP's guilt?

[BTW ... my home right now is a part of a complete police lockdown. This is happening right out my bedroom window. My dogs, okay, two sub-5 pound chihuahuas are going nuts right now. We are flooded with police cars, bicycle police and helicopters]

Sorry, I can see I was confusing.
He gave his "opinion"- I could see immediately that OP was guilty.
He gave " fact" - no, there were no inconsistencies in OP statement.

He can give his opinion until the birds come home but he cannot disregard the evidence. And it doesn't matter if he thinks OP is guilty, OP will not be sentenced on what Botha thought, but on what story the evidence tells. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Botha would not have said there was no inconsistencies if indeed there were. I hope this makes sense.

Oh my word...police lockdown..what's happening?? I hate when we hear heli's and sirens and don't know wtf is going on.

Patti, I would love to visit LA!

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

But are you building your theory on something that has not been stated anywhere (blood on the bedroom door knob)? No problem with that, but it may confuse some posters if they search for a statement regarding blood on the door knob and can't find one.

What I actually base mytheory is the holes in the affidavit in which sentences seeming to put there in some parts either to enforce an intruder story articially , and in some parts again enforcing to hide traces of Reeva while struggling in that house IMO.

As for the blood on the door handles thing is what I envision from the various
reports and news saying that many parts of the house was described as
blood bath, too much blood everywhere.. Blood would naturally exist but here it was pretty much suggesting to me something suspicious abt that ..maybe some irrelavant parts of the house implied such as maybe some walls, some doors ,some door handles etc.

JMO

 

[Patticake]

What's that all about??

Thanks, Nats,

I'm still trying to find out. Although my dogs are small, I rely upon them to alert me to trouble. They are going nuts.

But it may just be the LAPD doing their thing, so to speak ...

Harumph ..

 

[sorrell skye]

Yikes! My fingers got totally smashed in the door!

 

[Carol70]

Yikes! My fingers got totally smashed in the door!

Haha..mine too!!!

 

[natsound]

MURDERER_SERVANT, This is response to your last post on the previous thread.

Could you provide a few links to reports that blood was found in many places around the house? I have never seen one, although I know those reports have been discussed here. Thanks!

 

[Kimster]

Yikes! My fingers got totally smashed in the door!

Haha..mine too!!!

Ooops! I'm so sorry! :facepalm:

 

[Carol70]

Patti..is it daytime there?? Does the LAPD do this during the day? What's a police lockdown?
Sorry about the questions!

Ps: stay safe hey, I wouldn't put a toe out my door to find out what's happening.

 

[Patticake]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-clan-unhappy-with-talk-about-Reeva-20130411

Pistorius clan unhappy with talk about Reeva

"Although their relationship was young, she had become an intimate member of the Pistorius family."

Burgess said that in the short time the pair were together, Pistorius did not have an opportunity to meet Steenkamp's family, whom she had spoken of with great love.

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

 

[Patticake]

Patti..is it daytime there?? Does the LAPD do this during the day? What's a police lockdown?
Sorry about the questions!

Ps: stay safe hey, I wouldn't put a toe out my door to find out what's happening.

Thank you Carol.

I sold my townhouse to own a house. Here now, I am home today on vacation. I am a victim of the LAPD vagaries. [snort]

It's all in a day's work. I know you know what I mean ...

:what:

 

[Carol70]

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 happen to agree. OP father stated on the day he appeared that he had no information on what happened and had never met Reeva. ( I think he may even referred to her as "the girl" and not Reeva but could be wrong. ) I know OP and his dad were not close but surely he must have met her if she was intimate with the family already somewhere along the line??

 

[sorrell skye]

Kimster - would it be possible for a mod to bring over the last page of posts to this thread, so that we can have a sense of continuity in the conversation? Please?

 

[Kimster]

Sure! Hold on.

 

[Carol70]

:moo:

I was in the middle of responding to a post, when next thing I knew, we were on a new thread.

Originally posted by natsound on thread #3:



As has happened in the past, while I've been busy typing out a voluminous essay, you've already posted exactly what I was intending to say.

Ahhh, I missed Nats post but yes, what she suggests actually sounds totally plausible. I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why he would have mentioned it to be honest!