Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by Harmony 2, Nov 2, 2014.
Continue discussion here...
Woohoo new thread! I love that "new thread" smell.....
Key questions - arising from phone data and beyond (supports WTA2)
Timeline - 13/14 February 2013
Phone usage charts - 3 tabs, one each for 5353, 4949 and 0020
Witness locations (aerial) - Silver Woods satellite view from May 2013
Witness locations (graphic) - inc vacant plots and Guard Track locations
Witness testimony analysis - based on evidence given
Witness testimony analysis 2 - possible Prosecution chronology based on Johnson's call time being fast (see also KQ)
Comments, corrections, additions and alternative views always welcome
Am I missing something? Why couldn't Nel have said the State didn't have OP's phone if they didn't have it? Makes no sense the State couldn't have said exactly that if it were true they didn't have his phone and it makes no sense OP would say it if he knew the State didn't have it since they could pick him up on it. Nope, no sense at all, unless I've missed something.
Bringing over gbng's comment from the last thread (sorry, can't de-bold)
You've missed quite a bit! One of OP's phones was removed from the scene and not handed over to the state until 25 feb. It is most likely that it was with Carl at least part of the time. Someone wiped the history from the phone before it was handed in - possibly Carl. State did a deal with the defence so that, in return for Nel not raising this in court, the defence agreed not to call Botha.
Not sure whether this has been posted.
The mother alleges that her daughter's murderer has evaded justice in SA due to his family's status and wealth.
Devastated Marilyn and David lacked confidence in the way the police tackled the case and hired private investigator Ettienne Groenewalk to find Khan and bring him to justice.
Nothing personal patCee - but your link contains an article from the daily mail (Capitals intentionally deleted.) This is a hideous excuse for a newspaper and is to be mistrusted at all times.
It makes one wonder how much damage Botha could have done. He may have made mistakes, and he certainly got hammered at the bail application, but does anyone know why the state were so reluctant for him to appear? I recall Roux bringing him up during the trial a few times with a sarcastic comment or three, but the defence could hardly have claimed that the methods or testimony of their experts and investigations was above criticism. This also makes me wonder why Masipa slammed Vergeer in the sentencing phase but made no mention of Roger Dixon in her summing up while delivering the verdict when IMO he was just as inept, if not worse. More likeable in a bumbling kind of way but that's beside the point - his evidence was way beyond his field of expertise and bordered on dishonest with such stunts as the 'figure in the window' photos to name just one example.
What Botha did were not mistakes - he was in all probability compromised.
Do you mean by having done something illegal/dodgy in the course of this investigation or by something else?
I wouldn't say `illegal'; but exactly the kind of things I would expect one to do if he was in the Police force but working for the accused so that the case against the accused gets weakened, at the same time without giving the State a clear cut opportunity to charge him (the officer) for his actions. I initially got the feeling from the State's unwillingness to involve him in the trial, and also replacing him in the investigation team on a pretext that I found kind of cooked up just for the purpose of giving an official reason. But as I am going through transcripts of the bail hearing, I am getting more convinced about this. If and when I get hold of the transcripts of the entire bail hearing, I should be in a better position to elaborate.
It does sensationalise with headlines, and promotes women in various states of undress I agree......but is often the first to carry a lot of news that can then be checked out in other papers, and it's free to view. Anyway, especially for you Hoosen_Fenger
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-mum-claims-daughters-killing-4551160 .......this rag could also be questionable.
That's an interesting take.
My impression was that it was more a case of Botha & Pistorius having a history (Botha investigated the slammed door incident) and Botha being biased against him.
But I could obviously be wrong about that.
That's how I remember it too - he was reported as both being sloppy and too eager to throw the book at Oscar - not in collusion with him
Agreed. And celebrity obsessed. But, to be balanced, it does have the biggest circulation over here in UK, biggest overseas readership and is probably one of the few papers still growing.
Ironically it was the Sunday Times, which still views itself as a quality broadsheet that caused the furore* post sentencing with the "Reeva and Oscar never had sex" etc headlines, from the Steenkamp serialisation.
* The one even David Dadic was commenting on - ie unwise advisors in Steenkamp circle whilst NPA had not yet announced Appeal.
BIB - it is untrustworthy - but it's not untrustworthy at all times.
Occasionally, it does print facts!
I think Botha was careless, because he was told it was a straightforward intruder killing, and until he got upstairs, he had no reason to believe otherwise. By then, he'd already trampled over the crime scene without protective footwear, although I think there were other things he did without due care and attention. However, OP himself had already interfered with the crime scene by the time the police arrived.
I personally find it astonishing that the PT cut a deal re. Carl/Botha .. I simply cannot see that anything Botha had done could match what Carl had done. Carl should've been prosecuted for taking that phone and wiping it, and that whole thing should've contributed towards a 'guilty of murdering Reeva' verdict for OP .. it's just ridiculous that each of these things kept on being dismissed as not being proof enough, like I've said before, you could take any murder case and argue every single thing away but fortunately in this country we have juries who take a case as a whole and come to decision based on that, and that would include someone wiping a phone because the only reason why someone takes a phone from a crime scene and wipes it is because it contained incriminating evidence, it's just basic common sense.
....copied from prior thread
My thoughts: due to the following points (which were testified to in court), I don't believe we have any evidence that supports him having any concern/issue with the fans or the sliding balcony door:
1. ME testimony about food in Reeva's stomach & approximate time she last ate something. Therefore, she's awake during early morning hours of Valentine's Day.
2. Testimony of arguing heard by neighbor, and the time of this arguing. Neighbor resorted to placing pillow over her head to try and drown it out. Supports both being awake (and much sooner than when OP claims to have awoken, in bed, with Reeva at his side).
3. Early photos taken of crime scene show balcony door open, drapes/curtains open, fans not moved to location OP claims they were, placement of duvet, Reeva's jeans, etc. 1st pictures taken don't support this story.
Other than the ever changing testimony of the man who killed Reeva, and "fighting for his life", the testimony & evidence seem to contradict that issue ever actually being a concern for OP, IMO.
I do agree with your statement re adding additional, unnecessary information can often signal having greater significance than it appears. However, in this case I just think OP needed a reason to have his back to Reeva so she can get to the bathroom without being seen/heard by the man madly in love with her and worried for her safety. So much so, that for 15 min of "life threatening danger" he doesn't even have eye contact or any 2-way communication with her, while in the same room with her. I just don't think any of the "fan/door story" is real, other than them being in the bedroom with him.
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.
You and I are here because the Lord wills it. What AMAZING GRACE!
Agreed....seems absolutely bizarre that the PT would let this slide without much of a fight (it appears, perhaps behind closed doors much different).
I am curious how "biased" Masipa may (or may not) have come across in chambers & if Nel was aware early on that he was fighting an extremely difficult uphill battle much earlier than the reading of the verdict.