Post sentencing discussion

[vansleuths]

BIB - on mice with no fathers. You left out the fact it was a study on mice in your original post, and didn't provide a link, which is why I had to look for it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not adding anything else.

Agree to disagree. My last comment is that you've missed the point of the article, as mentioned earlier "The team said the findings had direct relevance to human society.""

In terms of your comment that my original post did not mention mice was simply because the methodology was unimportant, it was the results or findings that were crucial and as also mentioned, there's lots of studies on children that reveal the same results.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Mr. Fossil,

especially for you, the calltime specialist:

 

[Mr Fossil]

EXCLUSIVE: It's not personal - NPA to Oscar Pistorious

Pretoria, 30 October 2014 - In an exclusive interview with eNCA, prosecutions boss Mxolisi Nxasana said the planned appeal is a matter of principle. He says the state believes the Pistorius judgment could set a negative precedent if it goes unchallenged. Source: eNCA

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/exclusive-its-not-personal-npa-oscar-pistorious

 

[Cherwell]

You're right FG, it was Carice. She gave herself away with revealing her thoughts. Why ever mention a lady unless she heard one. jmo

Why, oh why did Nel not press her on this! It was SUCH a giveaway. She would have tried to backtrack, but the cat was already out of the bag.
Another moment when I wasn't sharing the Nel love but going :shakehead:

It's true that the state didn't commit to what the first set of sounds were.
a) They couldn't commit if they felt they had no basis for conjecture, and
b) It wasn't essential because it wasn't it wasn't part of the act of murder as far as the state was concerned. It could have been useful evidence of an argument prior to the shooting but only if the state could back up the claim.
Can you imagine the mincemeat Roux would have made of the state if it claimed that both sets of bangs were shots but they didn't have solid evidence?
I agree that Nel sounded evasive about the first set of bangs, which was a mistake. All he needed to say was the state wasn't there, so couldn't be sure, but the earlier "bangs" were not the fatal gunshots. That he HAD to account for this was also a distraction.
However, as the state could prove that as the second sounds which occurred at 03:15 were the gunshots, then the first set of sounds must have been the cricket bat strikes.
This would have been a very crafty tactic in my view. Defence couldn't claim it COULDN'T be true. Vermuelen testified that only a crack through bullet hole D must have been later than the shots. And defence already agreed that cricket bat strikes sounded like gunshots.
I think it would have put Roux on the back foot, especially as Oscar had just settled out of court on a case that involved bashing a door down in a rage (allegedly), in fact his heavier front door (from recollection). I would have loved to hear how Oscar would have dealt with this.
As to the defence claim that Oscar broke down the door after the shooting - assuming it was locked - the door would have been damaged already. That could have involved merely prizing it open near bullet hole D, which is at a join.

And that was another point that should have been metaphorically capitalised, bolded and underlined.
Yet most people were left with the impression that the State were saying that all the blows on the door came after the shots. :facepalm:

 

[foxbluff]

I will remove you from the collective "we", but don't delude yourself thinking that you know all there is to know about the Steenkamp and Pistorius family. It's always easy to see the victim as angelic and in this case, the family of the convicted as demonic, but people are not black and white, but rather shades of grey and the media is very good at portraying these stereotypes.

If the tables had been turned and Reeva shot Pistorius, how different would the conversation on this forum be?

1. Would we be talking about what a national hero Pistorius was, someone that did an incredible amount of charity work?
2. Would we be talking about Reeva and how she cheated on Pistorius while she found her fifteen minutes of fame on a dime a dozen reality show and how she was worried about Pistorius finding out?

Think about it. Whatever wrong you feel uncle Arnold has done, his love for family is undeniable and he took in three kids from another family. That's love, kindness and generosity, something I respect and admire.

[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

Somebody needed to be brave enough to say it. Thank you, vansleuths.

I've always been curious about how this board would have reacted if Uncle Arnold and other family members had proclaimed upfront that "this is the final straw... we wash our hands of Oscar... as far as we're concerned they should lock him up and throw the key away!"

When did being a close knit family with the ability to show unconditional love become a negative thing?

When the news first broke that Oscar had shot and killed his girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder, an awful lot of people believed him... a rumor even spread that Reeva had secretly entered his house that night in order to surprise him. If it hadn't been for the following mistakes being made, I think Oscar would have continued to garner some public belief in him and sympathy... as did a couple of other men who shot family members in somewhat similar circumstances.

Would the tragic killing of Reeva have aroused such outraged hatred of Oscar by the vocal public if the prosecution had not mistakenly accused him upfront of some things which the media gleefully spread, literally from near to far? e.g. they had forensic evidence of premeditated murder, he had chased her and bashed her head in with a cricket bat before shooting her, he was on his prosthesis when he shot her, he was not standing where he said he was when he fired, steroids (the regular type) were found in his house, he failed to call security, he failed to call an ambulance to save her, etc. Why, when it turned out that these things that got planted in our minds weren't true after all, why wasn't there a lessening of public outrage?

I apologize to the board if my memory has failed me on some of the items listed in the paragraph above and simply ask that you please "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

 

[Mr Fossil]

Why, oh why did Nel not press her on this! It was SUCH a giveaway. She would have tried to backtrack, but the cat was already out of the bag.
Another moment when I wasn't sharing the Nel love but going :shakehead:



And that was another point that should have been metaphorically capitalised, bolded and underlined.
Yet most people were left with the impression that the State were saying that all the blows on the door came after the shots. :facepalm:

I must admit I spent ages considering the permutations of bat and gun and how the crack through the bullet hole could be caused by just yanking the panel out but I'm now very much of the opinion that the three bat strikes came after the gunshots that killed Reeva. It's the most obvious sequence that fits the evidence. I'm favouring earlier shots heard by the Stipps and nobody hearing the bat strikes (just like so many people didn't hear quite a few things).

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I finally found that post about No , no please no... Interestingly the wording seems No, no ..please don't ...last year

RSBM Thread 4 Post 1424 from poster Pisto-lius

A few months ago (March) I translated a German video with an interview (aired 15 Feb 2013) with Christoph Leistner (lawyer born and living in Pretoria) about the OP case. Leistner reported:

This morning it was put about on a radio interview that one neighbour claims to have heard the shot girlfriend had screamed: “No, no, please don’t!”
Here you can read the whole transcript of the video
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Oscar Pistorius shoots and kills his girlfriend, charged with murder #3


And there was another video (sadly no longer available) where the same witness statement was reported: a female neighbour who lives 50 meters away from OP's house have heard a woman's voice screaming: “No, no, please don’t!”

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?205154-General-Discussion-Thread-4/page57

 

[foxbluff]

BIB I shake my head on this as well. The judge should have addressed OP directly as he is an adult with no mental defect.

I agree if she was referring to his not going to anymore bars, etc.

I took it differently, however. I thought she was perhaps addressing Uncle A, hinting that he might want to put more security guards on his estate to protect them against some of the public.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I haven't seen this before. It purports to be Judge Masipa's time line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHRww83LdAs

 

[foxbluff]

IIRC OP stood with his back against the wall at the point that the bathroom corridor enters the bathroom itself. So for a cartridge case to land in the corridor and the other 3 to land in the bathroom is quite realistic. I think there was some testimony about this but I can't recall which witness.

Agreed !!

A crime scene photo has been posted here that shows one of the casings in the passageway just outside the bathroom and shows one located right next to the end of the wall which divides the passageway from the bathroom.

Also, one of the ballistic experts testified that OP was standing where he said he was when firing, as he found gunshot blowback residue on subject wall.

 

[jilly]

Yes this study was done with mice. Not sure if you did read the entire article, but I have included a couple of key highlights below. If you are interested in human studies, there are many epidemiological studies that highlight the exact same results.

From the article:

"The team said the findings had direct relevance to human society."

Dr Gobbi said: ‘The behavioural deficits we observed are consistent with human studies of children raised without a father.
‘These children have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behaviour and in particular, girls have been shown to be at risk for substance abuse.

You can find a study for pretty much anything you want these days. With respect to Oscar's behavior and "substance abuse" (as mentioned above), I think I would be more apt to look up genetic research.

 

[mrjitty]

I must admit I spent ages considering the permutations of bat and gun and how the crack through the bullet hole could be caused by just yanking the panel out but I'm now very much of the opinion that the three bat strikes came after the gunshots that killed Reeva. It's the most obvious sequence that fits the evidence. I'm favouring earlier shots heard by the Stipps and nobody hearing the bat strikes (just like so many people didn't hear quite a few things).

I wonder if you are not getting to deep into this now

Go back to first principles:

- Nowhere is there any evidence of four bat strikes.

- None of the multiple witnesses heard OP breaking up the bathroom after the shooting

- The run up to the shooting was loud. The screaming woke people up. The shots woke the rest.

- Then no one heard any bangs.

- OP got to hear all states witnesses first then manufactured his actions to match the sounds.

All of this shows logically that there really was only one shooting to hear (obviously).

I think the difference is Stipps were awake already and thus heard the destruction in the bathroom.

There are field tests which show that the bat breaking up the door, tiles, bath cover etc could sound like a gun.

But context colours perception.

I frequently hear "gunshots" in my neighbourhood but I know it is most likely fireworks. Usually it is as well - but one time I did find 9mm casings in my street.

So Devil's advocate - but I don't see why you need any extra gunshots.

The Stipps were awake and overlooked the action and were not far away.

They could easily hear him smashing up the filing, access cover, door etc.

I think the key point is that there never was any evidence of four bats - therefore they cannot be the shots.

This is the version OP constructed AFTER hearing stats evidence.

 

[sleuth-d-]

It's true that the state didn't commit to what the first set of sounds were.
a) They couldn't commit if they felt they had no basis for conjecture, and
b) It wasn't essential because it wasn't it wasn't part of the act of murder as far as the state was concerned. It could have been useful evidence of an argument prior to the shooting but only if the state could back up the claim.
Can you imagine the mincemeat Roux would have made of the state if it claimed that both sets of bangs were shots but they didn't have solid evidence?
I agree that Nel sounded evasive about the first set of bangs, which was a mistake. All he needed to say was the state wasn't there, so couldn't be sure, but the earlier "bangs" were not the fatal gunshots. That he HAD to account for this was also a distraction.
However, as the state could prove that as the second sounds which occurred at 03:15 were the gunshots, then the first set of sounds must have been the cricket bat strikes.
This would have been a very crafty tactic in my view. Defence couldn't claim it COULDN'T be true. Vermuelen testified that only a crack through bullet hole D must have been later than the shots. And defence already agreed that cricket bat strikes sounded like gunshots.
I think it would have put Roux on the back foot, especially as Oscar had just settled out of court on a case that involved bashing a door down in a rage (allegedly), in fact his heavier front door (from recollection). I would have loved to hear how Oscar would have dealt with this.
As to the defence claim that Oscar broke down the door after the shooting - assuming it was locked - the door would have been damaged already. That could have involved merely prizing it open near bullet hole D, which is at a join.

this ^^^ absolutely spot on, imo.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I wonder if you are not getting to deep into this now

Go back to first principles:

- Nowhere is there any evidence of four bat strikes.

- None of the multiple witnesses heard OP breaking up the bathroom after the shooting

- The run up to the shooting was loud. The screaming woke people up. The shots woke the rest.

- Then no one heard any bangs.

- OP got to hear all states witnesses first then manufactured his actions to match the sounds.

All of this shows logically that there really was only one shooting to hear (obviously).

I think the difference is Stipps were awake already and thus heard the destruction in the bathroom.

There are field tests which show that the bat breaking up the door, tiles, bath cover etc could sound like a gun.

But context colours perception.

I frequently hear "gunshots" in my neighbourhood but I know it is most likely fireworks. Usually it is as well - but one time I did find 9mm casings in my street.

So Devil's advocate - but I don't see why you need any extra gunshots.

The Stipps were awake and overlooked the action and were not far away.

They could easily hear him smashing up the filing, access cover, door etc.

I think the key point is that there never was any evidence of four bats - therefore they cannot be the shots.

This is the version OP constructed AFTER hearing stats evidence.

We'll have to agree to disagree but I respect your different view and enjoy the challenge of considering alternative scenarios.

If the bat strikes come first and the bat isn't used to lever out the door panel after the third strike (contrary to Vermeulen's testimony about the deeper marks on one side of the bat) then Reeva must be in the toilet for the first sounds. How does her screaming from inside the toilet get heard by so many people? I have her outside the toilet until very near to the time of the shots that kill her. The argument about four bat strikes could equally be applied to Johnson hearing 5 or 6 shots but nevertheless we agree that the second sounds were the shots that killed Reeva.

I speculate that the first sounds that the Stipps hear are gunshots but accept that they could be something else. I think the first 'shots' may have caused one or two folk to stir but they only hear the screaming and/or dogs barking when they 'come to'. So many people on the estate don't hear the shots that kill Reeva that it is quite possible that a few more didn't hear a first set of 'shots'.

 

[emirates1957]

Now ain't that the truth? One only need peek into the Travis Alexander forum to rest assured that there is little if any gender bias when it comes to a female perpetrator and an adult male victim. A killer is a killer.

Travis wasn't famous. He wasn't a world class athlete. He was simply a 30 year old man hoping to get married and start a family who hooked up with a woman who'd rather kill him than let him go. Yet there have been few to follow that case who don't believe his murder was heinous, cruel, and entirely premeditated. Or that Jodi Arias isn't a lying, malevolent, parasitic monster.

JMO and FWIW

Just quickly on the topic of Jodi Arias. I did not follow this trial - however I am interested in reading the story. I have noticed that there are a number of books - could anybody suggest one?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

You can find a study for pretty much anything you want these days. With respect to Oscar's behavior and "substance abuse" (as mentioned above), I think I would be more apt to look up genetic research.

I would think, beside any other possible disorder, of a light Tourette Syndrom/vocal tic disorder with side effects such as anxiety, restlessness, insomia, etc., maybe genetically.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I finally found that post about No , no please no... Interestingly the wording seems No, no ..please don't ...last year

RSBM Thread 4 Post 1424 from poster Pisto-lius

A few months ago (March) I translated a German video with an interview (aired 15 Feb 2013) with Christoph Leistner (lawyer born and living in Pretoria) about the OP case. Leistner reported:

This morning it was put about on a radio interview that one neighbour claims to have heard the shot girlfriend had screamed: “No, no, please don’t!”
Here you can read the whole transcript of the video
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Oscar Pistorius shoots and kills his girlfriend, charged with murder #3


And there was another video (sadly no longer available) where the same witness statement was reported: a female neighbour who lives 50 meters away from OP's house have heard a woman's voice screaming: “No, no, please don’t!”

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?205154-General-Discussion-Thread-4/page57

I'm pleased to hear that. 2013 (?) I had read about a woman's voice and posted it here. Later someone other posted, it had been a man's voice. Until now I had a doubt. But with your enlightenment I may ... fftobed:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I have added a Chronology tab to Witness testimony analysis 2. This shows the Masipa / Roux chronology from the Judgement and Defence Heads of Argument (they are exactly the same, Masipa didn't change a single thing that Roux proposed) alongside my hypothetical chronology based on Johnson's phone time being wrong and the first set of sounds that the Stipps hear being before the gunshots that kill Reeva. My chronology needs to be read in conjunction with the comments against the events in the WTA2 tab and the Timeline. I'm still tuning it as I'd like to get the times for the events between my first and second shots to be as tight / reasonable as possible.

Thoughts, corrections, additions, alternative views always welcome.

We ALL know how much time, effort and thought has gone into all your work Mr Fossil, but I love the way you always add the last para. You're always prepared to listen and take on board suggestions/corrections etc which make you think outside the box. This can only enhance the very, very clever work that you do. The way people work together on WS is seriously impressive.

 

[JudgeJudi]

You're right FG, it was Carice. She gave herself away with revealing her thoughts. Why ever mention a lady unless she heard one. jmo

It's a real pity this wasn't picked up by someone on the PT. Why would any person assume there was a lady involved unless they'd heard her voice. This is sufficient proof, for me at least, that she definitely heard both a man and a woman.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I did read the article, but didn't set any stock by it, as for some reason (?) it failed to mention how many mice were even studied, and also failed to mention the percentage of mice who displayed deviant behaviour when deprived of a father. How long did the study last? Too much information is missing, and you just can't apply this to humans. I have several friends who were brought up by their mother, and none of them are anything other than perfectly normal. The quality of parenting is much more relevant than whether a father is present or not, particularly if the father is violent, or a drunk.

I agree with all you've said. The quality of the parenting is the most important thing. I'd like to add that a huge percentage of marriages/relationships with children end up in either divorce or separation. In Australia it's close to 50% and I've not read of any correlation between that and aggressive or deviant behaviour in the children of one parent families.

OP was not a child when his mother died, he was 15. I've not read of him displaying any aberrant behaviour prior to her death. If this is when he went to live with Arnold, you have by necessity to draw some conclusions here. Why was he allowed to drive a car without a licence? How was he able to buy a car before he was old enough to do so? This points to Arnold IMO. Young men can be very reckless when they're young and good parents can and do point out the consequences of bad behaviour if they learn of it. However young people, both male and female, often hold the view, "That wouldn't happen to me". It's critical as parents to set out boundaries from early childhood and keep reinforcing them as they mature.

A further point, but nothing to do with your post. Arnold has a 24 room mansion, and no doubt his brothers have very large homes too, leaving aside Henke. Is it conceivable in your wildest dreams that Oscar, Carl and Aimee would not have been taken in by someone in the family and have them placed into orphanages as wards of the state? Totally ridiculous.