Re: Oscar Pistorius

by aiyoyo 12.04.14 1:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When asked did Reeve scream, a teary Pistorius told the Court the decibel of the gun shots made his ears ring he couldn't even hear his own voice.
He said Reeva did not scream and Prosecutor countered did not hear does not mean she did not scream.

The sound of one gun shot would be enough to cause her to scream had she been in bed.
Yet Pistorius expects the Court to believe his story he looked in three places including behind the curtain inside the bedroom for Reeva.

by **PeterMac** 12.04.14 1:29

Newintown wrote:
I've been following OP's trial on Sky News each morning and it has really shocked me as to how similar his accounts are to the McCanns accounts of what happened. It's as if they've all had a meeting and compared notes.

It certainly IS remarkable.
However, In the OP case the prosecutor is having to bring out the lies and discrepancies
In the McCann case they have already written them down, in their signed statements, in the book, in all the transcripts of the TV interviews, in their diaries, in the Blogs and everywhere else.
The whole world already knows knows, that they are serial liars.
They would not last two minutes in the witness box, and no decent lawyer would allow them to give evidence.
Carter-Ruck, one of the world's finest, made absolutely sure that the McCanns were nowhere near, and manoeuvred the case into a procedural side issue. They are brilliant at this, and boast about it on their web site. They left it to the hapless Mrs Martorell to spout the nonsense, bordering on an untruth - since it was given under oath - about an Abduction. And as we know she hurriedly backed down when asked a fairly simple and innocuous question.

One of the things I would look forward to, however, would be Gerry,m as with OP, believing he is intellectually superior, and insisting on going into the witness box. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

by Newintown 12.04.14 2:00

PeterMac wrote:
Newintown wrote:
I've been following OP's trial on Sky News each morning and it has really shocked me as to how similar his accounts are to the McCanns accounts of what happened. It's as if they've all had a meeting and compared notes.

It certainly IS remarkable.
However, In the OP case the prosecutor is having to bring out the lies and discrepancies
In the McCann case they have already written them down, in their signed statements, in the book, in all the transcripts of the TV interviews, in their diaries, in the Blogs and everywhere else.
The whole world already knows knows, that they are serial liars.
They would not last two minutes in the witness box, and no decent lawyer would allow them to give evidence.
Carter-Ruck, one of the world's finest, made absolutely sure that the McCanns were nowhere near, and manoeuvred the case into a procedural side issue. They are brilliant at this, and boast about it on their web site. They left it to the hapless Mrs Martorell to spout the nonsense, bordering on an untruth - since it was given under oath - about an Abduction. And as we know she hurriedly backed down when asked a fairly simple and innocuous question.

One of the things I would look forward to, however, would be Gerry,m as with OP, believing he is intellectually superior, and insisting on going into the witness box. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

I have been thinking about whether OP and his lawyers have been following the McCanns saga in the press and have read KM's book to get hints on how to "twist facts to fit your own agenda", there are too many coincidences; it also seems that the parents of the little 3 year old who has "been abducted" in Australia (as mentioned in another thread) have also thought they'd do "a McCann" hoping they'd get away with it as the McCanns have done over the past 7 years.

There would be millions of people glued to their TV screens if GM was to appear in a court room witness box as there have been for OP's trial. No doubt the viewing figures would go off the Richter Scale.

by Guest 12.04.14 5:28

PeterMac wrote:If you are even cross examined the only sensible replies are
"Yes, Sir."
"No, Sir"
"I am sorry, Sir I cannot remember."

OP is a gift to his own prosecution, just as G&KM, and the Tapas group were in their rogatories.
They have provided the prosecution with all the important questions

How I would like to see Nel adressing some of the Tapas crowd:

'Now, miss Tanner, is it not the case that you" etc etc

Lovely court room theatre.
Very good Public Prosecutor.
Nice to have a no-drama and well balanced Judge there as well

by canada12 12.04.14 5:37

Are the court rules the same in Portugal and the UK? I'm curious, because, if it ever went to court, I agree that the McCanns' (and probably the Tapas') lawyers would not allow their clients to take the witness stand, if they were allowed that privilege. They would thereby deny the Prosecution a chance to cross-examine, and also the McCanns and the Tapas friends would not have the opportunity to mess up their testimony.

So, if that's the case (sorry, pun!), then the jury, or the judge, would be in the position of having to render a verdict based only on the evidence and the written and recorded statements of the McCanns and the Tapas friends. All of which more or less contradict each other and / or change over time.

Very clever legal advice, methinks...

by NickE 12.04.14 16:18

Friday, 11 April 2014

How is Pistorius relevant to Kate & Gerry McCann?
Gerry and Kate McCann, be afraid. Be very afraid. Why do I say this?

- Well, has anyone been watching the Pistorius trial?

- This IS relevant to Madeleine because the Portuguese system is half way between ours (with a single judge and a jury) and the South African (a judge with two "Assessors" - legal advisers who together can overrule the judge).

- The Portuguese system, so far as I can ascertain, has three equal and qualified judges who effectively vote on the outcome.

- There are a number of advantages to this over jury systems. Juries can be biased by all kinds of experiences, including their own personal views, by media treatment of the case, and so on.

- A Judge-only system, such as in Portugal has the advantage of using judges trained in the precise mathematical logic required to understand the sort of precise sequence logic seen in the Oscar Pistorius case, where the prosecutor dissects what happened second by second, step by step, moment by moment.

- The prosecutor in the Pistorius case questions every word of every statement made by the the accused, breaking it down and comparing it with every other statement and also comparing it with known forensics.

- When Scotland Yard have finished their analysis, calculated precise actions and timelines, decomposed the McCanns's and others' statements, a prosecutor as competent as Gerry Nel who mercilessly decomposes Pistorius's story will make mincemeat of the McCanns and there is no doubt in my mind that they will be found guilty.

So ... for goodness' sake, if I (yes, even I) can find errors and faults in the McCanns' statements, with my limited knowledge and limited access to data, if I can decompose their public statements to the point of being totally assured of their guilt, I am convinced that a good prosecutor will have a far more powerful effect.

I am not used to watching how courts work, but after watching some of the Pistorius trial while Mrs. A. is laying down resting her over-used foot (we are supposed to be on a walking holiday but thank goodness for laptops and B&Bs with WiFi), I am even more convinced that the McCanns will not get away with [what I am convinced are] their crimes.

Jim.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 12.04.14 16:49

It is defamatory to accuse the McCanns of lying.
It is however unclear what word should be used to describe these most egregious examples of “economy with the truth”.

1 Shutters
Claim
The McCanns told many family members that the shutters had been forced or broken
Fact
The shutters had not been forced or broken

2 Entry by Gerry McCann
Claim
Gerry McCann first said he entered through the front door, using his key
Fact
He later said he entered through the patio door, which had been left unlocked.

3 Point of entry
Claim
The intruder must have entered through the open shutters and open window
Later claim or admission
The open shutters and open window may not have been the point of entry or exit

4 Sedation
Claim
The children were not sedated
Later claim
The children must have been sedated
(NOTE” On publication of the book ‘madeleine’, it became clear that Kate had known or suspected sedation from the start.)

5 Being made suspects
Claim
Kate told her friends by telephone that she had been made a suspect
Later claim
Kate complained that this was press intrusion, when the only possible source was Kate herself

6 Fluids in car
Claim
The McCanns came up with a range of excuses for bodily fluids found in the car, ranging from sea bass to used nappies.
Later statement
At Leveson Kate said under oath that there were no fluids found in the car

7 Half hourly checks
Claim
The parents were making half hourly checks throughout the week.
Contradiction
The late Mrs Fenn reports a child crying for over an hour on a previous evening

8 Kate’s Dream
Fact
Kate reported to Insp. Paiva that she had had a dream in which she had “seen” Madeleine dead. He gave this evidence under oath in court.
Denial
On the steps of the court Gerry publicly denies that Kate had had any such dream

9 Lying in general
Fact
In her book Kate admits lying

10 Afternoon of 3rd May
Claim
Kate arrives after a run to find the children with Gerry at tea
Fact
On that day Kate herself signed Madeleine out of the crèche at 5:30pm

11 Eye defect
Facts
The McCanns released details of the coloboma to the press of the world.
They trademark the sign “Løok”, in the phrase “Løok for me”
The eye defect is blown upon a giant screen at the FA cup Final,
The eye defect is clearly visible on all photos released as part of the campaign
The eye defect is clearly visible on the front cover picture of the book
Gerry McCann states that using the defect in this way was a “good marketing ploy”
Later
Kate denies “putting emphasis on it”

12 Private Detectives
Claim
The McCanns dismiss the idea of using private detectives.
Fact
The McCanns were already using private detectives from Control Risks the previous week

13 The search of the second apartment
Claim
They claim they had no explanation, and that they were made to leave the villa.
Fact
There was a full search warrant, a copy of which was to be served on the McCanns. and they were to be invited to be present.

14 Who spoke to Mrs Fenn ?
Claim
Kate spoke to Mrs Fenn
Contradiction
Mrs Fenn's statement refers to speaking to Gerry McCann

15 Metodo3 claims that Madeleine would be found by Christmas
Claim
McCanns claim through their solicitors that this was never said
Fact
Kate admits that this was said

16 The colour of the pyjamas
Claim
The pyjama bottoms were white
Counterclaim
The pyjamas were not white.
Fact
The pyjama bottoms were white.

17 “We answered all the questions”
Claim
The McCanns cooperated fully with the police and answered all questions truthfully
Fact
Kate refused to answer any of the 48 questions during her second interview

by Seek truth 12.04.14 17:14

He thought it strange the bathroom door was closed, (what so he is saying the intruder closed the door? After jumping in through the window)
If she was just using the toilet she wouldn't close the door, she must have closed it running away from him! After all the witness says there was arguing before the shooting

And he had to go out and get the fan at that moment!

Oops typed this in the wrong place

by russiandoll 12.04.14 19:18

Seek truth wrote:He thought it strange the bathroom door was closed, (what so he is saying the intruder closed the door? After jumping in through the window)
If she was just using the toilet she wouldn't close the door, she must have closed it running away from him! After all the witness says there was arguing before the shooting

And he had to go out and get the fan at that moment!

Oops typed this in the wrong place

The bathroom did not have a door, it was entered via a passageway from the bedroom. The toilet had a door and I can easily imagine a modest female in a new relationship. her partner presumably sleeping in the bedroom, thinking that he might wake to use the toilet, and drowsily enter the bathroom, closing and locking the door to the toilet.

More interesting imo is why RS has her mobile phone with her in the toilet.

I have done jury service and have to say that currently there is reasonable doubt in my mind that OP intended to murder RS. He is presumed innocent until that reasonable doubt has vanished and if I were to be asked for a verdict right now it would be one of reckless/culpable homicide, because I can envisage a scenario where RS was in the toilet terrified and silent, but not because she had been chased there by OP, because she heard him suddenly start shouting for the police. Someone on twitter posted last night that OP hunted down a noise and shot 4 times when his life was not threatened.
It is inarguable that he did so, but to bring a guilty verdict of premeditated murder of RS, I would have to be sure that he was hunting HER, not a noise, and I am not convinced of that.

I might be, once Nel gets to the mobile phone.

Did RS get a text I wonder, and was her visit to the toilet and the locking of the door to read it in private?

There is some tangled tale behind this seeming crime of passion. OP is fragile and immature, if pushed hard enough at a crucial, point he will imo possibly break down and tell all IF he is guilty.

His vomiting and anguish are authentic and understandable, given that he is a very young hot headed individual faced with the cold reality that he is a killer.

A body in a panic situation is full of adrenalin and goes into fight or flight mode. We can all say yes we would have woken our partner, gone downstairs and exited the building, not gone towards danger.

Given that the pros have painted OP as reckless and arrogant, going towards perceived danger with a gun is a plausible explanation for his behaviour, not thinking, going into fight rather than flight mode.

Improbable though some of this version of events seems, irrational and unwise, it is still possible that this is what happened.

I have faith the judge will deliver the correct verdict whatever it is, but I am leaning at present to her bringing a verdict of culpable homicide, unless there are dramatic developments.

I wonder if Roux will re -x his client next week.

by aiyoyo 12.04.14 19:51

I'm surprised at the wide berth given to the Prosecutor.
Badgering of Accused/Witness is not permitted in other Common Law Countries.
Although SA is one of the Common Law Countries crime of violence is so rife, combined that with the different culture, that might account for the rigorous style of cross examination.

OP was also given width berth for his emotional pendulum display, wailing sobbing retching vomiting and bucket supplied for his theatrics never ever seen in any other case.

There is no way of telling which way the case will go, all depends on ONE judge. Will his tears and sobs have any affect on the Judgement is anyone's guess.

by Watching 12.04.14 19:54

russiandoll wrote:
Seek truth wrote:He thought it strange the bathroom door was closed, (what so he is saying the intruder closed the door? After jumping in through the window)
If she was just using the toilet she wouldn't close the door, she must have closed it running away from him! After all the witness says there was arguing before the shooting

And he had to go out and get the fan at that moment!

Oops typed this in the wrong place

The bathroom did not have a door, it was entered via a passageway from the bedroom. The toilet had a door and I can easily imagine a modest female in a new relationship. her partner presumably sleeping in the bedroom, thinking that he might wake to use the toilet, and drowsily enter the bathroom, closing and locking the door to the toilet.

More interesting imo is why RS has her mobile phone with her in the toilet.

I have done jury service and have to say that currently there is reasonable doubt in my mind that OP intended to murder RS. He is presumed innocent until that reasonable doubt has vanished and if I were to be asked for a verdict right now it would be one of reckless/culpable homicide, because I can envisage a scenario where RS was in the toilet terrified and silent, but not because she had been chased there by OP, because she heard him suddenly start shouting for the police. Someone on twitter posted last night that OP hunted down a noise and shot 4 times when his life was not threatened.
It is inarguable that he did so, but to bring a guilty verdict of premeditated murder of RS, I would have to be sure that he was hunting HER, not a noise, and I am not convinced of that.

I might be, once Nel gets to the mobile phone.

Did RS get a text I wonder, and was her visit to the toilet and the locking of the door to read it in private?

There is some tangled tale behind this seeming crime of passion. OP is fragile and immature, if pushed hard enough at a crucial, point he will imo possibly break down and tell all IF he is guilty.

His vomiting and anguish are authentic and understandable, given that he is a very young hot headed individual faced with the cold reality that he is a killer.

A body in a panic situation is full of adrenalin and goes into fight or flight mode. We can all say yes we would have woken our partner, gone downstairs and exited the building, not gone towards danger.

Given that the pros have painted OP as reckless and arrogant, going towards perceived danger with a gun is a plausible explanation for his behaviour, not thinking, going into fight rather than flight mode.

Improbable though some of this version of events seems, irrational and unwise, it is still possible that this is what happened.

I have faith the judge will deliver the correct verdict whatever it is, but I am leaning at present to her bringing a verdict of culpable homicide, unless there are dramatic developments.

I wonder if Roux will re -x his client next week.

Various blogs here re - O.P. & Mr

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Seek truth 12.04.14 20:21

My question is not which door it was. It was THE door she was behind and shot through.
And yes she may have closed the door so he could sleep better. But they had been arguing.

My question is why did Pistorious mention he found it strange the door was closed (that the intruder closed it?)
The witness said their was arguing before the shooting, that made me think she wasn't closing the door to not waken him but to get away.

by aiyoyo 12.04.14 20:29

In a remarkable few days of cross-examination, Pistorius, an Olympian and a Paralympic sprinter, has, according to press accounts, placed the blame for his legal predicament on the police, his friends, his father, an ex-girlfriend, his own lawyers, and Steenkamp herself, who was behind the door when he shot. His defense is that he thought she was a burglar. Addressing the judge, he said, “My lady, I wish she had let me know she was there.”

He didn't check and she got blamed.....

I wonder if he's going to sue his lawyers if it didn't go his way.

by sallypelt 12.04.14 21:10

aiyoyo wrote:In a remarkable few days of cross-examination, Pistorius, an Olympian and a Paralympic sprinter, has, according to press accounts, placed the blame for his legal predicament on the police, his friends, his father, an ex-girlfriend, his own lawyers, and Steenkamp herself, who was behind the door when he shot. His defense is that he thought she was a burglar. Addressing the judge, he said, “My lady, I wish she had let me know she was there.”

He didn't check and she got blamed.....

I wonder if he's going to sue his lawyers if it didn't go his way.

Yes, this case is interesting to watch, although it must be a nightmare for RS's family. The prosecution is being asked to believe, that despite OP's "screaming" for RS to call the police, and with him (OS) "screaming" at the "intruder/s" ,Reeva Steenkamp never ONCE called out SHE was in the toilet. According to OS she never uttered a word.

Children, are you all sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin the next fairytale.

by Snifferdog 12.04.14 21:10

Newintown wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Newintown wrote:
I've been following OP's trial on Sky News each morning and it has really shocked me as to how similar his accounts are to the McCanns accounts of what happened. It's as if they've all had a meeting and compared notes.

It certainly IS remarkable.
However, In the OP case the prosecutor is having to bring out the lies and discrepancies
In the McCann case they have already written them down, in their signed statements, in the book, in all the transcripts of the TV interviews, in their diaries, in the Blogs and everywhere else.
The whole world already knows knows, that they are serial liars.
They would not last two minutes in the witness box, and no decent lawyer would allow them to give evidence.
Carter-Ruck, one of the world's finest, made absolutely sure that the McCanns were nowhere near, and manoeuvred the case into a procedural side issue. They are brilliant at this, and boast about it on their web site. They left it to the hapless Mrs Martorell to spout the nonsense, bordering on an untruth - since it was given under oath - about an Abduction. And as we know she hurriedly backed down when asked a fairly simple and innocuous question.

One of the things I would look forward to, however, would be Gerry,m as with OP, believing he is intellectually superior, and insisting on going into the witness box. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

I have been thinking about whether OP and his lawyers have been following the McCanns saga in the press and have read KM's book to get hints on how to "twist facts to fit your own agenda", there are too many coincidences; it also seems that the parents of the little 3 year old who has "been abducted" in Australia (as mentioned in another thread) have also thought they'd do "a McCann" hoping they'd get away with it as the McCanns have done over the past 7 years.

There would be millions of people glued to their TV screens if GM was to appear in a court room witness box as there have been for OP's trial. No doubt the viewing figures would go off the Richter Scale.

I wonder if Murdoch is intending to buy exclusive rights to the possible future court case, or will he make like a duck, (due to the coincidence of 3 members of his family including himself, having ties to this case in some way or another). Who was it that said: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and thrice, enemy action".....
If and when that day finally arrives I may even buy a tv, or perhaps rather watch it at a local pub over a pint of ale. All Imo of course. Cheers!

by Watching 12.04.14 22:54

aiyoyo wrote:I'm surprised at the wide berth given to the Prosecutor.
Badgering of Accused/Witness is not permitted in other Common Law Countries.
Although SA is one of the Common Law Countries crime of violence is so rife, combined that with the different culture, that might account for the rigorous style of cross examination.

OP was also given width berth for his emotional pendulum display, wailing sobbing retching vomiting and bucket supplied for his theatrics never ever seen in any other case.

There is no way of telling which way the case will go, all depends on ONE judge. Will his tears and sobs have any affect on the Judgement is anyone's guess.

The final decision lies with the judge, but the judge will be assisted by two legal assessors it seems to help reach that final decision, seems to be the way of it in SA Law. What is extent of the assessors role?

Two threads running on OP I see.

by Watching 12.04.14 23:03

Seek truth wrote:My question is not which door it was. It was THE door she was behind and shot through.
And yes she may have closed the door so he could sleep better. But they had been arguing.

My question is why did Pistorious mention he found it strange the door was closed (that the intruder closed it?)
The witness said their was arguing before the shooting, that made me think she wasn't closing the door to not waken him but to get away.

Correct she would not have been closing the door so as not to disturb his sleep. He has testified he was not asleep he was fiddling with fans, closing and locking balcony doors, closing curtains, placing jeans over speaker system,when she slipped out of bed unheard by him to go to toilet! Pull the other one eh? She had just spoken to him. The each knew other was awake according to his version.

by Guest 12.04.14 23:30

I have merged the OP thread from latest news here.

by sami 12.04.14 23:33

Watching wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I'm surprised at the wide berth given to the Prosecutor.
Badgering of Accused/Witness is not permitted in other Common Law Countries.
Although SA is one of the Common Law Countries crime of violence is so rife, combined that with the different culture, that might account for the rigorous style of cross examination.

OP was also given width berth for his emotional pendulum display, wailing sobbing retching vomiting and bucket supplied for his theatrics never ever seen in any other case.

There is no way of telling which way the case will go, all depends on ONE judge. Will his tears and sobs have any affect on the Judgement is anyone's guess.

The final decision lies with the judge, but the judge will be assisted by two legal assessors it seems to help reach that final decision, seems to be the way of it in SA Law. What is extent of the assessors role?

Two threads running on OP I see.

The role of the Assessors-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] :

For the Pistorius trial, Judge Masipa appointed Janet Henzen-du Toit and Themba Mazibuko as her assessors. They are there to help her make a decision. The assessors will sit with Judge Masipa during the proceedings and listen to all the evidence presented to the judge. At the end of the case they will present their opinions to Judge Masipa. However, she is allowed to override them.
On the Legal Brief website, Professor Annette van der Merwe, a criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, said the two assessors could overrule the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts in a majority finding. This means that if the two assessors were to rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor were to rule so, that verdict would be the accepted one. The same would apply if two of them were to rule in favour of an acquittal.

by Watching 13.04.14 1:20

candyfloss wrote:I have merged the OP thread from latest news here.

Thanks Candyfloss

by Watching 13.04.14 1:27

sami wrote:
Watching wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I'm surprised at the wide berth given to the Prosecutor.
Badgering of Accused/Witness is not permitted in other Common Law Countries.
Although SA is one of the Common Law Countries crime of violence is so rife, combined that with the different culture, that might account for the rigorous style of cross examination.

OP was also given width berth for his emotional pendulum display, wailing sobbing retching vomiting and bucket supplied for his theatrics never ever seen in any other case.

There is no way of telling which way the case will go, all depends on ONE judge. Will his tears and sobs have any affect on the Judgement is anyone's guess.

The final decision lies with the judge, but the judge will be assisted by two legal assessors it seems to help reach that final decision, seems to be the way of it in SA Law. What is extent of the assessors role?

Two threads running on OP I see.

The role of the Assessors-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] :
For the Pistorius trial, Judge Masipa appointed Janet Henzen-du Toit and Themba Mazibuko as her assessors. They are there to help her make a decision. The assessors will sit with Judge Masipa during the proceedings and listen to all the evidence presented to the judge. At the end of the case they will present their opinions to Judge Masipa. However, she is allowed to override them.
On the Legal Brief website, Professor Annette van der Merwe, a criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, said the two assessors could overrule the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts in a majority finding. This means that if the two assessors were to rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor were to rule so, that verdict would be the accepted one. The same would apply if two of them were to rule in favour of an acquittal.

That's very interesting Sami thanks for posting this. I note in the Court there is seated at either side of Judge Masipa one person. They will be the assessors presumably. The Court was adjourned recently for 1 week as one of the assessors had become ill, hospitalised. I didn't know the extent of their role in proceedings, so most interesting that they can overrule the Judge. Not quite as first thought that the decision lay entirely with one person the presiding judge.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 1:54

One of the several things which Gerrie Nel has questioned really sticks out for me.

OP claims to be somewhat paranoid about safety and yet his house has no burglar shutters. I can't understand anyone in SA in a property such as OP's to not have shuttering. It's not ugly, it's not particularly expensive and it means you can leave your windows open with at least some small peace of mind.

OP claims not to know about the security company's updates with regards to patrolling etc, hasn't attended a residents' meeting and from what I understand/can recall he didn't read any literature re updates preferring a casual chat with Mr Stander his neighbour whom he called on the night he shot Reeva.

OP claims the outside alarm sensors could have been removed/placed elsewhere during recent renovations/work to the property as they had been during previous work and didn't check whether they had been replaced and were functioning.

OP claims a ladder was left outside the house during said renovations and didn't do anything about it.

OP claims to be so concerned about security he keeps a loaded gun under his bed and a spare magazine in the drawer of his bedside. As he slept on a different side of the bed that night I'd have to question when he placed the gun under the bed that night.

These security issues simply don't make sense to people living in high priced housing in South African cities. A state of the art alarm system is great when it's activated - which can only be at night if you're at home. Houses are prone to armed break-ins during the day and you can't sit watching all your windows. To not have some sort of security bars (trelly-doors) just doesn't make sense - especially if you are so sensitive about security to the point you carry a gun for protection.

Whether OP did this with malice aforethought/in a fit of rage/by accident the excuse used about being paranoid enough to keep a gun under your bed, leave your balcony window open, not bother to sort out the ladders left by workmen, not bother to find out what sort of service the security company provide just doesn't cut the mustard. Security bars on windows is big in SA (my biggest worry when I lived there was can I get out in the event of a fire).

Saying that you don't visit your property very often is even worse when you admit that you have allowed your dad to keep ammunition in your safe, your sister to keep jewellery there etc.

It doesn't add up to me anyway.

by Guest 13.04.14 2:21

I agree with all of that Aquila.
And for me the most prominent fact - as mentioned again by Russiandoll today and myself and others on other occasions - IS that she took her MOBILE PHONE with her to the toilet at 4am ... Who and why was she going to call?

by sami 13.04.14 2:31

Acquila, the State also showed photos of a ground floor broken window. He stated he had bought replacement glass, and was waiting for a guy to fix it. No urgency in the repair being done it seems to me.

I don't believe he feared for his life whilst living on that estate.

His dogs too were portrayed as if they were cats. Noise at night outside a property would at least disturb a dog, they don't have to trained attack dogs to bark.

He is without doubt covering up exactly what occurred that night, whether he shot her during an argument or in other circumstances I'm not sure, but it didn't happen like he says.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 2:33

Châtelaine wrote:I agree with all of that Aquila.
And for me the most prominent fact - as mentioned again by Russiandoll today and myself and others on other occasions - IS that she took her MOBILE PHONE with her to the toilet at 4am ... Who and why was she going to call?

I've read ridiculous theories that Reeva used her mobile phone as a light to use the bathroom. Why didn't she turn on the light? OP was allegedly clattering about getting a fan/fans in, Reeva had allegedly said according to OP 'can't you sleep babba' switching on the light would be normal wouldn't it? This bathroom was along a hallway and the loo was a separate cubicle with a door. There was no need for Reeva to tippy toe to the bathroom in the dark regardless of what was going on. According to OP the bedroom was dark - well the hallway to the bathroom must have been even darker.

It just doesn't add up. None of it.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 2:37

sami wrote:Acquila, the State also showed photos of a ground floor broken window. He stated he had bought replacement glass, and was waiting for a guy to fix it. No urgency in the repair being done it seems to me.

I don't believe he feared for his life whilst living on that estate.

His dogs too were portrayed as if they were cats. Noise at night outside a property would at least disturb a dog, they don't have to trained attack dogs to bark.

He is without doubt covering up exactly what occurred that night, whether he shot her during an argument or in other circumstances I'm not sure, but it didn't happen like he says.

OP says he didn't stay in that house very often. How come he has dogs there? who looked after his dogs when he wasn't there? No mention of dogs being on the property on the night he shot Reeva.

It doesn't make sense.

by sami 13.04.14 2:53

aquila wrote:
sami wrote:Acquila, the State also showed photos of a ground floor broken window. He stated he had bought replacement glass, and was waiting for a guy to fix it. No urgency in the repair being done it seems to me.

I don't believe he feared for his life whilst living on that estate.

His dogs too were portrayed as if they were cats. Noise at night outside a property would at least disturb a dog, they don't have to trained attack dogs to bark.

He is without doubt covering up exactly what occurred that night, whether he shot her during an argument or in other circumstances I'm not sure, but it didn't happen like he says.
OP says he didn't stay in that house very often. How come he has dogs there? who looked after his dogs when he wasn't there? No mention of dogs being on the property on the night he shot Reeva.

It doesn't make sense.

He has two dogs. He stated in court they are very placid, to the point of licking the policemen who were in the garden investigating, that they are not guard dogs so didnt bark or react badly towards the officers. He gave that evidence when questioned by Roux. That would have to be on the morning of 14th as he also stated he had not been back to the house since.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 3:08

sami wrote:
aquila wrote:
sami wrote:Acquila, the State also showed photos of a ground floor broken window. He stated he had bought replacement glass, and was waiting for a guy to fix it. No urgency in the repair being done it seems to me.

I don't believe he feared for his life whilst living on that estate.

His dogs too were portrayed as if they were cats. Noise at night outside a property would at least disturb a dog, they don't have to trained attack dogs to bark.

He is without doubt covering up exactly what occurred that night, whether he shot her during an argument or in other circumstances I'm not sure, but it didn't happen like he says.
OP says he didn't stay in that house very often. How come he has dogs there? who looked after his dogs when he wasn't there? No mention of dogs being on the property on the night he shot Reeva.

It doesn't make sense.

He has two dogs. He stated in court they are very placid, to the point of licking the policemen who were in the garden investigating, that they are not guard dogs so didnt bark or react badly towards the officers. He gave that evidence when questioned by Roux. That would have to be on the morning of 14th as he also stated he had not been back to the house since.

I saw that too sami. I can't equate it with the 'I don't stay on the property often' 'I'm often abroad' to 'my dogs are not guard dogs' and then take it to being so afraid about being attacked that it's necessary to carry a gun - even to a day out with friends on a river.

There are a couple of people on this forum from SA. If you're worried about safety in SA you get a boerboel dog - preferably more than one.

It's not clear where OP's friendly pooches live. If, as he says, he didn't use the Pretoria property that often where did the dogs live when he was away and when did he collect them and transport them to the house in Pretoria that he was allegedly selling to buy a house for himself and Reeva?

It's always questions, however this doesn't add up.

by sami 13.04.14 3:32

No, none of it makes sense. As time goes on there is so much that is being made to fit in with the bail affidavit, that had to be done quickly and was detailed. They could not deviate from that so it's all starting to seem like a very tight squeeze when the story is tested.

I started with an open mind, in so far as whilst I found the story incredible, it could have perhaps been possible. As the days pass and I see and hear more from him, the story has become more incredible and utterly impossible.

Tough questions ahead for him, Nel has not got down to the nitty gritty yet. The damaged bath panel, why her phone was in the toilet and the blood behind the bed will be interesting questions to start with.

by Watching 13.04.14 3:48

Offical OP website now used to post updates on case media statements
Following taken from there.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] |

MEDIA STATEMENT

Brian Webber, Ramsay Webber Inc

20 March, 2014

It has become necessary to sell Mr. Pistorius’ home in the Silver Woods Country Estate in Pretoria in order for him to raise the necessary funds to cover his increasing legal costs. This is due to the unexpected extension of the trial beyond the initial three week period for which it was originally set down.
We are issuing this statement to pre-empt speculation in the public and the media, and to state the reasons for this decision.
It is important to note that Mr. Pistorius has been funding his own defence from the outset. Due to the delay in finalising the trial, the decision to urgently dispose of his single biggest asset, has had to be made.
Initially the State had called for three weeks to be set down in the Court calendar. However, with the trial now already into its third week and as the Prosecution is still leading evidence, it is clear that the legal process will last significantly longer than originally indicated by the State.
Mr. Pistorius has never returned to his home in Silver Woods since the tragedy of 14 February, 2013.
Mr. Pistorius cannot contemplate ever returning to live there again.
Despite the fact that the house was handed back to Mr. Pistorius by the authorities more than a year ago, a decision was taken to keep the house sealed until after the trial. He has been forced to revisit this decision due to the reasons outlined in this statement.
The sale will be handled by a sole agent. Attorneys Ramsay Webber Inc have, in this regard, instructed Ansie Louw Estates of Pretoria and will facilitate the bidding process and the sale of the aforementioned property.
All enquiries to be directed in writing to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
ENDS