Pistorius -Bedtime Story

 Pistorius -  Bedtime Story

In Friday’s proceedings, Gerrie Nel introduced the duvet!

He showed Pistorius a picture of the duvet which was lying on the bedroom floor.

He asked Pistorius if he could see what was wrong with the picture.   He could not.

Nel pointed out that Miss Steenkamp's denim jeans were on top of the duvet. 

The point he was making was that Pistorius had claimed the duvet had been on the bed, and claimed further that the police must have laid it on the floor.

That left a problem - How did the duvet come to be under the jeans, or the jeans on top of the duvet - whichever way you want to look at it, as Pistorius had claimed the jeans were on the floor.

Barry Roux interjected at this point.   He said if the picture was seen from a different angle it would show that the jeans were NOT on top of the duvet.  As he believed this to be the case, he said that Nel could not categorically state the jeans were on top of the duvet.

Nel argued the point.  The Judge decided that if Nel could 'blow-up' the image that this would be helpful.

They adjourned, and on returning Nel produced exactly what Judge Masipa had requested, not only the image blown-up, but a second image taken from another angle as Roux had suggested.

Nel appeared to be correct the images showed that the jeans were in fact on top of the duvet, albeit they covered only one corner of the duvet.




(Nel explained that the pale blue material is the duvet, and that the top part of the jeans the waistband was in fact lying on top of the corner of the duvet.  He further explained that the little blue square to the left of the picture is a label attached to the jeans and not part of the duvet.)

Roux had said that one of the police officers in their statement said the jeans were lying next to the duvet.

So was the officer correct or did the picture "lie" as was suggested by Roux?

The blown-up version of the picture, and the second picture take from an different angle, quite clearly show the jeans to be on top of duvet.

I can I have to say, see why the officer would have perhaps said the jeans were next to the duvet, as they were not lying right bang in the middle of the duvet!  So it would have been wrong to declare that they were.  As they covered only the tiniest part of the corner of the duvet, with the greater part of the jeans NOT being on the duvet, it is understandable why he would say the 'jeans were lying next to the duvet.

It might have been best if he had made it clear that a small part of the jeans did in fact lie on top of a small corner section of the duvet.  And that certainly seems to be the case.

If the Court rules the jeans are on top of the duvet  (Roux intends returning to this to continue to challenge) it throws once again the credibility of Pistorius' testimony into question. 

It would mean, apart from anything else that he had had to walk/run across this duvet more than once to go the balcony.  He went to the balcony twice he claimed.   Once to bring in the cooling fans and a second time to shout - help, help, help, he testified.

When this inconsistency (or mistake as Pistorius refers to any discrepancy) in Pistorius statement was pointed out, he then said that when he woke up and as he was getting out of bed, to go to the balcony to bring in the cooling fans, he had seen the duvet on the bed (in dark room) he had seen the outline of Reeva Steenkamp’s legs, and the outline of the duvet covering the bottom half of her legs.

Was Pistorius under the duvet, or only Miss Steenkamp?

Earlier though he had said he hadn't seen Reeva Steenkamp as he got out of bed, only heard her say something like - 'what's up bubba can't you sleep?' and he had responded that he couldn't, due to it being a WARM night!

Now on a warm night, would the duvet have been on the bed or removed before they, Pistorius and Miss Steenkamp, got into bed?  Or, would they have kicked it off as time passed and it became too warm to have it on bed?

Most probably it was not on the bed!

Pistorius continued to insist the police had placed the duvet on the floor, and that pictures on record would prove it had been moved.

When the police photographer or one of the other police officers was giving evidence, he said that pictures had been taken of the duvet as they first found it on the floor, it was kind of crumpled to some degree, some of the material in mounds if you like, and folds.  He explained that further pictures were taken after they unfolded the duvet, and straightened it out to a more flat position.  They had done so, if I recall correctly, I will check, because there was a sign of blood.

Police also said that after taking pictures of items in the original position for the record, some items were then moved so as to enable a more clear picture to be taken, of items which perhaps lay behind the items which had been to the fore.

So before and after pictures so to speak.

Gerrie Nel put it to Pistorius that the police - not knowing what Pistorius' version of events was going to be that night, had according to Pistorius, taken the duvet placed it on the floor.  Taken the jeans and placed them on top of the corner part of the duvet, opened the curtains further than they had been,  opened the balcony doors, switched on the lights etc etc Why would they?

Pistorius still insisted that this must be what had happened.

It makes more sense that the duvet was NOT on the bed on a warm night but on the floor.

If someone wants to set someone up, they need to know what story that person is going to tell or has told, before they can decide in what way they could tamper with evidence.

I doubt on that night Pistorius had even given that duvet any thought.  I would think it was later when going through what story he would tell, is when he would have had to think of a reason to tie up loose ends - the duvet and jeans being but one!

In the McCann case too, the police were accused by them of having tampered.  There is just so much, in these two cases so similar.  The inconsistencies in stories, police accused of trying to set them up.

I was sent the following - the weather chart for Pretoria in February 2013.

No wonder Oscar Pistorius was warm and no need for a duvet?


Accuweather.com   Weather for Pretoria South Africa February 2013

And no surprise why he was all hot under the collar when Gerrie Nel pointed out the duvet as being another inconsistency in his story.


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
14th April 2014