Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your entire reasoning seems to hinge on Mrs Stipp's 3:02AM testimonial evidence.

As you correctly stated, witnesses make mistakes… perhaps Mrs. Stipp simply made a mistake :

1. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state she read 3:02
2. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state followed by a traumatic event she remembered 3:02
3. It was 3:02 when she looked at the clock but then dosed off for what she believed was an instant but in fact she drifted back into a light sleep for about 10 minutes

… all these things are not only possible and reasonable explanations but also probable considering the circumstances.

Does this mean Mrs. Stipp's entire testimony becomes unreliable…. I believe it doesn't

But for sake of argument, let us say it is…

If Mrs Stipp's evidence is deemed unreliable then it should be "removed" from consideration… but you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to use Mrs. Stipp's 3:02 evidence to discredit other State witnesses testimony.

That cannot logically be so… if something is deemed unreliable then it is unreliable for the State and the Defence… one cannot argue that X is unreliable to prove Y but should nevertheless be used to disprove Z.

And what about Dr. Stipp… should his testimony be deemed unreliable because one single element of his wife's testimony is deemed unreliable… I think not. But you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to dismiss all of Dr. Stipp's testimony… all except the part where he says OP was tending to Reeva's body, praying and crying.

Furthermore, the ONLY witnesses that heard the 2 sets of bangs are the Stipp's… so it is quite unfair and illogical to say that ALL witnesses stood and did nothing for 15 minutes whilst a woman was screaming for her life.

In JM's judgment - Common cause facts or facts which are not disputed: The
following are common cause facts which relate to count 1 only. It is
common cause that:

- on 14 February 2013 shortly after 3 in the morning, screams were
heard from the accused’s house;

Why does she accept screaming shortly after 3am? So JM believes OP screamed for 10 minutes or more before he fired the 4 shots? How can that be true?

IMO, Mrs Stipps woke up startled by the first set of bangs which was the cricket bat against the door. I think she is correct with the 3:02, and as she stated their clock is usually 2-3 mins fast, it was in fact just on 3am.

BTW, Carisa Stander did nothing when she heard the helps and slipped when giving evidence that she worried about the lady, why would she think that unless she heard, a lady?


Edit: It's been brought up by another poster earlier why would the Stipps wait till 3:17 to call for assistance? Carisa obviously didn't want to become involved, she closed the door and went back to bed, why can't the Stipps been hesitant to become involved also? One of the two may have needed to be convinced, maybe they wanted to listen further?
JMO
 
For what it's worth (probably not much!) this is what I think happened that night:

3.10 - Mrs Stipp wakes and misreads her clock as 3.02. It actually reads 3.12 and is running approx 2 mins fast.

She & Dr hear bangs followed by immediate screaming. Mrs Stipp looks immediately and bathroom lights are on.

The bangs are caused by OP using the cricket bat, and Reeva is either in the bedroom or the hall. Not the toilet at this stage. The bathroom window is open.

Both Stipp's move to the balconies. Mrs Stipp hears the female screams getting closer. Reeva has run into the bathroom closer to the window.

3.11 or so, Burger & Johnson are woken by the screams.

Reeva and OP are in the bathroom and can both be heard by both couples. Reeva screams "help" OP mimics her. The further away couple can make out the words, the closer couple just hear it as male/female screaming and yells.

As the screaming continues, both couples start trying to call for help. This is around 3.13.

OP goes for his gun. Reeva's screams intensify and she locks herself in the toilet. OP shoots her through the door almost as soon as he gets into the bathroom.

Her last screams are quieter than previously because she is now in the toilet and could be described as "fading" to the further away couple.

Johnson concludes his call to the wrong security company at about 3.15. His phone is a minute fast and records this as 3.16. Moments later he hears....

3.15:30 BANG BANG BANG

3.15:30 Mikes are woken by last bang

3.15:51 21 seconds later Stipp finally gets through to security to tell them he has just heard shots and screams.

No more screams, let alone female ones, are heard by anyone that night.

3.16:50 Mr Mike calls security after quickly checking his house.

Having shot Reeva, OP is instantly aware of the Stipp's - probably hears Mrs Stipp calling to her husband, and maybe even sees their silhouettes on the balcony. He knows they'll call police & security. In panic, he rushes to the balcony to shout "help".

He runs downstairs and calls Stander. He blurts out the only thing he can think of, "I thought it was a burglar". Having settled on this he then calls Netcare. I do not believe that he had a conversation with them, nor that they told him to take Reeva to hospital. I think he dialled the number for appearances sake, left it to ring on the counter while opening the front door and then went back and hung up. He tried to call Stander again, perhaps to tell him the door was open, and accidentally dialled Security which was next to Stander in the phone book. In his panic, he was all fingers and thumbs with the phone and misdialled several times. When security called him back, he did not want them there so told them everything was fine.

(The reason for us not hearing about the call to Medicare is, I believe, because they simply have no record of it. It is inconceivable that, if there was a witness who could say that Pistorius called and told them what had happened and was advised to put her in his car, Roux would 100% have put them on the stand. No question. Nel cannot put them on the stand to say they have no record of a call, or any employee who recalls talking to him because if the evidence that he did in fact make a call. They weren't calked because they had nothing whatsoever to say).

At this stage, I believe that OP was planning to tell Stander that he shot Reeva by accident and to ask him to help cover that up, because the police would never believe that. He was hoping the Standers would somehow support a tale that had someone breaking in and using his gun to shoot Reeva.

He realised that the state of the bathroom showed a fight and he did not want Stander to see that, so ran upstairs to bring Reeva down.

Going into the bathroom, he picked up the bat again, prised out a panel and opened the door. He dragged her instantly out into the bathroom, picked her up and carried her downstairs.

As he got to the landing, he paused because he could hear voices and realised that there was more people outside than just Stander. When he saw Carice he began walking down the stairs again.

I believe his distress was real - but I believe it was mostly for himself. I think his resuscitation efforts were for effect...if he'd actually wanted to resuscitate her, he would have done it in the bathroom.

Dr Stipp showing up prevented him from trying to cook up a cover story with the Standers. Who, incidentally, I don't believe would have gone along with it....but he was hoping at that stage that they would.

I may be a few seconds or more out here and there, but this is more or less what I think happened that night.

BIB I would have thought that Reeva would have been in the toilet before the bangs with the cricket bat on the toilet door took place.

Why did you say otherwise?
 
Talking about an appeal by the State, I found this article which you might like to read:

http://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/opinion/oscar-should-thank-his-lucky-stars-1.1755639#.VCPCVme1Yto

"In the Pistorius case, the prosecution might well be in a position to appeal against both legal and factual findings by the court. Yet if there is an appeal, the prosecution may raise only legal issues."

"A Justice Department spokesperson says a bill “has been prepared” and is “in the process of being submitted” to the justice minister that would give the prosecution the right to appeal against an acquittal based on questions of fact as well as law."

"Because a full 14 years ago, in 2000, the South African Law Reform Commission completed a detailed report on exactly this issue, recommended changes that would allow appeals on fact as well as law, and prepared and submitted a draft bill to the justice minister. If the authorities had acted promptly, the law could long have been changed."

"Perhaps there’s one more prayer that Pistorius might consider, namely that if the law is finally changed in South Africa, we don’t follow the example of Mauritius, where the new law on appeals applies even where the accused was convicted or acquitted before the law was changed."

So what legal issues could be raised on appeal?

How interesting!

I don't know, in answer to your question. Prof James Grant says she asked the wrong questions when looking at eventualis, and thinks they could appeal on that basis.

I also saw on his Twitter the other day that there seems to be some facility where the judge can change their verdict if they subsequently realise they've made a mistake. (Think that's what he was saying).

In any event, Oct 13 is likely to be interesting!
 
I was just outside letting my dogs out into the backyard. I heard a man’s voice, extremely loud, very angry; he was clearly in a serious argument with someone. He was somewhere on the next street over (if not farther?) - don’t know how far up or down that street. There are houses, walls and trees in between. Despite this, I clearly made out 80% of his words perfectly. He wasn’t even close to screaming for his life. (Back inside my house, where the A/C is running and the back door closed, I cannot hear him at all.)

State’s ear witnesses (as well as the Standers) had their bedroom doors OPEN - that’s why they heard as much as they did from OP’s OPEN windows and doors!

Anyone who says that it’s not possible to hear an argument at 98m or a woman’s blood-curdling, terrified screams for her life at 177m is full of 24K s#!t.
 
BIB I would have thought that Reeva would have been in the toilet before the bangs with the cricket bat on the toilet door took place.

Why did you say otherwise?

We don't know if the first bangs were the cricket bat on the door. The marks made by the bat don't look particularly ferocious to me...slight dents, nothing more. A tap could have made those....great enormous smashes that sounded like gunshots would have splintered it, IMO.

I suppose I am just trying to make sense of how it was that both couples heard Reeva so clearly if she was locked in the loo.

It is always possible that I am talking nonsense, of course! This is all just my gut feeling.
 
Roux inadvertently confuses the guard track activation times in his HoA. In paragraph 178 it is clear that the activation outside 287 (next door to OP's house) is at 02:18. He states it to be at 02:20 in his summarised chronology (para 183). The error isn't material to his argument, just sloppy in this instance.

However, I think it's appalling that Masipa has used this same incorrect time (02:20) in her chronology. Given that she wished to state her own timeline, I think it was imperative that she and her assessors verified their facts against the available evidence (e.g. looked at Exhibit TTT) rather than simply taking Roux's word for it. Even reading the HoA properly would have thrown up that Roux contradicts himself.

If this is representative of the level of follow-up of the references to the record made in both HoA it's a sad day for justice.
 
In JM's judgment - Common cause facts or facts which are not disputed: The
following are common cause facts which relate to count 1 only. It is
common cause that:

- on 14 February 2013 shortly after 3 in the morning, screams were
heard from the accused’s house;

Why does she accept screaming shortly after 3am? So JM believes OP screamed for 10 minutes or more before he fired the 4 shots? How can that be true?

IMO, Mrs Stipps woke up startled by the first set of bangs which was the cricket bat against the door. I think she is correct with the 3:02, and as she stated their clock is usually 2-3 mins fast, it was in fact just on 3am.

BTW, Carisa Stander did nothing when she heard the helps and slipped when giving evidence that she worried about the lady, why would she think that unless she heard, a lady?

JMO

As per timelines, The only thing that can be determined from :

- Mike Nhlegenthwa's evidence is that OP was crying loudly “No, please, no, no” AFTER ~3:15AM (the last bang)

- Eonite Nhlegenthwa's evidence is that OP shouted H-H-H AFTER ~3:15AM (the last bang)

- Carice Stander's evidence is that OP shouted H-H-H BEFORE 3:19:03AM (phone call to Stander)

- Rica Motshuane's evidence is that OP was crying loudly AFTER 3:22:27AM

… all these Defence witnesses provide information AFTER the last bang of the SECOND set of bangs AND they cannot contribute any information to events in question.

None of this evidence can corroborate nor refute OP's version of events as per what happened BEFORE the last bang of the second set of bangs, which is the crux of the case.

Basically, these Defence witnesses ALL provide information AFTER Reeva was already shot 3 times regardless if you believe the gunshots or the bat-strikes were first or second.

… so how on earth can the evidence from these witnesses contradict the evidence from Dr. Stipp, Mrs. Stipp, Johnson and Burger who witnessed what happened BEFORE the last bang of the SECOND set of bangs, ie. BEFORE Reeva was shot ??????????
 
Originally Posted by east2west

<snipped>

I'm still convinced bat/gun/bat.


I agree 100%. There&#8217;s absolutely no reason he couldn&#8217;t have used the bat both before and after the shooting. Considering his rage (look at the bedroom door, bathtub plate and wall tiles damage) it fits perfectly. This would also account for Reeva&#8217;s MULTIPLE screams over a period of time.

He knew she locked herself in the toilet ... she was trapped. He was in no real hurry - she obviously wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. He threatened/terrorized her by bashing up the bathtub plate, tiles and door, all the while yelling and screaming at her. When she threatened to call the police he couldn&#8217;t break down the door fast enough with the bat, so he ran for his gun to immediately STOP her.

Remember this little Freudian slip under Nel&#8217;s cross-exam?

''I was scared, I wanted to ask Reeva why ... if she's phoning the police.''
- Oscar Pistorius

April 14 2014 session 3 @16:40 - 17:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1014
 
How interesting!

I don't know, in answer to your question. Prof James Grant says she asked the wrong questions when looking at eventualis, and thinks they could appeal on that basis.

I also saw on his Twitter the other day that there seems to be some facility where the judge can change their verdict if they subsequently realise they've made a mistake. (Think that's what he was saying).

In any event, Oct 13 is likely to be interesting!

I certainly hope she changes her mind by Oct 13 but I had not thought it possible before I read your post.
 
I certainly hope she changes her mind by Oct 13 but I had not thought it possible before I read your post.

Well, his tweet said: "When by mistake a wrong judgement is delivered......

......the court may, before or immediately after it is recorded, amend the judgement. Hope?"

I don't know what exactly is meant by "recorded" and how "immediate" it has to be though.

But, maybe it's a little, teeny bit of hope?

Dunno.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CriminalLawZA
 
I agree 100%. There&#8217;s absolutely no reason he couldn&#8217;t have used the bat both before and after the shooting. Considering his rage (look at the bedroom door, bathtub plate and wall tiles damage) it fits perfectly. This would also account for Reeva&#8217;s MULTIPLE screams over a period of time.

He knew she locked herself in the toilet ... she was trapped. He was in no real hurry - she obviously wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. He threatened/terrorized her by bashing up the bathtub plate, tiles and door, all the while yelling and screaming at her. When she threatened to call the police he couldn&#8217;t break down the door fast enough with the bat, so he ran for his gun to immediately STOP her.

Remember this little Freudian slip under Nel&#8217;s cross-exam?

''I was scared, I wanted to ask Reeva why ... if she's phoning the police.''
- Oscar Pistorius

April 14 2014 session 3 @16:40 - 17:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1014

My current working theory is based on this too. The cause of the damage to the bath panel could have made a lot of noise. Likewise if the wall tiles were hit. I think it may allow for the Stipps' evidence to be considered alongside everyone else's without (so much) contradiction if there is another 'bang' event. For instance, what happens if we shift their timeline to correspond with when others hear 'help'? Still working on this.
 
Roux inadvertently confuses the guard track activation times in his HoA. In paragraph 178 it is clear that the activation outside 287 (next door to OP's house) is at 02:18. He states it to be at 02:20 in his summarised chronology (para 183). The error isn't material to his argument, just sloppy in this instance.

However, I think it's appalling that Masipa has used this same incorrect time (02:20) in her chronology. Given that she wished to state her own timeline, I think it was imperative that she and her assessors verified their facts against the available evidence (e.g. looked at Exhibit TTT) rather than simply taking Roux's word for it. Even reading the HoA properly would have thrown up that Roux contradicts himself.

If this is representative of the level of follow-up of the references to the record made in both HoA it's a sad day for justice.

BBM

That's another proof of her bias in favor of the defense..she simply took their word for it..no wonder she bought Pistorius's story with all it's contradictions!
 
I was just outside letting my dogs out into the backyard. I heard a man&#8217;s voice, extremely loud, very angry; he was clearly in a serious argument with someone. He was somewhere on the next street over (if not farther?) - don&#8217;t know how far up or down that street. There are houses, walls and trees in between. Despite this, I clearly made out 80% of his words perfectly. He wasn&#8217;t even close to screaming for his life. (Back inside my house, where the A/C is running and the back door closed, I cannot hear him at all.)

State&#8217;s ear witnesses (as well as the Standers) had their bedroom doors OPEN - that&#8217;s why they heard as much as they did from OP&#8217;s OPEN windows and doors!

Anyone who says that it&#8217;s not possible to hear an argument at 98m or a woman&#8217;s blood-curdling, terrified screams for her life at 177m is full of 24K s#!t.

I completely agree with you, Lux. (And, moreover, it would appear that the Stipps were a mere 72 metres away).
 
Stander then testifies about Oscar&#8217;s two dogs. He has interacted with them in the past and they are pleasant, kind-mannered and playful. He is testifying about this to explain away why they would not be barking that night when the &#8220;phantom intruder&#8221; was breaking in through the window. Oscar would not necessarily be tipped off to an intruder by these dogs since they are mild-mannered.
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/oscar-trial-day-25-may-5-johan-and-carice-stander/

Seriously, Stander?!! Any &#8220;pleasant, mild-mannered and playful&#8221; dog can become a raging maniac if a total stranger steps into their yard or threatens their family.

By Carice Stander&#8217;s own testimony, her own dogs were going crazy barking that night!
 
Does anyone have any theories on the bullet hole in the bedroom door?

That night? A previous occasion? Could this have been the first bangs the Stipp's heard?
 
I agree 100%. There&#8217;s absolutely no reason he couldn&#8217;t have used the bat both before and after the shooting. Considering his rage (look at the bedroom door, bathtub plate and wall tiles damage) it fits perfectly. This would also account for Reeva&#8217;s MULTIPLE screams over a period of time.

He knew she locked herself in the toilet ... she was trapped. He was in no real hurry - she obviously wasn&#8217;t going anywhere. He threatened/terrorized her by bashing up the bathtub plate, tiles and door, all the while yelling and screaming at her. When she threatened to call the police he couldn&#8217;t break down the door fast enough with the bat, so he ran for his gun to immediately STOP her.

Remember this little Freudian slip under Nel&#8217;s cross-exam?

''I was scared, I wanted to ask Reeva why ... if she's phoning the police.''
- Oscar Pistorius

April 14 2014 session 3 @16:40 - 17:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1014

BIR

I find it strange that the prosecution didn't ask Pistorius about those damages. If he had an innocent explanation..the defense would have asked him to explain..
 
Does anyone have any theories on the bullet hole in the bedroom door?

That night? A previous occasion? Could this have been the first bangs the Stipp's heard?

The hole in the bedroom door is most certainly NOT a bullet hole because the diameter of the hole is far to small to be the result of a bullet.

Also, the bullet would not have lost all of its kinetic energy after passing through the bedroom door (as we have observed with toilet door)&#8230; the bullet would have hit something else

&#8230; also a 5th bullet and 5th a bullet spent casing would have been found&#8230; but neither were.

We have an obvious "culprit" readily available to explain that hole : the pellet air-rifle&#8230; and OP's child like personality
 
I really don't understand the confusion regarding the verdict as it seems very straightforward to me :-

Once judge Masipa and/or her associated assessors accepted OP's version as reasonably possibly true, it had to be accepted that there was reasonable doubt that Pistorius may not have committed the crime the prosecution charged him with. It's absolutely impossible for one to accept the former without accepting the latter. If it was was reasonably possible that he might be innocent of murder with intent, by law she could not find him guilty. It really is as clear cut as this.

What do you mean by 'OP's version'? His version that he believed there was an intruder in the toilet? Or his claim that he didn't think it was a possibility that he could kill the person behind the door?
 
BIR

I find it strange that the prosecution didn't ask Pistorius about those damages. If he had an innocent explanation..the defense would have asked him to explain..

I agree&#8230; but considering how Masipa simply ignored without reason or explanations elements which contradicted OP's version of events directly and for which neither OP nor the Defence could provide any explanations except an unsubstantiated massive all-emcompassing psychic police tampering conspiracy, I believe the damages would not have made any difference whatsoever.

- The small fan which is in the wrong place
- The small fan which is unplugged
- The small fan which has nowhere to be plugged in

- The large fan which is in the wrong place
- The large fan which cannot reach the location where OP says he placed it
- The large fan which is turned off when it should be turned on

- The hair clipper which is still standing upright on the floor in its charging station plugged into the multi-plug and was never tipped over when moving the fans or searching for Reeva or the cord snagged when exiting onto the balcony, etc&#8230;

- The duvet on the floor where the large fan should be
- The duvet stained with a blood trail that goes from the carpet onto the duvet

- The jeans on top of the duvet

- The 0020 phone who was plugged into the kitchen charging cable&#8230; when was this done ?&#8230; whilst OP was trying to resuscitate Reeva's lifeless body, whilst OP was braying and praying to God, whilst OP was retching over the sight and smell of Reeva's blood that covered his body ??????

&#8230; all we know is that in the 30 minutes between OP hung up with Pieter Baba and OP called Justin Divaris, somehow the 0020 phone was plugged in the kitchen&#8230;

OP remembers putting the 0020 phone in his pocket after hanging up with Baba&#8230; but OP does not remember if he plugged the phone in the kitchen, if someone other than him plugged the phone or even if the phone was actually plugged in&#8230;. even if Carice remembers that OP handed her the phone with Divaris on the line and that the phone was indeed plugged in at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
1,865
Total visitors
2,064

Forum statistics

Threads
600,866
Messages
18,114,907
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top