THE PISTORIUS TRIAL IS OVER, BUT HAS JUSTICE BEEN SERVED?
“I can’t believe that they believe it was an accident.”
Well according to Masipa if he can keep bullets in his safe that are not his and he has no intention to use them he can therefore keep someone else's gun there too presumably.
All he needs is an excuse to use it again.
Such is the idiocy of her judgement there.
You have described the "big question" perfectly, Datchery:
"If OP had any doubts, all he had to do is look over and see whether or not Reeva was still in bed or not."
That's the start of his fairy tale, and you're right, this one simple, obvious fact, is impossible to ignore.
There are so, so many holes in OP's version, let me add one that I'm not sure has been mentioned:
According to his testimony, OP had to turn to the bed to grab his gun from beneath it. It was so dark at that point, allegedly, that he couldn't see that Reeva was no longer in bed. So, he must have been fumbling around for the gun. He then proceeded through the corridor to the bathroom, in total darkness, towards a perceived threat, screaming his head off.
Again, he must have been fumbling his way down the hall. But surely, if he really believed there was a dangerous intruder in the bathroom, at this point he would have crept silently down the corridor. Otherwise, his own screams would: prevent him from hearing any further noises/alert the intruder to his exact whereabouts. Since it was pitch black, this would give the alleged intruder every opportunity to sneak out of the bathroom and shoot him. Reeva would be next.
Although in movies we’re accustomed to seeing people in fear approaching imminent danger, screaming, in real life, in a cat-and-mouse situation, fear causes you to be quiet - as a mouse.
Without any question, if the scenario were indeed as he had said, he would have told Reeva to get out of the house as quickly as possible, since she had a perfect escape route downstairs, and he had now positioned himself in the corridor, between Reeva and the alleged intruder.
Of course, his version is pure fabrication.
OP claims to have heard sounds in the bathroom. At that point, he's supposedly in the bedroom right by Reeva, who he says was in bed. Now, what person, in this situation, would not immediately whisper to their partner: "did you hear that?" and expect a response. I've been in exactly that situation many times, and it's always what I do. After all, it's not uncommon to hear a strange unidentified sound in the middle of the night. In my case, it's never been an intruder, always an animal, door banging in the breeze, etc. I even had a fox in the house once (lots of fox attacks in my area!)
With your partner right there beside you, why would you go gung-ho towards the perceived danger, without eliciting a response from your partner first?
No one would, regardless of disability.
Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu
stipp saw oscar going upstairs and also coming back downstairs.That's exactly how I read it when I was persuaded it was two trips. If you listen to the actual testimony you'll see that Stipp doesn't relate the tale in one go, he is interrupted by Nel and starts talking about when he was looking for a house on the estate etc. He also uses vague phrases like "I was in and out of the house" and "at one stage". The sequence he gives cannot IMO be taken to be strictly chronological. But when I correlate the content of the testimony with Stander's I see one trip.
Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu
stipp saw oscar going upstairs and also coming back downstairs.
the later part of his evidence appears to be chronological:
the ambulance arrives at the gate. 3:41 so would be at the house a couple of minutes after that.
stipp says he saw the quick response car and then the ambulance. they rushed by. he is then no further use. exchanged numbers with stander. got in his car and drove home.
medics requested id after this.
stipp would not have been there to see op going upstairs minutes after this to get id at the request of the medics. more so, stipp would not have been around to see oscar return back downstairs - which he said he saw.
also worth pondering; the 'id trip' involved carice... stipp doesn't mention oscar coming back down with carice does he? he was particularly worried because op went up alone,,,,
Interesting reading what some of the verdict predictions were for this case pre-trial last year:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225125
Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didnt upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu
It remains a possibility in my mind. It may well tally with when Stipp and Carice were outside talking to Netcare, leaving OP alone in the house, and OP's 0020 phone activation. But I'm uncertain still because when I listen to Stander's evidence he relates the content of Stipp's evidence as being when he goes in to ask Carice where OP is going etc.
The problem with people not saying things doesn't confirm anything for me. An example would be Carice, who never mentions going outside to talk on the phone to NetCare and yet her father says she does. You'd have thought she'd have mentioned it! You'd also have thought Nel would have asked her, given she followed her father on the stand.
I remember Greenland getting exasperated with the female umm interviewer/anchor (whom i find annoying).towards the end of that clip greenland is starting to emit that exasperated tone that i recognise - and have seen in others - when trying to reconcile some of the contradictions with masipa and op and the verdict.
Interesting reading what some of the verdict predictions were for this case pre-trial last year:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225125
Thanks Giles. Another good one although a bit worrying. CG clearly says that Masipa believed everything OP said and therefore there was no intent. So no directus or eventualis. :scared:
The following is my opinion not CG's. Unless Nel can bring a case such as incompetency against Masipa, I cannot see how the state can argue against her verdict but I hope I am wrong. That is a big blow for me. OP was so obviously a liar and she alludes to this in her judgement, but goes on to submit that she and the assessors thought his story was true. It doesn't stack up. CG goes on to explain why, whilst believing OP's story is true, she can hand down CH because all she needs to do is judge him against a reasonable man. I hope there is some way Nel can do something about this judgement. IMO there has been a total miscarriage of justice here.
I thought CG's comments with respect to the importance of whether Roux/DT had seen that video of OP walking, which completely contradicted Denman's testimony, and still allowed the court to believe that OP was as immobile as suggested, interesting. CG stated that if Roux had viewed the video he could be disbarred, due to dishonesty. Of course, Roux would never agree that he saw it, even though I am sure most of us would find that almost impossible to believe. I cannot see it happening but it sums up Roux's desperate defence IMO.
one more section from stipp's evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZA03eu9NM
44.52-46.05
nel starts with...
'you said you saw the accused go upstairs and then downstairs again, what happened after that'
stipp then describes the ambulance arriving. [amongst other things, but in a linear fashion, and uninterrupted]
when weighing up their versions one could ask the question: were stander and carice - defence witnesses, and friends of op - giving evidence to support the op version, and/or to cloud, confuse or mitigate the state version?
then ask the question, why was stipp giving evidence?