Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[lithgow1]

...but it's not sufficient to just submit a photograph in evidence without explanation. The judge isn't an investigator or detective by any stretch of the imagination and will not speculate or draw conclusions on what the photograph may or may not be depicting. It was really quite lame for Nel to just submit photographs without any explanation or interpretation as to their meaning or relevance. In essence, he was basically saying 'here are a couple of photographs. Neither SAPS, myself nor any of my legal team are prepared to suggest what they may mean because we don't really know.' If they don't know how on earth do they expect the judge or her assessors to know?

If Masipa gave the photos more than a passing glance I'd be extremely surprised.

But he did provide an interpretation of the bedroom photos - that the positioning of numerous objects in the room meant that OP's story of running out onto the balcony to shout 'help' could not have been true as he described it due to the fans being in the doorway and the duvet being on the floor with the blood splatter leading from it to the carpet. What more is Nel meant to do with photos such as those than to use them to prove that the defendant is lying, which he did. Maybe you missed that part of OP's cross-examination - it was one of those times when he couldn't provide logical answers to the questions being put to him so he started to cry.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

But he did provide an interpretation of the bedroom photos - that the positioning of numerous objects in the room meant that OP's story of running out onto the balcony to shout 'help' could not have been true as he described it due to the fans being in the doorway and the duvet being on the floor with the blood splatter leading from it to the carpet. What more is Nel meant to do with photos such as those than to use them to prove that the defendant is lying, which he did. Maybe you missed that part of OP's cross-examination - it was one of those times when he couldn't provide logical answers to the questions being put to him so he started to cry.

You don't know how refreshing it is to read a factual account of what went on in the courtroom. Every time Nel got close to the truth, OP started crying. :tantrum:

 

[Mr Fossil]

WOW, seriously impressive, Mr Fossil!!!

Excellent job.

We all really appreciate all your hard work.

I'm giving this its own bookmark! I know I'll be referring to it all the time!

Thank you.

I've just added Silverwoods Estate witness locations for those that are interested. Please let me know of any corrections.

It's easy to see why the Stipps hear so much as they are the nearest neighbours on the bathroom side of OP's house (they had direct line of sight at the time from their balcony window, which was open), followed by Carice. Everyone else is to the side or in front of OP's house.

 

[steveml]

Timelines a red herring, in fact i consider it a failure of common-sense for Masipa to put so much weight on it.

Because at 3am, with some witnesses half asleep, or in fact asleep, you don't expect them to remember the exact timing of minute detail like some bangs or shots,
but you do expect them to remember, vividly, blood curling female screams.

The proper competent judgement is that reeva did scream, but that establishing the timeline of bat/gunshot is too problematic.

Indeed if you go by the forensics experts, they do not even agree the bat must have happened after, some of them even state they believe
Pistorius was on his stumps, yet Pistorius version is with prosthetics.

And this is all if we assume the door and the pieces was somehow in pristine condition, with absolutely no tampering of small wooden pieces...

and were told the handling of the door was not particularly done well..

The timeline is of absolute significant importance...

It shows emphatically that there was no way that all the witnesses stood/sat listening for almost quarter of an hour doing nothing. This leads us to the following conclusions...

1. Mrs Stipp could not have awoke at about 3:02. That part of her testimony is unreliable, as was the fallacy that she saw a man walking across the bathroom.

It's no good people saying 'why would a witness lie', as this gives the false impression that somebody would intentionally lie. Witnesses can very easily be mistaken and often introduce things into testimony that were not strictly true once they hear information from other sources. This is exactly what Mrs Stipp did, and by doing so she could have potentially incriminated a person for a crime they may not have committed, albeit unintentionally. The erroneous nature of Mrs Stipps testimony left Masipa with no option other than to treat her as an unreliable witness. The moral of the story is that a witness should never expand over and above what they have heard/seen themselves. It helps nobody.

2. If Estelle VDM awoke around 3am it could only have been nearer to 3.10 or 3.15 am for the same reason mentioned earlier. People wrongly associated her comment with the presumption that by stating 'around 3am' she must have been referring to 3.02, the same time as Mrs Stipps claim. She wasn't.

Only Mrs Stipp attempted to give a specific time, however this unwittingly became a red-herring and Nel soon realised that he could not validate any of his theory if he believed Mrs Stipp's guesstimate to be correct. The vagueness and inability of witnesses to recollect times of events that morning ultimately backfired on the prosecution.

With regard to 'witnesses' hearing blood-curdling screams. This incorrect statement has been made so many times and provides a perfect example of my comment earlier regarding the problems experienced when people expand over and above what they actually saw/heard.

There has only ever been one witness say the oft overused phrase 'blood-curdling screams'. This became a perfect mantra for the media to self-indulge, and it certainly became the trial buzzword (or buzz-phrase) within social media. The fact that there was only ever one person to use this phrase (Michelle Burger) didn't seem to matter. It was meat and drink to the media and they obviously did a good job with it. This phrase was not even included in Michelle Burger's statement, which was taken at a time when such emotive events should have been more intensely remembered due to the shock-effect experienced at the time of such trauma.

When we remove the over-exhuberant media and public misinformation from the trial proceedings, I think a competent and sensible verdict was ultimately reached.

 

[akp]

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.

It really isn't as simple as "once they accepted OP's version as reasonably possibly true" - for every decision that they take, of rejecting some evidence or accepting some, they have to give reasons - you can not just arbitrarily accept something. Now if you go through all the evidence, testimony etc, and read the verdict carefully, there are a lot of inconsistencies, flaw in reasoning. Let's just take one example, and apologies for quoting from my own posts here:

So let us examine this part of the verdict a little closely, shall we?

EVDM was one of the most crucial State witnesses for the State, and in rejecting her testimony, the judge cites three reasons:
1. she could not understand what was being said or in what language was the `female voice' speaking,
2. she was not sure about the source of the voice,
3. her husband confirmed the loud cry after the bangs as OP's voice.

About point (1), I really do not know what to say. Surely this can not by itself be a valid reason for ignoring what she did hear. But let us go to points 2 and 3. As some people have pointed out, it is debatable whether what EVDM's husband said should be acceptable or hearsay, but as you argue and in any case fact is that judge did accept her husband's confirmation. Now that implies, post facto, that EVDM did in fact know that the sound was indeed from OP's house, because all the sounds starting from 1:56 emanated from the same place.
Second, her husband only identified the loud cry after the bangs as OP's, not the argument that EVDM heard since 1:56. But again, let us assume even that voice was male voice. The source now being identified to be OP's house, male voice could only have been OP himself. Isn't it much more damning for OP's version then that he was wide awake and involved in an argument for an hour prior to the incident?

Let me give it another try.
EVDM knew sounds were coming from some house, but she wasn't sure which house when she heard all the commotion. So it is possible to raise the point that what EVDM heard might have originated elsewhere. But once the judge accepted that EVDM's husband identified the loud cry as OP's, she also implicitly accepted that her husband identified the source of all the noise that EVDM heard as OP's house. The judge, or to be more correct the judge and the assessors, chose to conveniently overlook this completely. And this is not simply overlooking something, points 2 and 3 simply can not sit together, because the arguments given in the verdict for reaching 2 and 3 contradict each other.

Do you see that there is a problem here with the reasoning? This is just one example. If you watch all the witness testimonies (there is a very good account of all the proceedings on juror13's blog that you can read, if you want to save time) and then the verdict, you will find many more. And I am not even talking about wrong application of law (e.g. Dolus eventualis, illegal possession of arms) that also took place.

Actually, on second thought, you may be right in saying "Once judge Masipa and/or her associated assessors accepted OP's version as reasonably possibly true" - they may have done exactly that, namely, they decided OP's story was true, then tried to fit all the evidence around it. In doing that, they had to come up with all kinds of ludicrous reasoning at several places.

 

[LemonMousse]

The timeline is of absolute significant importance...

It shows emphatically that there was no way that all the witnesses stood/sat listening for almost quarter of an hour doing nothing. This leads us to the following conclusions...

1. Mrs Stipp could not have awoke at about 3:02. That part of her testimony is unreliable, as was the fallacy that she saw a man walking across the bathroom.

It's no good people saying 'why would a witness lie', as this gives the false impression that somebody would intentionally lie. Witnesses can very easily be mistaken and often introduce things into testimony that were not strictly true once they hear information from other sources. This is exactly what Mrs Stipp did, and by doing so she could have potentially incriminated a person for a crime they may not have committed, albeit unintentionally. The erroneous nature of Mrs Stipps testimony left Masipa with no option other than to treat her as an unreliable witness. The moral of the story is that a witness should never expand over and above what they have heard/seen themselves. It helps nobody.

2. If Estelle VDM awoke around 3am it could only have been nearer to 3.10 or 3.15 am for the same reason mentioned earlier. People wrongly associated her comment with the presumption that by stating 'around 3am' she must have been referring to 3.02, the same time as Mrs Stipps claim. She wasn't.

Only Mrs Stipp attempted to give a specific time, however this unwittingly became a red-herring and Nel soon realised that he could not validate any of his theory if he believed Mrs Stipp's guesstimate to be correct. The vagueness and inability of witnesses to recollect times of events that morning ultimately backfired on the prosecution.

With regard to 'witnesses' hearing blood-curdling screams. This incorrect statement has been made so many times and provides a perfect example of my comment earlier regarding the problems experienced when people expand over and above what they actually saw/heard.

There has only ever been one witness say the oft overused phrase 'blood-curdling screams'. This became a perfect mantra for the media to self-indulge, and it certainly became the trial buzzword (or buzz-phrase) within social media. The fact that there was only ever one person to use this phrase (Michelle Burger) didn't seem to matter. It was meat and drink to the media and they obviously did a good job with it. This phrase was not even included in Michelle Burger's statement, which was taken at a time when such emotive events should have been more intensely remembered due to the shock-effect experienced at the time of such trauma.

When we remove the over-exhuberant media and public misinformation from the trial proceedings, I think a competent and sensible verdict was ultimately reached.

None of these things are particularly relevant.

It makes no overall difference whether Mrs Stipp awoke at 3.02 or 3.12. The important parts of her testimony remain unchanged....a woman screaming, a man shouting and the bathroom light on. She may well have been mistaken about her time, but that has no bearing on what she saw and heard. It is a huge mistake to throw out someone's entire testimony because of one possible error....particularly when material aspects of their testimony are corroborated by three other people.

A lie is intentional. That's what it means. The only liar in this case was Pistorius. It is when people lie that you should dismiss most of what they say not when they make a mistake. Lie vs mistake speaks to honesty, integrity and overall reliability. His whole testimony should have been disregarded.

Mrs VDM was never able to be specific about the time she heard the bangs, so you cannot really conclude anything from that.

Yes, Michelle Burger described "blood curdling screams". So? The Stipp's described them as "terrified, terrified screams" and "half out of her mind in fear". This was not media hype - the overwhelming sense from all these ear witnesses was that a woman was in fear of her life. This is not compatible with a man who says he was creeping down a corridor to confront an intruder.

You should also bear in mind - as Masipa didn't manage to - that all four witnesses distinctly and clearly heard two voices, a male and a female. It was the very reason that they took the actions they did regarding the events.

It stretches credibility too far to suggest that not only did they ALL mistake a male voice for a female one, but they also mistook one voice for two. All of them made that mistake.

Highly, highly improbable.

 

[akp]

The timeline is of absolute significant importance...

It shows emphatically that there was no way that all the witnesses stood/sat listening for almost quarter of an hour doing nothing. This leads us to the following conclusions...

1. Mrs Stipp could not have awoke at about 3:02. That part of her testimony is unreliable, as was the fallacy that she saw a man walking across the bathroom.

-rsbm-

Could you tell us the precise reason behind this conclusion that Mrs Stipp could not have woken up at around 3:02?

Also I would like to understand why seeing somebody walking across the bathroom is a fallacy.

 

[jimmy73]

Mrs Stipp could have and probably did wake at 3:02. You have zero evidence this is not the case. It is possible that events/sounds started some minutes later (see my reply earlier in this thread). One cannot apply one rule to one witness and another for another regarding reliability (Pistorius / Stipp) and dismissal of evidence.

Mrs VDM probably woke shortly after 3am, as she said, given she had been woken by a raised voice earlier and was probably keenly aware of the time given the disruption to her sleep. It is quite for separate witnesses to give different times but describe the same events.

Several witnesses testified to a woman's screams, high pitched and distressed. It is incorrect to quote one overused term to dismiss 4 independent witnesses.

You might convince yourself with these arguments but you have not disproved the events they described hearing or seeing.

 

[Angela Carr]

Reeva Steenkamp’s cousin says the reason Reeva stuck with Oscar was because “she saw a broken soul in him and wanted to care for it”.

Talking to You magazine this week, Kim [Martin] says that her cousin was amazing and that she remembers the time she first met Oscar. “I expected him to be more confident and he wasn’t. I still thought to myself, ‘Reeva, why is he just standing there and not talking to anyone”, she says.

Only a few months later, she met the couple again for lunch when she asked Reeva if she was happy. The cryptic response she receives, she says, haunts her to this day.

The three were having lunch when Oscar got up to take a phone call. “I turned to Reeva and asked, ‘Are you really happy?’ And she shrugged and said ‘Yes, well, we’ll have to talk. We’ll talk,” Kim remembers.

“I’ve wished now about a thousand times that I’d asked her, ‘What?’ or insisted she tell me,” Kim says, “Or let her go away with him and phoned the next day and asked, ‘What did you mean by that?”

http://thejuice.co.za/top-stories/reevas-cousin-reeva-saw-a-broken-soul-in-oscar/

Reeva had no idea how broken OP was.

Besides prison, he needs intensive psychological treatment, up to and including hospitalization (and even then, narcissism / sociopathy doesn't lend itself to being cured).

He is clearly a serious danger to society. (What will Uncle Arnie say when OP assaults / kills again?)

The angel of mercy's loving care cost her life.

Patricia Taylor's book about Oscar makes very interesting reading if you want to know more about OPs psyche. It is available on Kindle and costs about $10. She is Sam Taylor's mom, book is called An accident waiting to happen.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Ooops! Slight technical hitch with access security to Silverwoods Estate witness locations. Please try again. It's open to anyone who has the link, you shouldn't need to request access from me. Sorry.

 

[LemonMousse]

-rsbm-

Could you tell us the precise reason behind this conclusion that Mrs Stipp could not have woken up at around 3:02?

Also I would like to understand why seeing somebody walking across the bathroom is a fallacy.

He's talking about Mrs Stipp clarifying that it was her husband, not her, who saw the man in the window.

Pistorians have always jumped up and down calling her a liar about this when, actually, she realised she'd made a mistake & that her husband's comment that he could see a man had become part of the narrative for that night. I think this proves what an honest and reliable witnesses she actually was as she was determined to be utterly truthful even if it meant changing her statement. But when you are desperate to believe this killer is a lovely boy really and just made a bit of a whoopsie by shooting his girlfriend four times, then every little helps.

 

[vanatos]

The timeline is of absolute significant importance...

It shows emphatically that there was no way that all the witnesses stood/sat listening for almost quarter of an hour doing nothing. This leads us to the following conclusions...

1. Mrs Stipp could not have awoke at about 3:02. That part of her testimony is unreliable, as was the fallacy that she saw a man walking across the bathroom.

It's no good people saying 'why would a witness lie', as this gives the false impression that somebody would intentionally lie. Witnesses can very easily be mistaken and often introduce things into testimony that were not strictly true once they hear information from other sources. This is exactly what Mrs Stipp did, and by doing so she could have potentially incriminated a person for a crime they may not have committed, albeit unintentionally. The erroneous nature of Mrs Stipps testimony left Masipa with no option other than to treat her as an unreliable witness. The moral of the story is that a witness should never expand over and above what they have heard/seen themselves. It helps nobody.

2. If Estelle VDM awoke around 3am it could only have been nearer to 3.10 or 3.15 am for the same reason mentioned earlier. People wrongly associated her comment with the presumption that by stating 'around 3am' she must have been referring to 3.02, the same time as Mrs Stipps claim. She wasn't.

Only Mrs Stipp attempted to give a specific time, however this unwittingly became a red-herring and Nel soon realised that he could not validate any of his theory if he believed Mrs Stipp's guesstimate to be correct. The vagueness and inability of witnesses to recollect times of events that morning ultimately backfired on the prosecution.

With regard to 'witnesses' hearing blood-curdling screams. This incorrect statement has been made so many times and provides a perfect example of my comment earlier regarding the problems experienced when people expand over and above what they actually saw/heard.

There has only ever been one witness say the oft overused phrase 'blood-curdling screams'. This became a perfect mantra for the media to self-indulge, and it certainly became the trial buzzword (or buzz-phrase) within social media. The fact that there was only ever one person to use this phrase (Michelle Burger) didn't seem to matter. It was meat and drink to the media and they obviously did a good job with it. This phrase was not even included in Michelle Burger's statement, which was taken at a time when such emotive events should have been more intensely remembered due to the shock-effect experienced at the time of such trauma.

When we remove the over-exhuberant media and public misinformation from the trial proceedings, I think a competent and sensible verdict was ultimately reached.

I will accept this over-reliance on accuracy of minute detail on one condition.

It is applied equally to Pistorius.

In which case his constant self-contradiction with himself and forensic evidence means the court cannot believe him.

Hence he should be tried for murder.

This is the elephant in the room, if you wish to be this exact, that's fine, but you apply it fairly, which just results in a murder conviction for Pistorius.

If you start to accept inaccuracy in testimonies and try to extract a common thread, ala Pistorius consistently stated an intruder theory in his multiple contradictory versions.

Then multiple eyewitnesses heard Reeva scream together with the actual experts stating it would be wierd if Reeva did not scream from a hip-wound.

 

[LemonMousse]

The only comfort I can take from all this is that Pistorius has clearly been convicted of being a murdering liar in the court of public opinion.

Ordinarily, I would disapprove of this. We have important legal processes in place to convict or not convict people of crime, and we should all respect that.

But every now and then someone slips through the net. It happened with OJ and it has happened with Pistorius.

That he murdered Reeva knowingly is behind any sensible question, and most people can see that. His life as he knew it is at an end. No more Olympics...SA will not tolerate a liar representing them. No more Nike sponsorship. No doubt he'll continue to be idolised by the weird old teddy totting women, but the people whose admiration he actually craves will look on him in contempt.

There will still be little blonde girlies by the bucketload for him, but he'll never get another Reeva. No classy, intelligent woman would go near him with a barge pole.

Good. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bloke.

Although I am still hopeful that Masipa might actually come through and stick him in prison for 10+ years. Although that may be a forlorn hope.

In any event, Pistorius is finished. Because, guess what, Pistorius....most of the world cares considerably more about Reeva and what happened to her than it does about your snivelling "sufferings".

 

[soozieqtips]

Witnesses can very easily be mistaken and often introduce things into testimony that were not strictly true once they hear information from other sources. This is exactly what Mrs Stipp did, and by doing so she could have potentially incriminated a person for a crime they may not have committed, albeit unintentionally.
The erroneous nature of Mrs Stipps testimony left Masipa with no option other than to treat her as an unreliable witness.

~snipped~

BIB - swap Mrs Stipp's name for OP, and you have a valid point. Strangely, your criticism of 'unreliable' witnesses never seems to apply to the actual killer, who, by the way, is a proven liar, and who is also the one with the most at stake. You are more judgemental of innocent witnesses than the killer

 

[mrjitty]

My timeline isn't intended to support any version, just to represent what the witnesses said. Some events (e.g. those outlined in dotted boxes) are therefore moveable. The chart is just to aid visualisation of everyone's evidence. Remember that times are often vague in witness testimony but the sequence of events ought to be more reliable.

I too have always believed the shots came second but I keep an open mind when exploring possibilities. I also like to follow OP's version when testing theories, because I believe it contains a version of the truth but not necessarily in the right order or the whole truth.

There is certainly an apparent mismatch between testimonies. It is possible that Stipp got his sequence wrong (as per Masipa). Moving his testimony about seems to allow everything else to fit and supports bangs at or just after 03:17. That sorts Johnson. Mr N then doesn't hear the second bangs because he's on the phone, with Mrs N listening to him talking.

But did the Stipps really get things that wrong? Certainly Mrs Stipp's recollection differs from her husband's (she says he told her about the person moving in the bathroom earlier in the sequence than he has it and, elsewhere in testimony, says her husband returned at 04:20 and Stander called at 04:40 - Dr Stipp says he leaves OP's before the police arrive at 03:55 and receives the call from Stander at about 04:17, which makes more sense).

I'm not giving up on the Stipps' evidence yet. I'm exploring another possible interpretation of everyone's evidence which may lead to less discrepancy. I'll post more later if I figure it to be a plausible scenario which is supported by the evidence.

OK thanks - I like your approach!

I definitely agree on the usefulness of OPs version - especially these points.

1. OP claims he screamed as he broke down the door with exactly four blows - coincidentally exactly the same number as when Reeva was really shot. This allows an insight into what he actually heard when he shot Reeva. On balance of probabilities, I believe anyone who hears the screams/shots is hearing the shooting, as Oscars version was wholly unreliable as to his own screaming.

2. In OPs version - there is significant commotion before the shooting. Especially shouting "get the F out of my house". This was a big moment in testimony and a real moment IMO. It is significant because the defence timeline does not require any screaming or shouting before the shooting as according to Roux no one is a witness to what happened before the shots. In my view it was retained as a hedge against the genuine witness testimony of hearing a man and a finding of shots 2nd, and is genuine testimony. The fact that OP's testimony is hedged both ways is a significant signpost to the truth. It carried significant downside for the defence as now the shouting/screaming had to happen not just between and after the bangs, but in the min or so before - increasing the already implausible sequence where OP has to make large amounts of noise all by him self to at least 6-7mins

3. In OP's version, he sees Reeva still alive, and in one moment of X confirms he broke in within "a couple of minutes". This is genuine in my view. She stopped breathing immediately and thus died swiftly. For him to see this - he had to be in there within a couple of mins. 4-5 mins is too long to see what he described as Reeva had been without Oxygen for many minutes by this point.

To me the real dynamic of the case was Roux needing to manufacture a longer gap between shooting and recovering the body - somewhere around 5mins but of course with flexibility to cover all bases, yet at the same time needing the gap to be not too long - the crux of his problem with the pesky Dr Stipp.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Here are links to the following spreadsheets in google docs:

Phone usage charts (3 tabs, one for each phone)

Witness testimony analysis

They are set up to share and allow comments, though I'm guessing you may need a gmail account to comment (only takes a few minutes to set up). If you'd rather post your thoughts on here that's fine or alternatively email me (montgomery.fossil@gmail.com) Please feel free to copy and do with them what you wish but I will generally only make changes that are based on firm evidence.

I've haven't used this facility before so it may need some tweaking!

Monty Fossil (in truth it took me longer to figure a name I liked that hadn't been used than to set the account and spreadsheets up!)

Thank you very much for your meticulous work, Mr Fossil!!!

I would think (and this is not useful, but ...): The one person, which had taken the phone 0020, must have known that the shooting was rather murder than an accident with intruder. How could OP have explained the necessity of disappearing for a while (and manipulation of the data)?
This person as a witness for PT and then Nel would have had the possiblity to "put it to" the witness (don't know whether with or without result, I admit).

 

[mrjitty]

Ooops! Slight technical hitch with access security to Silverwoods Estate witness locations. Please try again. It's open to anyone who has the link, you shouldn't need to request access from me. Sorry.

This is awesome

Looking at this you can see why EVDM hears the fighting at 2am, and why Stipp hears so much at the back of the house.

What I find very interesting is that according to the Judge, the Standers at location 212 are hearing everything, yet the next door neighbours at locations 287 manage not to hear the "gunshots" @ 3.17 that carry all the way to Charl Johnson - yet they do hear OP shouting and crying!

Nonsense!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think it was concluded that they were probably woken by the last gunshot but were not aware of what caused them to wake. So they heard OP after he had killed RS when he went into emergency "help, help, help" and crying out mode. Is this the household that had the air conditioning/fans on? I cannot remember.

 

[sleuth-d-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM

00:00:40 from the start…

[op version]
op entered the toilet. knelt down over reeva. checked to see if she was breathing. she wasn’t

put my arms underneath her shoulders and i pulled her weight onto me
and i sat there crying for a.. for some time.

head on my left shoulder and i could feel the blood was running down on me.
at a point i heard her breathing.

put her weight on top of me and swivelled her around.
my bum on the floor. my back against the wall. turned her around.

to get her to the floor of the toilet so that i could pick her up.
i couldn’t pick her up, but i was on my knees and on my feet and i was pulling her into the bathroom...

........

how did op manage all this and not step in the blood? if he sat with her, where are his footprints in the toilet area?
there are dragging/blood smears on the floor but no footprints near where she fell against the toilet.

then [op version again]
1. he runs back to bedroom to get his phone/phones [and back to the bathroom]
2. he ran downstairs to open the front door [and back upstairs to the bathroom]
3. he carries reeva downstairs.

lots of blood drips on the tiles in the photos, where are the blood soaked sock prints?


all that sitting with her inside the toilet room crying... is it another lie?
did he even go more that a step or two into the toilet room - avoiding the blood? did he just prise the door panel open, unlock, and drag her out to the bathroom...

dr stipp saw him in the bathroom window at about this time... conversely it is possible op also saw the security previously talking to stipp - and/or the buggy setting off towards his house.

imo, the flurry of phone activity around this time suggests he was in a real hurry [has he been discovered] - he needs to quickly not only get help from stander to stand guard against baba and the security, but also to get reeva out of the toilet room [i.e. downstairs and away from the crime scene].

 

[Mr Fossil]

Silverwoods Estate witness locations (aerial) is an alternative view of the estate based on a satellite image taken on 20 May 2013. It shows the vacant plots clearly. Just need to figure which is the Johnson / Burger house now.