Trial Discussion Thread #16

[steveml]

If we go with the OP shot Reeva and Reeva screamed theory (Reeva screaming either before or during the shooting), it just flies in the face of the witness statements. The anomalies are so great that it would mean that the proportion of witnesses are grossly inaccurate or not telling the truth. I really don't believe that to be the case.

Even the delightful Mrs. Stipp. I don't believe a couple of things in her testimony when she was caught out, and she signed a sworn document knowingly incorrect, but regarding the timing of the events that morning - yes I believe she told truth.

I believe they all ultimately told the truth regarding the times of the noises they heard that morning. I believe that the cricket bat and gunshots sounds may have been confusing, and has led to many theories, but apart from the few noise discrepancies the timings weren't affected.

I do not think Reeva made a sound before she was shot, or during the seconds those 4 bullets were fired. I believe it was all over far too quickly for any sound to be heard.

As things stand, I believe the order of the incidents were gunshots, OP screaming out and crying, then cricket bat to break down the door. All the times from the witness statements correlate exactly. I don't think it's a coincidence.

This is what I believe the witnesses heard...

Johan Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying -Cricket bat.

Annette Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Estelle Van De Merwe - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying.

Michelle Burger - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Charl Johnson - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.


:judge:

 

[jay-jay]

And/or some other banging that sounded similar. I really don't know but would surely love to hear their theory on that.

Isn't it absolutely sod's law that the bang's from a cricket bat can sound almost identical gun shots .. if only a cricket bat being banged sounded entirely different, it would sort absolutely everything out and we would now exactly in which order the shots and the cricket bat bashing came! Bloody lucky for OP though.

 

[steveml]

I'm not sure how a conclusion could be any less accurate.

The shots were very precise.

The trajectory moved after the first shot hit Reeva's right hip and she fell.

The next 3 shots were all aimed at the same small area near her upper body and head.

Since she was slumped down on the toilet, it defies the evidence and all odds that the killer randomly sprayed bullets and hit her head. He did not.

He did not spray shots randomly. Look at this attached photo.

Where on earth did I say spray shots?

Those are 4 reasonably straight shots into a door.

I can only guess you've never shot - if you haven't then it's going to be very difficult for me to explain. Just agree to differ and move on.

 

[jay-jay]

I suggest rather strongly, she was not in that bathroom to pee.

We have heard no testimony about urine or toilet paper in the bowl. None of the photos show toilet paper. No mention about whether or not they tested for urine.

Yes, and if she had flushed, then OP should've heard it and realised it wasn't a burglar .. so it's got to be one or the other, it can't be both .. if they didn't test that toilet bowl to see if there was still urine there, then they blimmin well should've!

 

[jay-jay]

You're right, I do recall one of the witnesses saying that she was standing and facing the door.

Doesn't it almost make it sound like the two were fighting while on opposite sides of the door and that is what the witnesses heard?

It seems so logical and yet the DT can really put a spin on things.

Yup, the ballistics expert stated that she must've been facing the door when she was shot, because of where she was shot in the hip .. and why would anyone be standing in a toilet cubicle facing the door like that if all they had done was to go for a pee? If that was the case, then she would either be sideways on, bending over pulling up her shorts or just moving about generally in the cubicle .. my view is the only reason why she was facing the door directly was because of an argument either side of the door, just like you say.

 

[steveml]

Nice
If I had been aiming with the hope of shooting a potential intruder in that loo I would have aimed right in the middle of the door and straight forward which is where you would have expected them to be them to be stood or shot in all directions not 4 shots all to the left
The pathologist described Reeva's eyes as though she had been crying ? which suggests to me she had either screamed for quite a while as witness's described and if not had been just sat in there crying for a while before the shooting .

Will be listening to the rest of the case with interest as lots of these points will likely be covered and therefore become clearer.
The defence pathologist will probably try and dispute the testimony of the prosecution pathologist about the swollen eyes as well as the stomach contents amongst other things .

I would stand exactly where the gingerbread man is. If you stand opposite the door, with the bath behind (in order to fire straight) you have nowhere to move.
If an intruder comes straight out of the cubicle he would be directly facing you - gun vs gun - worst intruder scenario possible.

The gingerbread man is where I'd be stood if I wanted to fire quickly into the cubicle, not be face to face with an intruder, and leaving more response time to fire if an intruder comes out.

* however my gingerbread man wouldn't last very long as you can't hold a gun without any fingers.

 

[james83]

If we go with the OP shot Reeva and Reeva screamed theory (Reeva screaming either before or during the shooting), it just flies in the face of the witness statements. The anomalies are so great that it would mean that the proportion of witnesses are grossly inaccurate or not telling the truth. I really don't believe that to be the case.

Even the delightful Mrs. Stipp. I don't believe a couple of things in her testimony when she was caught out, and she signed a sworn document knowingly incorrect, but regarding the timing of the events that morning - yes I believe she told truth.

I believe they all ultimately told the truth regarding the times of the noises they heard that morning. I believe that the cricket bat and gunshots sounds may have been confusing, and has led to many theories, but apart from the few noise discrepancies the timings weren't affected.

I do not think Reeva made a sound before she was shot, or during the seconds those 4 bullets were fired. I believe it was all over far too quickly for any sound to be heard.

As things stand, I believe the order of the incidents were gunshots, OP screaming out and crying, then cricket bat to break down the door. All the times from the witness statements correlate exactly. I don't think it's a coincidence.

This is what I believe the witnesses heard...

Johan Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying -Cricket bat.

Annette Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Estelle Van De Merwe - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying.

Michelle Burger - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Charl Johnson - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.


:judge:

Now you just need to explain the intermingled male and female voice heard between the first and second shots.

 

[steveml]

More importantly, her shorts were up when she was shot (proven by bullet hole in shorts.)

And she was standing up facing the door when she was shot (proven by bullet hole marked "A" in the door matching up with the hip injury).

I suggest rather strongly, she was not in that bathroom to pee.

We have heard no testimony about urine or toilet paper in the bowl. None of the photos show toilet paper. No mention about whether or not they tested for urine.

That certainly would've helped. I can confirm that there was toilet paper on the roll, so if she did pee, she had the opportunity to wipe.

 

[steveml]

Now you just need to explain the intermingled male and female voice heard between the first and second shots.

Yep, it's the whole voice issue again.

Some witnesses say they heard this, some didn't. We don't know how sure they were. All we can say is they claim to have heard a man's voice and they claim to have heard a woman's voice.

 

[jay-jay]

The pathologist described Reeva's eyes as though she had been crying ?

Is that right? I don't recall hearing that having been said .. I thought it had been stated her eyes were swollen from the head injury? I need to research that one a bit then.

 

[jay-jay]

That is a good picture that I haven't seen before and does look like could have been shooting more randomly but still slightly left direction but presumably because of where he was stood ?
Did the ballistic guy say A shot was the hip and B the missed shot ?

If he sequenced them A, B, C, D in order of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th shot ... then yes, A shot the hip and B was the missed shot. Shot A caused her to fall backwards immediately and hence why the ballistics expert stated that it couldn't have been two double taps because a second shot so fast on the heels of the first shot would've have also hit her in the hip/torso area. But, the fact she wasn't hit twice in the hip or torso meant that there was a pause between the first shot and the other three shots <<-- stated by the ballistics expert. So the defence are on very dodgy ground trying to suggest it was two double taps because the ballistics evidence proves it wasn't two double taps, but one shot-pause-shot-shot-shot. Which ties in with what the witness Michelle Burger* said about the shot-pause-shot-shot-shot .. and she has said that as she studied music when she was younger, she remembers rhythms .. and in any case, how would she even have known what the ballistics guy was going to say, and yet it ties in perfectly with his evidence to the court.


* I may have got the wrong witness name here (getting confused with the names) .. going to check to see exactly which witness this was.

Edited to confirm that it was Michelle Burger, but have changed where I said she was a music teacher .. she was not, but she said, in her witness testimony, that she studied music when she was younger.

 

[Interested Bystander]

If we go with the OP shot Reeva and Reeva screamed theory (Reeva screaming either before or during the shooting), it just flies in the face of the witness statements. The anomalies are so great that it would mean that the proportion of witnesses are grossly inaccurate or not telling the truth. I really don't believe that to be the case.

Even the delightful Mrs. Stipp. I don't believe a couple of things in her testimony when she was caught out, and she signed a sworn document knowingly incorrect, but regarding the timing of the events that morning - yes I believe she told truth.

I believe they all ultimately told the truth regarding the times of the noises they heard that morning. I believe that the cricket bat and gunshots sounds may have been confusing, and has led to many theories, but apart from the few noise discrepancies the timings weren't affected.

I do not think Reeva made a sound before she was shot, or during the seconds those 4 bullets were fired. I believe it was all over far too quickly for any sound to be heard.

As things stand, I believe the order of the incidents were gunshots, OP screaming out and crying, then cricket bat to break down the door. All the times from the witness statements correlate exactly. I don't think it's a coincidence.

This is what I believe the witnesses heard...

Johan Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying -Cricket bat.

Annette Stipp - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Estelle Van De Merwe - Gunshots - Man screaming out and crying.

Michelle Burger - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.

Charl Johnson - Man screaming out and crying - Cricket bat.


:judge:

Way too selective for me. Methinks you may be playing devil's advocate here.

 

[soozieqtips]

Even the delightful Mrs. Stipp. I don't believe a couple of things in her testimony when she was caught out, and she signed a sworn document knowingly incorrect, but regarding the timing of the events that morning - yes I believe she told truth.

~snipped~

BIB - The 'delightful Mrs. Stipp' corrected the statement (not really what a deceitful person would do), and since OP has made several changes to his sworn statement, have you suggested at all that he is a deliberate liar and that his account cannot be deemed credible? Why is Mrs. Stipp being vilified, but not OP? In this instance, I would look at who's on trial for murder, and who has very good reason to lie - and it's certainly not Mrs Stipp.

 

[steveml]

Way too selective for me. Methinks you may be playing devil's advocate here.

Me? :angel:

No, seriously though, try it.

Take all the witness statements, follow the gun first cricket bat second idea, insert OP where any voices are mentioned, and this fits exactly with OP's statement.

You may think 'coincidence', but here's the biggie - whatever plan OP is suggested to have dreamed up, he could not possibly have guessed the exact information contained with 5 witness testimony's.

...or could he.

*cue three chord suspense noise*

 

[jay-jay]

That certainly would've helped. I can confirm that there was toilet paper on the roll, so if she did pee, she had the opportunity to wipe.

So, if she had gone in there for a pee, and would've wiped .. then we should be seeing toilet paper in the bowl. The only reason for not seeing toilet paper in the bowl would be because she had flushed .. but then if she had flushed, OP would've heard the flush. That all indicates to me that she wasn't in there for a pee.

 

[Really?]

it seems to me that shot A....OP was hoping for a head shot to a seated Reeva.

That didn't happened as screams continued......

shot B was higher.....therefore aiming for the chest/heart.

after hearing the ricochet he then aimed lower....

moo

 

[Gbtaketwo]

If he sequenced them A, B, C, D in order of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th shot ... then yes, A shot the hip and B was the missed shot. Shot A caused her to fall backwards immediately and hence why the ballistics expert stated that it couldn't have been two double taps because a second shot so fast on the heels of the first shot would've have also hit her in the hip/torso area. But, the fact she wasn't hit twice in the hip or torso meant that there was a pause between the first shot and the other three shots <<-- stated by the ballistics expert. So the defence are on very dodgy ground trying to suggest it was two double taps because the ballistics evidence proves it wasn't two double taps, but one shot-pause-shot-shot-shot. Which ties in with what the witness Michelle Burger* said about the shot-pause-shot-shot-shot .. and she has said that as she studied music when she was younger, she remembers rhythms .. and in any case, how would she even have known what the ballistics guy was going to say, and yet it ties in perfectly with his evidence to the court.


* I may have got the wrong witness name here (getting confused with the names) .. going to check to see exactly which witness this was.

Edited to confirm that it was Michelle Burger, but have changed where I said she was a music teacher .. she was not, but she said, in her witness testimony, that she studied music when she was younger.

Thanks ,I am going to go and try and have another look at the marks on the wall.
I will also have another read of the pathologists report regarding the eyes

 

[Really?]

So, if she had gone in there for a pee, and would've wiped .. then we should be seeing toilet paper in the bowl. The only reason for not seeing toilet paper in the bowl would be because she had flushed .. but then if she had flushed, OP would've heard the flush. That all indicates to me that she wasn't in there for a pee.

No jay-jay.....you are correct......she wasn't in there to potty.

she was running from a raging OP


moo

 

[jay-jay]

Originally Posted by Gbtaketwo View Post
The pathologist described Reeva's eyes as though she had been crying ?

Is that right? I don't recall hearing that having been said .. I thought it had been stated her eyes were swollen from the head injury? I need to research that one a bit then.

I can't find anything which says the pathologist described her eyes as though they had been crying .. all I've been able to find is what I thought I remembered was given in evidence -->> Her upper eyelids were blue-reddish and there was soft tissue swelling but no injury to the eyes. This was not caused by direct trauma but a fracture to the skull.

Do you remember where that piece of information about the crying came from? .. would be grateful for a link to back it up, if poss* :thumb:

*Edit: just seen your post upthread!

 

[steveml]

So, if she had gone in there for a pee, and would've wiped .. then we should be seeing toilet paper in the bowl. The only reason for not seeing toilet paper in the bowl would be because she had flushed .. but then if she had flushed, OP would've heard the flush. That all indicates to me that she wasn't in there for a pee.

I'm with you on that jay-jay.

That's something I'm unsure about.

:thumb: