Trial Discussion Thread #30

[sicknote]

How do you know this (the highlighted part)?

OP said so himself. If Stander denies it, OP is still lying. Unless of course he can't remember why he was required to be at Oscars in the middle of the night.

 

[shane13]

I'm glad we agree, excellent earlier post btw. I also wanted to thank everyone for the interesting debate.

Sadly, the major limitation remains that Reeva's autopsy report was never made available and the pathologists testimony was not aired nor a transcript made available. We are left with reporters' summaries.

The brain areas directly damaged are critical to our understanding and conclusions and to my knowledge none of us know the details of her brain injury, just the report that it was incapacitating and (eventually?) fatal. Was it a shot through the cortex, midbrain or brain stem or some permutation. Makes a huge difference. She was also sumultaneously exsanguinating from her other wounds which should hasten death.

What is an accepted medical fact I personally heard this from Cyril Wecht, a noted medical examiner and found several references inluding in the journal 'Forensic Medicine,' no heart beat no arterial spurt.


Notes from 'Essential Forensic Biology' By Alan Gunn

It should be remembered that bleeding takes place both internally and externally so the amount of blood surrounding a body may not reflect the amount actually lost.

Wounds, after death do not bleed profusely because the heart
is no longer beating and blood pressure is not maintained. Blood from even a severed artery therefore trickles out as a consequence of gravity rather than spurting.

...I would conclude from the latter that squeezing or compressing an injured limb with said injured artery, would consequently not yield an arterial pattern, although it might 'eject' blood.


CORRECTION from an earlier post:
Unlike at the wound site, initially blood remains liquid within the circulatory system after death, rather than coagulating.

I have no idea what happened maybe the blood in the bedroom & below the stairs is the first case of some type of mimic of arterial spurt, but as is often said- If It Looks Like A Horse, Walks Like A Horse and Sounds Like A Horse, It's Probably Not A Zebra.

I hope, PlayItCloseToTheVest Gerrie Nel, will be able to tie it all together. He may be waiting for the pertinent defense experts to testify, if they have one.

I'm going to catch up on on the posts I've missed

BBM--on top

That is another matter that makes the trial a sham. Judge even disallowed tweeting. Speaking of which no reporter tweeted (and here there was no overt order) at the beginning of Court on March 25 when first Nel then Roux spoke about DT having the 5th phone for 16 days. all video of those first few minutes have that excised from the videos--again w.o., an overt order...

Here depsite constitutional guaranteee of freedom of the press, and the fact that everyday in SA more gruesome photos and autopsy reports etc are totally made public forthwith, these were kept secret in this case.

Instead here the Judge made some ruling that some packet summary would be made available to reporters. w.o. full disclosure we do not know what is in the details.

But the "too gruesome' claim is pure BS.
I gave the analogy here weeks ago that when this happened in 1963 in the US, and 12 years later the real reason the regime gave was revealed.

In 1963 after President Kennedy was assassinated, the "govt" said it was too horrifying to reveal the head shot to JFK--just trust your "govt' is telling you the truth. And offical word from the 'govt" was that this wonderful man went forward in the limo from a shot from behind. The Secret Service said, "OK we wil let one reporter ser the Zapruder film and he will tell you what he saw." [this sounds like the guy making up the packet.]

An unknown Texas cub reporter was shown the Z=film and told the world; trust me it shows JFK being slammed forward in the limo it's too gruesome etc.

He quickly gets promoted to the top of a network--name is Dan Rather. Life Magazine printed their issue and reversed frames to make it look like JFK went forwards. And the relevant law of physics is invilable.here conservation of (linear) momentum. onyla s ot from the front would make JFK get slammed violently backward. while the Z-film is heavily doctored (missing frames, painted on blobs etc.) the methods used were primitive back then, and simply running the film shows him being slammed backwards. Not forwards as the Govt, Dan Rather, Liife Magazone,etc all lied to the poople about.

By 1975 thanks in part to N.O. DA Jim Garrison and some Secret Service people,[doctored] versions of the Z-film appeared. And it was first shown on ABC-TV in 1975. It clearly shows JFK being slammed backwards from a frontal shot. I have also given you here the video of Asst White hosue press Sect Kilduff showing all eporters at 1:30 that the fatal bullet went into JFK above his right eye-telling you who did the shoot in effect. So no mystery; The "govt" has manfactured the "mystery.'

The point here is when Govts [Courts] start having cub reporters only seeing crucial evidence or having some person make up "packets" for reporters, some big lie is going on. And what has not been revealed either in autopsy report or Nel skipping very important questions has a reason for their ommission, IMO And may also be a factor in people now debating about missing blood and othe related matters.

This one runs deep.

 

[TrueDetective]

There is a simple answer to this - Nel can not afford discrediting OP's evidence to much on matters after the shooting. This might not sound correct to you but it is self evident. It is a fact that OP broke the door down and carried R to the ground floor (it is common cause). If Nel picks holes in this portion of evidence, and the court knows as a fact that it did happen; then the court could conclude that, even with the "holes" in OP's evidence, he is being absolutely truthful, as it knows as a fact that the incident did happened. [The state witnesses have already confirmed his evidence on breaking the door after the shots, and the blood trail to where Stipp examined Reeva]

I understand your point but respectfully I don't agree.
I am not saying that Nel should have x-examined him on every single aspect of his EIC and given him the opportunity to validate common cause but there are a number of huge inconsistencies post shooting which I have detailed before and I believe them to be very, very important in piecing together the events (crucial evidence of an argument) and his actual state of mind (crime scene management). It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to interrogate OP about this but its gone.

Nel knows this case better than any of us and he has clearly chosen the battlegound and selected his weapons, but from the outside it looks to me that he left some very powerful ones at home and 'let OP off the hook'.
Frustration on my part as I wanted to hear the answers OP gave.

However I bow to Nel's reputation and ability and understand that he is a man with a plan..

 

[soozieqtips]

Why would OP need to do this? What purpose would it serve? He was there when Reeva was killed, he pulled the trigger, so he should know what time his neighbors heard what. Or could he ask that so that he could tailor his testimony, his version, to fit what his neighbors heard at certain times?

I don't get this either. And if my neighbour shot down and murdered his girlfriend, I sure as hell wouldn't want the murderer visiting me to quiz me about what I heard that night. Especially if the murderer had a known temper!

 

[TrueDetective]

BBM--on top

That is another matter that makes the trial a sham. Judge even disallowed tweeting. Speaking of which no reporter tweeted (and here there was no overt order) at the beginning of Court on March 25 when first Nel then Roux spoke about DT having the 5th phone for 16 days. all video of those first few minutes have that excised from the videos--again w.o., an overt order...

Here depsite constitutional guaranteee of freedom of the press, and the fact that everyday in SA more gruesome photos and autopsy reports etc are totally made public forthwith, these were kept secret in this case.

Instead here the Judge made some ruling that some packet summary would be made available to reporters. w.o. full disclosure we do not know what is in the details.

JFK stuff snipped to focus my response.....

The point here is when Govts [Courts] start having cub reporters only seeing crucial evidence or having some person make up "packets" for reporters, some big lie is going on. And what has not been revealed either in autopsy report or Nel skipping very important questions has a reason for their ommission, IMO And may also be a factor in people now debating about missing blood and othe related matters./B]

This one runs deep.

Agreed. Great post Shane.
The censoring of that part of the trial seemed overkill at the time, but in context to the rest of it since, it now looks very suspicious to me. It does not add up.

However to be balanced about this... if court reporters were there and heard the whole evidence and if there was something out of kilter wouldn't that have leaked out in the proceeding days and weeks?

 

[james83]

Since Bail Hearing, it has been obvious to me that at least on certan aspects, the 2 sides are working together.

This one runs deep.

Hey Shane, your posts/theories always fascinate me, you've got me thinking, all those early reports that "seemingly" turned out not to be true of the police being called to the house earlier in the night and that he hit her with the cricket bat before he shot her etc, do they add any fuel to your thought's at all?.

 

[Emz73]

Since Bail Hearing, it has been obvious to me that at least on certan aspects, the 2 sides are working together.

This one runs deep.

Shane, are they working together to get him in prison or let off?
I think the country "needs" to be seen putting a white rich man away. I heard politians have all dropped him. I do believe he knew she was behind the door, but do they need a scapegoat. But then you think they've hid the 5th phone so theyd bring that out if my theory was true.

 

[soozieqtips]

Can you imagine the pressure for witnesses to say what the police want them to say when the police are pressuring them to tailor their statements to get a conviction and to provide details that are not really factual?

Do you wonder how Mrs Stipp's statement ended up with a declaration that she saw a person walking in OP's bathroom when she really didn't see that?

BBM - but your view (on several occasions) was that Mrs Stipp was a deliberate liar, neither credible nor trustworthy. When pressed repeatedly about what her motive might be - you said you had an idea of her motive... but for reasons best known to yourself, you refused to disclose it.

Much later, after still not giving any reasons as to why she would deliberately lie, you then said something to the effect that the only other explanation was that all the police (the ones who had 'tampered' with the scene) were trying to cover up their errors and made her sign an document that contained false information to hide their own failings and to ensure a conviction? I can look for that post if you wish, but I'm sure you remember it.

Your post about the police 'making' her sign an incorrect statement was made with some 'roll eyes' smileys, I believe, indicating you didn't really think that at all. So have you now changed your mind altogether? Mrs Stipp is no longer a deliberate liar because it was the corrupt police who could have persuaded her to sign an incorrect document to cover their shoddy work?

 

[shane13]

Agreed. Great post Shane.
The censoring of that part of the trial seemed overkill at the time, but in context to the rest of it since, it now looks very suspicious to me. It does not add up.

However to be balanced about this... if court reporters were there and heard the whole evidence and if there was something out of kilter wouldn't that have leaked out in the proceeding days and weeks?

TD:
Maybe you do not know.
You do not put 'Jfk stuff snipped" into my post.
you write in your own post "Sniffed by me" 'or such

 

[lithgow1]

BBM - but your view (on several occasions) was that Mrs Stipp was a deliberate liar, not credible nor trustworthy. When pressed repeatedly about what her motive might be - you said you had an idea of her motive... but for reasons best known to yourself, you refused to disclose it.

Much later, after still not giving any reasons as to why she would deliberately lie, you then said something to the effect that the only other explanation was that all the police (the ones who had 'tampered' with the scene) were trying to cover up their errors and made her sign an document that contained false information to hide their own failings. I can look for that post if you wish, but I'm sure you remember it.

Your post about the police 'making' her sign an incorrect statement was made with some 'roll eyes' smileys, I believe, indicating you didn't really think that at all. So have you now changed your mind altogether? Mrs Stipp is no longer a deliberate liar because it was the corrupt police who could have persuaded her to sign an incorrect document to cover their shoddy work?

I really wish that those who support OP's 'version' of events would put a bit of time and effort into critically examining HIS testimony instead of concentrating solely on the state's witnesses. Everything the witnesses say is dissected in an attempt to undermine it; everything OP says is accepted on face value. Luckily the photos of the bedroom on the morning expose his 'version' as being a lie and M'lady has eyes.

 

[wb180]

I really wish that those who support OP's 'version' of events would put a bit of time and effort into critically examining HIS testimony instead of concentrating solely on the state's witnesses. Everything the witnesses say is dissected in an attempt to undermine it; everything OP says is accepted on face value. Luckily the photos of the bedroom on the morning expose his 'version' as being a lie and M'lady has eyes.

Oh you forgot Richard Dixon where, after his bad showing on the stand, his testimony now supposedly is still useful as it gives a general background to the judge even though he was hired as an expert.

I wouldn't mind if the state witness and experts were crap and people are attacking them but it's like they make one mistake and they are somehow really bad witnesses relative to OP and defense experts.

It is a bit ridiculous and really weird!

 

[lithgow1]

Oh you forgot Richard Dixon where, after his bad showing on the stand, his testimony now supposedly is still useful as it gives a general background to the judge even though he was hired as an expert.

I wouldn't mind if the state witness and experts were crap and people are attacking them but it's like they make one mistake and they are somehow really bad witnesses relative to OP and defense experts.

It is a bit ridiculous and really weird!

But wb180 you just called him Richard Dixon and his name is ROGER so now everything you say will be called into question. No matter what important points you make in the future, your credibility is now shot mate!

Seriously though you are right. Kelly Phelps on CNN was tying herself into knots trying to explain how Dixon's testimony was a plus for the defence.

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Val1 View Post
Just wondering, could Baba's mobile phone be recorded as a gprs call? Is there any way to trace calls from the mobile in the buggy or just the cell number that received and answered calls via the main security line? Another way that Stander could "help"?

Sorry Val1, I haven't got a clue. I don't even know what a gprs call is.

I'm referring to all those gprs calls on OP's cell, the ones the DT were trying to imply were nothing more than the phone or programs on it updating automatically. Seems a little too convenient that there were so many at just around that time.
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-15-state-rests/

03:18:45 – GPRS – 75 seconds

03:19:03 – Outgoing call to 2251 (Johan Stander) – 24 seconds

03:20:02 – GPRS – 79 seconds

03:20:05 – Outgoing call to 082911 (ambulance service) – 66 seconds

03:21:22 – GPRS – 61 seconds

03:21:33 – Outgoing call to 6797 (Baba, security) – 9 seconds

 

[shane13]

Hey Shane, your posts/theories always fascinate me, you've got me thinking, all those early reports that "seemingly" turned out not to be true of the police being called to the house earlier in the night and that he hit her with the cricket bat before he shot her etc, do they add any fuel to your thought's at all?.

James;
Yes, I think on those things --for a year now.
And I relate it to all i know about other matters.

Early reports sometimes are more accurate i am sad to say because 'big brother' later gets to doctor things. I always laugh when people think George Orwell was writing about Nazi Germany or USSR, He was writing about what he knew best, the UK and its Govt. But many are in denial and don't want to read deep things.

So sometimes early reports are more truthful. Other times they may be sensational to sell a paper or a website and are not accurate.

i know in the USA, people would be amazed at what early reports or local reports were aired in some famous matters, but are not allowed to go national.

In the USA, even court trials are blocked out from MSM.
So do you get it re MSM being totally controlled?? And yes this is a worldwide phenomenon.

In the appeals trial of E.Howard Hunt vs Spotlight Magazne, the jury ruled that the CIA was involved in killing JFK.

In the civil trial of James Earl Ray [had already died], the judge and jury ruled that the US Govt was 70% responsible for the murder of Dr. King.

In the civil trial of Dr. Charles Crenshaw vs JAMA, JAMA had to fork over some $100,000 to Dr Crenshaw and were forced to admit that he was telling the truth about JFK being shot from the front.

In the Waco murders, people would be astounded what was aired on local TV News but not allowed to go national…

In this case, early reports of a bat strike to Reeva in the bedroom were published.
Beeld [Afrikaans language] quickly said online that Estate Security and/or police were at OP’s house a couple of hours before the killing.

Each matter is its own thing and would require separate investigation. So I cannot give my final thoughts on these matters because it requires more investigation.

But you and others should not accept anything final coming from either side in court or from the judge when she rules or from MSM. Keep doing your own thinking and research.

I have give you examples that show likely collusion. At BH, Rroux revealed the existence of a 5th phone. Pros. and judge did not order an investigation into who and how…

At trial the new judge rules on hiding the autopsy from the world, and accepts ‘stipulations" on the crime of removing the 5th phone.

Most importantly I have told you that the actual killing was far more horrific than either side wants the public to know.

So re the bat I do not know for sure. I’ve written that Reeva was likely held against her will for that hour and that was what she was arguing about. It escalated into a threat with the gun or some “minor” assault. And when she tried to call police (and I wrote may have made the mistake of telling him what she was doing), sealed her fate. JMO

 

[soozieqtips]

I really wish that those who support OP's 'version' of events would put a bit of time and effort into critically examining HIS testimony instead of concentrating solely on the state's witnesses. Everything the witnesses say is dissected in an attempt to undermine it; everything OP says is accepted on face value. Luckily the photos of the bedroom on the morning expose his 'version' as being a lie and M'lady has eyes.

BBM - but are they as good as Dixon's eyes??

I agree with what you said. The State witnesses have come in for extreme criticism and ridicule. Most have been accused of being influenced by the media and then tailoring their statements around what they've read, not what they heard on the night. The fact they've added things apparently makes them non-credible witnesses - but when OP does it, it's accepted without question because he's just 'filling out' his account of what happened! At the end of the day, I ask myself who has the most to gain from deliberately lying - and it's none of the State witnesses. The odds of ALL the people OP has listed as liars or mistaken is just so improbable, it cannot be reasonably possibly true!

 

[wb180]

But wb180 you just called him Richard Dixon and his name is ROGER so now everything you say will be called into question. No matter what important points you make in the future, your credibility is now shot mate!

Seriously though you are right. Kelly Phelps on CNN was tying herself into knots trying to explain how Dixon's testimony was a plus for the defence.

Damn it, now everyone on WS thinks I am a liar! My credibility in WS is shot. I will stand in the corner, disgraced that I am in the same league as the OP...!

 

[soozieqtips]

Men in battle are inspired to fight for their comrades in arms. OP's entire existence has been all about himself, all the time.

When OP shot the gun at the restaurant he ran from the possibility of being caught and allowed his friend to take the blame. That wasn't courageous.

There's not one instance I can recall in OP's history that exemplified him being courageous.

Running around a track is not courageous. It's just running in a circle. And when he lost he acted like a baby.

Yep. It really takes a hero to gun down a terrified woman locked in the toilet with no means of escape. Bully comes to mind. Coward comes to mind. Murderer comes to mind. But hero... nope - not in this, nor in any other universe.

 

[Bazinga]

Nel will get Stander to testify that OP told him Netcare asked him to drive the body to hospital.

OP had yet to phone Netcare......another DT witness going against Oscars version of events.

Nel is setting the DT up beautifully.......it really is a thing of beauty.

That would be interesting.
I've wondered if Stander will testify, could have negative outcome for DT so maybe they won't call him as a witness? I'm not sure if that is a possibility.

 

[shane13]

Shane, are they working together to get him in prison or let off?
I think the country "needs" to be seen putting a white rich man away. I heard politians have all dropped him. I do believe he knew she was behind the door, but do they need a scapegoat. But then you think they've hid the 5th phone so theyd bring that out if my theory was true.

I've written here and more elsewhere for a year that he likely not only knew it was Reeva and not an intruder, but saw her...

I am not sure what "your theory" is. Or if you imply OP is a scapegoat?
When this first happened a Nigerian blogger iirc corrctly said if that BH affidavit came out in his country, the shooter and his attorney would both be taken straighaway to jail. [he first critiqued it.]

I do not also know if your first sentence implies you think he is innocent?

i think everything so far points to his highly probable guilt. And again I like the man and his accomplishments and even think I know the hiiden medical factors. (As the saying goes, there but for the grace...)

So here it is not putitng away an innocent white rich man.

I have told you all to find all you can on what reasons Pros gave for dropping charges against Carl P.
That tells you what would happen here if there was not so much light on this.

In all likelihood imo--depsite great probaliiltty beyond a reasonable doubt for guilt on PM charge, I believe the judge will rule against that, but due to all the light, will say guilty on CH charge--although she could use police bumbling--much of which was delberate IMO, to say she can't convict on thst either.

Tashas and .38 ammo I already said seems like a lock.

But I opined that OP will likely get bail during 5 years or more on appeals, and [NEW] some other judges will prob throw out conviction on technicality, police bumbling etc.

Oscar will serve at most very short jail time. JMO

 

[Interested Bystander]

Damn it, now everyone on WS thinks I am a liar! My credibility in WS is shot. I will stand in the corner, disgraced that I am in the same league as the OP...!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: