Trial Discussion Thread #40

[patCee]

I think this is just another detail OP is deliberately lying about, which is why I wish they could track down the call and establish exactly what he said when he described Reeva's injuries.

Yes, and I also think it's possible that OP was so scared/alarmed about what he'd done, due to the consequences for himself, that he instinctively wanted RS' body away from him and away from his house. He moved her despite, I believe, knowing a seriously injured person shouldn't be moved, and carried her downstairs. An attempt to disassociate himself from what he'd done in addition to compromising the crime scene. He tried unsuccessfully to get Stander to take her.

When giving his evidence OP also criticised Stipp's help, trying to reinforce he was seeking help, and Stipp didn't know what he was doing. Along with claims that he didn't shoot RS, or anyone, he only shot at the door.

It all indicates to me that OP is in denial, in addition to trying to save his own skin. He continues to disassociate himself from the crime. JMO

I believe his distress, anxiety, is more about the consequences he is going to have to face than the fact that RS lost her life as shown by his evidence in court.

 

[Emz73]

Especially considering the closest hospital, which boasts a trauma centre, is 6km (less than 4 miles) from Silver Woods.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

I think that information says it all IMO.
Would netcare not be allowed to speak out in defence of their operators until the trial is over?

 

[Interested Bystander]

bbm - I would have to review Mangena's testimony as I don't recall that, unless you have a link where he says that? In the meantime, here are the official videos from sabc. Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.

Session 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ
Session 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only the portion of the door with the crack that the witness identified the bullet hole as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6...id=P-14bhKWdfY

Session 3 unfortunately does not connect. I will try to find it via another source.

 

[Lyra500]

Especially considering the closest hospital, which boasts a trauma centre, is 6km (less than 4 miles) from Silver Woods.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

IIRC paramedics arrived within 6 min. of Dr. Stipp insisting Stander call NetCare. Here's the modern hospital less than 4 m. away:

https://www.netcare.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=5577

I think that information says it all IMO.
Would netcare not be allowed to speak out in defence of their operators until the trial is over?

Yes, and I also think it's possible that OP was so scared/alarmed about what he'd done, due to the consequences for himself, that he instinctively wanted RS' body away from him and away from his house. He moved her despite, I believe, knowing a seriously injured person shouldn't be moved, and carried her downstairs. An attempt to disassociate himself from what he'd done in addition to compromising the crime scene. He tried unsuccessfully to get Stander to take her.

When giving his evidence OP also criticised Stipp's help, trying to reinforce he was seeking help, and Stipp didn't know what he was doing. Along with claims that he didn't shoot RS, or anyone, he only shot at the door.

It all indicates to me that OP is in denial, in addition to trying to save his own skin. He continues to disassociate himself from the crime. JMO

I believe his distress, anxiety, is more about the consequences he is going to have to face than the fact that RS lost her life as shown by his evidence in court.

I have to admit to being really surprised that the PT did not appear interested in exploring the inconsistencies and worrying elements of OP's account relating to events after the shooting.

• The call to Stander before Netcare
• The outlandish claims about Netcare instuctions to move Reeva
• The bizarre attempts at 'resuscitation' after carrying the gravely and most likely mortally injured Reeva downstairs
• The unexplained second trip upstairs
• The reasons for removing key evidence from the scene - 5th phone and Reeva's bag

Weird.

 

[DebinGA]

Thinking about the ear witnesses and Roux's final witness/es:

http://ewn.co.za/2014/05/12/OPINION-Pistoriuss-experts-what-have-they-been-doing

For some reason, I can't copy and paste the last two paragraphs here, but they're worth reading.

 

[Emz73]

I have to admit to being really surprised that the PT did not appear interested in exploring the inconsistencies and worrying elements of OP's account relating to events after the shooting.

• The call to Stander before Netcare
• The outlandish claims about Netcare instuctions to move Reeva
• The bizarre attempts at 'resuscitation' after carrying the gravely and most likely mortally injured Reeva downstairs
• The unexplained second trip upstairs
• The reasons for removing key evidence from the scene - 5th phone and Reeva's bag

Weird.

I've never watched a big trial before, in the breaks I've been watched the Jodi Arias trial, and the PT seemed to pick up all the small details, gas cans for instance. Real tv detective stuff. I just don't understand either. Unless he'd answer "I don't remember why" but even that statement was used against Jodi. I could watch parts of that trial all day, amazing stuff! The way she answered yes or no turning towards the jury was so weird!!!

Is this different because there is no jury?

 

[kittychi]

Here's one of my 'hmmm' moments - the whole waking up, what he saw or could of seen/the fans fandango/RS getting up and off the bed and walking down the hallway unheard and unoticed. I can't see how he couldn't have seen or perceived her.

To clear it up I suggest the court goes to the house in the early hours of the morning on a night with similar weather conditions and they re-enact it. The bloke can be OP, the younger woman RS and M'lady can sit in the corner and use her eyes and ears as instruments. I'm not joking really. Balcony lights on, doors open, fans where he said they were, and do the actions he claims they did. If I was them I'd want to know if it all was possible because I don't buy it at this point in time.

And another little thing that's been said and is worth repeating - why answer 'no' to 'can't you sleep baba' when you've been asleep for five hours? According to him he went out like a light so even in his own version he's not an honest man.

BBM: IMO it can also be reasoned that Reeva, being a very kind and thoughtful person, would have seen OP struggling with fans and cords, on his stumps, and gone over to help him. In his version, Reeva has to have totally ignored him, and said nothing to him as she got up to go to the loo.

IMO...just not reasonably, possibly true.

 

[patCee]

I have to admit to being really surprised that the PT did not appear interested in exploring the inconsistencies and worrying elements of OP's account relating to events after the shooting.

• The call to Stander before Netcare
• The outlandish claims about Netcare instuctions to move Reeva
• The bizarre attempts at 'resuscitation' after carrying the gravely and most likely mortally injured Reeva downstairs
• The unexplained second trip upstairs
• The reasons for removing key evidence from the scene - 5th phone and Reeva's bag

Weird.

I'm guessing the reasons are that your 1 and 2 on the list are factual, entered into evidence, and don't need explaining. Whereas 3, 4 and 5 although also entered into evidence are about individual motivation and the reasons can only be implied rather than taken as facts. I'm sure that M'lady will consider them seriously though where they support other evidence e.g. Netcare and the motivation for removing items from the crime scene.

 

[Cherwell]

I think that information says it all IMO.
Would netcare not be allowed to speak out in defence of their operators until the trial is over?

One would think they would be concerned, and might contact counsel about it. But is it possible that the judge has been provided with a tape or transcript of the call? As Emz reminded us, the absence of a jury may be the difference here.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

One would think they would be concerned, and might contact counsel about it. But is it possible that the judge has been provided with a tape or transcript of the call? As Emz reminded us, the absence of a jury may be the difference here.

Maybe DT objected to it being played in court? :twocents:

 

[weeeva]

From you link. Quote:
“GAD is a persistent, intense and excessive worrying of such severity that it interferes with someone’s functioning,” said psychologist Kevin Bolon.

This means it only becomes a problem when your worries take up so much time and energy that you begin to slip up at work and in social responsibilities. For 33-year old GAD sufferer Lara, her worries consume her so much that she feels anxious even where there is no reason to.

“I often have this overwhelming feeling that something terrible is going to happen – my family and friends just don’t get it,” she said.[/I]

BIB I don't get how Dr. V could have diagnosed GAD as having been part of OP before the murder, I just don't. If someone was suffering with this condition, it would be obvious to friends, family, coworkers, etc... and they would ask someone, anyone, for help and advice.

BBM
I totally disagree with you here Viper. Especially the piece bolded by me. Mental health patients slip through the net regularly. I know this through personal experience. As a teenager and even younger I experienced intrusive thoughts constantly. Terrible, horrific thoughts, so terrible that I can not even bring myself to write them down let alone actually say it. It never occurred to me to just ask for help, I did not know that I was mentally ill. My very supportive family believed I was just moody and oversensitive, all they would see was my sullen mood, they did not know why I was so morose at times because I could not tell anyone about the thoughts in my head. I went to my doctors regularly complaining of fatigue and insomnia.
This went on until I was aged forty, and was finally diagnosed with a mental illness and treated with medication which opened a door to a better quality of life. I feel sorry for the young girl I once was and I am amazed that I suffered in silence for so long.
Life would have been so different for me if I had been diagnosed at an earlier stage of my life.

 

[lithgow1]

BBM: IMO it can also be reasoned that Reeva, being a very kind and thoughtful person, would have seen OP struggling with fans and cords, on his stumps, and gone over to help him. In his version, Reeva has to have totally ignored him, and said nothing to him as she got up to go to the loo.

IMO...just not reasonably, possibly true.

There are many 'unusual' shall we say claims in just the first few minutes of his version:

1. He awakens in a room with the curtains open and the balcony light on and yet only sees the shape of her legs under the duvet, nothing else. Must be a low wattage bulb on that balcony.

2. He originally said he went out on to the balcony then changed it to the fan and then fans were in the doorway. Why make such changes? Saying he went out onto the balcony is unambiguous so he couldn't have been misunderstood.

3. Why say in his bail application that they both fell asleep when he would not know if she did or not since he claims to have slept from approx 10pm till 3am and she was awake when he woke up? Why not mention the brief conversation he claims they had since they would have been the last words spoken between them and thereby significant?

So there IMO are four odd things that have taken place according to his version within moments of him waking up. It's strange that some argue that PT witnesses changing any aspect of their initial statements is suspicious whereas OP gets a pass. Confirmation bias perhaps?

 

[CriLondon]

Personally I struggle to think of darts players as athletes. :biggrin:

LOL hahah !
Well , i could challenge you to find another athlete able to perform to such high standards whilst completely drunk!!

Only joking of course!!

P.S. Guess you could say Paul Gascoigne back in his hey-day lol

 

[PrimeSuspect]

There are many 'unusual' say we say claims in just the first few minutes of his version:

1. He awakens in a room with the curtains open and the balcony light on and yet only sees the shape of her legs under the duvet, nothing else. Must be a low wattage bulb on that balcony.

2. He originally said he went out on to the balcony then changed it to the fan and then fans were in the doorway. Why make such changes? Saying he went out onto the balcony is unambiguous so he couldn't have been misunderstood.

3. Why say in his bail application that she was asleep when he went to get the fans and then later change that to the brief conversation he claims they had. The last words spoken between them would be significant so why first say she was asleep?

So there IMO are three odd things that have taken place according to his version within moments of him waking up. It's strange that some argue that PT witnesses changing any aspect of their initial statements is suspicious whereas OP gets a pass. Confirmation bias perhaps?

I have to agree, your 3 points really bug me too! :tantrum:

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe DT objected to it being played in court? :twocents:

On what grounds?

 

[Val1]

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only a specific crack on the door as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified bat marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8

Session 3 unfortunately does not connect. I will try to find it via another source.

Sorry, I must've copied it wrong, plus I fixed the very poor explanation of what I was saying.. :/

 

[turaj]

I'm similarly fascinated with the dynamics between OP and his family.
Watching that interview, I got a very different feeling about his uncle than when I've watched him in the trial.
Before I thought he was just going along with whatever...supporting, financing, etc.
Now I see him as somewhat calculating and careful now. When he firmly denied, at the end, about the taxes thing it seemed like they are going to stick by him no matter what, even if it means they themselves have to lie. Just speculation. But really interesting.

I'm personally looking forward to Reeva's Dad being in court. In a documentary earlier on in the trial (or just before), he said he was determined to be there at some point.

i am very concerned about exactly what this "evaluation" involves...I mean how independent are the evaluators? I don't think we can underestimate Uncle Arnold and his "entourage" and their influence in this country...simply put money talks. Roux is a to me very unlikable and smart man...he had to know where this witness would take them and I'm not so sure it is all calculated. OP is probably one of those psch patients that could be evaluated and given various diagnosis from a mild anxiety disorder (which could clearly be a result of the trial) to serious disorder...depending on the motivation of the evaluators. That is the part I don't trust...Uncle Arnold has influence and I think there are many in SA that don't really want to convict his nephew and this could be a way out. I mean...right diagnosis...OP walks out with some therapy planned which he needs anyway. I've now lost my confidence that justice would be served and boy I hope I am wrong. I'm not try to offend any SA folks on the forum...just talking about how things work...right or wrong....and of course I don't live there and don't know first hand...I am generalizing.

 

[CriLondon]

I think most of us are agreed that no one from Netcare told OP to bring Reeva in unless he deliberately downplayed her injuries. I think it's worth a reminder that he doesn't remember what he said to Netcare... but he does remember what they said to him about bringing her in. There absolutely should be a recording of this call somewhere. Why it hasn't been brought up is beyond me.

I would suspect that if Nel had anything to go on with on the subject, he most definitely would have. My opinion is , the call wasn't recorded.

 

[CriLondon]

Very quiet today. Lots of regular "faces" missing??

Yes it is ! Not that i'm a regular face , just using the trial break to catch-up on bits i missed.
Maybe some are doing the same , or reading and enhancing knowledge of the latest break and what it means, legally.

Or , simply , they have been very active and are just taking a well deserved break !! haha

 

[Dphil]

We'll find out next week... though according to this article outpatient may have just been wishful thinking on both the DT and Judge's part,
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-fate-in-hands-of-panel-1.1688482#.U3WW2Sg0ojg

I was wondering if the time was really 9am till 5pm and there was just a mix up in the times?

BUT I don't think it's fair that someone would get preferential treatment to become a 'day patient' for a referral like this. From what Dr. V. said - OP is DANGEROUS with a gun - he probably has access to one in his uncle's house.

They shouldn't have different rules just because someone is a celebrity and it's being televised. I see that's what the link is saying.

I just don't think the judge seems to know what she should about these things suggesting that he could be an outpatient.