Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

Then why not tell medically-unqualified Carice Stander that he'd been given advice by professionals to take her to hospital himself?

If he was acting on advice given, how come he abandoned that on the say so of a mate?

Pretty soon, by the way, I am going to start listing all of the points and questions you're ignoring. And it's most of them.

I have to say that it is attitudes like yours that pretty much seal the deal for me where OP's guilt is concerned. If he was actually innocent and telling the truth, the arguments supporting him would be considerably better than the speculative "what ifs" you keep trotting out.

As I've said before in the emotion of such a situation untrained people don't always act in the most efficient way. Neither Stander's reaction was the correct one either but we aren't accusing them of having a hand in Reeva's murder.

I'm surprised that you use the attitude of other posters as a way to help determine OP's guilt. Personally I think one needs to remain as detached as possible so as not to be unfairly influenced when deciding guilt, but that's just me!

 

[lithgow1]

As I've said before in the emotion of such a situation untrained people don't always act in the most efficient way. Neither Stander's reaction was the correct one either but we aren't accusing them of having a hand in Reeva's murder.

I'm surprised that you use the attitude of other posters as a way to help determine OP's guilt. Personally I think one needs to remain as detached as possible so as not to be unfairly influenced when deciding guilt, but that's just me!

There you go again. I am sure Lemon will make her own considered response but it was quite clear what she meant. Namely, OP supporters are reduced to quibbling over details and semantics rather than addressing head-on the points of evidence, including forensics and the many inconsistencies in OP`s statements and evidence, because that is pretty much all they have. At least it was obvious to me that`s what her point was. Was it not clear to you or are you simply choosing to misinterpret it and thereby side-step the crux of the issue?

 

[Trotterly]

Does that include sitting on the floor for five minutes feeling `sad`? Not aghast, horrified, distraught or hysterical, but `sad'. Soozieqtips post highlighted really well the absurdity of his actions and reactions in the immediate post shooting period if his whole intruder story were true but again you choose to just focus on one little aspect of it rather than the whole and all its implications.

Not wishing to offend in any way but if you were faced with a loved one whose brains you had "accidentally" blown out I'm sure you would do it by the book but I know there are other people who would not. Is it so unlikely that OP could have had his actions influenced by his emotions? Is that even remotely likely to you? Is it even possible in your eyes?

 

[Trotterly]

There you go again. I am sure Lemon will make her own considered response but it was quite clear what she meant. Namely, OP supporters are reduced to quibbling over details and semantics rather than addressing head-on the points of evidence, including forensics and the many inconsistencies in OP`s statements and evidence, because that is pretty much all they have. At least it was obvious to me that`s what her point was. Was it not clear to you or are you simply choosing to misinterpret it and thereby side-step the crux of the issue?

Well that's not what was said - "attitudes like yours" not arguments or similar. But I'm happy to be corrected by the op.

 

[lithgow1]

Not wishing to offend in any way but if you were faced with a loved one whose brains you had "accidentally" blown out I'm sure you would do it by the book but I know there are other people who would not. Is it so unlikely that OP could have had his actions influenced by his emotions? Is that even remotely likely to you? Is it even possible in your eyes?

It is not a matter of doing things by the book. It is the big gap between what Pistorius says he wanted to do (save Reeva) and what he actually did (a stream of illogical and unhelpful actions). Yes one could give him the benefit of the doubt for a poor word choice but `sad`? The guy who sobbed and retched and spewed his way through the trial was `saddened` by what he had done. And stopped screaming when he saw her body because there would be no point in screaming anymore? You can put it down to the muddled actions and reactions of someone who had just committed a ghastly error. I put it down to just another part of the BS being spun by a killer desperate to avoid the consequences.

What did you think by the way of his little dig at Dr Stipp? Real classy wasn`t it. The guy who rings a friend first to summon help then has the gall to make a snide comment about the man who came to actually try and help. And you can`t blame post-shooting trauma for that one.

 

[cottonweaver]

There you go again. I am sure Lemon will make her own considered response but it was quite clear what she meant. Namely, OP supporters are reduced to quibbling over details and semantics rather than addressing head-on the points of evidence, including forensics and the many inconsistencies in OP`s statements and evidence, because that is pretty much all they have. At least it was obvious to me that`s what her point was. Was it not clear to you or are you simply choosing to misinterpret it and thereby side-step the crux of the issue?

:facepalm: yes, deliberately and persistently obtuse - not very effective when so transparent.

So one could take a range of views on it... laughable, tedious, sheer bewilderment or take your pick ..... or just give up?*

As I posted some time ago.... I can't quite work out the motivation/satisfaction/purpose*.

As for Lemon Mousse - although it's irrelevant - I think she is a he. Perhaps likes that dessert. Which reminds me to go and pick some gooseberries to make a "gooseberry fool". ( Seriously etc. ....)

 

[lithgow1]

:facepalm: yes, deliberately and persistently obtuse - not very effective when so transparent.

So one could take a range of views on it... laughable, tedious, sheer bewilderment or take your pick ..... or just give up?*

As I posted some time ago.... I can't quite work out the motivation/satisfaction/purpose*.

As for Lemon Mousse - although it's irrelevant - I think she is a he. Perhaps likes that dessert. Which reminds me to go and pick some gooseberries to make a "gooseberry fool". ( Seriously etc. ....)

Where I live it`s raspberry season. Another apt fruit perhaps?

 

[Trotterly]

It is not a matter of doing things by the book. It is the big gap between what Pistorius says he wanted to do (save Reeva) and what he actually did (a stream of illogical and unhelpful actions). Yes one could give him the benefit of the doubt for a poor word choice but `sad`? The guy who sobbed and retched and spewed his way through the trial was `saddened` by what he had done. And stopped screaming when he saw her body because there would be no point in screaming anymore? You can put it down to the muddled actions and reactions of someone who had just committed a ghastly error. I put it down to just another part of the BS being spun by a killer desperate to avoid the consequences.

What did you think by the way of his little dig at Dr Stipp? Real classy wasn`t it. The guy who rings a friend first to summon help then has the gall to make a snide comment about the man who came to actually try and help. And you can`t blame post-shooting trauma for that one.

It was a desperate comment. But again not unusual for a medic to get it in the neck in an emotional situation. It couldn't be seen as such?

 

[lithgow1]

It was a desperate comment. But again not unusual for a medic to get it in the neck in an emotional situation. It couldn't be seen as such?

He said it in the trial Trotterly, not at the time. Twelve months after the event. Had he said it at the scene I could understand it but IMO he threw it in the trial in an attempt to discredit the doctor in any way he could. But I will agree that it was said in the context of an emotional situation - OP saying and doing anything that he thought might help to get him off the hook.

 

[mrjitty]

Does that include sitting on the floor for five minutes feeling `sad`? Not aghast, horrified, distraught or hysterical, but `sad'. Soozieqtips post highlighted really well the absurdity of his actions and reactions in the immediate post shooting period if his whole intruder story were true but again you choose to just focus on one little aspect of it rather than the whole and all its implications.

The obvious issue with the OFFICIAL ROUX TIMELINE is that if Reeva was shot with the first bangs, then that must have been around 3.12 - 3.13 (or even earlier) given that the crickets bats are OFFICIALLY @ 3.17

The defence version claimed that the time elapsed between shots and bats was as much as 5 mins. (Although OP also contradicted this). This is necessary for Roux's version as the Stipps need to observe a lot of activity over many minutes before finally connecting with security.

On top of that OP needs to take Reeva out of the toilet - mess about in the bathroom, call people, before carrying Reeva down in time for Stander/Stipp to arrive.

The trouble is that Reeva stopped breathing almost immediately after being shot. Furthermore her heart could not continue beating for more than a few mins after she stops breathing.

So lets be generous here:

Let's say OP gets shoots Reeva as late as 3.13 and manages to hunt for her, put on his legs and break down the door all in 4 mins.

We then know he then has to spend another 5 mins approx on his phone calls etc while Reeva is on the bathroom floor.

So ...

1. How does he see Reeva breathing? He can only have seen this if he saw her moments after the shooting. Oh dear!

2. How does Reeva manage an arterial bleed on the wall by the stairs fully 9-10 mins after she stopped breathing? Oh dear!


Item 1 was a bad marble leak - he did see that in my view. Because he saw Reeva right after he shot her.

Item 2 shows without a shadow of a doubt that Reeva was shot at a later time than the defence contends.

Consider the following:

Dr Stipp was already awake and standing at his telephone when he heard the second set of bangs. This places those gunshots only seconds before 3:15:51

Having shot Reeva at 3:15:51, Pistorius pushes out the broken panel, reaches inside and opens the door. He now witnesses Reeva dying.

He drags Reeva out (note not carries her out - shown to be impossible without the victim assisting in the reconstruction video)

Reeva will now bleed out on the bathroom floor - consistent with large amount of blood found there. There was never 4-5 mins of bleed out in the toilet.

While Reeva lies there - OP will now make his calls. He will also do stuff in the bedroom as the blood spatter will later be found on the duvet and back wall

Then he carries Reeva down - and she will make a last arterial bleed at most 6 mins after the shooting.

 

[Trotterly]

He said it in the trial Trotterly, not at the time. Twelve months after the event. Had he said it at the scene I could understand it but IMO he threw it in the trial in an attempt to discredit the doctor in any way he could. But I will agree that it was said in the context of an emotional situation - OP saying and doing anything that he thought might help to get him off the hook.

Then I don't know what you mean by a dig at Stipp unless you are referring to when he said that he couldn't help Reeva or wtte.

 

[Trotterly]

The obvious issue with the OFFICIAL ROUX TIMELINE is that if Reeva was shot with the first bangs, then that must have been around 3.12 - 3.13 (or even earlier) given that the crickets bats are OFFICIALLY @ 3.17

The defence version claimed that the time elapsed between shots and bats was as much as 5 mins. (Although OP also contradicted this). This is necessary for Roux's version as the Stipps need to observe a lot of activity over many minutes before finally connecting with security.

On top of that OP needs to take Reeva out of the toilet - mess about in the bathroom, call people, before carrying Reeva down in time for Stander/Stipp to arrive.

The trouble is that Reeva stopped breathing almost immediately after being shot. Furthermore her heart could not continue beating for more than a few mins after she stops breathing.

So lets be generous here:

Let's say OP gets shoots Reeva as late as 3.13 and manages to hunt for her, put on his legs and break down the door all in 4 mins.

We then know he then has to spend another 5 mins approx on his phone calls etc while Reeva is on the bathroom floor.

So ...

1. How does he see Reeva breathing? He can only have seen this if he saw her moments after the shooting. Oh dear!

2. How does Reeva manage an arterial bleed on the wall by the stairs fully 9-10 mins after she stopped breathing? Oh dear!


Item 1 was a bad marble leak - he did see that in my view. Because he saw Reeva right after he shot her.

Item 2 shows without a shadow of a doubt that Reeva was shot at a later time than the defence contends.

Consider the following:

Dr Stipp was already awake and standing at his telephone when he heard the second set of bangs. This places those gunshots only seconds before 3:15:51

Having shot Reeva at 3:15:51, Pistorius pushes out the broken panel, reaches inside and opens the door. He now witnesses Reeva dying.

He drags Reeva out (note not carries her out - shown to be impossible without the victim assisting in the reconstruction video)

Reeva will now bleed out on the bathroom floor - consistent with large amount of blood found there. There was never 4-5 mins of bleed out in the toilet.

While Reeva lies there - OP will now make his calls. He will also do stuff in the bedroom as the blood spatter will later be found on the duvet and back wall

Then he carries Reeva down - and she will make a last arterial bleed at most 6 mins after the shooting.

Just before I get further into your post:

"Reeva stopped breathing almost immediately after being shot"

Which evidence are you using for this?

 

[lithgow1]

Then I don't know what you mean by a dig at Stipp unless you are referring to when he said that he couldn't help Reeva or wtte.

I cannot recall his exact words but he said something about how Stipp didn`t seem to know what he was doing. I will try and find the exact wording. But whatever the exact wording, it was at the very least a churlish and unnecessary comment given that the doctor had voluntarily gone to a house where he had heard gunshots in the early morning hours to see if he could help. And the fact that he couldn`t do anything isn`t surprising given the nature of her injuries, which OP should have clearly realised a year down the track.

 

[cottonweaver]

Where I live it`s raspberry season. Another apt fruit perhaps?

mmm. You're blessed. I only have the autumn fruiting rasps here. Add a meringue and a dollop of cream, couldn't be easier

(OT but for light relief)

 

[lithgow1]

While looking for the Stipp quote I came across this on the Juror 13 blog. Hope it is OK to post as it really doesn`t make it seem as if the first thoughts of Pistorious` friends were to help Reeva.

Dr. Stipp drove to Oscar’s house, he parked, and there was a man (Mr. Stander) speaking on a cell phone leaning against a white car in the parking lot. That man motioned him toward the front door. There was a lady standing in the doorway (Stander’s daughter). He stated to her that he was a doctor, can he be of assistance, she said yes and walked him inside. ....

Oscar was crying all the while Dr. Stipp was there that night. He was praying to God “please let her live, I will dedicate my life and her life to God if you will just let her live.” Dr. Stipp went outside and asked Mr. Stander if the ambulance was on their way. He said no, he hadn’t called them yet so Dr. Stipp called the hospital emergency department and asked them to send an ambulance. They told him he had to call an emergency number, not them directly, so Mr. Stander called an emergency number. Dr. Stipp spoke to the dispatcher, explained the injuries, and they proceeded to send out an ambulance.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-4/

 

[mrjitty]

I've been coming across a lot of interesting points that I had forgotten about or never investigated properly at the time

1. Why did OP's people remove Reeva's hand bag from the crime scene? Outrageous!

2. Were the inside out jeans actually Reeva's? We know Reeva's jeans were found out the window, and everything else neatly packed. I found on Juror 13 an interesting note that Nel never actually accepts they were Reeva's jeans - that is something contended by the defence. Did OP take them off in a hurry?

3. Why did OP place his phone in airplane mode after calling security?

I need to trawl back over J13's site!

 

[mrjitty]

While looking for the Stipp quote I came across this on the Juror 13 blog. Hope it is OK to post as it really doesn`t make it seem as if the first thoughts of Pistorious` friends were to help Reeva.

Dr. Stipp drove to Oscar’s house, he parked, and there was a man (Mr. Stander) speaking on a cell phone leaning against a white car in the parking lot. That man motioned him toward the front door. There was a lady standing in the doorway (Stander’s daughter). He stated to her that he was a doctor, can he be of assistance, she said yes and walked him inside. ....

Oscar was crying all the while Dr. Stipp was there that night. He was praying to God “please let her live, I will dedicate my life and her life to God if you will just let her live.” Dr. Stipp went outside and asked Mr. Stander if the ambulance was on their way. He said no, he hadn’t called them yet so Dr. Stipp called the hospital emergency department and asked them to send an ambulance. They told him he had to call an emergency number, not them directly, so Mr. Stander called an emergency number. Dr. Stipp spoke to the dispatcher, explained the injuries, and they proceeded to send out an ambulance.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-4/

So who was Stander talking to?

 

[mrjitty]

Just before I get further into your post:

"Reeva stopped breathing almost immediately after being shot"

Which evidence are you using for this?

The evidence from the trial

 

[mrjitty]

:facepalm: yes, deliberately and persistently obtuse - not very effective when so transparent.

Let's use our energies more wisely!

 

[lithgow1]

So who was Stander talking to?

Probably lawyers. Seriously though I don`t know, but you would think an ambulance would be the priority wouldn`t you but no-one had called one till Stipp, the least involved in the whole thing, did. This link also has a good recap of those post-shooting events. Going by this, Op was told an ambulance was on its way before one had even been called. Beggars belief really.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-pistorius-says-stipp-looked-overwhelmed-and-unsure