Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

The evidence from the trial

Does that include OP's evidence?

 

[cottonweaver]

Just before I get further into your post:

"Reeva stopped breathing almost immediately after being shot"

Which evidence are you using for this?

The obvious source. Expert testimony.

 

[LemonMousse]

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!

Perhaps "attitude" was the wrong word. "Poor arguments" is better. The fact that the Pistorians have such very poor arguments is quite a good indication (to me) of his guilt. If he was innocent and telling the truth the evidence would support him, and so would the arguments. Clearer? Although I was pretty clear to begin with.

"The emotion of such a situation..." is an excuse and means precisely nothing. No doubt if Pistorius had been found dancing a jig and singing "Yay, I killed Reeva. She was doing my head in"...you'd put it down to "shock" or "emotion" too.

The Standers did nothing wrong. Pistorius failed to tell them the seriousness of the situation so they went there blind. A medical doctor showed up before they had a chance to summon help.

Pistorius did everything wrong. And I think his claim that Netcare told him to take Reeva to hospital himself was a barefaced lie. If it wasn't, someone at Netcare should be up on a disciplinary charge.

And you are not, and never have been, even slightly detached.

 

[cottonweaver]

Let's use our energies more wisely!

Ah but Mr Jitty, I doubt the sincerity of those posts!

 

[LemonMousse]

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 pathologist. She would only have managed a couple of breaths because her brain stem was destroyed.

BTW...stopping breathing does not equal immediate death, as an A&E doctor spent a long time explaining on this forum.

 

[mrjitty]

Does that include OP's evidence?

This MO of yours is boring.

If you followed the trial - you will know which evidence.

If you didn't - why should I hunt it out for you?

You do your thing - but don't expect me to engage in it.

Cheers

 

[mrjitty]

The evidence from the pathologist. She would only have managed a couple of breaths because her brain stem was destroyed.

BTW...stopping breathing does not equal immediate death, as an A&E doctor spent a long time explaining on this forum.

Also - there was no blood in the lungs - therefore no breaths were taken after the headshot

 

[mrjitty]

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

I guess this was another irrelevant point the Judge did not need to consider!

The great irony is that if Stipp hadn't turned up - then presumably there would have been a far larger delay until medical/police assistance was requested.

 

[mrjitty]

For me the question of most interest in all this is at what point OP decided to kill Reeva

Was it a loss of control of an abuser in his rage?

What makes me think otherwise is he had at least minutes, if not longer to think about this.

Did he torment her? Was he aware of the intruder angle? (a well known prior SA case)

Was this an idea he toyed with before hand?

 

[cottonweaver]

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!

I wasn't aware of point 3. That is interesting. By his phone - do you mean the business phone or the personal phone which was removed by OP. Is that from/corroborated by Fossil's analysis?

2. Yes SAPS weren't rigorous - no indication of sizing was given re inside-out jeans to confirm possession. Remember reading RS mum did not know if they were hers- surely she would have looked at the size. But assume they thought possession was unprovable ( could be boyfriend baggy style jeans) and they weren't going to go to the trouble of getting them forensically tested.....certainly have never heard mention that they were submitted for tests. I'm not sure they were even collected by the police from the scene.

1. Removal of handbag - again just bizarrely accepted that the sister took it for "safekeeping" and the cops let her walk right out with it. Beggars belief but in context of other missed opps, eg. tel. records not obtained, it's par for the course and Nel had to go with what he had.

 

[cottonweaver]

For me the question of most interest in all this is at what point OP decided to kill Reeva

Was it a loss of control of an abuser in his rage?

What makes me think otherwise is he had at least minutes, if not longer to think about this.

Did he torment her? Was he aware of the intruder angle? (a well known prior SA case)

Was this an idea he toyed with before hand?

BIB first.
Yes IMO he was aware of the intruder angle. ie. IMO he was aware that there was a risk an intruder could be shot, by him, in that home, in the past.
One of OP old friends who stayed with him had had a previous experience at the house whereby friend got up and OP went into combat mode with gun, only too be find bump in the night was OP. It was interesting that the friend never gave evidence for Defence - ie. corroborating that Mr OP is genuinely scared of home intrusion.
I have always assumed that friend was not called by DT because a conversation ensued twixt OP & friend that could be damaging to OP. Speculating along the lines of " You need to be careful Oscar, you nearly killed me last night ...." ( What friend would not mention it the next morning) Secondly DT don't want to call a witness who also demos how OP is reckless around guns.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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!

I can only comment on your Point 1.

This seemed never to be questioned. I have actually just listened to Carice's testimony where she clearly says it was OP's sister who determined that the bag be taken, supposedly to keep it safe and to give to Reeva's mother. IMO this may well have been taken to remove evidence should there be any, eg a diary, maybe the phone that disappeared. This, of course, is just my opinion. The Pistorius siblings, seemingly, have been treated with kid gloves. I wonder if Aimee not being called was included in the agreement not to call Carl, even though it was known both had interfered with the crime scene.

I have also just listened to OP being questioned about the inside out jeans but the ones in the bedroom and OP confirmed to Nel that they were Reeva's. I don't recall any discussion about the ones outside but maybe that happened on another day. I will see what I can find.

 

[Colin de France]

For me the question of most interest in all this is at what point OP decided to kill Reeva

Was it a loss of control of an abuser in his rage?

What makes me think otherwise is he had at least minutes, if not longer to think about this.

Did he torment her? Was he aware of the intruder angle? (a well known prior SA case)

Was this an idea he toyed with before hand?

OK so now we are into theories.....since the very start of the affair i am stuck with the idea that RS went to the WC to read OP's telephone, he realised what she was doing (anger) and wanted her out as quickly (speed) as possible before she found out too much (panic), the gun was used to force her to come out (the one shot), because of the scream he fired another three......that's the way i see it and for the moment no one or nothing has convinced me yet to change my mind.....

 

[mrjitty]

I wasn't aware of point 3. That is interesting. By his phone - do you mean the business phone or the personal phone which was removed by OP. Is that from/corroborated by Fossil's analysis?

2. Yes SAPS weren't rigorous - no indication of sizing was given re inside-out jeans to confirm possession. Remember reading RS mum did not know if they were hers- surely she would have looked at the size. But assume they thought possession was unprovable ( could be boyfriend baggy style jeans) and they weren't going to go to the trouble of getting them forensically tested.....certainly have never heard mention that they were submitted for tests. I'm not sure they were even collected by the police from the scene.

1. Removal of handbag - again just bizarrely accepted that the sister took it for "safekeeping" and the cops let her walk right out with it. Beggars belief but in context of other missed opps, eg. tel. records not obtained, it's par for the course and Nel had to go with what he had.

Re 1 - this was really a false narrative of the trial.

Of course corrupt police don't usually spend time framing nice white celebrities.

But what corrupt police might do is allow key evidence go walkies or deliberately compromise parts of the investigation

Funny how all the police incompetence/corruption actually worked in the defence's favour.

Oh wait - that isn't funny - that's how trials get scuppered by cops all the time

See for example, the London Met

So not saying that SAPS were corrupt - but if they were - it would be to the defence's advantage rather than disadvantage

Remember we were discussing that other suicide where I think the ballistics expert was also involved?

And the gun went missing from the crime scene?

LOL!

How often do police allow someone to remove the the gun from a suicide crime scene?

I have some big reservations over SAPs in this case.

 

[lithgow1]

For me the question of most interest in all this is at what point OP decided to kill Reeva

Was it a loss of control of an abuser in his rage?

What makes me think otherwise is he had at least minutes, if not longer to think about this.

Did he torment her? Was he aware of the intruder angle? (a well known prior SA case)

Was this an idea he toyed with before hand?

My feeling is that it was very much spur of the moment. An argument escalated, she ran to the toilet, he saw red (it seems quite clear that he had a short fuse and bad temper), got his gun and and in his rage shot her. I think that immediately afterwards the red cleared and both remorse and self-preservation kicked in, hence the phone call to Stander etc. I think that once it had happened, though he wished it hadn`t, he also needed her dead for the intruder story to be able to work. So essentially IMO it was premeditated murder, but premeditated over a few fateful minutes.

One of the odder things in Masipa`s judgement was her comments how his obvious remorse in the immediate aftermath suggested he hadn`t wanted to shoot her. Seems very odd to me that a judge doesn`t consider the high likelihood of something being done in a moment and then instantly regretted.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

Sounds like you missed huge chunks of the trial. No wonder you keep asking people to provide links! OP said that Dr Stipp appeared "overwhelmed" and "unsure" of what he was doing. This from a killer who thought it was fine and dandy to drag Reeva out of the bathroom and move her downstairs and not bother to get her any medical help at all!! Perhaps he was teed off that Stipp had shown up at all.

By the way, once again, do you have any thoughts as to why OP lied about asking Stander to call an ambulance? Please don't mention OP's emotional state, as this was in his affidavit five days later, which gave him plenty of time to remember if he'd asked Stander to call an ambulance... or to help him lift Reeva. Two quite different things, wouldn't you say?

 

[cottonweaver]

I can only comment on your Point 1.

This seemed never to be questioned. I have actually just listened to Carice's testimony where she clearly says it was OP's sister who determined that the bag be taken, supposedly to keep it safe and to give to Reeva's mother. IMO this may well have been taken to remove evidence should there be any, eg a diary, maybe the phone that disappeared. This, of course, is just my opinion. The Pistorius siblings, seemingly, have been treated with kid gloves. I wonder if Aimee not being called was included in the agreement not to call Carl, even though it was known both had interfered with the crime scene.

I have also just listened to OP being questioned about the inside out jeans but the ones in the bedroom and OP confirmed to Nel that they were Reeva's. I don't recall any discussion about the ones outside but maybe that happened on another day. I will see what I can find.

Thanks for listening to that Bystander and pointing out that the inside out jeans were confirmed by OP, to belong to RS- I always assumed they were but don't recall, now at least, it being proven. I tried to check my old posts from a year ago but they have all gone. Same as a year ago, I still assume she wanted to leave and there was a tussle over the jeans before the retreat to the toilet. ( Another poster asked why she would want to put on jeans - of course she wasn't going to drive all that way home, as alone female, in the dead of night with his sleeping shorts on - too vulnerable. Plus at that point she was not thinking he would actually kill her. )

Going back to the issue of disturbance and removal from crime scene I still can't accept why a lawyer and family member can remove anything from a perpetrators safe at the crime scene. Surely that is not usual protocol? I do think that reflects on Mr Jitty's point about preferential treatment of OP the celebrity from the get go.
I know that many S Africans think that corruption is rife there, so it may be the cause of missing evidence in this case. Not sure.

But we can safely factor in a not very effective force and speculate they were equally blinded by his hero status of the celeb coupled with the power of his rich family's connections.

I think it's arguable, IMO that SA police, used to dealing with so many poor, disempowered and black criminals/ victims of crime coupled with the high homicide rate aren't quite as strict with evidence/procedures as in other countries, where there is more chance they will be held to account.

 

[cottonweaver]

I can only comment on your Point 1.

This seemed never to be questioned. I have actually just listened to Carice's testimony where she clearly says it was OP's sister who determined that the bag be taken, supposedly to keep it safe and to give to Reeva's mother. IMO this may well have been taken to remove evidence should there be any, eg a diary, maybe the phone that disappeared. This, of course, is just my opinion. The Pistorius siblings, seemingly, have been treated with kid gloves. I wonder if Aimee not being called was included in the agreement not to call Carl, even though it was known both had interfered with the crime scene.

I have also just listened to OP being questioned about the inside out jeans but the ones in the bedroom and OP confirmed to Nel that they were Reeva's. I don't recall any discussion about the ones outside but maybe that happened on another day. I will see what I can find.

This seemed never to be questioned. I have actually just listened to Carice's testimony where she clearly says it was OP's sister who determined that the bag be taken, supposedly to keep it safe and to give to Reeva's mother. IMO this may well have been taken to remove evidence should there be any, eg a diary, maybe the phone that disappeared. This, of course, is just my opinion. The Pistorius siblings, seemingly, have been treated with kid gloves. I wonder if Aimee not being called was included in the agreement not to call Carl, even though it was known both had interfered with the crime scene.

I have also just listened to OP being questioned about the inside out jeans but the ones in the bedroom and OP confirmed to Nel that they were Reeva's. I don't recall any discussion about the ones outside but maybe that happened on another day. I will see what I can find.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for listening to that Bystander and pointing out that the inside out jeans were confirmed by OP, to belong to RS- I always assumed they were but don't recall, now at least, it being proven. I tried to check my old posts from a year ago but they have all gone. Same as a year ago, I still assume she wanted to leave and there was a tussle over the jeans before the retreat to the toilet. ( Another poster asked why she would want to put on jeans - of course she wasn't going to drive all that way home, as alone female, in the dead of night with his sleeping shorts on - too vulnerable. Plus at that point she was not thinking he would actually kill her. )

Going back to the issue of disturbance and removal from crime scene I still can't accept why a lawyer and family member can remove anything from a perpetrators safe at the crime scene. Surely that is not usual protocol? I do think that reflects on Mr Jitty's point about preferential treatment of OP the celebrity from the get go.
I know that many S Africans think that corruption is rife there, so it may be the cause of missing evidence in this case. Not sure.

But we can safely factor in a not very effective force and speculate they were equally blinded by his hero status of the celeb coupled with the power of his rich family's connections.

I think it's arguable, IMO that SA police, used to dealing with so many poor, disempowered and black criminals/ victims of crime coupled with the high homicide rate aren't quite as strict with evidence/procedures as in other countries, where there is more chance they will be held to account.

 

[cottonweaver]

sorry folks - duplicate post will not delete.
Very slow site for me too

 

[Trotterly]

This MO of yours is boring.

If you followed the trial - you will know which evidence.

If you didn't - why should I hunt it out for you?

You do your thing - but don't expect me to engage in it.

Cheers

The reason I ask was that it was widely thought that OP said Reeva was not breathing when first talking about going into the toilet but he in fact said "she was everything" I wasn't asking you to hunt for anything.