Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

I don't know which it is in the bat/gun scenario (though I agree it isn't crouching).

......... he could of been lower down with his back against the hallway wall ......
...

 

[Mr Fossil]

BIB1 How does this fit with what the Stipps heard though? They heard 3 bangs in a row and quickly, the same as the second bangs.

BIB2 I tried this too some time ago. He'd have to guess that bats can be mistaken for shots though, wouldn't he - or do you think that he knew about the Stipps' evidence even before the bail hearing? And he'd have to explain female screaming for about 5+ minutes as that would certainly be heard. Yet in his version his screams before the shots can't be the 'female' screaming as it couldn't have taken 5+ minutes to get into the bathroom. If they'd been up and fighting I'd expect him to say that they were up (the lights or noise might have been heard) and watching a DVD for example, certainly not that they were asleep in bed. How did you reconcile these points?

1. Given that we only know of two sets of sounds it follows that one of the sets that they hear must have been the bat. I would suggest that both Stipps were not wide awake (she was feeling fluish and he either just woke up to the sounds or her coughing or her asking what the sounds were) so how good was their recollection? I'd go with the first set being the bat. Interestingly they both are only tested on whether the rapidity of the second set could be a bat being wielded.

2. I don't think so. He didn't know any testimony AFAIK so I wonder whether OP knew or thought anyone heard the bat or the woman's screams at the time he wrote the bail statement. I think it's worth concentrating on the bail statement only at this stage because this is where he establishes the steps. Detail and embellishments come much later and could well be after he has seen the police docket.

Not sure if I've answered properly - dinner beckons!

 

[Colin de France]

.........how come the state charged him with murder........is there one piece of evidence anywhere that points towards murder......the whole investigation from the first second was a farce and now all is going to be put right with the appeal.....only problem is...nothing has changed....even if they now accept the witnesses and the screams that still doesn't prove murder........

 

[cottonweaver]

Hope you have enjoyed your dinner now Fossil, if not have a look another time...

Have read through a few of your posts and various responses to them.. so a few thoughts
Sorry - can't make this any shorter!

Re the “bat strikes - gunshots- bat prising” scenario.
Whilst I’m not throwing my whole lot in quite yet with the Prosth off when first batting door (even though Vermeulen testifies that and my gut says it’s good), nonetheless question keeps being asked:

Why would OP take risk to say Prosth ON when striking door when in truth it was Prosth off? I appreciate Fossil has given some reasoning from OP’s perspective, from post 263 onwards too.

1) in OP version of gun-bat : during bats he needs to show Prosth ON, he was determined to run & to get Reeva out as fast & effectively as poss now he had realised it could well be Reeva. ( I don’t agree Fossil, that he needs to say Prosth ON primarily re fear/his vulnerability it could potentially still be an intruder in loo not Reeva. )
2) Whilst for OP the prosth need to be OFF at shooting time to legitimise his fear as a disabled man- it’s the CORE of his case “As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”( Bail S) Also they were meant to be asleep so Prosth off, that’s also core. ( Fact that time to put Prosth ON would suggest further conscious action/pre-med & time to spot RS absence is important certainly but not as central as disabled vulnerability under threat I don’t think Fossil.) Personally I FEEL Prosth ON at this point, but it is irrelevant to the debate because I’m not certain even though S.Taylor attested that EVERY night he kept his gun next to his prosth at the bedside-never under the bed , Fresco said OP kept his gun twixt his legs when driving. But I still wouldn’t put ££££ on my opinion as its still only that and Mangena says likely but not certainly 100% certain Prosth off.
3) How would OP know, at bail time, that forensics could later guarantee a 100% Prosth off finding from door tests? OP might know he could later explain the low marks as just low strikes. Following a bat-gun-bat use scenario and on OP’s own bail version he actually did both anyway: he interacted with the door with pros both on and off. In the end forensics would show evidence to back up Prosth off and to some extent Prosth ON (sock mark?)
4) Prior to completing Bail.St. he does not know 100% that he has not been seen by a neighbour. Is that why, ( thinking aloud not questioning you as such ) putatively, his bail B. St has him returning to bathr twice, once with p off, later with p o - ie. a covering all bases element ?- or am i barking up the wrong tree

It’s also worth noting in B.S. that he says, possibly to allow for post -discovery “clashes” , that he is unsure when in respect of these 2 journeys he switched on the lights. ( Indeed the B.St about the lights is, suspiciously, the only sentence that he will not state unequivocally, when you consider the tense change compared to rest of reported actions.) Arguably at time of bail s he is unsure if he has been seen and unsure if a witness has seen lights on but he has included a covering option.

Going to paste up the B.ST as it was after all, part of the State's case as J.Greenland reminded us.

 

[cottonweaver]

snipped B.S.

"She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.
I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime.
I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before.
For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains.
I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me.
There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside.
Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house.
I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed.
On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police.".......

IMO The light MUST have been off in the early part of this sequence, cannot u'stand why he would be so definitive here otherwise , although the later "I think I then must have switched on the lights" may have provided adequate "get-out". On second thought I can see a good Def team advising it was more imp to put it in here at this critical part of the narrative but qualify it later.( Happy to be corrected on balcony light issue. )

 

[cottonweaver]

"It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.
I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet.
I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window.
As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.
I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.
I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police.
She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance.
Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light.
Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed.
That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet......"

 

[cottonweaver]

"I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked.
I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open.
I think I must then have turned on the lights.
I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door.
A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door.
Reeva was slumped over but alive. I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom.
I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander&#8221 who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help.
I went downstairs to open the front door. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital.
I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived.
A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived.
Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.
I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva.
With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in" .....

Date: some days prior to 19th Feb! I can't be bothered to look that up. s.o. here will know

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

 

[GR_Turner]

Mangena's report states that the height of his elbow on prostheses is 4cm lower than the trajectory determined (18.7.3) whilst his shoulder height on stumps is 7cm lower (18.7.1). Both paragraphs suggest the discrepancy can be compensated.

OP says he was holding the gun one-handed (at shoulder height, on stumps). Many commentators say this is unlikely because it would be difficult to correct and steady after each shot but I've seen some amazingly good single-handed examples on YouTube where a target is hit repeatedly with rapid fire at a considerably greater distance. However, and I say this knowing nothing about guns, I also don't think it is necessary to hold a gun at eye level when you're just 3m away from the target if you want to hit it. So elbow bent at 90 degrees on prostheses is also possible. Mangena doesn't rule it out, just says that on stumps is 'most likely'.

I don't know which it is in the bat/gun scenario (though I agree it isn't crouching). On the one hand, fetching the gun and returning on stumps immediately to stop Reeva doing whatever she's going to do (or whatever his reason), with minimal time for his anger to dissipate, makes sense but does that make the gun a more deliberate act (i.e. if his purpose is to fetch it)? On the other, if he's realised that to stop Reeva he needs to be on his prostheses and he then picks up the gun as an afterthought (perhaps to threaten her), this option seems plausible too. In this case kicking the door next would be virtually immediately after he's come to his senses. I've yet to figure if one or the other option isn't viable.

I also know nothing about guns but I'd always supposed that a shooter would hold the gun out in front of him. I suppose my vast experience with water-pistols counts for nothing in this context however.

If it's giving up on the door for whatever reason and then going and getting the gun, then why the 5 minutes before the shots? If he wanted to stop her from doing something ie screaming or phoning, then waiting 5 minutes makes no sense. He could have knocked the door down in a fraction of that time too. If that's not his reason for shooting ie it's just anger, then I suppose that's possible but again I wonder why he'd get the gun at all and why not just try again with the bat. If he stopped originally because he couldn't break it on his stumps then he could try again with his legs on very well. No need for the gun at all. The idea that he went into the bedroom and just decided to use the gun on his girlfriend of 3 months due to some fight just seems totally out of all proportion to the situation and with no history of domestic violence, out of character.

 

[cottonweaver]

2. I don't think so. He didn't know any testimony AFAIK so I wonder whether OP knew or thought anyone heard the bat or the woman's screams at the time he wrote the bail statement. I think it's worth concentrating on the bail statement only at this stage because this is where he establishes the steps. Detail and embellishments come much later and could well be after he has seen the police docket.

RSBM

Do posters not think it plausible, not just you Fossil, that Mr Stander & Carice may have shared info. with Oscar's family/ Aimee/ Oscar's team (it does not really matter which ) prior to B.ST being written up . They acknowledge they were discussing it between themselves as a family and that Aimee & Carice had discussions over the bag?

Ie. we know that Stander communicated with family ( as did Carice) post killing and that Stander had probably spoken to lawyer. ( More than once?)
Not sure re. Mike N either- probably not.

Under cross with Nel , Stander states
" he is sure that Stipp told him he heard 4 shots first, and then another 4 shots after. He remembers this clearly because when he was later discussing this incident with Carice he made the comment to her that he was concerned because you cannot shoot 8 shots at a person, even if he’s an intruder. "

So Stander could have already passed on what he himself did not hear ( zilch) , what Stipp heard ( or a version of) as well as what Carice heard ( male scream plus helps)

Carice
Carice was "was getting out of bed, she heard a person shouting “help, help, help.” She froze in her bed for a moment and realized that something was wrong. Then she got up, went to the blinds and closed them. She stood by the door to see if she could figure out where the noises were coming from. She closed the door and latched it, closed the blinds and got in to bed. Her heart was pounding fast. Her dogs were still restless.

She was lying in bed trying to settle down and was thinking about the man’s voice yelling for help. She thought there must be terrible trouble. And she was wondering “where is the lady?”"I’m not sure why she would immediately assume a woman would be involved too? That comment felt very well placed to me."

These are not verbatim, they are from, I don't have time to check the testimony on Youtube tonight:
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/oscar-trial-day-25-may-5-johan-and-carice-stander/

Proviso- I am afraid I view the comments of OP's friend Carice on stand with a pinch of salt.

But if you compare the bail S to the potential Carice/Mr. St /Stipp conveyanced info. it looks interesting. Happy to be contradicted though, by anyone, as I don't have any of your matrices to hand.

 

[GR_Turner]

1. Given that we only know of two sets of sounds it follows that one of the sets that they hear must have been the bat. I would suggest that both Stipps were not wide awake (she was feeling fluish and he either just woke up to the sounds or her coughing or her asking what the sounds were) so how good was their recollection? I'd go with the first set being the bat. Interestingly they both are only tested on whether the rapidity of the second set could be a bat being wielded.

2. I don't think so. He didn't know any testimony AFAIK so I wonder whether OP knew or thought anyone heard the bat or the woman's screams at the time he wrote the bail statement. I think it's worth concentrating on the bail statement only at this stage because this is where he establishes the steps. Detail and embellishments come much later and could well be after he has seen the police docket.

Not sure if I've answered properly - dinner beckons!

1. I'd have to check how that evidence went in relation to the speed of the bangs. I thought that at least one of them responded that both sets sounded the same when asked the speed, which I took to mean that they were both too fast.

2a. I agree it's worth concentrating on the bail application for this purpose. On the state's case, it was shown by the defense acoustics expert that Reeva would have had to scream very, very loudly indeed to he heard by Burger/Johnson. So it's odd that OP wouldn't think to cover that up somehow. The screams would have happened before the real shots if the state are right, yet OP only says he screamed at the intruder to get out and at Reeva to call the police. I would expect him to say that he was so scared that he paused for a long time screaming before summoning the courage to go into the bathroom or something to extend this screaming to 5 minutes plus. Perhaps that was the plan and he got lucky?

b. He puts the helps after the shots yet he'd know that everyone would have heard them before the real shots if it's all a story. Again, like the screams, he'd surely expect that many people would hear both the shots and his 'helps' as they were screamed out of the balcony window. So it would have been better not to mention those 'helps' at all.

The level of detail is such that he's taking an incredible risk giving this statement if it's just a made up story. Yet the evidence when it comes actually supports him particularly if Johnson's phone time is correct.

Sorry my posts keep turning into essays.

 

[GR_Turner]

1. Given that we only know of two sets of sounds it follows that one of the sets that they hear must have been the bat. I would suggest that both Stipps were not wide awake (she was feeling fluish and he either just woke up to the sounds or her coughing or her asking what the sounds were) so how good was their recollection? I'd go with the first set being the bat. Interestingly they both are only tested on whether the rapidity of the second set could be a bat being wielded.

2. I don't think so. He didn't know any testimony AFAIK so I wonder whether OP knew or thought anyone heard the bat or the woman's screams at the time he wrote the bail statement. I think it's worth concentrating on the bail statement only at this stage because this is where he establishes the steps. Detail and embellishments come much later and could well be after he has seen the police docket.

Not sure if I've answered properly - dinner beckons!

BIB I think Stipp referred to both sets of shots as volleys - I haven't double checked on YT however as no time now.

 

[cottonweaver]

In relation to the previous point about would/could a Stander convey info on what may have been witnessed, to Oscar's team prior to B.S

Here's juror13's commentary from the same link which I hadn't bothered to read in entirety
before posting earlier:

"Nel asks Stander if he ever went back to the scene to assist the Defense while they were doing their investigation. He says no. But initially he had the key to the house. There was an arrangement made after the incident that Col Van Rensburg would keep the key but when they finished at the house, they would turn it over to Stander, which they did. He then handed it over to the Pistorius family. Nel asks if he has ever been back in the house since February 14, and Stander says no.

Nel asks, when you spoke to Dr. Stipp, were you convinced that he had heard gunshots (both the first set and the second set of noises)? Stander says yes. Nel asks him if he ever asked Dr. Stipp about the screaming that he heard. Stander says no, they didn’t discuss it. All they ever discussed was what Dr. Stipp initially heard and that was all.

The only other thing that Stander asked Stipp that night was for his cell phone number. Stander says he did this in case the police needed it.

Nel then asks him about his call to Stipp later that night after he left the scene (the one that Stipp got around 4:30am). He wants to know why he made that call. Remember, per Stipp’s testimony, during this call he was informed that the Defense lawyer would be contacting him. Stander says he believed it was the right thing to do to inform Stipp that he had passed along his number.

Interestingly enough, he did not give Stipp’s number to the police; he gave it directly to advocate Oldwage. Within one hour of Reeva’s violent death, prior to Reeva’s mom even knowing she was dead, Mr. Stander was providing details and phone numbers to Oscar’s defense lawyer. Any question about whose side the Standers are on?"


Up to you whether you think that Dr. Stipp would really have recounted to Stander detail re. 2 sets of shots but omitted the rest that he had heard
and whether you think the house-minding, dog-minding, Reeva- memorial attending & key holder Stander ( who was not actually an admin of the estate any longer) would tell the whole truth and nothing but. ....


https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/oscar-trial-day-25-may-5-johan-and-carice-stander/

 

[cottonweaver]

Finally , I had to look it up on youtube:

Oldwage with Stander.
Stander says that he & Stipp had a conversation outside before ambulance came.


Stander says Stipp told him 4 shots, silence, screams, 4 shots.

So did Stander's vital info get passed, even just as gossip to Oscar's team prior to Bail St being drawn up?

It's here at 17 mins in , ends at 18 mins.
[video=youtube;2cW8gWbXjCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cW8gWbXjCQ[/video]


Clearly Juror13 only meant that later, when Nel asks Stander whether Stipp & himself had discussed the qualities , gender , any details of the screams, Stipp denies they did.
Interesting detail on the number of shots though. Did Stipp really number those shots for Stander, considering Stipp's own testimony was different. Or was Stander "assisted" there?

 

[Mr Fossil]

I also know nothing about guns but I'd always supposed that a shooter would hold the gun out in front of him. I suppose my vast experience with water-pistols counts for nothing in this context however.

If it's giving up on the door for whatever reason and then going and getting the gun, then why the 5 minutes before the shots? If he wanted to stop her from doing something ie screaming or phoning, then waiting 5 minutes makes no sense. He could have knocked the door down in a fraction of that time too. If that's not his reason for shooting ie it's just anger, then I suppose that's possible but again I wonder why he'd get the gun at all and why not just try again with the bat. If he stopped originally because he couldn't break it on his stumps then he could try again with his legs on very well. No need for the gun at all. The idea that he went into the bedroom and just decided to use the gun on his girlfriend of 3 months due to some fight just seems totally out of all proportion to the situation and with no history of domestic violence, out of character.

I imagined that if he was standing on prostheses with the gun at elbow height his forearm would be extended but, as I said earlier, I don't know which is more likely (versus stumps). I talk from excessive spud gun experience here!

Why wait 5 minutes? I'd agree that on the face of it you make a very valid point. But I'd have to challenge the 5 minutes. Looking at the evidence:

1. Roux argues that the first sounds were between 03:12 and 03:14 (although Johnson said he woke to screams at 03:12 perhaps his time was an estimate e.g. "about 4 minutes before the call" - I'd have to check) so this places them perhaps nearer 03:12 (the call could be any time between 03:16 and 03:16:59)
2. Mrs Stipp observes '03:17' just before the second sounds (which places them in the range at 03:13:01-03:14:49 plus a few seconds to allow her to start moving inside, give her husband the alternate number - her evidence isn't clear here, nor is her husband's)
3. Dr Stipp places the earliest call after the second sounds at 03:15:51 if we accept his evidence (so they're certainly no later); other calls are at a similar time (and instead of shifting Stipps's shots I'm shifting Burger/Johnson's in the same manner as the Judgment but I feel with more justification)
4. OP himself says at one time in his testimony there was only a couple of minutes between firing the gun ('the incident') and actually being in the toilet.

All of this suggests a much narrower window of time between the two sets of sounds.

However, we are still left with the Stipps's first sounds appearing to be much earlier. I can't reconcile this.

The idea that lost his temper, acted irrationally, picked up his gun are all traits which appear consistent with many previous incidents of irrational or aggressive behaviour. JudgeJudi had an excellent list of the many incidents he had been involved in.

 

[Mr Fossil]

1. I'd have to check how that evidence went in relation to the speed of the bangs. I thought that at least one of them responded that both sets sounded the same when asked the speed, which I took to mean that they were both too fast.

2a. I agree it's worth concentrating on the bail application for this purpose. On the state's case, it was shown by the defense acoustics expert that Reeva would have had to scream very, very loudly indeed to he heard by Burger/Johnson. So it's odd that OP wouldn't think to cover that up somehow. The screams would have happened before the real shots if the state are right, yet OP only says he screamed at the intruder to get out and at Reeva to call the police. I would expect him to say that he was so scared that he paused for a long time screaming before summoning the courage to go into the bathroom or something to extend this screaming to 5 minutes plus. Perhaps that was the plan and he got lucky?

b. He puts the helps after the shots yet he'd know that everyone would have heard them before the real shots if it's all a story. Again, like the screams, he'd surely expect that many people would hear both the shots and his 'helps' as they were screamed out of the balcony window. So it would have been better not to mention those 'helps' at all.

The level of detail is such that he's taking an incredible risk giving this statement if it's just a made up story. Yet the evidence when it comes actually supports him particularly if Johnson's phone time is correct.

Sorry my posts keep turning into essays.

1. They did, that is true, but neither were tested on the rapidity of the first sounds versus the bats. That said, saying they were similar may well imply this. So what are the possibilities? If neither set of sounds that they hear are slow enough to be bat strikes did he fire the gun out of the window to scare Reeva first? I looked at this in Key Questions (trying to figure how many bullets were left in the magazine) and WTA2 leaves this as a possibility. Or we have to go with one set being the bat and then we have to choose which.

2a. Just imagining for one moment that he is guilty and has a choice of either confessing or coming up with the intruder story, in choosing the latter he doesn't have much choice about certain things. For instance, he has to ignore a woman screaming, an argument etc. because they simply can't be built into his version. He has no choice and must accept the risk. Later he is able to embellish his version to cover certain aspects but I'm sticking with the bail statement at the moment.

2b. Only the Burger/Johnson testimony places the helps before the shots and I think they have the shots in the wrong place.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Hope you have enjoyed your dinner now Fossil, if not have a look another time...

Have read through a few of your posts and various responses to them.. so a few thoughts
Sorry - can't make this any shorter!

Re the “bat strikes - gunshots- bat prising” scenario.
Whilst I’m not throwing my whole lot in quite yet with the Prosth off when first batting door (even though Vermeulen testifies that and my gut says it’s good), nonetheless question keeps being asked:

Why would OP take risk to say Prosth ON when striking door when in truth it was Prosth off? I appreciate Fossil has given some reasoning from OP’s perspective, from post 263 onwards too.

1) in OP version of gun-bat : during bats he needs to show Prosth ON, he was determined to run & to get Reeva out as fast & effectively as poss now he had realised it could well be Reeva. ( I don’t agree Fossil, that he needs to say Prosth ON primarily re fear/his vulnerability it could potentially still be an intruder in loo not Reeva. )
2) Whilst for OP the prosth need to be OFF at shooting time to legitimise his fear as a disabled man- it’s the CORE of his case “As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”( Bail S) Also they were meant to be asleep so Prosth off, that’s also core. ( Fact that time to put Prosth ON would suggest further conscious action/pre-med & time to spot RS absence is important certainly but not as central as disabled vulnerability under threat I don’t think Fossil.) Personally I FEEL Prosth ON at this point, but it is irrelevant to the debate because I’m not certain even though S.Taylor attested that EVERY night he kept his gun next to his prosth at the bedside-never under the bed , Fresco said OP kept his gun twixt his legs when driving. But I still wouldn’t put ££££ on my opinion as its still only that and Mangena says likely but not certainly 100% certain Prosth off.
3) How would OP know, at bail time, that forensics could later guarantee a 100% Prosth off finding from door tests? OP might know he could later explain the low marks as just low strikes. Following a bat-gun-bat use scenario and on OP’s own bail version he actually did both anyway: he interacted with the door with pros both on and off. In the end forensics would show evidence to back up Prosth off and to some extent Prosth ON (sock mark?)
4) Prior to completing Bail.St. he does not know 100% that he has not been seen by a neighbour. Is that why, ( thinking aloud not questioning you as such ) putatively, his bail B. St has him returning to bathr twice, once with p off, later with p o - ie. a covering all bases element ?- or am i barking up the wrong tree

It’s also worth noting in B.S. that he says, possibly to allow for post -discovery “clashes” , that he is unsure when in respect of these 2 journeys he switched on the lights. ( Indeed the B.St about the lights is, suspiciously, the only sentence that he will not state unequivocally, when you consider the tense change compared to rest of reported actions.) Arguably at time of bail s he is unsure if he has been seen and unsure if a witness has seen lights on but he has included a covering option.

Going to paste up the B.ST as it was after all, part of the State's case as J.Greenland reminded us.

I'm exploring bat/gun/kick not bat/gun/prise (just to be pedantic). Vermeulen suggests prise but he didn't consider kick as being the method of getting the first, smaller panel out.

1. I don't think primarily fear either. My logic, including why kick before bat, is in the link I'll post in a bit. I've not managed to precis the document so I'll just link to it when I've tidied it up.
3. They don't, it is just what Mangena said was 'most likely' but he didn't exclude the prostheses option. If OP fired the weapon on his prosthesis at elbow height he'd know he could easily say stumps at shoulder height (assuming he even considered what forensics would be able to figure). He'd have had a tougher job if he'd fired on prostheses at shoulder height...
4. I have my thinking on the multiple visits covered in my rationale. Link to follow.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Here's my thinking, pretty much as I typed it (so no comments please about grammar or semantics if you know what I was intending!) on How did Oscar's version come about? This is based on the premise that the bat then gun scenario is what actually happened.

It's very much a work in progress but I'm happy with the gist of it. I thought it through literally as I typed it then made a couple of changes. You can even see my thought process at the end when I explore why he didn't check the bedroom door (I know this isn't in the bail statement but his (lack of) thinking when checking the bedroom affects the additional steps he has in his version).

Comment etc. all welcome.

 

[Colin de France]

Here's my thinking, pretty much as I typed it (so no comments please about grammar or semantics if you know what I was intending!) on How did Oscar's version come about? This is based on the premise that the bat then gun scenario is what actually happened.

It's very much a work in progress but I'm happy with the gist of it. I thought it through literally as I typed it then made a couple of changes. You can even see my thought process at the end when I explore why he didn't check the bedroom door (I know this isn't in the bail statement but his (lack of) thinking when checking the bedroom affects the additional steps he has in his version).

Comment etc. all welcome.

.............thanks.......the element of speed is what ciments it altogether for me........why he had to get into the WC....why he went for the bat and eventually the gun......it was about retrieving the phone as fast as possible.............the speed element is pretty obvious, he was under pressure...

 

[GR_Turner]

I imagined that if he was standing on prostheses with the gun at elbow height his forearm would be extended but, as I said earlier, I don't know which is more likely (versus stumps). I talk from excessive spud gun experience here!

Why wait 5 minutes? I'd agree that on the face of it you make a very valid point. But I'd have to challenge the 5 minutes. Looking at the evidence:

1. Roux argues that the first sounds were between 03:12 and 03:14 (although Johnson said he woke to screams at 03:12 perhaps his time was an estimate e.g. "about 4 minutes before the call" - I'd have to check) so this places them perhaps nearer 03:12 (the call could be any time between 03:16 and 03:16:59)
2. Mrs Stipp observes '03:17' just before the second sounds (which places them in the range at 03:13:01-03:14:49 plus a few seconds to allow her to start moving inside, give her husband the alternate number - her evidence isn't clear here, nor is her husband's)
3. Dr Stipp places the earliest call after the second sounds at 03:15:51 if we accept his evidence (so they're certainly no later); other calls are at a similar time (and instead of shifting Stipps's shots I'm shifting Burger/Johnson's in the same manner as the Judgment but I feel with more justification)
4. OP himself says at one time in his testimony there was only a couple of minutes between firing the gun ('the incident') and actually being in the toilet.

All of this suggests a much narrower window of time between the two sets of sounds.

However, we are still left with the Stipps's first sounds appearing to be much earlier. I can't reconcile this.

The idea that lost his temper, acted irrationally, picked up his gun are all traits which appear consistent with many previous incidents of irrational or aggressive behaviour. JudgeJudi had an excellent list of the many incidents he had been involved in.

It seems unlikely to have been just a minute or two - none of the witnesses to the screaming seemed to think it was that short a length of time though I can see there's room for debate. I'd dispute that we can place the timing of the second bangs before Stipp's successful call to security as it doesn't fit in with Stipp's other phone times though it does fit in with what Mrs Stipp said about seeing her clock. However there is also the 10111 call at 3.17 (which puts the second bangs at 3.17) which I simply don't think could have come from anywhere other than the state's evidence, though where exactly is unclear.

Yes, he does have a history of aggression - against inanimate objects for the most part. There's no history of deliberate physical attacks that I've heard of. I'm sure some posters will want to argue that the Taylor-Memmory incident was deliberate but it sounds to me more like a drunken accident that got blown out of all proportion.

 

[Colin de France]

Yes, he does have a history of aggression - against inanimate objects for the most part. There's no history of deliberate physical attacks that I've heard of. I'm sure some posters will want to argue that the Taylor-Memmory incident was deliberate but it sounds to me more like a drunken accident that got blown out of all proportion.

......"against inanimate objects for the most part" (like doors for example)................Pistorius is someone who likes to get his own way.........and acts like a child when he can't.........