Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[G.bng]

I am more interested in Mrs Stipp's evidence regarding TIME.

Her 3:02 (on a clock 3 to 4 minutes fast) is at odds with other time points... whichever "side" you are on.

I am reluctant to disregard evidence simply because it does not fit my hypothesis.. I am critical when others do that, but I do question that time (lets call it 3:00) for the first set of bangs.

Coincidentally I got into the habit yesterday of typing "3:00" when I meant "3:10"

3:10 would make more sense for her evidence too.

She is at odds with her husband on this point. He heard bangs with time established by phone records at 3:17 and he also estimated the first set of bangs to be "10 minutes" before that... so at around 3:07. Of course there is wiggle room... so around 3:10 covers that... but NOT around 3:00. Whatever your hypothesis that time ("3:02") does not sit well?

Please show a link of where Mr Stipp estimated the first set of bangs to be "10 mins" before 3:17. I read and re-read the whole of Stipp's testimony and except for the 10mins Roux put to him as a fact to which Stipp replied, "I don't know about 10mins..." or something to that effect, there is no other mention of 10 mins, so unless there is another explanation that you can enlighten me on, either you have information I don't or you are confusing the 10 mins with another witness.

 

[katydid23]

90 % loving conversations

Yep, but that's how domestic violence works. The perp is 'loving' 90% of the time. Very loving and caring. It's that pesky 10% that gets you.

 

[weeeva]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

 

[G.bng]

Fair comment. My question still stands.

I'm not sure the Judge will think that these messages show intent for premeditated murder.

Remember before today how much anticipation there was for these messages? I really hope there's more, otherwise this is likely to be a murder charge and nothing more.

Ehem... it IS a murder charge and "nothing more" according to SA law, I must be missing something if there is more that it could be ?!

 

[katydid23]

So Oscar was moody and didn't behave well, or didn't behave the way Reeva liked, on some occasions. He accused her of flirting - and maybe she was or maybe she wasn't. He criticized things about her that she got sad about.

I don't see the real relevance of these messages though, other than to show that they had arguments and issues with each other.

She said he scared her and she was afraid of him when he got so angry at her. I find that relevant.

 

[foxbluff]

After reading the discussion on the last few pages, I'm going to say exactly what has been going through my mind: He wasn't killing her 90% of the time either, but he killed her none the less.

 

[G.bng]

Well, evidence that he has a history of being physically abusive. Evidence that there was a fight that evening. Evidence of threats he has made to her or to past girlfriends. Something along those lines.

Or anything that really proves that his version is impossible.

Would 5 witnesses hearing a woman either arguing or screaming do... ?

 

[G.bng]

I can't imagine Roux saying to the Judge 'what's to say......?

Or,

I put it to you m'lady, maybe......?

It means nothing unless you have something viable to show the Judge.

The motive certainly needs to become clear soon. There's hope yet.

IMBW, but I would think that if he killed Reeva in a blind rage there is no need for a motive... unless the rage can be considered motive.

 

[james83]

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But in fairness you replied to my post where I was asking for a motive, and didn't provide one. There's nothing really to get upset about.

I could say 'maybe he got pineapple topping and he wanted anchovies', that's why he went into full combat mode. It's speculation, but I've not provided what can be construed as a suitable motive.

People will natural question others findings on a forum, unless everyone agrees with everybody else of course.

Not upset in the slightest, you was talking about my theory being put to the judge which has no relevance to this forum.
My opinion is he was in a jealous rage when he killed her, i have this opinion due to his fairytale excuse for killing her, his obvious jealousy issue's and the fact that reeva met with her ex 2 days before she was killed.

 

[DebinGA]

Just going on the culture where I live (southern U.S.), OP's courtroom histrionics mark him as mentally unstable, not remorseful. Around here a defendant overtly and repeatedly crying, retching, vomitting, head-holding, ears'-blocking, etc., would seem crazy enough to do most anything. But that's here, not SA. His bizarre behavior indicates total self-absorption to me.

 

[Rumpole]

Please show a link of where Mr Stipp estimated the first set of bangs to be "10 mins" before 3:17. I read and re-read the whole of Stipp's testimony and except for the 10mins Roux put to him as a fact to which Stipp replied, "I don't know about 10mins..." or something to that effect, there is no other mention of 10 mins, so unless there is another explanation that you can enlighten me on, either you have information I don't or you are confusing the 10 mins with another witness.

I do not have links to every single word I post... and I am too lazy to go look for this one

So you win if you like. :scared:

But that point was not all of what I "put before you" in my post.

17+ minutes between bangs does not sit well with any hypothesis I have seen posted, regardless of which "side" you are on.

It does not sit well with any other witness testimony... even the Stipps' own testimony. They describe being wakened and soon realising it was serious. Stipp had the courage to go help as soon as he realized.... that does not agree with him and the wife strolling about.. between balcony and bedroom for 20 minutes or so .... before he even called security.

Having heard gunshots and "women's" screams the gist of their testimony was not that they listened to this screaming for 20 minute before calling security. ...... "about 10 mins" sounds a lot more in-sinc with what the Stipps (and other people describe).

 

[Viper]

I am more interested in Mrs Stipp's evidence regarding TIME.

Her 3:02 (on a clock 3 to 4 minutes fast) is at odds with other time points... whichever "side" you are on.

I am reluctant to disregard evidence simply because it does not fit my hypothesis.. I am critical when others do that, but I do question that time (lets call it 3:00) for the first set of bangs.

Coincidentally I got into the habit yesterday of typing "3:00" when I meant "3:10"

3:10 would make more sense for her evidence too.

She is at odds with her husband on this point. He heard bangs with time established by phone records at 3:17 and he also estimated the first set of bangs to be "10 minutes" before that... so at around 3:07. Of course there is wiggle room... so around 3:10 covers that... but NOT around 3:00. Whatever your hypothesis that time ("3:02") does not sit well?

I am surprised by that because his statement clearly states he was too frightened to put the light on . If the light was on then why would he assume it was an intruder and not Reeva .
Also the bedroom would have been partially illuminated .

Well you have got to give it to OPs DT, they are brazen! Now, on top of everything else, they are going to put it to us that the bathroom lights were broken that night. I believe they are just building a record for the appeals process that is coming after his conviction.

 

[steveml]

We don't actually know what OP called RS but I imagine it was something like or wh**re as she pointedly said she did not feel like a lady that evening but that is only a guess. In fact most of what was said obviously was not restated in the text but she was very, very upset about whatever it was he called her at the engagement party. I feel we are going to hear much more about his attitude tomorrow.

Although only 10 per cent of the calls were about him being controlling, abusive etc, simplified one could view it as being one 1 day in every 10 he was controlling, abusive, unkind, hurtful. She must have been on tenterhooks the whole time wondering when next she was going to be scared, very scared, frightened or hurt in some way.

Premeditated in SA law is somewhat different to other countries. It doesn't necessary involve preplanning. It can be shooting through the door at an unseen/unknown person several times, ie having shot once he made no attempt to stop shooting in the full knowledge that, by continuing, the likelihood was that whoever was behind the door would be killed.

If you accept Reeva did scream after the first bullet, he continued firing at her three more times knowing in all probability he would kill her.

Thanks. The above paragraph in bold I can absolutely agree with. If the above is deemed to be premeditated murder, that is the charge I believe OP will face from the evidence I've seen.

If it is deemed to be murder, then that is the charge I believe OP will face from the evdence I've seen.

I have not yet been convinced of the alleged actions over and above those that appear in bold. I wouldn't be happy with forcing a scenario to ensure a conviction as I still have reasonable doubt. That could yet change though, and murder is the minimum charge I'd expect at this stage of the trial.

 

[Gavel Rash]

For 'Oscar Pistorius' 'Blade Runner' his brand, his entity, his self worth....something he had spent his entire life creating, building, nurturing was about to be damaged, crushed exposed by an intelligent, mature women not about to be bullied into submission to keep that brand clean...would be motive enough for him to see red, or need to see red...thus pulling out the 9mm and stopping that from happening without real regard as to what he had to do to achieve it. 'It' the persona he had created had to protected at all costs. Bring on the data!

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Several more nails in Oscar's coffin today:

1.) Another ear witness (#5) who clearly heard a woman screaming. No equivocation from this witness at all on this point.

2.) Texts show that at the very least there were some problems in the relationship caused by Oscar's jealousy.


Regarding lights seen/not seen: The judge is very experienced in hearing testimony in trials. One thing about eye witness testimony of the same event is that different witnesses focus on different aspects of the event. That is just the way it is. And that is what produces differing accounts of the same event.

Example: We are all watching the same testimony being broadcast at the same time. Yet afterwards, one here will say "the testimony was such-and-such". Another will say "I didn't hear that". Another will say "No, I didn't hear that either". Next poster says "Oh, yes, that was definitely said. Right after the testimony about _____". That little "reminder" then prompts the memory of the original poster, who then says "Oh, yes, NOW I remember that being said!" And so-on and so-on.

Second example: I often accompany a relative of mine to doctor's appointments to a specialist - so that two people can be listening to what the doctor is saying/explaining. On the way home in the car, we will discuss what the doctor had to say. Oftentimes I will have heard the doctor say something the patient never even heard! I suspect this happens because the patient is still thinking about whatever the doctor said right before. (And this is why it is always a good idea for two to attend important medical appointments!)


Different people have differing capacities for remembering. Also various factors can interfere with retaining memories - such as emotion, alertness, background and interests.

Few of us has a "perfect tape recorder" running in our head. I think an experienced Judge knows this. But when you have FIVE witnesses, none of whom has any reason to lie, who all say they heard a woman screaming - well, there was likely a woman screaming.

 

[james83]

For god's sake i still can't get oldwadge's voice out of my head :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[minor4th]

I am surprised by that because his statement clearly states he was too frightened to put the light on . If the light was on then why would he assume it was an intruder and not Reeva .
Also the bedroom would have been partially illuminated .

I don't think the light was on before he shot the gun because there was gun powder residue on the lightswitch in the bathroom - and to me that indicates that he had already shot the gun when he turned the light on.

There are no witnesses who said they saw the light on while the three initial bangs were happening as no one was looking out the window until that happened. If the witnesses have said that the lights were on during the initial gunshots at 3:00 -3:10 ish, then I believe they are mistaken or have remembered incorrectly.

 

[delilah]

So Oscar was moody and didn't behave well, or didn't behave the way Reeva liked, on some occasions. He accused her of flirting - and maybe she was or maybe she wasn't. He criticized things about her that she got sad about.

I don't see the real relevance of these messages though, other than to show that they had arguments and issues with each other.

Up until now I have read your posts with interest, because you have quite rightly challenged the 'OP is guilty' lobby, and we all need to be challenged.

However, I cannot agree with any aspect of this post. I think you have misinterpreted the nature of the texts, and don't seem willing even to acknowledge that there MIGHT be classic signs here of an abusive relationship.

IMO.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks. The above paragraph in bold I can absolutely agree with. If the above is deemed to be premeditated murder, that is the charge I believe OP will face from the evidence I've seen.

If it is deemed to be murder, then that is the charge I believe OP will face from the evdence I've seen.

I have not yet been convinced of the alleged actions over and above those that appear in bold. I wouldn't be happy with forcing a scenario to ensure a conviction as I still have reasonable doubt. That could yet change though, and murder is the minimum charge I'd expect at this stage of the trial.

Even though I now feel he knowingly murdered her I have always thought it is going to be difficult to pin the full charge on him and I half expect a culpable homicide verdict.

 

[minor4th]

Just going on the culture where I live (southern U.S.), OP's courtroom histrionics mark him as mentally unstable, not remorseful. Around here a defendant overtly and repeatedly crying, retching, vomitting, head-holding, ears'-blocking, etc., would seem crazy enough to do most anything. But that's here, not SA. His bizarre behavior indicates total self-absorption to me.

His behavior would almost certainly not be tolerated in the US, and I agree that it does indicate mental instability or lack of control of his emotional expression - I also believe it to be a genuine reaction. Whether it's a reaction to his own guilty conscience or whether it's remorse - that's subject to different opinions and interpretations. I believe it to be genuine and not faked.