Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[Rumpole]

Just recalling my aggravating Christo Meneaou 3.08am....3 claps of thunder...that caused major thread anxiety for someone as being speculative and not in the current tabled statements of evidence......that was his house, on the right, lit up like a proverbial Xmas tree..yes? Seems to fit ever so closely to the time stamps being bandied about of 3.02 to 3.08?
Has there been any descriptive nature of the bangs...I would have imagined the first set of bangs, if a cricket bat, to be slightly further apart and have a bit of thwack sound to them...however everyone appears to call them shot sounds. I wonder also where the bedroom door damage figures in sound -assault sequence.

the 3:02 was OK(ish) until she qualified it with "the clock is 3 to 4 minutes fast" 3:02 is already at the extreme end of fitting, the extra 3 or 4 minutes taking it back to maybe 2:58 just makes any overall explanation seem like the author is "pushing it". As I said... if that time is correct, then it is somewhat at odds with the Stipps' own overall testimony. They awoke to first bangs...then screams and Dr Stipp was concerned enough to phone security and rush over in person to try and help. 20 minutes after what he KNEW to be gunshots, and then screams that he thought to be a woman in dire circumstances, worthy of him rushing to help, before he even rang security does not seem correct.

 

[luvmygarden]

He also lied under oath when he pled not guilty to the restaurant gun charge.

The show I watched with Robert Shapiro he stated if the judge finds him in just 1 lie OP has a problem. Well that has already happened with the Restaurant incident. Now even talked about in the message to Reeva by OP himself. Wonder how worried the defense lawyers are at this time about the Judge believing OP's full statement.

 

[kittychi]

Talk about confusing. Which is it, rabid or rabbit?

Pistorius: "It's like I see rabid things in your house and when you go places you take pics of them everywhere."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ius-murder-trial-March-24-as-it-happened.html

then...

RS to OP: It's like I see rabbit things in your house and when we go places you take pics of them everywhere.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/

The papers have a different sender for the same text? And does 'rabid' make more sense than 'rabbit'?

Ooooh, now my brain hurts with that one!!! See you all tomorrow!

fftobed:

.

 

[katydid23]

No, she said she didn't see a man in the window and she knew she didn't see a man in the window when she signed a sworn statement saying that she did.

I have encountered plenty of affidavits with error, and I have also encountered affidavits that are clearly knowingly false - and without fail in those instances where they are knowingly false, the judge is pissed and does not believe the witness.

If her affidavit was prepared without legal counsel, why would that matter? Does it have to be explained that when you swear to the truth of a statement that you cannot lie? No, I don't think that requires legal counsel.

I was called out for being a 'liar' on the stand, by a defense attorney one time. It was very humiliating and hurtful, admittedly. He was looking at my sworn witness statement from the accident scene. I was a bystander, and saw a fatal crash. I had something in my statement which was inaccurate and did not catch it at the time that I signed the paperwork. But I did fix it later during the deposition. I am not a liar and not dishonest or biased. It was a simple mistake where I said I saw some detail in which I actually heard it and not saw it. I heard the cars hit and then looked. I fixed that later and clarified it. But on the stand I was called a liar. So I understand how this witness might have signed something that had an error in it, without her being a 'liar.'

 

[DebinGA]

"Rabid" doesn't make sense. "Rabbit" could make sense in context where RS's point in that they both have things in their past that the other questions (her weed smoking-his rabbit interest), but that was then and this is now.

 

[Rumpole]

I'm going for a slight win for defense today. Purely because of the slight memory difficulty with Ms. Stipp and her left hand, and my feeling that the messages from the phone were not quite as revealing as perhaps we'd hoped. If I had the phone as evidence, I'd be hoping to have something better like a threat or regular rowing.
(that's the shouting, not the boat and oars).

Whoever won today... we can cross off 2 tea breaks from the 6 max that Nel is allowed before he rests State's case. As he promised to do "early this week"

I am assuming two tea breaks per day... morning tea and afternoon tea... but these guys knock off so early I don't now recall an afternoon tea?

So maybe we started the week with only 3 tea breaks ahead? One down.... two to go :floorlaugh:

 

[soozieqtips]

If it is shown that he made knowingly false statements under oath, that is a big problem for him and certainly casts his credibility in doubt. Absolutely.

I'm not talking about clarifying something or not remembering or being mistaken. I'm talking about signing a sworn statement knowing that it is false.

Okay. Bear with me. What about if Netcare state they weren't told of any serious injuries. OP hasn't actually said what he told them on the phone, so that's not in evidence. But what if Netcare testify they were just told his g/friend was slightly injured (which could be why they told him to bring her in). Would the omission of a true account of Reeva's injuries (shot in the head with Black Talons) ring any alarm bells as to his credibility, or would it not matter because it wasn't in his affidavit? If it didn't matter because it's not in his affidavit, what would be your opinion on why he left it out? Let's face it. He couldn't be mistaken about shooting his girlfriend in the head, so not telling Netcare would say what? Just hypothetical, but curious to know your thoughts on it.

 

[TorisMom003]

the 3:02 was OK(ish) until she qualified it with "the clock is 3 to 4 minutes fast" 3:02 is already at the extreme end of fitting, the extra 3 or 4 minutes taking it back to maybe 2:58 just makes any overall explanation seem like the author is "pushing it". As I said... if that time is correct, then it is somewhat at odds with the Stipps' own overall testimony. They awoke to first bangs...then screams and Dr Stipp was concerned enough to phone security and rush over in person to try and help. 20 minutes after what he KNEW to be gunshots, and then screams that he thought to be a woman in dire circumstances, worthy of him rushing to help, before he even rang security does not seem correct.

BBM

This is not what Mrs. Stipp testified to today. She was already awake from her own coughing, was contemplating getting up to get some water, and then heard the gun shots.

 

[minor4th]

Okay. Bear with me. What about if Netcare state they weren't told of any serious injuries. OP hasn't actually said what he told them on the phone, so that's not in evidence. But what if Netcare testify they were just told his g/friend was slightly injured (which could be why they told him to bring her in). Would the omission of a true account of Reeva's injuries (shot in the head with Black Talons) ring any alarm bells as to his credibility, or would it not matter because it wasn't in his affidavit? If it didn't matter because it's not in his affidavit, what would be your opinion on why he left it out? Let's face it. He couldn't be mistaken about shooting his girlfriend in the head, so not telling Netcare would say what? Just hypothetical, but curious to know your thoughts on it.

Anything where it is shown that he actually lied in his statement - with knowledge that it was a lie. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Fairynuff]

Reeva was older than OP and older than OP's previous teenage girlfriends, so it's possible she was harder to 'control' than his exes. He doesn't have to have been physically abusive to past girlfriends in order for him to have killed Reeva intentionally. Where's your position on all the witnesses who say they heard a woman screaming? Do you still maintain it was OP screaming? Could there be any doubt about that if you concede that some of his affidavit is a lie?

perhaps with her being older than him and the fact that she had already been in an abusive relationship, she probably was not going to give in to his tantrums as easily as he may have thought. she had a strong personality i think. i know coming from an abusive marriage i will not tolerate any mans abuse ever again.

 

[soozieqtips]

Anything where it is shown that he actually lied in his statement - with knowledge that it was a lie. That's what I'm talking about.

That didn't answer my question at all.

 

[Viper]

Okay. Bear with me. What about if Netcare state they weren't told of any serious injuries. OP hasn't actually said what he told them on the phone, so that's not in evidence. But what if Netcare testify they were just told his g/friend was slightly injured (which could be why they told him to bring her in). Would the omission of a true account of Reeva's injuries (shot in the head with Black Talons) ring any alarm bells as to his credibility, or would it not matter because it wasn't in his affidavit? If it didn't matter because it's not in his affidavit, what would be your opinion on why he left it out? Let's face it. He couldn't be mistaken about shooting his girlfriend in the head, so not telling Netcare would say what? Just hypothetical, but curious to know your thoughts on it.

OP called Netcare and they told him to drive Reeva to the hospital by himself, that is what we are supposed to believe. It makes no sense, but thankfully we will know the truth in the next day or two. OP story of true love collapsed today. Likely his Netcare story to follow. :smile:

 

[Rumpole]

"Rabid" doesn't make sense. "Rabbit" could make sense in context where RS's point in that they both have things in their past that the other questions (her weed smoking-his rabbit interest), but that was then and this is now.

I have missed the start of why people are agonizing over "rabbit" and "rabid"

I may well be on the wrong track, since I don't know what people are talking about... but that wont stop me :floorlaugh:

To "rabbit" is a common British expression... meaning talk.. usually incessantly... as in: "She rabbited on for hours" (meaning talked on and on)

"Rabid" is the adjective from "rabies" when used as descriptive of people it means raging, insane perhaps.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Well I had best do some remunerative work...except all I can think about is weed smoking rabbits.....;-) I'm off down a rabbit hole.....till trial starts again...

 

[TorisMom003]

Does Mrs. Stipp's testimony match Mr. Stipp's testimony as far as hearing a woman screaming until after the last shot of the second set of shots? If it does, and we also have Burger's testimony that she heard a woman screaming until after the last shot, doesn't that mean that the second set of shots had to be of the actual bullets that killed Reeva? And the times that Mr. and Mrs. Stipp heard the last shot of the second set of shots matches up with the time that Burger heard the last shot as well. The ballistics expert confirms what Burger heard, that the shots fired were at least bang (then a pause) bangbangbang. Those four testimonies corroborate each other, showing that OP's version of events is false.

MOO

 

[Gavel Rash]

I have missed the start of why people are agonizing over "rabbit" and "rabid"

I may well be on the wrong track, since I don't know what people are talking about... but that wont stop me :floorlaugh:

To "rabbit" is a common British expression... meaning talk.. usually incessantly... as in: "She rabbited on for hours" (meaning talked on and on)

"Rabid" is the adjective from "rabies" when used as descriptive of people it means raging, insane perhaps.

The rabbit has to refer to something Pistorius held close...a nick name from his mum perhaps? so he would buy rabbity things as icons of his love for her...Reeva didn't know why...didn't ask either...but it was a text message.

 

[Viper]

I have missed the start of why people are agonizing over "rabbit" and "rabid"

I may well be on the wrong track, since I don't know what people are talking about... but that wont stop me :floorlaugh:

To "rabbit" is a common British expression... meaning talk.. usually incessantly... as in: "She rabbited on for hours" (meaning talked on and on)

"Rabid" is the adjective from "rabies" when used as descriptive of people it means raging, insane perhaps.

So Reeva was probably saying "you talk to other women" in defense of OP being so jealous of Reeva being friendly and talking to the men at the gatherings that they went to?

 

[soozieqtips]

OP called Netcare and they told him to drive Reeva to the hospital by himself, that is what we are supposed to believe. It makes no sense, but thankfully we will know the truth in the next day or two. OP story of true love collapsed today. Likely his Netcare story to follow. :smile:

Yeah, but to be fair... maybe once on the stand, he'll realise he was 'mistaken' when he said Reeva had sprained her ankle.

 

[Rumpole]

BBM

This is not what Mrs. Stipp testified to today. She was already awake from her own coughing, was contemplating getting up to get some water, and then heard the gun shots.

Thanks.
As I recall, though she said bangs were straight after... hard to pin witnesses down but the impression I got was she awoke (from coughing) and looked at clock and heard bangs all pretty much within seconds. Hence the time of the bangs was pinned to 3:02 (on the dicky clock). Her testimony was not "precise" to say the least. That time is in the right "ball park"... just that it makes sense if the time was just a few minutes later than that for the bangs.
Maybe there WAS more than seconds after her looking at the clock and then hearing the bangs.

 

[minor4th]

That didn't answer my question at all.

Sure it did. Whatever scenario you want to come up with, use that formula and you'll know my answer.