Trial Discussion Thread #15

[G.bng]

Hi everyone,
Have been following this trial and all the interesting posts and speculation. It is the circumstantial nature of much of the case that makes it interesting. I wanted to add to the discussion about mrs Stipp. As I understand it - she wasn't well, she had a terrible experience of hearing what sounded like a "family murder" and how frightening for her that her brave husband to set out in the night to try to help. He then returns later, with blood on him to say a man killed his girlfriend (or words to that effect). I think it is very "human" to confuse a part of the information when making a statement, what YOU saw, heard etc rather than what you thought or what your husband said he saw... This wife and mother must have been traumatised by the night and days that followed. I wouldn't call changing your statement about the sight of a man in the bathroom a lie but a clarification. I also understand how she would feel defensive on the stand. I can't see anything about the Stipps other than a couple who were unfortunate to live nearby and witness the killing and a brave doctor who willingly risked his life to go and offer his expert help to someone in distress. I would say most people would not take that risk and I understand why! I don't think either deserve to have their motives questioned. That doesn't seem fair.

Very well put!

 

[Trooper]

I have a case because she corrected it.

When someone makes a statement under oath, and swears to its truth subject to penalties of perjury - you cannot write it off as a simple mistake or carelessness.

this is clearly another Stipp

 

[Trooper]

Not really, but I appreciate the attempt at humor.

that was clearly another Stipp..

 

[mrdimwit]

Now the killer says she was awake! But the killer didn't think it was necessary to alert his vulnerable "Angel" about the dangerous intruder/s he was about to start blasting.

The killer just left her there in the darkness without saying something like "get outta here Angel this could get serious". That's what the killer wants the Judge to believe.

 

[MeeBee]

that was clearly another Stipp..

:skip:

:rockon:

:thumb:

ython:

 

[Trooper]

Don't know if you noticed but it's not like Roux has been overruled a lot or reprimanded by the judge. Roux is doing his job as he's supposed to do. He is testing witnesses reliability, and in some cases he has revealed problems with their reliability.

this is a maximum Stipp..

Mr Roux has been over ruled and reprimanded ( I count Poor kennys reprimands in the overall count re Roux ) 4 times to 1 in comparison to Nel.

to put it more accurately, and separate over ruled from reprimand..

Nel has had NO reprimand..

Roux /PoorKenny have had 11... 3 of those in one session. .


Nel has had 2 over rulings..

Roux has had 8

 

[Trooper]

Stipp, Stipping, to Stipp, .. = to fabricate, to lie willfully, to deceive, to be deceptive, to muddy waters, to pretend to inform , to collaborate in a lie..

 

[G.bng]

No, he did call security first, even though security was mistaken and thought he called Oscar first. Oscar called, security called back.

According to records, OP called Netcare. Regardless of what he said or what they told him, he called them. I had the idea at first that he was trying to hide the body but just couldn't swing it when I found out he did in fact call security deist and did in fact call netcare, contrary to popular opinion.

ETA: ok, I just realized you were talking about the overall order of the calls. In that case, yes Stander was the first person he called. But, it still does not stand to reason that he would call security or Netxare if he was planning on hiding the crime. Just cannot get there.

I think it could be Baba was mistaken or, as has happened to me a few times, it is also possible Baba was dialling OP at the same time and the line from OP connected while Baba was still dialling. Baba was so sure he phoned first and he seemed as honest as the day is long so that I am at least glad nobody appears to be calling him a liar as well, except Roux of course, because I just don't think he was.

 

[MeeBee]

I think it could be Baba was mistaken or, as has happened to me a few times, it is also possible Baba was dialling OP at the same time and the line from OP connected while Baba was still dialling. Baba was so sure he phoned first and he seemed as honest as the day is long so that I am at least glad nobody appears to be calling him a liar as well, except Roux of course, because I just don't think he was.

No, I'm sure Baba was just mistaken and was not lying at all. He seemed very sure of what he was saying so it's possible in all hubbub he just forgot or the first call OP sent was unheard by him. A lot of the witnesses had to call a couple times. I've posted as much before, but He seemed honest and credible, just mistaken.

 

[G.bng]

I didn't compare her to Jodi Arias. Seriously.

But if she has nothing to hide or no agenda then she has absolutely no reason to be defensive. If I was being cross examined and I felt confident in my testimony and I was telling the truth, I would never get defensive. When one person gets all hot and the other remains calm, it makes that other person seem like the irrational one making mountains out of molehills. If you get defensive back, it's going to make people wonder why.

What could she have to hide in this case ? What agenda could she possibly have ? It just doesn't make sense.

And she did have reason to be defensive. Her husband already testified and he would have told her about the the DT bully trying to get witnesses to change their testimony. OW bullied her mercilessly on some points. Like when he was tried to trick her into agreeing that she didn't have a good view of OP's bathroom window from the bed when she very clearly did. He was unfairly using a photo taken a meter ABOVE the level she would be lying at and some 1.5 or more meters back while trying to force her to agree she was wrong when she wasn't because from the bed she would be below the ties not above where the camera was focussed on. The view from the camera was nothing similar to the view she would have... zilch. I don't know about people wondering why she was being defensive, I would think most would wonder why she didn't grab the curtain ties and stuff them down Oldwadge's throat!

 

[MeeBee]

What could she have to hide in this case ? What agenda could she possibly have ? It just doesn't make sense.

And she did have reason to be defensive. Her husband already testified and he would have told her about the the DT bully trying to get witnesses to change their testimony. OW bullied her mercilessly on some points. Like when he was tried to trick her into agreeing that she didn't have a good view of OP's bathroom window from the bed when she very clearly did. He was unfairly using a photo taken a meter ABOVE the level she would be lying at and some 1.5 or more meters back while trying to force her to agree she was wrong when she wasn't because from the bed she would be below the ties not above where the camera was focussed on. The view from the camera was nothing similar to the view she would have... zilch. I don't know about people wondering why she was being defensive, I would think most would wonder why she didn't grab the curtain ties and stuff them down Oldwadge's throat!

Oldwage is a defense attorney. They are supposed to be that way. It's nothing personal and Mrs. Stipp is not an exception. It's their job to question you as if they think you're lying and be pretty jerk-y about it. I understand maybe her husband prepared her for it. But that is still bias to me. You shouldn't go into your testimony expecting to do battle with the defense attorney. You should just go in and say what you need to say and get out. You (general you) should understand that it is the man's job to nitpick at every little thing you say and question and re-question you on it. It's nothing personal. The prosecutor should have prepared her, not her husband. And I found Mr. Stipp miles more credible than his wife.

 

[Trooper]

poor Kenny Oldwage was the one who got hot.. he actually began to argue with the judge..

he got a severe wigging and a note attached to his x-examine.. a note attached means that in chambers he is going to have to give a written exculpatory précis and this is inserted in a box in the court notes, and the trial record.

and also.. Poor Kenny, by introducing suddenly a mysterious barking dog, now has to produce one, or else that entire segment of his x-examine is disallowed..

 

[Trooper]

so if there is a score going on here, Annette Stipp came out miles ahead.. she got Poor Kenny handed a yellow card, 4 reprimands, an order to produce a barking dog, and the opportunity to make his one appearance at x-examining a states witness a dribbling mess.

 

[Huna]

It's a bit revealing that in the mark batchelor story, OP says he'll break the guy's legs, and calls another fellow adult male a 'boy', when he himself is boyishly good-looking. Other posters have probably commented on this already, that he seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, but maybe the obsession with guns is a Freudian thing.

 

[Danta]

No, he did call security first, even though security was mistaken and thought he called Oscar first. Oscar called, security called back.

According to records, OP called Netcare. Regardless of what he said or what they told him, he called them. I had the idea at first that he was trying to hide the body but just couldn't swing it when I found out he did in fact call security deist and did in fact call netcare, contrary to popular opinion.

ETA: ok, I just realized you were talking about the overall order of the calls. In that case, yes Stander was the first person he called. But, it still does not stand to reason that he would call security or Netxare if he was planning on hiding the crime. Just cannot get there.

OP butt dialed his own voice mail that night so.. maybe he butt dialed security, but he never “talked” to Baba or notified him of any event. Baba just heard several seconds of crying, no conversation. Baba called OP and talked to him, that is when OP said, “Everything is fine”. In my state butt dialing means you called by mistake, usually because your phone is in your back pocket!

 

[Trooper]

It's a bit revealing that in the mark batchelor story, OP says he'll break the guy's legs, and calls another fellow adult male a 'boy', when he himself is boyishly good-looking. Other posters have probably commented on this already, that he seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, but maybe the obsession with guns is a Freudian thing.

Freud and Jung would be overjoyed with Oscar as a patient.. ..


many cups of coffee and schlag and sachertorte in some Viennese café would have been expended on Oscar's psyche.

 

[Trooper]

the gun as an extension of his appendage, huna??


the black talon bullets as his ... er.. his ... reproductive equipment ?

 

[G.bng]

Oldwage is a defense attorney. They are supposed to be that way. It's nothing personal and Mrs. Stipp is not an exception. It's their job to question you as if they think you're lying and be pretty jerk-y about it. I understand maybe her husband prepared her for it. But that is still bias to me. You shouldn't go into your testimony expecting to do battle with the defense attorney. You should just go in and say what you need to say and get out. You (general you) should understand that it is the man's job to nitpick at every little thing you say and question and re-question you on it. It's nothing personal. The prosecutor should have prepared her, not her husband. And I found Mr. Stipp miles more credible than his wife.

I know all of that MB but as officers of they court at least in the UK barristers as we call them are not allowed to use deceit to get a witness to change their testimony and I have personally seen both OW and Roux use what are basically lies to confuse and badger a witness into agreeing with them. And Roux succeeded, getting what is clearly a fairly simple man, the photographer, to agree the bats must have been moved when the two photos he was comparing so as to prove this were taken at different angles, distance, etc. causing what some may think is an illusion of movement when in fact it is simply a matter of perspective and foreshortening, and I should know because that is MY job. And, probably because it worked with the photographer, OW was trying the same deceitful trick with Mrs Stipp with a photo taken at a different height and distance from where she would be lying on the bed, badgering her to agree she couldn't see OP's window when she could. Luckily Mrs Stipp realised the photo wasn't seeing from where she lay and managed to resist him.

 

[Trooper]

It is a witnesses job to resist all suggestions, hypothesis, inferences, suppostitions and theories from a cross examining attorney that conflict with their testimony..

every time. always.. without exception.

 

[vansleuths]

Has anyone seen a complete timeline of events posted online for what the defence and prosecution is proposing for the night of the shooting? I was looking for something that includes all of the witness testimony, the two sets of bangs, etc etc.

Thank you