Trial Discussion Thread #29

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #541
Moot point. She was already dead and he knew it.

I'm not sure there's anything moot about it.

I don't believe that Dr Stipp decided to tell the truth about events during the shooting, but lied once he arrived at OP's house.
 
  • #542
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

At 46 mins into the above video is where OP testifies he was trying to find his socks on
the floor.

I don't believe that he was on his stumps either but find it bizarre that he's claiming to be looking for not just his prosthetics in the dark with his gun in his hand, but also his socks.

Apologies to the mods but I can't work out how to just post the link to the video instead of it embedding in my post.

I agree totally with this. He was in a new relationship and would want to be completely masculine, tall, handsome, in front of a sexual partner. I refuse to use the word "love" because OP never said he loved her. In addition, why would he want to feel vulnerable and shorter than Reeva while arguing with her for an hour. And chasing all over the house?

They never went to bed. Reeva never changed into her night clothes, never even had a bath. Certainly he would not be in skivvies, on stumps with her dressed in the clothes she wore all day.

The socks (presumably blood soaked) disappeared. What happened to the prosthetic's shoes?
 
  • #543
OP's legal team has not raised any doubts about any or all the pictures taken in their possession of the door, and the door itself, and their opinion is paramount in their endeavor to see that he gets a fair trial.

I wasn't commenting on anything that has happened in the trial or how it even has any relevance to the trial. I'm simply saying all the different pictures from different angles and distances are confusing me because they all look different.
 
  • #544
Welcome!

I believe that when Nel says "we'll get back to that" or "we'll deal with that" - many times he means that he will deal with it in his summation at the end. i.e. He's going to explain the connections of everything and provide a scenario and argue that the circumstantial evidence supports his conclusions to the exclusion of any other reasonable inferences and conclusions.

This was also Mylady's ruling, I think once when once Roux raised an objection on this very point.
 
  • #545
Would love to be proven wrong because that's why we are here as websleuthers.

But right now, we have a lying OP, bad defense expert testimony, and credible witnesses against OP and also no idea what defense claim is being used by defense.


To some websleuthers, they are not convinced. But I wouldn't just dismiss them by calling their arguments "weak." I don't have to agree with them, but this a fluid discussion, not stagnant. The verdict isn't in yet, so all arguments should be considered, weighed and given merit. Dispute them if you like or ignore them, but stating that they are weak isn't productive to the discussion.
 
  • #546
Oscar and Reeva have a late dinner and an argument breaks out starting sometime before 2am

The bedroom window is open from earlier in the evening

Estelle van der Merwe is woken at 1.56am by the noise of a fight.

It is hard to make out but she hears a woman's voice, but does not know where it is coming from

She tries and eventually gets back to sleep

At some time the bedroom door may have been damaged

At some point the arguing calmed down only to begin again later

Oscar picks up or threatens to pick up the cricket bat

Reeva starts to feel scared. She runs from the bedroom up the corridor to the bathroom

(Oscar may have argued with her in the bathroom and thrown her jeans out of the window)

She locks herself in the toilet.

The bathroom light is already on but the toilet is dark because the bulb in there is broken.

Oscar calms down, is apologetic and tries to talk her out.

Reeva will not unlock the door and Oscar becomes furious

Mrs Stipp has a bout of coughing which wakes her up

She looks at her clock which says 3.02. (Clock was fast - actual time about 2.58)
(She will look at her clock again at 3.17 actual time about 3.13)
The clock is now running and the defence must account for how OP used up this time an did not confirm to himself that he shot Reeva for another 15 minutes.

Oscar comes into the bathroom with the cricket bat. The light may already be on or he may now switch it on

He may or may no be on his prosthetics.
The damage shows the angle of the cricket bat in the door is consistent with being hit by a shorter person standing in a natural position
The damage is also consistent with a taller person leaning into the hit, putting their body weight into the blow to use maximum force.
After the defence case it is unlikely that this will be reliably decided.

Reeva sees the light go on, she may scream which is not heard due to the locked toilet or
does not scream so as not to escalate the situation.

Mr Stipp is woken by 3 loud bangs
Mrs Stipp is fully awake and hears 3 "gunshots" as OP hits the door with the cricket bat and moments after a woman screaming
Roux tries to make out that Mrs Stipp slept through the first "shot" by first lying to the court about her being "asleep" when cross examining Mr Stipp
She has line of sight to the bathroom window from her bed.

The "shots" are OP hitting the door breaking it. There are only 3 hits

Estelle van der Merwe does not hear these bangs, she is trying to sleep and may have a pillow over her head

The cricket bat has broken out a piece of the door along the weakest line of the joint at the right edge of the top inner panel
It runs almost the complete height of the panel and parts of it are the splinters lost from the door exhibit
Only the Stipps heard these "shots"

At this point OP may break away some other part of the panel. Now the panel is broken parts may be relatively easily lifted out

(Note: The toilet and bathroom windows are frosted. The toilet window is separate to and to the left of the bathroom window. The bathroom window has 3 sections, the left section was open. The Stipps could see straight in through the open section where the bathroom light appeared bright)

Mrs Stipp see's the bathroom light on and light in the toilet almost as bright as behind the closed part of the bathroom window.
She described it as a "light on in the toilet"
Mr Stipp said he also saw light in the toilet but it was not as bright as in the bathroom window - it would certainly not have been as bright as the light from the open part of the bathroom window.
He did at one point say he didn't see a "light on" in the toilet as he thought it was not bright enough for this.

The Stipps saw the bathroom light through the hole in the toilet door.
If both Stipps saw light in the toilet/bathroom straight after the first sounds which OP said were only gunshots then OP must have been lying.
Roux had already told the court that OP said the toilet light was broken.

Reeva's screams could now be heard clearly through the hole and out through the open bathroom window (Stipp said the screams were clear and unmuffled)
Roux argued Monday 4 March, Session 3 at 28.00min in support of MB hearing OP screams that should be easy to hear through same open window at the distance

The Stipps go quickly to their small balcony, they hear a woman/female screaming.

They say the screams were "moments" after the shots.

At about 3.03 (2.59 actual time) "just after 3" the Bergers are woken by Reevas screams. (They did not hear the door being hit)

Mr Berger very roughly estimates there is 2 minutes before the cries of "help"

After 3/4 min the Stipps move to their big balcony for a better view

Mr Stipp goes in and spends some time during the following events calling:
Silverwood Security No answer
Called 10111 - not in service

Its is now about 3.05/3.06 (3.01/3.02 actual time)
Reeva screams help help help
Oscar shouts help, help, help mocking her. He may have been in the bedroom at this point as Mr Stipp said the helps were muffled.

The Bergers call security

There is continued screaming some of which may not have been heard as the witnesses were busy getting dressed/phoning

Oscar goes to get his gun.

Reeva can see out through the hole in the door and she knows Oscar is coming with the gun

Her screams intensify. Mrs Berger says "to a climax"

Mr Berger is on his balcony and hears the same

Mrs Stipp hears this as screams coming closer as if along the road

Whilst on the phone Mr Stipp hears only "2 /3 loud bangs". Thinks it is shooting

The Bergers hear shot....shot shot shot taking
The shots lasted 3.5 seconds with a longer approx 1.5 second pause between shot 1 and 2

Mrs Stipp hears a man screaming just before the shots, she cannot make out words then hears 3 shots.

Mrs Stipp has just looked at he clock. It says 3.17 (actual time 3.13)

For a short time it was together with the woman screaming. There was differences in the pitches at the same time.

Estelle van der Merwe and her husband both hear bang bang bang bang, her husband says they are gunshots

OP now angry beyond control has come into the bathroom
He raises his gun and fires four shots, moving towards the door and to the right as if to try to see Reeva through the long narrow vertical hole in the door
He may be on his stumps and firing with the gun raised to his eye although as he is moving this would seem odd
He is probably his prosthetics firing from the hip. He had a trapped easy target so as he was moving at the time this would seem more likely
The bullet holes are not tightly grouped and not consistent with double tapped shots.
The light has been on all the time so he can see clearly

After the first shot shatters her hip Reeva has about 1.5 seconds to fall back onto the magazine rack where a ricochet hits her

The next two shots hit her in the arm and head, She screamed as long as she could but it died away after the last shot.

The screams dying away after the last shot were heard by the Bergers and Mrs Stipp

Estelle van der Merwe describes silence after the shooting

When Mr Stipp goes back on the balcony and hears a man shouting "help" "help" "help"

Estelle van der Merwe heard a womans voice crying for help. Her husband said it was Oscar

Closer neighbours heard a man crying out and crying in pain

Security arrive and talk to the Stipps on their balcony

Mr Stipp again went to the other balcony and watches Security leave

Mr Stipp sees a light coloured figure moving from right to left through the bathroom window

Mrs Stipp initially reported the same but retracted this when she realised it was her husbands recollection.
She also "remembered" the event before the final shots not after. This was to be challenged during the defence part.

Mr Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Mrs Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Oscar with prosthetics now on, probably realising the terrible truth of what he had done, pulled out the rest of the panel, got the key opened the door and dragged her out.

It was as he was breaking down the rest of the panel that the bullet hole that Col Vermeulen pointed out caused a crack in the wood to deviate.

It was only 1 hole that showed this effect.

Oscar horrified at what he has done picks up Reeva and carries her downstairs where he is met by Security and later Dr Stipp.

Thank you for this.
 
  • #547
I wasn't commenting on anything that has happened in the trial or how it even has any relevance to the trial. I'm simply saying all the different pictures from different angles and distances are confusing me because they all look different.

Point is well taken and appreciated :)
 
  • #548
I agree totally with this. He was in a new relationship and would want to be completely masculine, tall, handsome, in front of a sexual partner. I refuse to use the word "love" because OP never said he loved her. In addition, why would he want to feel vulnerable and shorter than Reeva while arguing with her for an hour. And chasing all over the house?

They never went to bed. Reeva never changed into her night clothes, never even had a bath. Certainly he would not be in skivvies, on stumps with her dressed in the clothes she wore all day.

The socks (presumably blood soaked) disappeared. What happened to the prosthetic's shoes?

I don't think the shoes were on the legs at the time - only socks. I presume the investigators would have looked at OP's shoes, but as far as I can tell they are not really a part of what happened that night.

As far as night clothes - she apparently changed into a pair of his basketball shorts. I'm still unsure if the black vest was the same one she was wearing when she arrived, but I think someone testified that the shirt she was wearing when she was shot was one of Oscar's as well. That aspect doesn't really seem to be important to the State since they did not bring it up.

I do believe I read or heard in the trial that the police lost at least one of the socks that were on the legs at the time of the incident.
 
  • #549
With all due respect, you're brand new here. Stick around. :)

Fair enough, but I'm not new to forums and forum dynamics. I'm an ol' timer.

It has been my observation here that WS is full of very respectful members, all very bright and thoughtful. Just go on over to any sports related forum and you may come back here with a whole different perspective.

It really is quite nice here. :loveyou:
 
  • #550
And what has happened to his next door neighbor and good friend who claimed he woke up at 3:00 am to what sounded like thunder and waited for the rain which never came and went back to sleep. He woke up the next morning and found Police cars and ambulances parked in OP front yard.He was supposed to give OP an good character certificate. Has he changed his name and migrated to another country?

Well IIRC, it was 3:08, but don't have things in front of me now.
You refer to Christos Menelao, yes?

I don't think he would be the most relaible witness. Because his YOU Magazine interview has him saying he knew they only had 1 tiny row. But June S has said that Reeva told her from the outset that there's problems with him, and they were fighting.

Indeed there is much he could testify to. It was his ladders outside OP's bathroom, on the ground. And it was the same ladders that led to his home being burgled some 1.5 years earlier by an estate security guard. (Again OP knowing that and not worrying about all this with an allegedly open window...)

Given all this and other facts, there is even the possibility of this act being planned earlier than the night in question. The Pros affidavit reads, something like We cannot know how far in advance of that night the plan existed, but it certainly did from the moment the argument in the bedroom led to Reeva fleeing to the bathroom and the accused chose to get his gun and pursue her in the other room. [Or words to that effect.]

The part in bold may be standard legalese but in this case who knows, because it runs deep. And I am not saying I believe this is definitely true, but I do not discount the possibility.

I believe I saw CM on Pros list, but he was not called. He's prob still in SA.
 
  • #551
I should say that it is not the being called an Oscar supporter I object to, think of me what you will, as long as I am comfortable in my own skin I am good. What I find objectionable is that to call me an Oscar supporter means that one is misunderstanding my posts so there is not any true discourse or rational conversation going on.
 
  • #552
IMO her post was not directed at you - but there are definitely posts referring to "OP supporters" in a derogatory manner and with the implication that those people want an obvious murderer to go free. There are only a couple of such posters that I can think of who fit that bill, but they are out there. IMO it's bullying and ridicule.


If you feel bullied, minor, you should reach out to a moderator. In fact, I would encourage you or anyone to do so. Moderators can help determine if that is taking place and put an end to it if it is.
 
  • #553
I wonder why the defence did so many test's around Silverwoods but when it came to the bat strikes test they did it in the middle of a field, strange that.

I think it would be irresponsible to fire a gun through a door and replicate those circumstances in OP's house for purposes of a sound test. As well, I don't even know if that was possible or if the house had been released by the police for any and all purposes
 
  • #554
Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

So then the facts would also include the following:

Fired off a shot (well not really, the gun fired itself) in a crowded restaurant,
Fired off a shot (well not really, those two are lying) through the sunroof of a car going down the highway,
Holding onto dad's ammo (illegal for him to possess, but the SAFE was in possession not him) in his safe,
Texts proving that the "babysitter" aka Reeva, felt scared of him and had been told that she needed to change things about herself he didn't like,
Video of him at a firing range where he shoots a watermelon and compares it to shooting a person in the head,
Lying on the stand throughout his testimony,
etc.

So if that 10 year old boy had done all of that, then sure the comparison would work. But since no 10 year old boy would have done all of that, then no the comparison is illogical.

MOO
 
  • #555
If you feel bullied, minor, you should reach out to a moderator. In fact, I would encourage you or anyone to do so. Moderators can help determine if that is taking place and put an end to it if it is.

Yes they do help, but they can't stop if from happening.
 
  • #556
Not sure what you mean. I'm saying sometimes people who are innocent of the crime they are charged with will lie on the stand, and in other ways act detrimentally to their case. You disagree?

IMO As an observer to the dialog, it appears to me that you may have just dug a deeper hole. :D
 
  • #557
I'm not sure there's anything moot about it.

I don't believe that Dr Stipp decided to tell the truth about events during the shooting, but lied once he arrived at OP's house.

Neither do I.

The moot point is OP's apparent desire for wanting her to survive. She was already dead.
 
  • #558
Oh yes, his dear friend the contractor, almost forgot about him:

http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/

Oh, that guy was the contractor? I didn't know that - or had forgotten it. So, do we know whether or not he will be called by the defense?

Actually when I said contractor, I really meant the painter who could testify about whether he removed the security beams or not. Although I guess it doesn't really matter so much since Oscar's testimony is that he himself didn't know.
 
  • #559
Of course, but it's essential to determine what is positive evidence and what is speculation.

Speculation is fine on WS, but the more speculating Nel has to do, the less chance he has of securing a conviction.

I personally think all the speculating Nel did during CE is how he got OP to rattle on and on, potentially damaging OP's credibility. I believe speculating in court is one of his many strategies in these types of cases.
 
  • #560
I think it would be irresponsible to fire a gun through a door and replicate those circumstances in OP's house for purposes of a sound test. As well, I don't even know if that was possible or if the house had been released by the police for any and all purposes

I said bat strikes, i wouldn't expect them to fire a gun there but they could have at least tested the bat strikes there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
2,495
Total visitors
2,553

Forum statistics

Threads
632,911
Messages
18,633,364
Members
243,333
Latest member
HaydenMackaa
Back
Top