Trial Discussion Thread #29

[TorisMom003]

If there was a faint light on, it could have been the cell phone light.

It could also be the bathroom light shining through the crack in the toilet room door.

 

[DebinGA]

Murphys Law's post at 8:17 contains an excellent pic of the bathroom window taken from inside the room, and here's what OP testified about the window noise that instantly put him in commando mode:

"The noise was hard. The sliding of the window and it hitting the window frame - it was clear."'

So the window sections, at least the outer two, slide open. Right? That means they slide away from "the frame" toward the middle. Right? So how could OP hear a window sliding open hit the frame?

 

[minor4th]

I don't think either of them specifically said that the toilet light was on.

Really? Then why is this presented as fact so often - that they saw the toilet light on?

 

[minor4th]

It could also be the bathroom light shining through the crack in the toilet room door.

Except, apparently they didn't say they saw the toilet light on?

 

[TorisMom003]

Really? Then why is this presented as fact so often - that they saw the toilet light on?

They saw light in the toilet room through the window. They didn't say that it was definitely the light in the toilet room that was on.

Perhaps that is why OP and the defense came up with "toilet room light was broken". To try and discredit the Stipps.

MOO

 

[Feynman]

The Stipps position related to the bathroom has a lot to do with it imo.
I disagree with you main point, imo it's just not possible that all those people would fail to hear gunfire, but then all hear a bat hitting a door , it's not plausible at all.

The Stipps are on a direct line to the bathroom. If Dr. Stipp, with all of his military and gun training, can mistake bat bangs for gunshots, then anyone can. (We already know, by the way, that Estelle van der Merwe mistook OP's crying for a woman crying.) Are you disputing the idea that Dr. Stipp (and hence Mrs. Stipp) was mistaken in this regard? If you are, then it follows you must believe that all the loud bangs heard by Stipp were gunshots. But even the state does not say that. Why would you believe such a thing?

 

[minor4th]

They saw light in the toilet room through the window. They didn't say that it was definitely the light in the toilet room that was on.

Perhaps that is why OP and the defense came up with "toilet room light was broken". To try and discredit the Stipps.

MOO

I have not been able to find this though, so if anyone can find where they specifically say in their testimony that they saw light in the toilet room, I would really appreciate it.

 

[K.T]

Yes, am I right in thinking that Mrs vdM makes no mention of looking at the clock when she heard the bangs? If she didn't, then I agree that "around 3 am" should be understood only as a rough estimate of the time. They might not have looked at the clock until after all the commotion, so it would be a retrospective estimate.

Yes, Estelle van der Merwe seems very uncertain on her waking time to hear the 'shots'.

After the 1.56am loud argument:

EM: "I some stage I placed a pillow on top of my head in the hopes of falling asleep again, or, once more, Milady.
At some stage I woke up, than I went to see if there was something that I could see. But I looked to other side, still I couldn’t see anything. I went back to bed again.

Around about 3am in the morning, I heard four shots but I don’t know how to describe them."

From now onwards, she repeats at different parts of her testimony, that she is unsure about the times after 3amish waking.

 

[fox1lady]

Happier times.
Photo taken by friend/contractor Christo Menelao, just a few days before IIRC.

Such a beautiful woman with such a bright future ahead of her ripped away from the world by and idiotic, egotistical, trigger happy twonk

 

[TipDog]

What I feel a lot of people don't realise, Gerrie Nel included, is that OP's emotions are very real, and not faked. The reason this is a source of confusion is because in some ways he seems mature and grown up, in other ways he is not.

According to experts: "Children with physical or learning disabilities may be at risk for unhealthy or delayed emotional development. Learning disabilities can exacerbate emotional issues and prevent the development of healthy peer relationships, according to Jean C. Gorman, author of "Teaching Exceptional Children," appearing on LD OnLine, a resource for learning disabilities and ADHD. Because a child's physical disabilities are more visible and intrusive, it can be difficult for her to gain the social benefits of playing with other children. A research report by SSTA Research Centre for the Saskatchewan School Board says that children with disabilities may be slower to develop emotions and weaker in expressing those emotions, and may have difficulty forming attachments, which impacts identity development."

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/...ce-childrens-emotional-development-19539.html


The problem is that people have not factored this in. They keep talking about OP as though he grew up like themselves, and they judge him accordingly. That's why they keep trying to come up with imaginary scenarios about how he must have killed RS, each one more ridiculous than the other.

Emotionally he is wired differently to many others, and he can't help himself, and he is not faking it. His family and friends know that, which is why they are so affectionate towards him. We simply cannot use our limited vantage point to say that he is guilty, which is why I am extremely careful about this.

BIB 1

It is not Nel's responsibility in the least, nor part of his job, to worry about OP's emotions.

BIB 2&3

May - does not mean will. Not all disabled children are stunted emotionally or grow up with emotional issues. And in OP's case, he was given tremendous support (still is given) by members of his family. He overcame his disability to become a world class athlete. I don't see evidence of an antisocial, awkward man-child whose emotions should be considered with such gentle care. Instead, he is hot tempered and quick to express emotion, often while wielding a deadly weapon.

BIB 4

This is your opinion entirely and not fact. He could easily be faking it, especially if what you referenced is true - he'd be weaker in expressing emotion, not more prone to it.

A human life has been lost by the hands of one very reckless (and I believe sinister) individual. He just happens to be disabled.

 

[Harmony 2]

Religion does not belong on this thread. Please stay on topic..

 

[DebinGA]

I have not been able to find this though, so if anyone can find where they specifically say in their testimony that they saw light in the toilet room, I would really appreciate it.

I think if was only Annette Stipp who claimed to see light in the toilet room iirc, and noted that it seemed dimmer than the bathroom light. Outwage did the questioning of her, if that helps you find it. I don't think Dr. Stipp thought the toilet light was ON, though he said the bathroom light was "clearly ON."

 

[Cherwell]

Really? Then why is this presented as fact so often - that they saw the toilet light on?

It's a misinterpretation. Funnily enough Mr Dixon demonstrated how light could be seen in the toilet window. It was light from the bathroom illuminating the toilet by means of the door being ajar or open.

 

[TorisMom003]

I have not been able to find this though, so if anyone can find where they specifically say in their testimony that they saw light in the toilet room, I would really appreciate it.

It was March 24th. I believe though that the part of the trial where she said this about the toilet room light was in the 3rd segment from that day. Unfortunately the 3rd segment doesn't have sound on it, not that I have found.

I am listening to the 2nd segment to see if maybe it is in there.

 

[fox1lady]

Does anyone think Oscar would agree to a plea bargain during this postponement? It has been suggested that his lawyers will be trying to arrange something with the prosecution. I just can't image Oscar going for that, I think he must have pretty much done things the way he wanted to during this trial to his detriment. Do you think he'll listen to his advisors at this stage?

 

[TorisMom003]

Does anyone think Oscar would agree to a plea bargain during this postponement? It has been suggested that his lawyers will be trying to arrange something with the prosecution. I just can't image Oscar going for that, I think he must have pretty much done things the way he wanted to during this trial to his detriment. Do you think he'll listen to his advisors at this stage?

Short answer, no.

 

[DebinGA]

Really? Then why is this presented as fact so often - that they saw the toilet light on?

I'm guilty of repeatedly pointing out the Stipps certainty that the bathroom light was on, i.e. the bathroom area minus the WC. I've never said the toilet light was ON though, nor has any witness except Mrs. Stipp who noted the light she saw in the WC was much dimmer than the larger bathroom area light.

 

[Viper]

It's not incorrect.

Really? You have been using the same language in reply for some time now. IMO it is inappropriate. If you believe that something is not correct it would be polite to explain why you believe that, and then support you position with facts.

 

[TipDog]

Does anyone think Oscar would agree to a plea bargain during this postponement? It has been suggested that his lawyers will be trying to arrange something with the prosecution. I just can't image Oscar going for that, I think he must have pretty much done things the way he wanted to during this trial to his detriment. Do you think he'll listen to his advisors at this stage?

I don't think OP takes the DT's advise based on his dismal stand performance. So, I can't imagine he would take their advise on any plea bargain. I really think OP is trying to get off with only a tiny slap on the wrist.

 

[Cherwell]

I think if was only Annette Stipp who claimed to see light in the toilet room iirc, and noted that it seemed dimmer than the bathroom light. Outwage did the questioning of her, if that helps you find it. I don't think Dr. Stipp thought the toilet light was ON, though he said the bathroom light was "clearly ON."

That's right, their impressions were the same, although they expressed themselves differently which initially made it sound as if they were contradicting each other.

To sum up, light could be seen in the toilet window (as opposed to a black absence of light), but it was not brightly lit like the bathroom window. Three possibilities:

1. The light in the toilet was on, but it was a lower wattage than the bathroom light.
2. The light in the toilet was off, but the toilet door was open or ajar.
3. The light in the toilet was off, but the door was broken, allowing light to come in through the crack or hole.