Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Lyra500]

Interesting that OP is taking Cipralex for depression. Apparently it's used to treat
various related disorders including GAD.

http://chealth.canoe.ca/drug_info_details.asp?brand_name_id=1924

However, since he only started taking it AFTER he had killed Reeva, it can have no bearing on whether he had GAD at the time of the murder.

Frankly, the suggestion that having GAD might be a mitigating factor in the crime he committed as suggested by D V seems pretty far fetched anyway.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

While trying to research the situation in SA about calling emergency from a mobile/ cell phone, I found this, maybe it has been posted before. Idk.

Digital voice recording of all telephone lines ensures an accurate audit of events and allows for pro-active quality assurance and clinical governance.

http://www.netcare911.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=4074

There must be a recording of OP on 14 Feb 2013. Hmmmm, the plot thickens.:waitasec: Will we get to hear it? This call is so very, very important because OP picked Reeva up to take to hospital on their advice, he says.

Edit, just wanted to add, I don't believe him so this call/non call, is crucial imo

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just a couple of observations from me. I cannot find a very recent post to attach them to.

1. Minor4th says that the State's case is that the bat came after the shots. I may disagree with 98 per cent of her views but on this point she is quite correct. When Mangena gave evidence he was asked the order in which the shots and bat were made and he stated that he thought shots then bat. The PT have never disputed this and I am not sure that they can now change their mind in the summing up. I was surprised Nel did not bring this up again during crossx with Wolmarans and shall be very interested to hear what they now have to say.

2. With respect to the shots being so close together, there was a video on You Tube that clearly showed OP using the gun that was used to kill Reeva. The part of interest seems now to have been removed or, perhaps, I have not located the complete video. In the one I watched it showed OP shooting several bullets from his pistol and the recoil after each shot was very apparent. It took time to re-aim and shoot. He was holding the gun in both hands (or rather reinforcing the hand holding the gun) and with rigidly extended arms. If he was not aiming in the same manner at the murder scene, ie with both hands and rigid muscles, IMO, there is no way he could have caused the shots to be so close. If, as he says, he just fired without thinking the bullet holes in the door would have been all over the place. He has to have recovered from the recoil, aimed and taken another shot.

Regardless of whether we believe he knows who he was shooting at, IMO this shows intention. I firmly believe (and have for some long time) that he intentionally murdered whoever was in the toilet cubicle. I also believe he knew it was Reeva but am having doubts as to what the final outcome will be due to the psychiatrist's perception of his mental state.

 

[Fuskier]

Um ...don't know if this has been covered ... do we know/not know if OP used his firearm earmuffs on the night he shot Reeva to death and blew her brains out? Is it possible/probable that he used his firearm earmuffs? He is a licensed and experienced firearm handler. MOO

 

[Gryffindor]

Question
When your mobile phone has no reception and you're unable to make any calls, how come you're still able to make Emergency Calls Only?
Dave, Staines

Answer
** Definitive **
Name: Max, Grays
Qualification: Used to work for a mobile phone company
Answer: Emergency calls can be made on any mobile phone network, not just your own. If you are somewhere where your network doesn't have reception but another does, you get Emergency Calls Only. If no networks have any signal, you'll be told there is no reception and you can't even make 999 calls.



Answer -- we were BOTH right

Cheers. If no alternative operator's signal can be used, our calls/texts are routed via satellite bypass So we can always access emergency assistance in the UK, no matter what.

 

[Fuskier]

However, since he only started taking it AFTER he had killed Reeva, it can have no bearing on whether he had GAD at the time of the murder.

Frankly, the suggestion that having GAD might be a mitigating factor in the crime he committed as suggested by D V seems pretty far fetched anyway.

Re the Dx of GAD. Did the Prosecution ask Dr V for evidence of how she arrived at her Dx? Her peer Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologist may want to see her evidence for such a Dx IMO. When making a Psychiatric Dx, evidence relied upon must be available to peers. The evidence she has relied upon in her 2 day outpatient, paid for by family examination, may be 'interpreted' differently when put together with evidence gathered by independent assessors during a 30 inpatient assessment. A different Clinical picture may emerge. JMOO.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Just popped in to say hello and see what's up.

However, some of the posts have prompted me to report the following:

This week an elderly friend fell in the street. A shopkeeper called the ambulance, and me as her friend. Whilst waiting with my friend and the ambulance officer, I took the opportunity to talk to the ambo about what their procedure is for injuries like Reeva's. The ambo just happened to be nearby, but he is actually the director of the whole ambulance district, which is large and includes rural areas, and he is also a specialist in the management of traumatic injuries.

He said that when someone phones 000 (our version of 999) and they ask for am ambulance, they are put directly through to qualified, experienced paramedics who have a computerised protocol that they must follow. It involves a sort of question & decision tree, which the ambo follows based on the caller's answers. All calls are recorded and timed.

He said that, in a case like Reeva's, the most they might recommend is that she be rolled on her side to assist breathing. They would NEVER tell the caller to shift the patient at all, and would NEVER tell them to take the patient to hospital in a regular car.

He was a very nice man and very thorough and kind to my friend.

 

[Lyra500]

Re the Dx of GAD. Did the Prosecution ask Dr V for evidence of how she arrived at her Dx? Her peer Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologist may want to see her evidence for such a Dx IMO. When making a Psychiatric Dx, evidence relied upon must be available to peers. The evidence she has relied upon in her 2 day outpatient, paid for by family examination, may be 'interpreted' differently when put together with evidence gathered by independent assessors during a 30 inpatient assessment. A different Clinical picture may emerge. JMOO.

I am afraid I don't know the answer to your question, but I did feel very sceptical about the whole 'diagnosis', given the very short amount of time she had to speak with OP. The whole thing smacked of desperation to me.

I supose the evaluation which OP is due to undergo will provide the answer on whether other clincians agree with DR V.

 

[soozieqtips]

Just popped in to say hello and see what's up.

However, some of the posts have prompted me to report the following:

This week an elderly friend fell in the street. A shopkeeper called the ambulance, and me as her friend. Whilst waiting with my friend and the ambulance officer, I took the opportunity to talk to the ambo about what their procedure is for injuries like Reeva's. The ambo just happened to be nearby, but he is actually the director of the whole ambulance district, which is large and includes rural areas, and he is also a specialist in the management of traumatic injuries.

He said that when someone phones 000 (our version of 999) and they ask for am ambulance, they are put directly through to qualified, experienced paramedics who have a computerised protocol that they must follow. It involves a sort of question & decision tree, which the ambo follows based on the caller's answers. All calls are recorded and timed.

He said that, in a case like Reeva's, the most they might recommend is that she be rolled on her side to assist breathing. They would NEVER tell the caller to shift the patient at all, and would NEVER tell them to take the patient to hospital in a regular car.

He was a very nice man and very thorough and kind to my friend.

I think most of us are agreed that no one from Netcare told OP to bring Reeva in unless he deliberately downplayed her injuries. I think it's worth a reminder that he doesn't remember what he said to Netcare... but he does remember what they said to him about bringing her in. There absolutely should be a recording of this call somewhere. Why it hasn't been brought up is beyond me.

 

[BritsKate]

Unfortunately, sowetan live's website in under construction until Monday so I cannot link to the article but Vermeulen, on redirect, allowed for there to be bat strikes before shots (not to be confused with breaking the door down) and stated he couldn't determine the sequence. Its shortly before, IIRC, he's asked about someone possibly kicking the door in order to scare someone.

Links, video testimony and typed transcripts of the redirect should be available in past threads as this has all been debated before.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Lyra500]

Just popped in to say hello and see what's up.

However, some of the posts have prompted me to report the following:

This week an elderly friend fell in the street. A shopkeeper called the ambulance, and me as her friend. Whilst waiting with my friend and the ambulance officer, I took the opportunity to talk to the ambo about what their procedure is for injuries like Reeva's. The ambo just happened to be nearby, but he is actually the director of the whole ambulance district, which is large and includes rural areas, and he is also a specialist in the management of traumatic injuries.

He said that when someone phones 000 (our version of 999) and they ask for am ambulance, they are put directly through to qualified, experienced paramedics who have a computerised protocol that they must follow. It involves a sort of question & decision tree, which the ambo follows based on the caller's answers. All calls are recorded and timed.

He said that, in a case like Reeva's, the most they might recommend is that she be rolled on her side to assist breathing. They would NEVER tell the caller to shift the patient at all, and would NEVER tell them to take the patient to hospital in a regular car.

He was a very nice man and very thorough and kind to my friend.

Hi Bobbie.

I hope your friend is on the mend now.

Thank you for this - this is exaclty what several of us said at the time OP made this particular statement about being told to bring Reeva in by car.

It sounded like absolute nonsense. i recall posting that the only possible explanations were:

1. He never spoke to the ambulance service as claimed
2. He lied to the call centre about the extent of Reeva's injuries

Either of the above scenarios shows him in a very poor light in my view.

I find it quite wearing when people try to justify his statements and actions in this regard and start talking about how it makes more sense to hop in the car, maybe the ambulance service wasn't very good, where they live they would hop in the car - and and so on and so on ad infinitum. No, it really really does not make sense.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

I think most of us are agreed that no one from Netcare told OP to bring Reeva in unless he deliberately downplayed her injuries. I think it's worth a reminder that he doesn't remember what he said to Netcare... but he does remember what they said to him about bringing her in. There absolutely should be a recording of this call somewhere. Why it hasn't been brought up is beyond me.

Weird isn't it?? Maybe, he said she'd stubbed her toe?

In the last thread or two (I think), a number of posters seemed to think that driving Reeva to the hospital in a car could be preferable to waiting for an ambulance.

 

[jassy writer]

Yes a judge is going to know the law inside and out and be less swayed than a jury by her emotions or “ear witness” testimony that came a week after the event, other ear witness testimony is contradictory. I believe the good judge will sort it out more efficiently than a jury. Nothing really earth shattering in my opinion.

On the contrary, I think My Lady will believe that responsible, well educated people who chose to come forward after the fact and give testimony, based on the fact that what they had heard that night differed from what was reported in the media, will be excellent and trustworthy witnesses.

 

[Lyra500]

On the contrary, I think My Lady will believe that responsible, well educated people who chose to come forward after the fact and give testimony, based on the fact that what they had heard that night differed from what was reported in the media, will be excellent and trustworthy witnesses.

I can never quite understand how the prosecution ear witnesses can be portrayed as unreliable, conspiring, stupid, devious (or any combination) whilst the DT ear witnesses are then quoted as incontrovertible proof of OP's version of events - sometimes by the same person!

Either ear witnesses have something to offer or the do not. One cannot say that when they appear for the prosecution they are rubbish but then quote the ones that appear for the defence as confirmation of events. If it is a question of individual reliability or whether they are 'good' witnesses or not, that may be different. However, i have found some of the claims about the PT witnesses pretty unacceptable given that they were all reputable professionals, didn't really want to get involved but felt duty bound to do so.

JMOO obviously.

 

[soozieqtips]

Weird isn't it?? Maybe, he said she'd stubbed her toe?

In the last thread or two (I think), a number of posters seemed to think that driving Reeva to the hospital in a car could be preferable to waiting for an ambulance.

I think this is just another detail OP is deliberately lying about, which is why I wish they could track down the call and establish exactly what he said when he described Reeva's injuries.

 

[Val1]

Just a couple of observations from me. I cannot find a very recent post to attach them to.

1. Minor4th says that the State's case is that the bat came after the shots. I may disagree with 98 per cent of her views but on this point she is quite correct. When Mangena gave evidence he was asked the order in which the shots and bat were made and he stated that he thought shots then bat. The PT have never disputed this and I am not sure that they can now change their mind in the summing up. I was surprised Nel did not bring this up again during crossx with Wolmarans and shall be very interested to hear what they now have to say.

2. With respect to the shots being so close together, there was a video on You Tube that clearly showed OP using the gun that was used to kill Reeva. The part of interest seems now to have been removed or, perhaps, I have not located the complete video. In the one I watched it showed OP shooting several bullets from his pistol and the recoil after each shot was very apparent. It took time to re-aim and shoot. He was holding the gun in both hands (or rather reinforcing the hand holding the gun) and with rigidly extended arms. If he was not aiming in the same manner at the murder scene, ie with both hands and rigid muscles, IMO, there is no way he could have caused the shots to be so close. If, as he says, he just fired without thinking the bullet holes in the door would have been all over the place. He has to have recovered from the recoil, aimed and taken another shot.

Regardless of whether we believe he knows who he was shooting at, IMO this shows intention. I firmly believe (and have for some long time) that he intentionally murdered whoever was in the toilet cubicle. I also believe he knew it was Reeva but am having doubts as to what the final outcome will be due to the psychiatrist's perception of his mental state.

bbm - I would have to review Mangena's testimony as I don't recall that, unless you have a link where he says that? In the meantime, here are the official videos from sabc. Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.

Session 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ
Session 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only a specific crack on the door as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identified bat marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 12 March 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

 

[Interested Bystander]

Unfortunately, sowetan live's website in under construction until Monday so I cannot link to the article but Vermeulen, on redirect, allowed for there to be bat strikes before shots (not to be confused with breaking the door down) and stated he couldn't determine the sequence. Its shortly before, IIRC, he's asked about someone possibly kicking the door in order to scare someone.

Links, video testimony and typed transcripts of the redirect should be available in past threads as this has all been debated before.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

Thank you for that info. I must have totally missed it. Maybe one of those days when I had to leave the house :tantrum: . I will go seek the video of his testimony and see if I can pinpoint it.

 

[Gryffindor]

Very quiet today. Lots of regular "faces" missing??

 

[BritsKate]

Hi Bobbie.

I hope your friend is on the mend now.

Thank you for this - this is exaclty what several of us said at the time OP made this particular statement about being told to bring Reeva in by car.

It sounded like absolute nonsense. i recall posting that the only possible explanations were:

1. He never spoke to the ambulance service as claimed
2. He lied to the call centre about the extent of Reeva's injuries

Either of the above scenarios shows him in a very poor light in my view.

I find it quite wearing when people try to justify his statements and actions in this regard and start talking about how it makes more sense to hop in the car, maybe the ambulance service wasn't very good, where they live they would hop in the car - and and so on and so on ad infinitum. No, it really really does not make sense.

Especially considering the closest hospital, which boasts a trauma centre, is 6km (less than 4 miles) from Silver Woods.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[DebinGA]

In the last thread or two (I think), a number of posters seemed to think that driving Reeva to the hospital in a car could be preferable to waiting for an ambulance.

IIRC paramedics arrived within 6 min. of Dr. Stipp insisting Stander call NetCare. Here's the modern hospital less than 4 m. away:

https://www.netcare.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=5577