Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

987 replies

Pennies · 15/04/2014 09:53

Here you go.

OP posts:
LookingThroughTheFog · 16/04/2014 18:08

for me the arguing is less easy to explain.

Me too. You start getting into the realms of 'maybe they heard someone else arguing?' at which point, you're relying on the unreasonable chance that there was a second loud argument at that time in that area. So less doubt there.

Redcoats · 16/04/2014 18:25

You cannot be tripped up if you are telling the truth

I think you can get confused with someone deliberately trying to trip you up and nitpick tiny things (low tone/whisper).
But I would have expected OP to have gone through this a thousand times with his defence, for them to point out the inconsistencies to him.

Strange that he didn't breakdown in tears when reading the valentines card. I had a lump in my throat reading about it on twitter and obviously I didn't know poor Reeva.

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 18:49

Does anyone know off hand which neighbor hear screams? I am wanting to go back to testimony. I am really unsure about ear witness testimony being accurate. My DH pointed out if you heard something like a series of gun shots in succession and you replayed it in your head would you say to yourself did I hear bang, bang, bang or was it bang, bang, bang, bang and so on, He is a drummer so beats are easy for him to recognize and he would still have a problem with. I was thinking have any of you played that game where in a circle one person makes up a phrase and they whisper it to the next person and so on and see what it sounds like at the end? It is crazy how messed up the original phase was. I did read where neighbors on either side of OP head Crying but no screaming.

MILdesperandum · 16/04/2014 18:59

Sorry - I've been reading these threads on and off. Has the issue of the bathroom light being on been dealt with? An intruder (presumably) wouldn't turn on the light on to go hide in the toilet, and didn't someone testify the light wasn't working? But obviously it wouldn't do OP any favours to claim Reeva locked herself in a toilet where the light wasn't working so he claims instead that it was on.... have I missed something?

LookingThroughTheFog · 16/04/2014 19:09

Upnorth, the first witness heard 'a blood-curdling screams'. Sorry, I can't remember the name. I'll look back in a second.

The toilet light wasn't working, MILdesperandum, but the bathroom one was, but Pistorius testifies that the bathroom light was off during the shooting, during him kicking the door, and I'm not clear if it was then on when he broke the door down with a bat. He claims she walked through the dark bathroom, then locked herself into the dark toilet.

Dr Stipp saw the light on, which is why it's key to know when he was disturbed, whether it was before the shooting, or before the bat hitting.

MILdesperandum · 16/04/2014 19:13

Sorry I meant toilet light, I was sure the toilet light was on in OPs testimony.. sorry if I'm retreading old ground

LookingThroughTheFog · 16/04/2014 19:15

Actually, Upnorth, if you go to page 4 of this thread, StackALee compiled a brilliant post linking to each of the days, stating which witnesses were on that day, and what the main part of the testimony was about.

I've been going back to it to cross reference all day.

Thanks, once again, StackALee.

(But in short, Berger was the one about the bloodcurdling screams, and her husband Dr Stipp, and a few others heard them too. Her description sticks in my mind the most though.)

LookingThroughTheFog · 16/04/2014 19:18

It's fine, MILdesperanum - I think it's good to be reminded or get fresh eyes in with a complex case.

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 19:25

Thanks so much LookingThroughTheFog. I will check out the StackALee post.

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 19:29

Thanks to StackALee too.

MILdesperandum · 16/04/2014 19:29

"I could see a little bit of light. I would have sees a silhouette of someone in the bathroom".

From 14th April. Is he talking about light from the window then? To prove he knew the bathroom was safe. I do find it strange that if the toilet light wasn't working you wouldn't put the bathroom light on and leave the door open

Nerf · 16/04/2014 19:33

If you weren't in love I don't see why the valentines card would be some where to break down. I just feel all this and such a short relationship, no real investment or children to allow such strong feelings. I feel he was less keen then she was so I just don't think the card would have much emotion if they weren't in love.

AmIthatSpringy · 16/04/2014 19:35

The thing about the arguing is that is was just one witness, Mrs Van der Merwe. And she said she heard a voice - not voices, but didn't know where the voice was coming from. As i recall she couldn't even say what language it was.

Now when Dr Stipp gave his evidence, he said that the house next door to OP's had all the lights on. I found this strange and wonder now if they were, in fact, up at the time, just as someone upthread mentioned.

JillJ72 · 16/04/2014 19:44

... So were the neighbours arguing?

AmIthatSpringy · 16/04/2014 19:51

I don't know Jill, but I think it is clear from the evidence presented in court that Mrs V D W didn't know who was arguing.

I was just thinking aloud really. Dr Stipp's comment about the house next door to OP's has stuck in my mind and I haven't heard an explanation.

I tell you this though, I am spinning so much on this fence of mine that I can see into all my neighbour's gardens.

Still not convinced

Redcoats · 16/04/2014 19:53

neighbours who heard what

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 19:56

I am with you AmIthatSpringy This thing is such a puzzle I don't know what to make of it. I will tell you one thing, I can't get it out of my head.

JillJ72 · 16/04/2014 20:00

I am not a white balloon holder, but nor am I a vitriol spouter.... I am gathering splinters because I can see it both ways - true but acted out of fear (raises questions), or full of rage and out of control (raises questions).

I want to listen to the testimony but not quite sure how to squeeze in hours without DH raising eyebrows (can't say I blame him, although he know I am closely following this).

LookingThroughTheFog · 16/04/2014 20:01

Me too, upnorth. On both counts.

StackALee · 16/04/2014 20:06

They wil have questioned the Neighbours, aren't these the people the defence plan to bring?

Just wondering too, if there were shots then bat sounds, isn't it possible that anyone who heard the gunshots would then automatically associate any following loud bangs with those shots and assume they were? Hence the confusion.

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 20:13

Something that I can not get resolved in my head is why would OP admit RS took her phone to the toilet if it wasn't true. He should have left that part out if trying to hide something. Instead he admits her phone was in the bathroom and that she dropped it in the toilet. Why would he admit that if it wasn't true? I just can't make any sense out of him lying about it. It also seems strange to me that she would be standing basically in front of the door talking to him if they were arguing? It seems she would put distance between herself and the only other thing between the two of them if she was frightened of him. It would be easier for me to believe she was cowering in the corner as opposed to standing so close to the door.

upnorthfelinefan · 16/04/2014 20:15

Absolutely StackALee. I can't understand how it is only possible to hear screaming and gun shots but not the cricket bat hitting the door.

AmIthatSpringy · 16/04/2014 20:18

Jill it's hard, isn't it. I have been trying to listen at work, but is very difficult. As a LP, I just have to wait until DD is in bed, so there's a wee bonus for me

And I don't think you need to qualify your comments about why you are on the fence.

Just as I am perfectly entitled to wait until the end of the evidence before stating, with certainty, that OP is lying, etc Hmm

I want to go back and watch last week's properly. Hopefully catch up in the court break.

Roux said evidence until about 16th May. Then I believe they go away and formulate their arguments. Then the judge goes and decides, so I can see why it will take to July.

It's a huge responsibility she has, she has to give it the time needed. I posted before, but I couldn't believe the C5 presenter last night asking some talking head if he thought the Judge had already made her mind up. Hmm

JillJ72 · 16/04/2014 20:35

AmI if the judge has already made up her mind, why is OP paying Roux and team, why is Nel there, and why are we on part 4 on MN? Would make an absolute mockery of the SA justice system. And I'm sure she has better things to do....

Ah, the insight of some sections of the media.

StackALee · 16/04/2014 20:51

"Instead he admits her phone was in the bathroom and that she dropped it in the toilet. Why would he admit that if it wasn't true? I just can't make any sense out of him lying about it."

I wasn't aware she'd dropped it in the toilet? I though the tried to phone for help from it but couldn't because he didn't know the pass code? If it was dropped in the toilet then wouldn't that be a way to try to deliberately damage it to hide evidence? (by him I mean)?