Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

999 replies

Roussette · 18/04/2014 17:46

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

OP posts:
OneStepCloser · 24/04/2014 15:38

Louise I personally think he should have pleaded guilty to CH, yes then the prosecution could try for the first and second degree murders, but would have been harder for them when someone had admitted guilt and shown real remorse (I personally, again, believe) I think he would have got even a 'suspended' sentence in all probability, this way I truly believe he's going to get a fairly hefty sentence, but that's only my take on it.

RoadKill great post.

BookABooSue · 24/04/2014 16:20

Roadkill I thought the same regarding the phone falling in the toilet room not in the toilet bowl.

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 16:40

OneStep I totally agree with your entire post but I think if they charge him with premed murder or whatever they call it, he can't say "not guilty to that but I plead guilty to ch" unless the prosecution agree to it, which they patently haven't.

The impression I have is that he's never had the option.

YNK · 24/04/2014 17:42

One step - yes the emotional age delay associated with NPD is 6yo!

OP had many options available to him other than to pursue an intruder.
He could have activated a personal alarm and got him and Reeva to safety by exiting the bedroom. Setting off the burglar alarm would have been helpful to them in this situation, so why did Oscar bother to switch it off?

He called his friend Stander (a site administrator) to help.
Stander and his wife were there when Dr Stipp arrived to offer assistance and Mrs Stander told him Oscar wanted to avoid publicity.
Mr Stander said Oscar called him for assistance to get Reeva into the car to the hospital.
What was the purpose of the plastic bags and rope at this point?

Oscar was horrible on the stand about Dr Stipp saying he didn't seem to know what he was doing (Dr Stipp had established Reeva was beyond help) when he, the doctor, was potentially risking his own life going to offer help in an unknown situation

Too much of OP's story doesn't fit the evidence.

ZuluinJozi · 24/04/2014 17:59

@YNK 'What was the purpose of the plastic bags and rope at this point?'

I think OP said he initially thought he could use them to stop further blood loss.

On another note, if court is scheduled to conclude mid May?(Not sure of exact date) and Roux has between 10 and 15 witnesses, does this date seem feasible? Given that the court has not more than 10 days if they are resuming on the 5 May and 7 May is an election day in SA?

Nerf · 24/04/2014 18:09

YNK there is absolutely no presented evidence that OP has NPD.

UnderthePalms · 24/04/2014 18:33

Mrs Stander told him Oscar wanted to avoid publicity

I wonder how that's going? Confused

emotionsecho · 24/04/2014 18:57

Zulu I believe the Judge has stated that the court will have to sit for longer during the day either by starting earlier or finishing later or both in order to catch up, with the exception of the first day back (5th May).

You're right though if the Defence have another 14 witnesses to take the stand it doesn't seem possible that they will conclude by the middle of May.

emotionsecho · 24/04/2014 18:59

Welcome back to the thread Roadkill and Louise hope you enjoyed your Easter break!

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 19:09

What was the purpose of the plastic bags and rope at this point

To use as tourniquets of course. Apparently it's a common first aid trick to use plastic bags (I have no idea why but I haven't studied first aid since I was eleven.)

Just in case anyone could possibly think there was a more sinister reason, as has been suggested elsewhere, I should point out that OP rang the Standers one minute before he rang Netcare and only two minutes before he rang Security. He had no idea who would get there first.

YNK is there a confirmed source for the "Oscar doesn't want publicity" remark or does it come from a newspaper or internet article? As has been mentioned previously, there's a lot of stuff on the internet that is unconfirmed. I can't believe that OP thought for a second that it wouldn't get out, although of course he probably wasn't thinking straight, whatever the circumstances of the killing.

JillJ72 · 24/04/2014 19:11

Surmising here.... Maybe ringing Stander was about "damage limitation" or having a handle on the rumour mill or an eye on the police investigators.....

No, that didn't stop the salacious media headlines from being written, that were shown to be lies. Nor watches from being stolen or evidence being moved and touched with bare hands.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think you'd try to "PR" the situation if you were famous and knew what you could be up against...

Really makes you feel for the average citizen though.....

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 19:13

emotions - thanks. These things go so quickly

RoadKillBunny · 24/04/2014 19:50

Thanks emotionsecho I have been bogged Down with work and was unable to follow the last t
So days of testimony live. I have taken the last week to read through the threads, watch much of the testimony I missed and re watch some other key parts.
It's amazing how much is forgotten from early witnesses and experts as things have moved forward. I have read time and again people pose questions that have been covered already. It just shows how important the process if reading the records and note taking is for the judge and assessors, they will be utilising every bit of their training and expirence to make the judgement. I don't envy them and I am completely unsurprised that there is unlikely to be a judgement until July. That time scale reassures me that everything is being done to ensure a fair trail that is not bullied by the medias need for the next headline. I must say this rare peak into the legal machine has been fascinating and has really turned me off the idea of trial by jury. If I where accused of a crime I didn't commit the idea if a jury of my peers, given what I have seen in regards to this case, would terrify me!

Back to my points that where rudely interrupted by life earlier!

Next point I wanted to make was around Reeva's stomach contents and gastric emptying.
People seem to be fixated on two times, the 7pm that OP claims they ate and the 1am time of the last possible time Reeva could have eaten. The facts are that the amount of food in Reeva's stomach surgest that she had eaten sometime in the last 2 to even as much as 6 hours. This puts her eating timeframe between 9pm and 1am. The 9pm time is the earliest the pathologist believes she could have eaten and felt I think it would have been more like between 11pm and 1pm. Eating a meal between 9pm and midnight seems a whole lot more likely then 1am. I think it's important not to become to focused on narrow points of testimony but take in the wider points made and possibilities (not sure I have explained all this very well!)
I also feel the need to point out that early in his testimony OP did say that it was possible that while he slept Reeva could have got up, turned off the alarm and gone and got herself something to eat. He said it was unlikely but he couldn't say it was impossible because he was sleeping.

OP also stated that he believes Reeva took her phone to the toilet with her because she was using the screen to light her way.

I have to admit to be struggling to believe OP. His story is too implausible when examined closely it just falls apart however at first glance it seems a reasonable story (if crimmanaly reckless). To me this us just more damming for him, a story that he made up on the fly that as long as nobody looked too hard would mean he wouldn't have to deal with consequence. Very like his boat accident it seems where his story worked, he had already had that expirence and 'got away with it' to me that again casts another blow to his defence, however the boat accident is not part of the case so can't be used to draw parallels or conclusions sadly.

I am very interested to hear Mr Standers (is that right? The estate manager) testimony.
The order and length of OPs phone calls in the hour after Reeva's death along with amount of calls he made are very interesting and I am hoping we will hear more on that. I won't go into my thoughts on that in this post, already too long!

emotionsecho · 24/04/2014 20:43

The really positive aspect of this thread is the willingness of posters to debate the evidence presented. I have made assumptions, misinterpreted evidence or just been plain wrong in my memory of what was said and have been challenged and set straight (thanks Louise!), which is great and exactly how it should be. I still hold to my view and feel the evidence so far upholds that view, but there are a number of witnesses yet to appear so some things may yet be challenged or discredited.

On the subject of jury or judge trials, I have always been a staunch advocate of a jury trial feeling it is the best way of ensuring a fair trial and just decision, but I am impressed with the manner in which this trial has been conducted so I am wavering a bit. I was speaking to a German friend about the trial yesterday and was told that in Germany they have judge only trials too, I didn't know that!

I too am interested in what Mr Stander will say.

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 21:00

I won't go into my thoughts on that in this post,

Please do as I am confused. None of the calls seemed to last uch more than a minute or so according to the phone records. Apart from the three at the beginning I thought the ones to Carl and Justin were made after the police had arrived and those to his manager were repeated because there was no answer.

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 21:07

emotions I was appalled at first at the idea of no jury but now I think it's actually a good idea. The judge and her assessors will not be swayed by his fame or public image. Equally they won't be swayed by the crap in the Daily Mail or other tabloids.

RonaldMcDonald · 24/04/2014 21:10

Without meaning to seem rude but the use or tourniquet when there was a massive and obvious brain injury....?
Mmmmm

UnderthePalms · 24/04/2014 21:16

I think if I'd been accused of something I'd rather have Judge Masipa deciding my fate than a bunch of people off the street.

LouiseBrooks · 24/04/2014 21:16

Ronald My understanding is that Miss Stander suggested it. Yes it may see pointless in hindsight but at the time I suspect they were all anxious to do anything they could.

RonaldMcDonald · 24/04/2014 21:17

It would seem clear to me that netcare must not record all of their calls
Otherwise I feel we would have heard from them
It seems highly unlikely that they would have asked OP to transport a patient with such transparently grave injuries via car to hospital.
He lived in town, not out on a farm.
I guess it could mean that he was unable to detail her injuries due to shock and they imagined them to be superficial somehow?
SAs paramedics are truly excellent....this element of the case also holds some doubt for me.

There is some doubt over who really arranged for an ambulance for me at this point. I would hope that this is cleared up when Stander gives evidence. We will be able to examine his phone record then and perhaps hear what Netcare has.

Nerf · 24/04/2014 21:24

Just watching the trial programme and Gerrie Nel is pronounced Herrie Nel.

upnorthfelinefan · 24/04/2014 23:31

RoadKillBunny your post is awesome. I want to clear something up. I am the one that stated the phone had fallen in the toilet I read it as a Stenographer update on SkyNews. news.sky.com/story/1239408/oscar-pistorius-trial-stenographer-updates

OP: I noticed her cellphone had fallen into the toilet. I could see her arm was hanging and broken.

OP: I pulled her phone out of the toilet but I couldn't unlock it as it had a password on. I ran to the bedroom to get my cellphone and phoned Mr. Stander.

Finding some time to do more research after your comments I did more searching and found the following on the News24 hour site.
www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Live/LIVE-UPDATES-Pistorius-on-trial-day-19-20140409

9:36 - I couldn't pick her up but I tried pulling her into the bathroom. I put her head softly on the carpet. I saw her cellphone in the bathroom and tried phoning for help but couldn't because I didn't know the password. - OP
Seeing a discrepancy I listened to the trial and heard straight from OP's mouth "I saw that her cell phone was in the toilet". My interpretation of what he meant is that he found the phone in the toilet room not in the toilet bowl.
Here is the link to OP's testimony regarding what happened after finding Reeva in the toilet if anyone is interested.

Sorry for causing any confusion. I am trying to keep to the details that pertain to the trial. The only way to make sure you are getting accurate information is to listen to the trial testimony. Finding the time to do that hours at a time is the difficult part.
RoadKillBunny · 24/04/2014 23:35

Okay, on the subject if calls.
Have to say can't truly firm an opinion yet as it hasn't really been gone into, I am just relying on my memory so please do correct me if there are any glaring errors!

I thought at first it deeply strange that he didn't call the SA version of 999 to get police and ambulance but then I learned a little more about SA life and it seems that if you are wealthy enough to have contracts with private security you will always call them over the police as the police response us sat to slow, same to for medical care, you call the private company rather then state service.

But it's then things seem to he a little odd. He called Mr Stander the estate manager over the estate security. You could argue that this was due to having a friendship with him and due to his traveling and spending little time at home he was more familiar with Mr Stander however he clearly knew security's number as he called them first but then aborted the call, why? The best I can really come up with is that his mind was jumping all over the place, going from 'get help' to 'what have I done' to 'the press will have a field day' and any number of places in between. He called net care, I am not sure if this was before or after his call to Mr Stander and claims they told him to put her in a car as it would be faster, I don't find this information very odd as I am quite sure he did not convey to them the serious nature of her injuries. You could argue that this was not a purposeful dedication by OP as denial and panic about the reality of such serious injuries is quite common, he would have been overwhelmed by his senses trying to take everything in, he would likely have had hope. You could also argue in a much more sinister way that he vague about the severity of Reeva's injuries to try and make sure help didn't arrive too quickly while still making sure records would show him calling for help, it would then also give reason to move Reeva and in doing so disturb the scene. The later is very sinister and I feel unlikely, I don't believe that he had enough capacity at that time to make such a calculating choice. I don't think anybody thinks that once he knew it was Reeva in the toilet/the red must had lifted he was anything other then horrified and frightened.
What really unsettles me about the calls and behaviour in that first hour is two fold. First it is calling Mr Stander as his primary reaction, it just doesn't feel right to me which is why I am keen to hear his evidence, I am hoping he can shed some light on it for me, explain why that was, what type of relationship does he have with OP, what could Mr Stander do for OP in that moment that made his his first choice for help after clearly cycling through and on the whole discarding the normal routes for help. I can't condemn or judge OP's choice to call Mr Stander on an uneasy feeling so I hope that will become clearer.
The next part that makes me question what was going on in OP's head in that first hour is the number of calls he made to the number if different friends and family members. Something again just feels off in this. As much as I warn against judging OP's actions on what we think we would do or what most people would do I just can't help thinking how odd I find his calls. When I have been in the middle if a hell once I have made one call to somebody, told one person the terrible news I just can't face doing it again, I pick the person I call first in part so they can be my spokesperson, so they can make the difficult calls, spread the news and rally the troops. I simply can't imagine having it in me to call three or four people and tell them I had shot my girlfriend. But, that said, I am not OP and I can not judge his actions on what I think I would do. I am not sure there will be any further resolution to my unease over these calls though as OP's siblings and uncle have been in court all the way through so can't be on the witness list. I have a feeling I maybe a little frustrated when Mr Stander takes the stand as I don't think many of my questions will be answered, I guess that that first hour post Reeva's death isn't disputed when it comes to facts and there isn't much to be gained in looking closely at it.
Sorry, I think that might be a bit of a nonsensical ramble that adds little to the discussion, apologies.

It has reminded me though about something's I wanted to say about OP's father.
OP and his father have had a well documented rocky relationship with fairly long stretches of little contact all the way since childhood.
However, if OP's telling the truth in regards to the ammunition he had been in some sort of reasonable contact with his Father in the time before Reeva's death for him to have access to OPs home and safe (correct me if I'm wrong but didn't OP say he didn't know about the ammo as his father and I think brother had the safe combo and came and went without OP being there). His Father was at every day of the bail hearing and OP seemed to welcome him being there as did the rest of the family. That was until he made his racist comment to the press about the ANC and police doing nothing to protect white South Africans and at that point OP and the rest if the family distanced themselves quickly and totally from him, the way they did it and what they said about it at the time to me came across as them being worried about the effect the comments would have on the public opinion of OP and his reputation, the feeling I got was that they agreed with, or at least weren't disgusted with the comments privately but knew how damaging it would be to the Oscar brand and how important public opinion was going to be in regards to the death of Reeva. If the man wasn't a racist bigot I would have almost felt sorry for him the way he was dropped like a hot brick covered in dog shit.
So that left OP having said the ammo belonged to his Father back when his Father was standing with him, either willing to take the blame for him or it genuinely being his but then Daddy is out in the cold, it seems at that point he is either not willing to take the blame anymore or not willing to own up to it being his (although from what I understand it really doesn't matter, it was stored at OP's house, OP doesn't have a licence to have it, if his Father officially lived at the address and holds a licence to have the ammo then there would have been no crime however the fact was it was at a home that only has OP as the occupant, he holds no licence and ignorance is not a defence so I am really confused how OP can plead not guilty!) hence the fact he wouldn't give a statement claiming ownership.
I am surprised however that Nel didn't question OP more on this given he knows that OP and his father where in close contact a little over a year ago yet on the stand he claimed he had no relationship with his father for many years. Maybe Nel didn't push it as it's so obviously not quite the truth, it's just another series of events that show OP as being economical with the truth, self centred and unwilling to accept responsibility.

Even though the state has not yet proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet all these things just keep adding up to make OP lose credibility. He can lie about these other things and pig headily refuses to accept even the smallest amount of responsibility for anything in his life. You have to give so much benefit of doubt and believe that OP gas been the most unfortunate man alive, you have to believe that the stars lined up to make every police error and price if sloppy work a gift to the prosecution and only when you have all this can his version become at all credible.
I don't know how it works within the law but if I were the judge right at this moment I think I would be wondering if I could rely on a single thing OP says, and if I can't trust his word at all I have to use occam's razor and when I weigh up the probabilities, well I would have to say he knew it was Reeva. I don't think the judge can do that though, probably a good thing. I do not envy her position.

I am so sorry for the too long, too rambling, too unclear and too full of typos, mistakes and auto corrects post. I will try and order my thoughts better before trying to post from now on!

YNK · 25/04/2014 01:56

Nerf, I was replying to onesteps saying he was behaving or sounding like a 5yo and I was making the point that those who were diagnosed with NPD are emotionaly fixed at age 6 so this would tally. Pure speculation on my part and no suggestion that OP had a diagnosis.

Louise... Dr Stipps evidence re Standers wifes remark about not wanting the incident to get out to the papers

YNK · 25/04/2014 02:18

Interesting post roadkill.

I seem to believe OP said he kept his fathers bullets in the safe and this was not against the law. However keeping a gun for that type of bullet would contravene his licence.

I also believe OP's brother emptied the safe and took the contents, but I don't recollect a police inventory being made of the contents first although that would seem logical.

I still wonder if this was OP lying to cover for the fact he had more than 1 gun. Perhaps the mysterious mission OP his ex and Fresco made during the other shooting incident (sunroof) was to buy another gun. They, both Fresco and the ex, said they thought it was something to do with paperwork for a gun. Pure speculation on my part, I have no evidence of this.