Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

Dr Stipp also said he asked all present if an ambulance had been called and the answer was no. He then asked Mr Stander to do so. I am also intrigued to hear Standers testimony.
Dr Stipp sounds like a very good witness. He is clear and exact. I think it is horrible of OP to rubbish his attempt to help that night. OP said Dr Stipp did not seem to know what he was doing! There was, in fact, little that he could do due to the unsurvivable injuries Reeva had suffered!

I did nursing training many years ago, and more recently have done first aid training but I don't recollect anything about needing rope and plastic bags. Indeed I do know that applying pressure using whatever is available to a wound is the standard practice as using a tourniquet can cause more injury than it is worth. The key is to be quick to prevent bloodloss, not seek out a specific type of material. I would be interested to be proven wrong on this though.

Does anyone know what date and maybe even what time (morning/afternoon) the ammo issue was talked about with OP on the stand?
I think I need to re look at it all before making any further comment it observation.
I'm also going to re look at the testimony from both OP and Dr Stipp in regards to what happened in the time after the shooting as I am working too much from patch memory just now to be sure of what I am commenting on.
The irony is not lost!

Re the jury question.

I've been in favour of professional or trained juries for a while. I think that having a mix of people is critical, so that you don't end up with prejudice, but there are so many parts of the law that are difficult to understand, and people off the street may not come to understand them over the course of the trial. Certainly in this case, though we've discussed the various different possibilities a number of times, and looked into what each of them mean, it's still easy to slip into 'it wasn't murder because he didn't know it was Reeva!' forgetting, for the moment, that it still might be murder if he should have known that by his actions, a person would die.

In a case such as this, where there are complications and complexities, and where motive and actions can be separated and looked at as individual parts, I think that having a jury, and also having the jury go out and not discuss it at several points over the trial, I think that's too much to ask Joe Bloggs to do.

Interesting posts, Roadkill. I'm glad you're back!

Looking,

Interesting post. Does anywhere have professional/trained juries? How does it work? Is it a full-time job, or is it something that people do alongside other work? Do people get paid?

Not that I'm aware of, Driven, but it's occasionally posed as a thought question.

I seem to remember Dr Stipp saying when he told stander to call the ambulance, Stander used OP's phone to do this.

Maybe not all the calls on OP's phone were made by him.

Both of the Stipps said throughout the incident, from the bang that woke them, they could see a light illuminating the toilet window. It has been shown that with the toilet door shut this would not have been the case.

I did suggest earlier that perhaps the bat was used on the door before the shots, as well as after but was told both the defence and the prosecution agreed the shots were the first thing to damage the toilet door. I can't find evidence for this agreement between defence and prosecution. I will go back again to try and find this today.

The reason I am interested in this is that if a light could be seen in the toilet from outside, then OP must have been able to see in and establish who was there BEFORE shooting.

I think that keeping ammo that you aren't licensed to have contravenes their firearms laws
This idea that it was kept in his safe as though it was a hotel safe was a nonsense.
In this area his claiming he misunderstood the law ( the same defence he is using for killing Ms Steenkamp ) is not a defence.
There is a fine debatable line over having control over it, which is why he said others placed it there and had an ability to remove it.

What reason would his father, who is licensed to hold and keep the ammo, have to go to his estranged son's house and place it in his safe? If he had he would surely say so??
I think this was damaging.

The whole ammo thing also exposed OP as a liar. He said he had not spoken to his father for many years whilst also claiming that his father was the owner of the illegal ammo. He had been seen with his father at the bail hearing so his lie was bound to be found out. Is he a pathological liar?

I think it shows how focused he is on 'brand Oscar'.
He was happy to have his father at the bail hearing (perhaps dad was going to take the blame for the ammo?).
As soon as dad makes the racist comment he is dropped like a hot brick!
Maybe OP is just extremely anti racism, but I'm sceptical

Here is the link to the part of OP's testimony dealing with after he found Reeva in the toilet room and the phone calls her made.

I do think we might be forgetting that he decided to advance toward a perceived danger and fire four devastating bullets into a tiny toilet with a closed door
He didn't see the handle move
He didn't see the door open
He heard a noise and fired four rounds at waist height into the toilet

I would say that those things show intent
His defence is what? That he believed he could use lethal force against an intruder if he was in fear for his life.
If the intruder had stepped on the toilet to exit the window = dead
If the intruder bumped into the magazine rack = dead
If the intruder bumped into the wobbly door frame = dead
How exactly could an intruder have left that toilet alive.

The rest of his version, meh
It sounds improbable because I think it is.
This is added to by the fact that he never checked the window for the ladder letting the intruder/intruders in. He knew there was no intruder.
He knew when to stop pulling the trigger.
I believe he absolutely would have heard screams, he stopped firing when the screaming ended.

I think the defence will try to show he screams like a woman and to discredit the police. Effectively this is all they can do now.
It does not change the completeness of the facts above IMO.

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

Thanks. Although it says Mrs Stander said she hoped it didn't get into the papers (at 5.45), not that Oscar hoped that, which I think has been implied. A small point but quite an important one.

Dr Stipp was a very good witness but he said, as others have, that the woman was screaming after the first set of "gunshots". If they were gunshots it couldn't have been Reeva could it? To me this is the crux of the matter, especially since the prosecution have agreed the bat was not used until afterwards.

I agree with you totally, Ronald.

He has said he felt extremely vulnerable but also said he went towards the danger because that is his personality? To my mind the two don't go together.
In the past he has said he wants to be defined by his abilities not his disability. He and his defence are certainly using the disability and frailty cards now.

It's gunshots then baseball bat isn't it? Conclusively as per forensic.
Four gun shots then the bat. If he had to go and get the bat how much do the witnesses say was between the noises?
And Reeva couldn't have screamed if the second fatal shot hit her. But maybe they are hazy - screaming before shots and after? Reeva then OP?

Nerf, yes gunshots then bat. Dr Stipp referred to making phone calls to security in between the two sets of noises. Mrs Stipp (I think but it could be one of the others) said the "woman" screamed for a prolonged period between the two sets of bangs. It would impossible for Reeva to do that as she was already dead. I think Mrs Stipp said the final bangs were about 3.15 Oscar's first call for help was at 3.19. which would fit.

I think someone said they heard screaming then shots but they only seem to have heard one set of bangs (presumably the second lot). If that's wrong I'm sure someone will correct me

No one knows if it was shot bat bat shot etc
They know that at least one round went through the door before it was broken by the bat
We are assuming it was all one then all the other
We don't know if he kicked the door, shouldered the door, hit the door with the bat and tried to prise the door off
None of that worked and he then shot the door
Then hit the door with the bat again

Ronald even the prosecution forensics team accept he used the bat after the shots. They say they can tell by the splintering and the bullet holes

Why can't you accept that?

Yes I said early on in here that the bat could have been used first and was told the prosecution and the defense agreed this was not the case.
However the Stipps testimony about the light in the toilet niggled me so I have listened again.

I think we are all confusing ourselves by assuming the 'bang' sounds are proven to be one or the other conclusively, but now I am back to thinking this is not the case. In fact Nel has not really let this go at all.

I know the ballistics expert (Mangena) showed the wood around the bullet holes was not interrupted by prior blunt force, however, that does not prove parts of the door away from the holes were not damaged before the bullets struck.

They are still debating the sounds heard and have now introduced a 'duff' noise. I think Nel will come back to this.

YNK Nel can't come back to the sounds, or anything else. He has presented his case and cannot introduce any new evidence.

Ronald sorry if I sounded a bit tetchy but I really don't think we should disregard the forensic evidence, especially if both sides agree on something, whatever it is. We can't second guess them.

Can Nel add anything new in his closing statement?

I've just been reading about Uncle Arnold saying to June Steenkamp early on in the trial that they (the Pistorius family) are trying to save a life. How dare he? When Reeva has really lost her life - and at the hands of their nephew/brother/cousin. Reprehensible behaviour showing the level of entitlement and selfishness in this family.

Yes but I think since we have still to hear more witnesses from Roux and it may crop up again.
If all has been said that needs to be said about it then we need to let the judge make of it what she will.
Both sides letting something rest does not mean it has been proven yet.

I'm not sure why you sound tetchy either Louise. I'm happy to stand corrected and I have gone back over the court case to make sure of my recollections. I'm sure I will do so again before the trial resumes.

I don't get the outrage over that tbh. Unless you think anyone guilty of murder or manslaughter should get the death penalty?
Of course you are going to try to save your relative from the horrors of SA prisons.

Yes Hillwalker OP has also said to Nel that he is fighting for his life!
Appallingly tactless