Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

Blimey, had they not Hillwalker there's been so much evidence in this case! I've forgotten the basics

I didn't catch it. It is available live on Sky red button and telegraph live feed is also working, but I was faffing about trying to get it. I'm out this afternoon so I will have to catch up then.

AFAIK, from DS (who are trying to make a commentary for a deaf member) the defence witness was using a lot of speculation to make out RS was a 'medical outlier' who's stomach contents digested superslow!
She talked about slimming pills, marijuana, her youth and possible early pre manopausal symptoms.........it sounds like scrapping the barrel

The pathologist report must have Roux shitting his pants if he needs to go down this farcical route!

"Oh Hiilwalker.......interesting question!! Speculation alert!

I think they would have helped clean up the evidence and get the body away from the scene (to hospital) leaving Aimee to finish cleaning up.
They certainly would not want police at the scene before they had tampered with the evidence!

I have already nailed my colours to the mast, so I am happy to be flamed by the OP is a poor innocent brigade"

If Carice Stander is telling the truth then she would still have encouraged him to put the body down. Was the body on the floor when Stipp arrived?

I have missed the evidence RE the calls Mr Stander made but he said he went to call for medical help but when Dr Stipp arrived had to ask him what the number was! If the call logs show that Mr Stander actually called someone else then that would be damning RE their intentions.

Plus, several people were called from the mobile in the house - was that before Mr Stander called for medical help?

There is much to point to there being some kind of delay, be that for 'cover-up' reasons or just because they were panicked and didn't know what to do...

I have missed the first part of the case today but ready to start watching after the break.

"I think they would have helped clean up the evidence and get the body away from the scene (to hospital) leaving Aimee to finish cleaning up.
They certainly would not want police at the scene before they had tampered with the evidence!"

YNK would you cover up a potential murder for a friend? I sure as hell wouldn't do it for my very best friend, much less someone I'd never even invited to dinner. Why one earth do you think the Standers would? Massive speculation indeed.

'I've forgotten how did DR Stipps arrived? Was he called or just came out after hearing the noise?'

Dr Stipp heard the incident and made his own way there After calling security.

{grin] Onestep!

Dr Stipp pulled his superman pants on and raced to the scene after talking to security. He hoped his medical knowledge would be some use!
What a hero - it could have been very dangerous for him!

I've been watching this with interest. I'm not sure what I think actually happened, but one thing troubles me - if you assume the state are correct and OP had intent to kill Reeva, why would he be engaged in an argument with her ON HIS STUMPS? If you are awake arguing, and a picture is being painted of a controlling, aggressive man and a DV scenario - how much physical power over her would he have without his prosthetics on? He'd have been shorter than her, and unstable to some extent. Yes he had a gun - in the end - but when the alleged argument began, and whilst it escalates to the point he is filled with enough rage to kill her - would it really take place with him on his stumps?

His version seems so improbable, but given everyone now seems to accept that he was on his stumps when he fired through the door, I can't really get on board with the idea that he wouldn't at any stage in this argument have stood and wanted his legs on. Surely if you want to control and dominate you'd do that from a more physically dominating position? And if that's the case, how does that fit with firing on stumps?

the OP is a poor innocent brigade

OK, I like to think I've made it pretty damned clear that I'm not a part of the OP is a poor innocent brigade.

This emotional language is unfair. There are some people on the thread who believe that the state has not proven their case about his guilt. They have clearly based this opinion in reference to the facts as presented in court.

There has been one poster whom I recall going a bit strange with the 'poor Oscar, he's been through so much, like a phoenix from the ashes' stuff. One person; not a brigade.

Everyone else is giving their opinion with reference to the evidence presented in court.

You have made the suggestion that the Standards are criminals to such a degree that they'd instantly pervert the course of justice to protect Oscar. You have decided that about their characters from 4 hours in court. That's one hell of an accusation.

I still can't get over why on earth he was carrying a body around the house. Sorry for not remembering but what is his excuse? Is it that, as he claims, he was told by Netcare to take her to hospital? In which case, I assume he is claiming that he HAD tried to call an ambulance but that there is no direct record of that. Is that the case? And that other than this call to Netcare in which they said that, there was no other call to the emergency services?

This emotional language is unfair.

I completely agree Looking. It's getting really boring having to wade through the constant barbs directed at People Who Don't Agree With YNK. I think this thread is very measured and fair.

I have finally got a live feed! Only missed an hour.

Thanks stack right so he called the ambulance? And the Standers were there already? (Bloody hell sorry I'm going right back here, but am all confused)

I can't seem to stream live, none of them appear to be working . However, following twitter this witness, 'Lundgren' is not a forensic pathologist but is she there to give evidence on Reeva?

Lundgren is still being cross-examined by Nel.

During the break, Nel says he shared with the witness some articles on digestion after death. She reiterates that she is a clinician whose expertise is with live patients. She is not a forensic pathologist, she says.

I certainly would not cover up for a friend who had murdered!
My friends know I would grass them up in a heartbeat!
I have already had a colleague reprimanded in work for making a racist comment (the p word) and warned colleagues if they do the same I will not hesitate!

I'm not a great sleeper anyway, my conscience is important to me!

"Plus, several people were called from the mobile in the house - was that before Mr Stander called for medical help?

There is much to point to there being some kind of delay, be that for 'cover-up' reasons or just because they were panicked and didn't know what to do..."

Stack I am pretty sure Carl etc were called afterwards. I did put a timeline on here I think. I'll see if I can find it.

Re not calling the ambulance, several years ago the Countess of Wessex nearly died (after going into labour at home and haemorraging) due to confusion over who had or hadn't called an ambulance (no one had). This is the Queen's daughter in law who was surrounded by protection officers who are trained for every type of emergency (including attempted assassinations) yet there was such confusion that several people each assumed someone else had called. (I was told this by the way shortly afterwards by someone who was actually on the scene, it became public knowledge subsequently.)

Some people like to assume the worst motives, I am assuming panic.

Who your streaming with Looking I can't find one to work.

I don't think YNK is saying the Standers would have behaved criminally, more that they would have helped OP to take Reeva to hospital, thinking that was the best course of action and taking his lead as it were.

sleepy, it has not been proven OP was on his stumps. All we have is his word for it!
I don't think he ever was fwiw

"I assume he is claiming that he HAD tried to call an ambulance but that there is no direct record of that. Is that the case? "

OP rang the Standers, Netcare and then Security, all in about two minutes. I think 3.19, 3./20 and 3.21.

We also only have his word that the alarm was ever on, that they ever went to sleep, that Reeva did yoga, that they went upstairs, etc, etc.

Rubbish, looking, I did not do that at all (re Stander)! I spoke about the points of law and the evidence of his call to netcare at 3.28!

Please show me where I did what you say!

"sleepy, it has not been proven OP was on his stumps. All we have is his word for it! I don't think he ever was fwiw"

Somehow YNK I just knew you were going to say that. Personally I'll stick with the evidence presented in court.

I thought the evidence presented regarding height the door was shot at seemed to suggest that he was on his stumps. And that the state had therefore changed their case to reflect that? Happy to be corrected.

Ballistics showed he was? The prosecution were initially going to argue otherwise but dropped it. My understanding is that this is accepted, but the cricket bat hitting the door bit is still up for debate as to whether he was on stumps or not.

Voice I read the same