Not sure about this .. only it wasn't Oscar. Someone said Dr Stipp but then someone else said Stander.
Just been trying to put myself in the position where my nearest and dearest had had a major accident. Was alive but just. And remember OP said she was breathing when he got to her in the toilet. I think he changed this.
Surely the very first thing you would do would be to phone for an ambulance?? Not phone a friend.
Thanks Bus Stop. I know that OP called Netcare after he called Stander, but he said they advised him to drive her to hospital rather than wait for an ambulance. According to Netcare's website all of their calls are recorded, so if they're called by the defense it will be interesting to hear how he described her injuries and what they said to him. Apparently Netcare are on the list of defense witnesses.
Yes, I always wondered if OP had not fully described the situation to Netcare, but I've read loads of comments since from people in other countries which suggest that ambulances don't respond as reliably as they do here. Dr Stipp tried to get one from the emergency room of the hospital he is attached to but they told him to buzz off and ring an outfit like Netcare instead.
There seemed to be around half a dozen Netcare people on the original prosecution witness list. Obviously the prosecution didn't need them as there are no issues about the aftermath of the shooting.
Quick question....Is OP allowed out of his Uncles house for the next 2 weeks?
yes...his normal bail conditions still apply. He has to reside at his uncle's house and the police will visit him every couple of weeks to make sure he's actually living there. He has no restrictions on going out, as long as he stays in SA. Initially he wasn't able to drink alcohol whilst on bail and had to report to the police station twice a week....OP contested these conditions and they were lifted.....he can now drink alcohol and the police visit him at home on a less frequent basis.
There's no way that OP would meet the legal requirements for a mental health plea....between the bail and now there's a lot of proof from media sources that he was able to socialise etc. He didn't plead temporary insanity at the time and that's not something he can plead retrospectively. He might mow be able to claim that he's suffering from PTSD and that this is linked to his remorse...this might reduce his sentence but won't change the conviction.
Thank you! But I don't understand why, after all of the preparation by Roux, OP did not say that he pulled the trigger. IIRC. putative self defense means what is says, defense. So OP was terrified an intruder was about to come out of the WC and kill him; that being the case OP should have said that he grabbed his gun, went to where the intruder was and then pulled the trigger to fire four bullets at the intruder to kill him before he had a chance to kill OP. But OP was very carefull to not say he pulled the trigger, it all was an accident, he aimed at the "door" not at the intruder behind the door. So I don't get it.
Yes, I always wondered if OP had not fully described the situation to Netcare, but I've read loads of comments since from people in other countries which suggest that ambulances don't respond as reliably as they do here. Dr Stipp tried to get one from the emergency room of the hospital he is attached to but they told him to buzz off and ring an outfit like Netcare instead.
There seemed to be around half a dozen Netcare people on the original prosecution witness list. Obviously the prosecution didn't need them as there are no issues about the aftermath of the shooting.
I did wonder if the times he told Netcare a different timeline....that would be pretty damning!
I wonder what he said to netcare that made them tell him to take her to hospital, destroying the crime scene?
I would wager the the did not tell them the extent of her injuries. If they knew of her head injury, then surely they would not have told him to move her.
I was going to say that the defense must be confident that Netcare will back up OP's version, but after Dixon I'm not so sure! OP probably told them that she had fallen in the toilet and had a graze to her head....camera will pan over to Roux who will have his head in his hands and then to OP, with his head in the bucket....
Would love to hear that call and they do record them so perhaps we might. He may have said he shot her or that she'd been shot .. I don't for a moment believe that he fully explained that he had shot her in the head with a black talon bullet though because their advice to put her in the car and bring her would be more than a little bit worrying if so.
Just been trying to put myself in the position where my nearest and dearest had had a major accident. Was alive but just. And remember OP said she was breathing when he got to her in the toilet. I think he changed this.
Surely the very first thing you would do would be to phone for an ambulance?? Not phone a friend.
Unless of course she was dead.
He first said that when he got to her in the toilet she was NOT breathing.
He later said that when he tried to pick her up she was struggling to breathe or similar.
I'm curious as to whether Stander thinks OP called him first because he was the manager of the estate or because he was a friend. If his reasoning for calling estate staff was because they were so close to hand why did he tell the security officer that all was fine?
That suggests he called Stander because of their friendship...which is an odd priority over calling an ambulance.
Even if, as people say, other countries don't have such a reliable ambulance service as the UK, that's still no reason not to call them first, because you'd still want to get one on its way, even if you called other help too.
I wonder what he said to netcare that made them tell him to take her to hospital, destroying the crime scene?
I would wager the the did not tell them the extent of her injuries. If they knew of her head injury, then surely they would not have told him to move her.
To be fair he was probably fairly incoherent. This would apply whether he'd done it by accident or on purpose.
Yes, I always wondered if OP had not fully described the situation to Netcare, but I've read loads of comments since from people in other countries which suggest that ambulances don't respond as reliably as they do here. Dr Stipp tried to get one from the emergency room of the hospital he is attached to but they told him to buzz off and ring an outfit like Netcare instead.
There seemed to be around half a dozen Netcare people on the original prosecution witness list. Obviously the prosecution didn't need them as there are no issues about the aftermath of the shooting.
I hadn't noticed that.
Perhaps there is some confusion at Netcare if they are on both lists, procecution and defence.
Hmmm... I can't think of a way he could deal with her car being there and her disappearing.
I suppose if he were panicking immediately after the shooting, he might have got some tape, rope and bags before the Standers arrived, but realised in the meantime that he wouldn't be able to explain her disappearance and abandoned the idea, but left the stuff (perhaps in the kitchen).
Maybe he then conveniently brought that very stuff out when Clarice asked for something to stem the blood flow with. Why she would ask very specifically for "rope or tape" and why the bin bags were also produced is a bit strange, I think.
I also think poor Reeva had passed away by then and so the heart would no longer be pumping blood out, there would only be slower oozing. So I can't figure out why they would be looking about for tourniquet materials at that point. Maybe the Standers were involved in an abandoned plan to dispose of the body, and perhaps between them they decided it wouldn't work, then OP later had to explain why those particular materials were there.
Clarice's evidence that she had asked OP to find "rope or tape or something" is key to this one, does anyone know if she testified?
All this took place after he had already phoned netcare.
He first said that when he got to her in the toilet she was NOT breathing.
He later said that when he tried to pick her up she was struggling to breathe or similar.
She was obviously fatally wounded but if you saw the slightest spark of life left in a loved one then your fingers wouldn't be able to dial 999 quick enough. It's the one thing we would be able to remember to do even if all other rational thought fled. All rational thought had not fled though .. he phoned his estate manager/friend for instance .. pretty quickly. Can't help thinking he was already in self preservation mode.
For it to be worth something they would have to be exact and, for obvious reasons, they can't be exact. And if they can't be exact then it raises "reasonable doubt" about what they heard/saw and when they heard/saw it.
What a shame. I had pinned a lot on the Stipps but it's nowhere near enough on its own to secure a conviction.
yes...his normal bail conditions still apply. He has to reside at his uncle's house and the police will visit him every couple of weeks to make sure he's actually living there. He has no restrictions on going out, as long as he stays in SA. Initially he wasn't able to drink alcohol whilst on bail and had to report to the police station twice a week....OP contested these conditions and they were lifted.....he can now drink alcohol and the police visit him at home on a less frequent basis.
It was said somewhere that he was staying with his sister during the trial but only saw it once, not confirmed. I just assumed he was still at his uncle's house.
Mind you at one point I thought they were all staying at the same house??
For it to be worth something they would have to be exact and, for obvious reasons, they can't be exact. And if they can't be exact then it raises "reasonable doubt" about what they heard/saw and when they heard/saw it.
What a shame. I had pinned a lot on the Stipps but it's nowhere near enough on its own to secure a conviction.
Dr Stipps' is the more reliable. For the prosecution the useful part is the 2 or 3 female screams he says he heard. As you say, whether this is sufficient is the issue.
Thank you! But I don't understand why, after all of the preparation by Roux, OP did not say that he pulled the trigger. IIRC. putative self defense means what is says, defense. So OP was terrified an intruder was about to come out of the WC and kill him; that being the case OP should have said that he grabbed his gun, went to where the intruder was and then pulled the trigger to fire four bullets at the intruder to kill him before he had a chance to kill OP. But OP was very carefull to not say he pulled the trigger, it all was an accident, he aimed at the "door" not at the intruder behind the door. So I don't get it.
Everything with OP is an accident - he takes no responsibility for anything.
Won't admit to absolutely anything even self defence. Not my fault an accident - I'm not going to jail or punished in any way. I always get away with everything.
I think someone said something about the bin bags being there to soak up blood .. again not the items that would come to mind for the job.
It's hard to believe that anyone there thought about tourniquets when she had brain matter in her hair .. just bizarre. But it's what he said to security that makes me most suspicious of his intentions.
Yes, and as you said, calling Stander (friend) before calling for medical assistance suggests he knew Reeva was dead and was acting on that knowledge.
Dr Stipps' is the more reliable. For the prosecution the useful part is the 2 or 3 female screams he says he heard. As you say, whether this is sufficient is the issue.
But if you accept that it's plausible for Pistorius to scream at a pitch that might resemble a female then Dr Stipp's evidence has much or as little value as any of the other witnesses.
One of the first things that struck me when OP took to the stand he said "I am taking responsibility, I have put my life on hold for the last year to come here and defend myself"
He is absolutely unbelievable. Classic sociopath behaviour. He is the centre of the universe and he thinks he can manipulate everyone to his point of view. I just hope the judge doesn't fall for any of his shtick.
Everything with OP is an accident - he takes no responsibility for anything.
Won't admit to absolutely anything even self defence. Not my fault an accident - I'm not going to jail or punished in any way. I always get away with everything.
This is somewhat to be expected of anyone up on a murder charge. But it didn't sit well when he had this attitude to the minor charges, and could negatively affect his sentencing on the main charge.
Comments
Just been trying to put myself in the position where my nearest and dearest had had a major accident. Was alive but just. And remember OP said she was breathing when he got to her in the toilet. I think he changed this.
Surely the very first thing you would do would be to phone for an ambulance?? Not phone a friend.
Unless of course she was dead.
Yes, I always wondered if OP had not fully described the situation to Netcare, but I've read loads of comments since from people in other countries which suggest that ambulances don't respond as reliably as they do here. Dr Stipp tried to get one from the emergency room of the hospital he is attached to but they told him to buzz off and ring an outfit like Netcare instead.
There seemed to be around half a dozen Netcare people on the original prosecution witness list. Obviously the prosecution didn't need them as there are no issues about the aftermath of the shooting.
yes...his normal bail conditions still apply. He has to reside at his uncle's house and the police will visit him every couple of weeks to make sure he's actually living there. He has no restrictions on going out, as long as he stays in SA. Initially he wasn't able to drink alcohol whilst on bail and had to report to the police station twice a week....OP contested these conditions and they were lifted.....he can now drink alcohol and the police visit him at home on a less frequent basis.
Sorry I can't recall what OP said but only confirm that the door does open outwards.
Thank you! But I don't understand why, after all of the preparation by Roux, OP did not say that he pulled the trigger. IIRC. putative self defense means what is says, defense. So OP was terrified an intruder was about to come out of the WC and kill him; that being the case OP should have said that he grabbed his gun, went to where the intruder was and then pulled the trigger to fire four bullets at the intruder to kill him before he had a chance to kill OP. But OP was very carefull to not say he pulled the trigger, it all was an accident, he aimed at the "door" not at the intruder behind the door. So I don't get it.
I did wonder if the times he told Netcare a different timeline....that would be pretty damning!
I would wager the the did not tell them the extent of her injuries. If they knew of her head injury, then surely they would not have told him to move her.
He first said that when he got to her in the toilet she was NOT breathing.
He later said that when he tried to pick her up she was struggling to breathe or similar.
To be fair he was probably fairly incoherent. This would apply whether he'd done it by accident or on purpose.
He did say he tried to push it, yes.
I hadn't noticed that.
Perhaps there is some confusion at Netcare if they are on both lists, procecution and defence.
Maybe the latter won't turn up then
All this took place after he had already phoned netcare.
For it to be worth something they would have to be exact and, for obvious reasons, they can't be exact. And if they can't be exact then it raises "reasonable doubt" about what they heard/saw and when they heard/saw it.
What a shame. I had pinned a lot on the Stipps but it's nowhere near enough on its own to secure a conviction.
It was said somewhere that he was staying with his sister during the trial but only saw it once, not confirmed. I just assumed he was still at his uncle's house.
Mind you at one point I thought they were all staying at the same house??
I think at least one will appear - I'm assuming that Netcare staff range from dispatchers to actual paramedics - to testify as to OP's distress.
Dr Stipps' is the more reliable. For the prosecution the useful part is the 2 or 3 female screams he says he heard. As you say, whether this is sufficient is the issue.
Everything with OP is an accident - he takes no responsibility for anything.
Won't admit to absolutely anything even self defence. Not my fault an accident - I'm not going to jail or punished in any way. I always get away with everything.
Yes, and as you said, calling Stander (friend) before calling for medical assistance suggests he knew Reeva was dead and was acting on that knowledge.
But if you accept that it's plausible for Pistorius to scream at a pitch that might resemble a female then Dr Stipp's evidence has much or as little value as any of the other witnesses.
He is absolutely unbelievable. Classic sociopath behaviour. He is the centre of the universe and he thinks he can manipulate everyone to his point of view. I just hope the judge doesn't fall for any of his shtick.
This is somewhat to be expected of anyone up on a murder charge. But it didn't sit well when he had this attitude to the minor charges, and could negatively affect his sentencing on the main charge.
Well well well, probably just a figure of speech ?