Oldwage quizzing Mrs Stipp about the light in the bathroom and toilet.
Oldwage says regarding Mr Stipps' testimony: "his evidence was clear - that the intensity of the light from the toilet was not as strong as it was from the three little windows to the right"
why do you have a problem with the Stipps testimony ?
Are you hoping OP walks ? and on what basis do you think he may be Not Guilty of Premeditated Murder - and what , if any, sentence do you think fits the crime ? And did you think that Oscar's was believable when he was cross-examined by Nel as regards the answers he gave , or didn't give, to Nel ?
I suggest that you clarify. I also suggest that if you want a respectful answer you post respectfully. Whilst you carry on with the attitude I'll ignore you.
:D What are you like ! and I suggest you mind your tone. - you're not Head Teacher on the thread^_^
It's a perfectly reasonable and respectful number of questions - interesting that you don't want to answer. Ignore all you like, but it's evident you don't like being challenged, or you'd give your view on the parts of this case i'd be interested to have your view on !
Oldwage quizzing Mrs Stipp about the light in the bathroom and toilet.
Oldwage says regarding Mr Stipps' testimony: "his evidence was clear - that the intensity of the light from the toilet was not as strong as it was from the three little windows to the right"
Mrs Stipp gets confused and refers back to the open panel of the three-light bathroom window.
Oldwage corrects her. "Let's try again".
So Stipp either DID intend to refer to the toilet window when talking about the intensity or the defence got confused about the three-light bathroom window.
NO NO NO the defence knew exactly what the evidence was and sought to muddy the water. We had this discussion on here weeks ago!
NO NO NO the defence knew exactly what the evidence was and sought to muddy the water. We had this discussion on here weeks ago!
I have no independent memory of that. I know the topic was discussed at length but I don't recall the outcome. Relistening to Mrs Stipp, I don't think she actually got the point Oldwage was making and she just referred to the bathroom window throughout re. the intensity of the light.
I just happen to be rewatching Mrs Stipp and Oldwage as I remembered it was mentioned during her cross-examination.
All joking aside, with hindsight I wish I had been making notes, like the judge, as to who gave evidence on what date, because it takes me forever sorting through youtube videos to find the bits I want to rewatch.......but then I didn't know I was going to become an addict
MORE means there was some light on the left. How many more times!
Yes, he did say it was more intense to the right but what if he was referring only to the three panels of the bathroom window and not to the toilet. If there was no toilet light at all (direct or otherwise) then it wouldn't even have been visible at night from a distance.
All joking aside, with hindsight I wish I had been making notes, like the judge, as to who gave evidence on what date, because it takes me forever sorting through youtube videos to find the bits I want to rewatch.......but then I didn't know I was going to become an addict
Agreed. Trying to keep track is really difficult. It doesn't help that so much discussion has been focused on a small 20-minute time frame. No wonder it gets confusing. The evidence is extremely concentrated, detailed and dense.
I have no independent memory of that. I know the topic was discussed at length but I don't recall the outcome. Relistening to Mrs Stipp, I don't think she actually got the point Oldwage was making and she just referred to the bathroom window throughout re. the intensity of the light.
1.26.05 Oldwedge "There was light from that window on the left...
It is quite clear that Mrs Stipp meant the toilet window. No doubt.
Yes. He said
Fired shots
Went back to bedroom to look for Reeva
Back to bathroom to find bathroom door closed
Back to bedroom to get legs
Back to bathroom to break down door
Could not break down so back to bedroom again for bat
Back to bathroom again to bash door
sounds exhausting!!! if true !!
And for someone who'd lived in that house for so long, you'd have thought he'd have known what he needed from the outset to break into his own wooden door wouldn't you - this is what OP said though, so hmmm pinch of salt,---- but interesting to read what he actually told the Court.
I have no independent memory of that. I know the topic was discussed at length but I don't recall the outcome. Relistening to Mrs Stipp, I don't think she actually got the point Oldwage was making and she just referred to the bathroom window throughout re. the intensity of the light.
That's probably because you were too busy arguing, putting people on ignore and batting off insults at the time
1.26.05 Oldwedge "There was light from that window on the left...
It is quite clear that Mrs Stipp meant the toilet window. No doubt.
there were a three panels and toilet window, so easily to infer one and mean another, as there were two windows, but one had sections, all could confuse on describing them. I haven't gone over testimonies to be sure.
1.26.05 Oldwedge "There was light from that window on the left...
It is quite clear that Mrs Stipp meant the toilet window. No doubt.
But she says 'I think it was matt glass and the window was open so that's why I assume the light was more intense on the right hand side....' But she is STILL talking about the bathroom window. She did not understand what Oldwage was saying and Oldwage doesn't even pick her up on it. He just says 'so you're agreeing with your husband', thinking she's talking about the toilet window when she isn't! This whole passage of testimony is a total mess.
Bus Stops done all this before Porks, it's there and Oldwage and Roux know it's there.
Exactly. If I know it and you know it and Roux knows it and Oldwedge knows it and Nel knows it and the Judge knows it and the assessors know it that should be enough
Exactly. If I know it and you know it and Roux knows it and Oldwedge knows it and Nel knows it and the Judge knows it and the assessors know it that should be enough
Comments
That was quick......you've got a little notebook that has all these clips cross referenced haven't you!
What Roux or Oldwage says is not evidence. Dr Stipp didn't say it.
As evidence, it's a total mess. Are the defence wrong? Was Stipp wrong? Mrs Stipp doesn't seen to know what's going on.
It's a perfectly reasonable and respectful number of questions - interesting that you don't want to answer. Ignore all you like, but it's evident you don't like being challenged, or you'd give your view on the parts of this case i'd be interested to have your view on !
NO NO NO the defence knew exactly what the evidence was and sought to muddy the water. We had this discussion on here weeks ago!
Haha, no. That would be porky ;-)
I just happen to be rewatching Mrs Stipp and Oldwage as I remembered it was mentioned during her cross-examination.
I'm not surprised ;-)
It is a good time for tea now !!
Time for bed said Zebedee
YES HE DID! "intensity was MORE to the right"
MORE means there was some light on the left. How many more times!
I have no independent memory of that. I know the topic was discussed at length but I don't recall the outcome. Relistening to Mrs Stipp, I don't think she actually got the point Oldwage was making and she just referred to the bathroom window throughout re. the intensity of the light.
All joking aside, with hindsight I wish I had been making notes, like the judge, as to who gave evidence on what date, because it takes me forever sorting through youtube videos to find the bits I want to rewatch.......but then I didn't know I was going to become an addict
Yes, he did say it was more intense to the right but what if he was referring only to the three panels of the bathroom window and not to the toilet. If there was no toilet light at all (direct or otherwise) then it wouldn't even have been visible at night from a distance.
need to go over it, i remember this vaguely being how it went.
Bus Stops done all this before Porks, it's there and Oldwage and Roux know it's there.
Agreed. Trying to keep track is really difficult. It doesn't help that so much discussion has been focused on a small 20-minute time frame. No wonder it gets confusing. The evidence is extremely concentrated, detailed and dense.
1.26.05 Oldwedge "There was light from that window on the left...
It is quite clear that Mrs Stipp meant the toilet window. No doubt.
sounds exhausting!!! if true !!
And for someone who'd lived in that house for so long, you'd have thought he'd have known what he needed from the outset to break into his own wooden door wouldn't you - this is what OP said though, so hmmm pinch of salt,---- but interesting to read what he actually told the Court.
That's probably because you were too busy arguing, putting people on ignore and batting off insults at the time
If it stops you slitting your wrists porky, I agree
But she says 'I think it was matt glass and the window was open so that's why I assume the light was more intense on the right hand side....' But she is STILL talking about the bathroom window. She did not understand what Oldwage was saying and Oldwage doesn't even pick her up on it. He just says 'so you're agreeing with your husband', thinking she's talking about the toilet window when she isn't! This whole passage of testimony is a total mess.
Exactly. If I know it and you know it and Roux knows it and Oldwedge knows it and Nel knows it and the Judge knows it and the assessors know it that should be enough
Apparently not ;-)