To me it's the shots that are most damning .. especially his repositioning after the first shot .. to entirely co-incide with where Reeva had fallen (and his ceasing to fire after the fatal shot.) To say there was no intent is nonsense .. to say it was self defence is also nonsense but to say it was accidental out-nonsenses both of them.
He has lied so outrageously (and pointlessly) that there hardly seems any point in looking for the shreds of truth there might be in his 'version' ... you can't have any faith in a man who says he didn't pull the trigger of a gun that's fired a shot whilst in his hands. Nel is right .. he won't take responsibility for anything. And let's not even mention the magazine rack that scoots about the toilet with a life of its own .. ditto duvet cover .. ditto jeans .. ditto fans.
People are outraged when anyone floats the idea that he may have been considering his options directly after the shooting .. but what else can you make of his conversation with Baba? ... whatever else you might say in that situation .. you wouldn't say everything was fine unless you wanted to conceal the truth. Also you wouldn't call your friend first .. you would call 999 (or its equivalent) straight away and press as many alarm buttons as possible. The bin bags, tape, and rope are just shocking additions to the murder scene IMO. If someone advised a tourniquet .. you'd tear up a towel, sheet or old shirt/t-shirt.. you wouldn't go looking for rope
If you go on instinct .. which is all you can do when there is no concrete proof and the only person to witness the crime is the accused .. you have to come to the conclusion that he's as guilty as sin. OR believe that everyone in that household that night acted contrary to normal behaviour.
The neighbours have no reason to lie .. no axe to grind .. they barely know him. He on the other hand has every reason to lie and has overtly done so.
I suppose potentially it could be used to show that Annette Stipp (who presumably might have carried on looking out after Dr Stipp had driven off) was confused about what she saw and when. If she continued to look out in the aftermath there would have come a point when the door was open and light from the bathroom did infiltrate the toilet cubicle.
To me it's the shots that are most damning .. especially his repositioning after the first shot .. to entirely co-incide with where Reeva had fallen (and his ceasing to fire after the fatal shot.) To say there was no intent is nonsense .. to say it was self defence is also nonsense but to say it was accidental out-nonsenses both of them.
He has lied so outrageously (and pointlessly) that there hardly seems any point in looking for the shreds of truth there might be in his 'version' ... you can't have any faith in a man who says he didn't pull the trigger of a gun that's fired a shot whilst in his hands. Nel is right .. he won't take responsibility for anything. And let's not even mention the magazine rack that scoots about the toilet with a life of its own .. ditto duvet cover .. ditto jeans .. ditto fans.
People are outraged when anyone floats the idea that he may have been considering his options directly after the shooting .. but what else can you make of his conversation with Baba? ... whatever else you might say in that situation .. you wouldn't say everything was fine unless you wanted to conceal the truth. Also you wouldn't call your friend first .. you would call 999 (or its equivalent) straight away and press as many alarm buttons as possible. The bin bags, tape, and rope are just shocking additions to the murder scene IMO. If someone advised a tourniquet .. you'd tear up a towel, sheet or old shirt/t-shirt.. you wouldn't go looking for rope
If you go on instinct .. which is all you can do when there is no concrete proof and the only person to witness the crime is the accused .. you have to come to the conclusion that he's as guilty as sin. OR believe that everyone in that household that night acted contrary to normal behaviour.
The neighbours have no reason to lie .. no axe to grind .. they barely know him. He on the other hand has every reason to lie and has overtly done so.
Excellent post.
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"
Sincere apologies for going back to this, Porky, but I wonder if you haven't continued to watch far enough in the video?
After Oldwage puts it to Mrs S that Dr S said the light was more intense from the bathroom panes than the toilet pane, there comes a point where he confers with Roux. After this conferring Oldwage reads out page 353 line 5 of the transcript which has Dr S saying "I do not think it was on (toilet light), as I said, it was not on".
He then asks if she agrees with her husband and she says that she did think it was on.
So to clarify once and for all (hopefully). He says it wasn't on. She says it was on.
Once again, I implore you, when creating timelines etc, not to treat them collectively as though they were one entity.
No need for apologies
The evidence from Mr and Mrs Stipp needs to be watched side by side.
Ever wondered why the Stipps were testifying so far apart? And why Roux did one and Oldwedge the other?
Both of them tread very daintily around the "light" or "light on" business until it is obvious with Mrs Stipp that the game is up. Which is when they dispatch Dixon with his camera.
They both saw the same thing. Light in the toilet. Only the intensity is seen differently.
if Reeva sometimes used her phone as a torch ,could the fainter light in the toilet window be attributed to that?
Or has this been discounted? I can't remember.
Does anyone think that with this rope, refuse bags etc, that OP was considering getting rid of the body? No normal person would think of these items surely for medical use..and of course telling security "everything was fine"
if Reeva sometimes used her phone as a torch ,could the fainter light in the toilet window be attributed to that?
Or has this been discounted? I can't remember.
It would not be bright enough and the Stipps said that the light remained unchanged.
The evidence from Mr and Mrs Stipp needs to be watched side by side.
Ever wondered why the Stipps were testifying so far apart? And why Roux did one and Oldwedge the other?
Both of them tread very daintily around the "light" or "light on" business until it is obvious with Mrs Stipp that the game is up. Which is when they dispatch Dixon with his camera.
They both saw the same thing. Light in the toilet. Only the intensity is seen differently.
They didn't. You're mistaking what you're watching and listening to.
Does anyone think that with this rope, refuse bags etc, that OP was considering getting rid of the body? No normal person would think of these items surely for medical use..and of course telling security "everything was fine"
They wanted materials to try to stop the bleeding hence the bags. I didn't know about rope but this may also be used for a tourniquet. It would not be unusual around a major incident like this for all sorts of things to be littered about which people may have used to try and help the casualty.
You are still making the mistake of treating these two separate people as one person.
Well I don't think it is unacceptable to do so where I am talking about them witnessing the same part of the same event. This has been done in the court several times.
Does anyone think that with this rope, refuse bags etc, that OP was considering getting rid of the body? No normal person would think of these items surely for medical use..and of course telling security "everything was fine"
Given the noise and commotion I very much doubt OP was considering trying to dispose of RS body....I suspect confusion and panic took over and they just grabbed anything at hand....poor choices with hindsight but understandable given the scene at the time
They wanted materials to try to stop the bleeding hence the bags. I didn't know about rope but this may also be used for a tourniquet. It would not be unusual around a major incident like this for all sorts of things to be littered about which people may have used to try and help the casualty.
Ok thanks. Although my first thought, would have been towels, sheets, bandages etc.like daziechain said in her excellent post.
He also fumbled around for his socks in the dark as well. All the time screaming like a banshee.
What a crock.
I'm assuming OP was looking for the socks that go onto the end of his stumps, before he places them into his prosthetic legs, which already had socks on the feet part?
All the socks, duvet and curtains and screaming business is all very confusing to follow.
Well I don't think it is unacceptable to do so where I am talking about them witnessing the same part of the same event. This has been done in the court several times.
Its wrong to say 'The Stipps' saw a toilet light. One says he didn't, the other said she did.
Does anyone think that with this rope, refuse bags etc, that OP was considering getting rid of the body? No normal person would think of these items surely for medical use..and of course telling security "everything was fine"
I think OP testified that the Standers' daughter (Carice/Clarice?) asked for rope or something to make a tourniquet. I doubt he'd say that unless she actually had asked for something to make a tourniquet, but I don't know if she's testified to that or not. Interesting that OP can't remember who went for the "bags and tape", and the daughter could answer that but I can't find the answer as to who fetched them.
I think it's not beyond the realms of imagination that he could have been getting them with ideas about disposing of the body before the Standers arrived.
I think the mistake is yours. Because you think "more on the right" means all on the right and none on the left.
Don't you think that the testimony is really confusing though, when you watch it back?
Also, having rewatched Mrs Stipp vs. Oldwage, I think it's a good example of how the wrong approach by an advocate can lead to a witness becoming obstinate and awkward. By the end of Mrs Stipp's interrogation (which is when much of the discussion re. the light took place) she was so clearly irked and riled by Oldwage's attitude that she would've insisted the sky was green if Oldwage had suggested it was blue.
As I affirmed last night, Mrs Stipp did end up saying that there was some light in the toilet, but given the nature of Oldwage's cross-examination, and perhaps Mrs Stipps' desire to back up her husband(?), I'm not convinced that is either what she saw or what she believed.
Dr Stipp couldn't have been plainer. He said "No, it wasn't on". He talked about the three panes in the bathroom window.
Yes correct. He said it was not "on". But at no time did he say that there was no light in the toilet window. You can listen to his entire evidence and at no time does he say or infer that he did not see "light" in that window. He does however say that the intensity of the light was greater in the bathroom window meaning there was some light in the toilet window.
Comments
Good post.
Well it's got to be heard over the fans, and a whisper needs a reply more than a 'low voice'. He tries hard, got to give him that.
This suggests that it is possible that it is an invention.
True that ^^ ;-)
If he told the truth, he wouldn't have to try ;-)
Ahhh I see the penny has dropped
Excellent post.
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"
No need for apologies
The evidence from Mr and Mrs Stipp needs to be watched side by side.
Ever wondered why the Stipps were testifying so far apart? And why Roux did one and Oldwedge the other?
Both of them tread very daintily around the "light" or "light on" business until it is obvious with Mrs Stipp that the game is up. Which is when they dispatch Dixon with his camera.
They both saw the same thing. Light in the toilet. Only the intensity is seen differently.
Or has this been discounted? I can't remember.
It would not be bright enough and the Stipps said that the light remained unchanged.
They didn't. You're mistaking what you're watching and listening to.
You are still making the mistake of treating these two separate people as one person.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/wife-s-shooting-tragic-mistake-1.1058485
They wanted materials to try to stop the bleeding hence the bags. I didn't know about rope but this may also be used for a tourniquet. It would not be unusual around a major incident like this for all sorts of things to be littered about which people may have used to try and help the casualty.
Well I don't think it is unacceptable to do so where I am talking about them witnessing the same part of the same event. This has been done in the court several times.
Given the noise and commotion I very much doubt OP was considering trying to dispose of RS body....I suspect confusion and panic took over and they just grabbed anything at hand....poor choices with hindsight but understandable given the scene at the time
Ok thanks. Although my first thought, would have been towels, sheets, bandages etc.like daziechain said in her excellent post.
I think the mistake is yours. Because you think "more on the right" means all on the right and none on the left.
So he was jailed for three years before this ever got to court and then he put in a plea of culpable homicide, which was accepted by the prosecution.
I'm assuming OP was looking for the socks that go onto the end of his stumps, before he places them into his prosthetic legs, which already had socks on the feet part?
All the socks, duvet and curtains and screaming business is all very confusing to follow.
Its wrong to say 'The Stipps' saw a toilet light. One says he didn't, the other said she did.
Dr Stipp couldn't have been plainer. He said "No, it wasn't on". He talked about the three panes in the bathroom window.
I think OP testified that the Standers' daughter (Carice/Clarice?) asked for rope or something to make a tourniquet. I doubt he'd say that unless she actually had asked for something to make a tourniquet, but I don't know if she's testified to that or not. Interesting that OP can't remember who went for the "bags and tape", and the daughter could answer that but I can't find the answer as to who fetched them.
I think it's not beyond the realms of imagination that he could have been getting them with ideas about disposing of the body before the Standers arrived.
Don't you think that the testimony is really confusing though, when you watch it back?
Also, having rewatched Mrs Stipp vs. Oldwage, I think it's a good example of how the wrong approach by an advocate can lead to a witness becoming obstinate and awkward. By the end of Mrs Stipp's interrogation (which is when much of the discussion re. the light took place) she was so clearly irked and riled by Oldwage's attitude that she would've insisted the sky was green if Oldwage had suggested it was blue.
As I affirmed last night, Mrs Stipp did end up saying that there was some light in the toilet, but given the nature of Oldwage's cross-examination, and perhaps Mrs Stipps' desire to back up her husband(?), I'm not convinced that is either what she saw or what she believed.
Yes correct. He said it was not "on". But at no time did he say that there was no light in the toilet window. You can listen to his entire evidence and at no time does he say or infer that he did not see "light" in that window. He does however say that the intensity of the light was greater in the bathroom window meaning there was some light in the toilet window.