Options

Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)

19192949697637

Comments

  • Options
    porky42porky42 Posts: 12,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You've lost me now. Dr Stipp didn't see anything through the window. Except for a person moving from right to left a long time after the second bangs.

    But he saw light in the toilet. The only way that could be there is from a breach in the door.
  • Options
    KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?
  • Options
    porky42porky42 Posts: 12,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    Thank you. I didn't remember when he said he got the bat.
    I probably wasn't listening, because I knew by then it was a pack of lies and I don't think he left the bathroom apart from when he left to get the gun.

    The defence will probably try some crap like why didn't the Stipps see him if he was in the bathroom so long. Desperation.
  • Options
    porky42porky42 Posts: 12,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?

    I'm going to bed!
  • Options
    jannajanna Posts: 7,323
    Forum Member
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?

    They are probably used to it with a master like OP. (rolls eyes.....at OP, not KM)
    He doesn't sound the kind of tenant I'd like renting my property. Too fond of battering and breaking fixtures and fittings for my liking .
  • Options
    sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?
    oh OP had that covered too.........he gave a long drawn out explanation about getting one of his dogs, that they were really soppy and loved people and were really quiet and good natured, and one sleeps a lot, or words to that effect - no idea what part of the house they were kept or even if they were in or outside that night, he didn't say I think Stipp had to quiten his dogs down before he went to OP's house
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    They wouldn't have seen the door bashing if that was the noise that awoke them, however they may have seen the door bashing if OP's version was true.

    Dr Stipp didn't see anything immediately during the second bangs because he was in the doorway on the phone.
    You're right, he wouldn't have seen the door bashing if it was the first set of bangs because he hadn't got there yet.
  • Options
    sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porky42 wrote: »
    The defence will probably try some crap like why didn't the Stipps see him if he was in the bathroom so long. Desperation.

    frosted glass, they only said they saw a person in light clothing ! and they'd only have seen them if they were directly behind the glass at the time I'd imagine. If Oscar moved away from the window, further in, as he bashed in door to toilet, he would have been out of sight
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    porky42 wrote: »
    But he saw light in the toilet. The only way that could be there is from a breach in the door.

    He didn't.
    Please point to the part of the video where he says this. Remember Kapp can't find it either.
  • Options
    lynwood3lynwood3 Posts: 24,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?

    Didn't that come up when Mrs. Stipp was talking about the reconstructive sound tests were done?
    I remember the judge saying "excuse me Mr Roux are we talking about dogs?"
  • Options
    sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry, your post doesn't seem to make any sense.
    that's because you don't want to answer the questions.
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    Didn't that come up when Mrs. Stipp was talking about the reconstructive sound tests were done?
    I remember the judge saying "excuse me Mr Roux are we talking about dogs?"

    That was just Oldwage toying with her. She had said she had perfect recollection, so he asked if dogs barked or not, and she said she couldn't recall.
  • Options
    porky42porky42 Posts: 12,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He didn't.
    Please point to the part of the video where he says this. Remember Kapp can't find it either.

    I think I've already answered this. All I can say is, if he didn't say it why does Roux say that he did. Nel didn't challenge him either. So the court must accept it as fact. You should also.
  • Options
    sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    If you do a U turn I'm leaving this thread
    Don't do it !:o
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    sandy50 wrote: »
    that's because you don't want to answer the questions.

    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.
  • Options
    lynwood3lynwood3 Posts: 24,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That was just Oldwage toying with her. She had said she had perfect recollection, so he asked if dogs barked or not, and she said she couldn't recall.

    Just goes to show .......memory is a fleeting thing.
  • Options
    sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How do we know that the toilet light wasn't broken during the evening and OP cleared up the bulb glass ? we don't know for sure do we. All OP could do before the police arrived, was confuse the scene and he did that, as HE moved things himself , that's why he keeps saying the police did !
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    porky42 wrote: »
    I think I've already answered this. All I can say is, if he didn't say it why does Roux say that he did. Nel didn't challenge him either. So the court must accept it as fact. You should also.

    I really shouldn't. Not when the video shows he didn't.
  • Options
    plankwalkerplankwalker Posts: 6,702
    Forum Member
    I wonder why Pistorius's dogs didn't bark when they heard the sound of arguing, screaming, shouting, bat-on-door or gunshots?

    Dogs were used to OP's temper tantrums?

    Dogs didn't want to get shot by Black Tallon Rounds or a wooden sock up their behind?

    Dogs were watching porn on their mobiles?

    Dogs were bark / screaming but sounded like a man screaming like a woman?

    We made it back to his house, which is built in a Mediterranean style inside a gated, hillside community. His three dogs greeted us.

    Pistorius’s dogs — an English bull terrier, a very docile American pit bull and a dachshund mix — were at his feet, and he threw them chew toys as we talked.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/oscar-pistorius.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
  • Options
    lynwood3lynwood3 Posts: 24,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    porky42 wrote: »
    I think I've already answered this. All I can say is, if he didn't say it why does Roux say that he did. Nel didn't challenge him either. So the court must accept it as fact. You should also.

    Would this be an opportune moment m'lady?



    All rise :D
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    sandy50 wrote: »
    How do we know that the toilet light wasn't broken during the evening and OP cleared up the bulb glass ? we don't know for sure do we. All OP could do before the police arrived, was confuse the scene and he did that, as HE moved things himself , that's why he keeps saying the police did !

    The prosecution haven't made that allegation.
    On OP's version it would have been all the same if the toilet light had been on anyway.
  • Options
    KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    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"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY

    from 1:22:40 onwards

    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.
  • Options
    porky42porky42 Posts: 12,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I really shouldn't. Not when the video shows he didn't.

    Watch all the testimony, listen carefully, it is there, honestly.
  • Options
    Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    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"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY

    from 1:22:40 onwards

    Thanks Kapp, will watch later.
    I guess Oldwage wasn't paying attention when Roux did Dr Stipp.
  • Options
    bobbydbobbyd Posts: 3,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    Would this be an opportune moment m'lady?



    All rise :D

    As the board pleases.
This discussion has been closed.