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.
She mentions the open window to try to explain why it might have appeared brighter in the bathroom window than in the toilet window.
They both knew what was meant. This has happened several times in the court but has not resulted in the confusion you are having now.
She mentions the open window to try to explain why it might have appeared brighter in the bathroom window than in the toilet window.
Well, I hate to disagree, but I disagree The light from an open window would naturally be less intense and less bright than the light coming through frosted glass.
I honestly think the Stipps never intended to claim that there was any light (direct or otherwise) coming from the toilet. I'm very surprised that the defence actually believed this was the case, to the point where they asked Mrs Stipp about it in court, and no-one in the court room stood up and said 'uh...that's not how I understood it'.
IMO the judge should've stuck her beak in and asked for clarification instead of asking such nonsense like 'did the bathroom window have frosted glass at the time?'.
Well, I hate to disagree, but I disagree The light from an open window would naturally be less intense and less bright than the light coming through frosted glass.
I honestly think the Stipps never intended to claim that there was any light (direct or otherwise) coming from the toilet. I'm very surprised that the defence actually believed this was the case, to the point where they asked Mrs Stipp about it in court, and no-one in the court room stood up and said 'uh...that's not how I understood it'.
IMO the judge should've stuck her beak in and asked for clarification instead of asking such nonsense like 'did the bathroom window have frosted glass at the time?'.
Look at 1.23.55 onwards. Oldwedge defines exactly which windows. He says about the right one with three panes. He says that the leftmost of these panes is not the one he is referring to but the separate small window to the left. He is showing a photo with an arrow. It is unmistakable. And Mrs Stipp says yes it is the small separate window she is referring to and where she and her husband saw the light.
Oldwedge is obviously hoping that it is not the toilet window but Mrs Stipp insists that the light was there.
Yes so simple really, you've hit the nail on the head. OP is a LIAR.
I think so - And also Reeva taking her phone to the toilet was ridiculous and doesn't fit OP's version at all, but it fits with Prosecution's that she'd want her phone because she fled from him. If indeed she even had her phone on her. It was just 'found' in the toilet. And going to the loo middle of night , it's not believable she'd not have turned the light on in the bathroom knowing too that Oscar was awake when she hopped out of bed to go to the toilet while he was bringing in 'fans'.
Look at 1.23.55 onwards. Oldwedge defines exactly which windows. He says about the right one with three panes. He says that the leftmost of these panes is not the one he is referring to but the separate small window to the left. He is showing a photo with an arrow. It is unmistakable. And Mrs Stipp says yes it is the small separate window she is referring to and where she and her husband saw the light.
Oldwedge is obviously hoping that it is not the toilet window but Mrs Stipp insists that the light was there.
Yes, she does say at the end that the light was less intense in the window on the left i.e. the toilet window
Look at 1.23.55 onwards. Oldwedge defines exactly which windows. He says about the right one with three panes. He says that the leftmost of these panes is not the one he is referring to but the separate small window to the left. He is showing a photo with an arrow. It is unmistakable. And Mrs Stipp says yes it is the small separate window she is referring to and where she and her husband saw the light.
Oldwedge is obviously hoping that it is not the toilet window but Mrs Stipp insists that the light was there.
It is as PLAIN AS DAY - absolutely explicit, which window is being talked about. I've just watched it again.
Perfectly clear.
This is a nonsense, Porks. And I don't know why some people want to believe that it wasn't clear or 'didn't happen', or all that rubbish.
Look at 1.23.55 onwards. Oldwedge defines exactly which windows. He says about the right one with three panes. He says that the leftmost of these panes is not the one he is referring to but the separate small window to the left. He is showing a photo with an arrow. It is unmistakable. And Mrs Stipp says yes it is the small separate window she is referring to and where she and her husband saw the light.
Oldwedge is obviously hoping that it is not the toilet window but Mrs Stipp insists that the light was there.
can you imagine if when Court gets underway again....the Judge is sick and they employ Dixon to sit in her place !!
he'd have a cuddly toy on the table and a couple of his favourite crystals and a rock he'd picked up from some desert or other - would be soooo interesting !
can you imagine if when Court gets underway again....the Judge is sick and they employ Dixon to sit in her place !!
he's have a cuddly toy on the table and a couple of his favourite crystals and a rock he'd picked up from some desert or other - would be soooo interesting !
I think putting a whoopee cushion on judge Masipa's chair would be funny
I wonder if when the trial restarts, you will have wondered, why did i waste over 2 weels arguing between one another about this.
Yes. I think most People instinctively know he is guilty nothing feels right, but feel the need to rise above this, as surely one should make decision based on intelligent reasoning? Once engaged in this practice on forums, it seems people want to prove reasonability or more likely that they are being reasonable. The more "reasonable" you are the more you wish to listen and show willingness to engage with others thoughts, who are equally responding in a similar vein. A wonderful and fertile field for the Informed, the Disseminators, for Disinformation, for the Distractors the Orchestrators and Imps of the World.
But normally good fun as we go round and round, plus a brain is a muscle that needs to be worked just like others. Some subject matter is more serious and in this instance fun is the wrong word, as this is very much about the dark side of human nature with real victims and consequences. Perhaps real decision makers do visit forums like this and the "debate" spurs thoughts and sharpens minds, lets hope so. My instincts say he is very much guilty and all evidence poured over and over here, to me, only confirms that.
Great read folks:D
Its funny how you can get fixated on a particular piece of evidence ..for me its always been the Keys to the toilet.
IF OP attacked the toilet door, knowing it was reeva,,she probablly did take them out of the lock frightened he might break the panel through and grab them so they were probally in her hand when she was shot..they then went flying. This would explain why they were not in the lock. Still dont see how he reached through and picked them up but hey-ho quess its not relevant.
With regards to Dr stipps evidence did he not say he arrived to see OP bringing Reeva down the stairs, and the standers daughter was there already,
So where was reeva when the daughter arrived, still in the toilet? I presume OP picked her up and walked downstairs in one movement ..did she see the crime scene, or did she wait downstairs..i would think her testimony is quite important.
Apologises if the stander's daughter has made a statement that i have not read:o.maybe you can link one if its out there
That's why I think it is important for Defence to put Standers on Stand - and if they don't it would suggest that their testimony won't support Oscar's. Oscar said that the Standers arrived while he was carrying Reeva downstairs at the point when he got to 2nd flight of stairs.
I remember that Security guard Baba testified though that when he arrived he saw OP carrying Reeva downstairs too (time 3.25 ish?) - BUT I thought the Standers were there quite a few minutes BEFORE Baba and Dr Stipp arrived ? - but according to what Oscar said in his testimony to Roux.....they all arrived WHILE he was carrying Reeva down the stairs, does this work ?
One thing I don't understand is that Oscar said that the lady paramedic told him that Reeva had 'passed' - but OP's not next of kind, so why didn't the paramedic contact Reeva's mother, Reeva's mother didn't find out until the next day - none of the people who turned up at Oscar's that night/early hours contacted Reeva's mother. I find that disgraceful behaviour from Oscar and his family who went to HIS aid that night.
That's why I think it is important for Defence to put Standers on Stand - and if they don't it would suggest that their testimony won't support Oscar's. Oscar said that the Standers arrived while he was carrying Reeva downstairs at the point when he got to 2nd flight of stairs.
I remember that Security guard Baba testified though that when he arrived he saw OP carrying Reeva downstairs too (time 3.25 ish?) - BUT I thought the Standers were there quite a few minutes BEFORE Baba and Dr Stipp arrived ? - but according to what Oscar said in his testimony to Roux.....they all arrived WHILE he was carrying Reeva down the stairs, does this work ?
One thing I don't understand is that Oscar said that the lady paramedic told him that Reeva had 'passed' - but OP's not next of kind, so why didn't the paramedic contact Reeva's mother, Reeva's mother didn't find out until the next day - none of the people who turned up at Oscar's that night/early hours contacted Reeva's mother. I find that disgraceful behaviour from Oscar and his family who went to HIS aid that night.
It is disgusting. Feels like everyone was working to protect OP, seems even the police didn't take statements. Whether it was his deliberate histrionics, his family tuning up and interceding, i.e. his Sister being allowed to collect a watch (or more) from the crime scene, people in awe that it was OP or what. Reeva and her plight seemed strangely secondary.
It is disgusting. Feels like everyone was working to protect OP, seems even the police didn't take statements. Whether it was his deliberate histrionics, his family tuning up and interceding, i.e. his Sister being allowed to collect a watch (or more) from the crime scene, people in awe that it was OP or what. Reeva and her plight seemed strangely secondary.
OP tries to discredit Stipp - because Stipp had testified to seeing a 'person' through the window of the bathroom, - and so OP told the court that Stipp must have seen him going back and forth behind bathroom window when he was kicking in the door - the presumption by OP that the Stipps testimony was that he saw 'a man' -- but the Judge was on the ball and said to Oscar in Court that Stipp said he saw a 'person' and not 'a man' behind the window.
I think so - And also Reeva taking her phone to the toilet was ridiculous and doesn't fit OP's version at all, but it fits with Prosecution's that she'd want her phone because she fled from him. If indeed she even had her phone on her. It was just 'found' in the toilet. And going to the loo middle of night , it's not believable she'd not have turned the light on in the bathroom knowing too that Oscar was awake when she hopped out of bed to go to the toilet while he was bringing in 'fans'.
Comments
She mentions the open window to try to explain why it might have appeared brighter in the bathroom window than in the toilet window.
They both knew what was meant. This has happened several times in the court but has not resulted in the confusion you are having now.
Well, I hate to disagree, but I disagree
I honestly think the Stipps never intended to claim that there was any light (direct or otherwise) coming from the toilet. I'm very surprised that the defence actually believed this was the case, to the point where they asked Mrs Stipp about it in court, and no-one in the court room stood up and said 'uh...that's not how I understood it'.
IMO the judge should've stuck her beak in and asked for clarification instead of asking such nonsense like 'did the bathroom window have frosted glass at the time?'.
I'm honestly not trying to be awkward! Oh well. It's late and I've got a bit of a headache so I'm off to bed.
Look at 1.23.55 onwards. Oldwedge defines exactly which windows. He says about the right one with three panes. He says that the leftmost of these panes is not the one he is referring to but the separate small window to the left. He is showing a photo with an arrow. It is unmistakable. And Mrs Stipp says yes it is the small separate window she is referring to and where she and her husband saw the light.
Oldwedge is obviously hoping that it is not the toilet window but Mrs Stipp insists that the light was there.
Look at it fresh in the morning
I could post up my notes on this but I don't think it's going to help tonight
I think so - And also Reeva taking her phone to the toilet was ridiculous and doesn't fit OP's version at all, but it fits with Prosecution's that she'd want her phone because she fled from him. If indeed she even had her phone on her. It was just 'found' in the toilet. And going to the loo middle of night , it's not believable she'd not have turned the light on in the bathroom knowing too that Oscar was awake when she hopped out of bed to go to the toilet while he was bringing in 'fans'.
Yes, she does say at the end that the light was less intense in the window on the left i.e. the toilet window
And with that, goodnight.
It is as PLAIN AS DAY - absolutely explicit, which window is being talked about. I've just watched it again.
Perfectly clear.
This is a nonsense, Porks. And I don't know why some people want to believe that it wasn't clear or 'didn't happen', or all that rubbish.
Waste of time.
Told you it would be.;-)
I'm glad you have seen it Kap, and that's sorted - goodnight:)
TBF I do think that Roux and Oldfatwage did want to make it confusing in order to discredit the Stipps and confuse the judge.......possibly
That's true, but it is clarified by Oldwage, in the clip that Porks put up and has been accepted by Roux.
It's another misleading wild goose chase, where you realise it's just as we talked about before.
Goodnight all !
he'd have a cuddly toy on the table and a couple of his favourite crystals and a rock he'd picked up from some desert or other - would be soooo interesting !
Would you like me to be the cat?
Goodnight porky xxx
I think putting a whoopee cushion on judge Masipa's chair would be funny
Yes. I think most People instinctively know he is guilty nothing feels right, but feel the need to rise above this, as surely one should make decision based on intelligent reasoning? Once engaged in this practice on forums, it seems people want to prove reasonability or more likely that they are being reasonable. The more "reasonable" you are the more you wish to listen and show willingness to engage with others thoughts, who are equally responding in a similar vein. A wonderful and fertile field for the Informed, the Disseminators, for Disinformation, for the Distractors the Orchestrators and Imps of the World.
But normally good fun as we go round and round, plus a brain is a muscle that needs to be worked just like others. Some subject matter is more serious and in this instance fun is the wrong word, as this is very much about the dark side of human nature with real victims and consequences. Perhaps real decision makers do visit forums like this and the "debate" spurs thoughts and sharpens minds, lets hope so. My instincts say he is very much guilty and all evidence poured over and over here, to me, only confirms that.
That's why I think it is important for Defence to put Standers on Stand - and if they don't it would suggest that their testimony won't support Oscar's. Oscar said that the Standers arrived while he was carrying Reeva downstairs at the point when he got to 2nd flight of stairs.
I remember that Security guard Baba testified though that when he arrived he saw OP carrying Reeva downstairs too (time 3.25 ish?) - BUT I thought the Standers were there quite a few minutes BEFORE Baba and Dr Stipp arrived ? - but according to what Oscar said in his testimony to Roux.....they all arrived WHILE he was carrying Reeva down the stairs, does this work ?
Trial Day 18 part 1 - listen to 8mins in onwards to hear the above (the 14th VT down page)
http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/
One thing I don't understand is that Oscar said that the lady paramedic told him that Reeva had 'passed' - but OP's not next of kind, so why didn't the paramedic contact Reeva's mother, Reeva's mother didn't find out until the next day - none of the people who turned up at Oscar's that night/early hours contacted Reeva's mother. I find that disgraceful behaviour from Oscar and his family who went to HIS aid that night.
It is disgusting. Feels like everyone was working to protect OP, seems even the police didn't take statements. Whether it was his deliberate histrionics, his family tuning up and interceding, i.e. his Sister being allowed to collect a watch (or more) from the crime scene, people in awe that it was OP or what. Reeva and her plight seemed strangely secondary.
when Oscar came 2nd in Olympics - first defeat at this distance in 9 years !
interesting clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q
During Oscar's testimony to Roux, - discredits the neighbour's testimonies and Mrs Stipps evidence.... listen to this - Trial Day 18 part 1 - 48 minutes in onwards
http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/
OP tries to discredit Stipp - because Stipp had testified to seeing a 'person' through the window of the bathroom, - and so OP told the court that Stipp must have seen him going back and forth behind bathroom window when he was kicking in the door - the presumption by OP that the Stipps testimony was that he saw 'a man' -- but the Judge was on the ball and said to Oscar in Court that Stipp said he saw a 'person' and not 'a man' behind the window.
Not to mention standing, fully clothed.