Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[PrimeSuspect]

BIB.

But that was the prosecution's version, i.e., at the time OP fired the shots Reeva and OP were facing each in front of the toilet door arguing. However, it places the prosecution at serious odds with its own witnesses since neither Burger, Johnson or the Stipp's heard a male and female arguing just before or at the time of the shots but a woman's "petrified" and "terrified" screams rising in crescendo and/or gaining in intensity "as if in fear of her life".

So unless I'm missing something, afaics ear-witness and State versions are irreconcilable. For the State, an argument facing each other across the toilet door just before OP shoots her, while for its 4 star ear-witnesses we have Reeva, (presumably aware OP was about to shoot otherwise why would she scream "in fear of her life" or be "out of her mind with fear"), standing slap bang in front of the door (Mangena's testimony) screaming like a banshee predicting her own death just before and while OP shoots her without her taking even the most elementary self preservation measures, such as, using her telephone or opening the window to call for help or crouching down in the left corner where the wall could have afforded protection or in the right corner where the toilet could have served as a shield.

Sorry. but I can't buy either State or witnesses' versions since I consider Reeva was much more intelligent than either version would give her credit for.

Actually, I see it completely differently, with OP 'screaming' and 'yelling' while creeping down the corridor into the bathroom, "Reeva, call the police!" and shouting, "Get the **** out of my house! Get the **** out of my house!" This went on for 15 minutes??!!!! Plenty of time for Reeva to make 20 calls to emergency.

Why didn't Reeva call the police? OP demanded that she call the police. OP obviously is right in the bathroom going to tackle an intruder, no less with a gun which Reeva knew he possessed for such occasions, and Reeva just stands and faces the door?!! If OP is kicking at the door or hitting it, my word she would be scared and screaming. Reeva was acting true to form, it was OP who wasn't, but again, he didn't because it never happened that way.

She was listening/talking to OP because HE WAS THREATENING HER LIFE! She had to TALK to HIM! She had to defuse the situation, she had obviously offended him, stood her ground with him before she fled to the toilet. She was now PETRIFIED of him! She didn't know to what extent he would go, how could she? Why can't a person argue, ask to leave, whatever, without the other person going ape **** and threatening to kill them?

We've heard all about the 'fight, flight and freeze' response, which is BS when it comes to OP, it was Reeva who had the flight and freeze response, if we are going to go there. jmo

And your very last sentence, I have to ask, have you read or seen any of the interviews with June and Barry Steenkamp? It's quite apparent that you haven't because they've described what kind of person Reeva was, she stood her ground, argued her point of view, she would have fled when threatened and most definitely would have screamed. My youngest daughter is a screamer, when she sees a spider or gets a fright, she screams and she's 23 yrs old. lol

Why is the victim's intelligence questioned when it's OP who acted stupidly and without cause or reason, because it's irrelevant, it's all made up, he's no fool and neither was Reeva.

We've gone through this so many times, lol, but why didn't OP check Reeva was safe in the bedroom before he took after an intruder? Why didn't he wait for a response from her when he said, call the police the first time? Why was OP so scared when he has never been in that position before? Yes, he's been after noises before, so have I, why suddenly on Valentine's Day did he think his life was under threat and he needed to shoot 4 bullets into the toilet door? Why would the intruder come through the bathroom window, when the downstairs window is more accessible?
Why didn't Reeva speak, not once, that she was in the toilet? There are too many questions imo, and no answers that make sense. :gaah:

I can't change your mind G.bng, you've made up yours, as have I.

 

[808]

Judge Chris N Greenland says:
September 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm
In a nutshell:-
"The supporters of the decision keep spouting “reasonably possibly true”.
Try as I might I cannot see that the test is met.
For an adult, especially of Oscar’s background, well accustomed to intense confrontational pressure who, on his own story, advanced, armed to rid himself of the threat of an intruder, to be held not to have foreseen that he MIGHT kill a human is not “possible” and CERTAINLY NOT “reasonable” ..
… unless you first accept that he was non compos mentis, and/or delusion at the time, and ALL the medical experts excluded this.
The Court has ARBITRARILY assigned itself the right to accept that which no reasonable mind will accept, meekly claiming that it could not disbelieve this thoroughly bad witness in his denial that he did not intend to kill Reeva, even though he had consistently stated that it was a “mistake” as he thought it was an intruder … NOT that he had NOT intended to kill/shoot a human being.
Arbitrary means approach that is not supported by fact, evidence or circumstance.
The Court claimed that the State had not proved intent to kill, despite the fact that it was common cause that the accused pointed a firearm in the direction of a human being and fired four (4) shots, of which three (3) found their mark and killed a the human being.
Again this is an ARBITRARY rejection of that which any sentient mind would accept.
With the greatest respect, the whole approach is irrational … and that CANNOT be the law.
It certainly cannot have anything to do with JUSTICE."

:judge: What he said.

 

[G.bng]

One of the key bits of evidence that was used to dis the ear witnesses was the testimony of Estelle VDM when she said she thought she heard a woman scream, only for her husband to tell her it was Oscar.
Masipa states:

"Although it was not established how her husband knew that it was the accused who was crying, this piece of evidence is enough to throw some doubt on the evidence of the witnesses who are adamant that they had heard a woman scream."

So by this statement, Masipa has assumed that somehow he knew this to be a fact, even though he didn't even give evidence.

I wonder why neither prosecution nor defence chose to call the husband to testify. This turned out to be a fairly significant bit of 'evidence' yet it sounds like hearsay to me. Perhaps I missed something: anyone know why mr VDM wasn't called?

I wondered why VDM wasn't called too but since Nel did not object I'm pretty sure that what VDM said that his wife testified to would come under one of the hearsay exceptions, i.e. in the UK under "Res gestae" and in the US under "Excited utterance". And there will I am sure be a similar exception rule in SA for statements made by another at the time of an event or in the immediate aftermath, i.e. within minutes or at most hours. The reason for allowing this type of out-of-court statements is because a spontaneous statement made at the time of a sudden event is unlikely to be a premeditated lie and any time there was for thought reduces their reliability. Death bed confessions also come under a hearsay exception for the same reasons.

In any case Masipa hasn't "assumed" anything. She was merely stating the obvious, i.e. that the fact that VDM had spontaneously corrected EVDM that it was OP crying and not a woman must raise doubts as to the reliability of witnesses that believed they heard a woman since it is highly improbable that someone in that situation, without any knowledge of what had happened nor any reason to cover up for anyone, would trump up the name of a neighbour he had spoken to a few times.

"Res gestae" as per The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 11, Ch. 2, S 118:

Note: The rule is preserved only so far as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving or disproving the matter concerned.
Res gestae
4. Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—

​

(a) the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,

​

(b) the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or

​

(c) the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).

"Excited Utterance" as per US Legal:

Excited utterances are an exception to the hearsay rule, which prohibits introduction of out-of-court statements of unavailable witnesses into evidence when offered for truthfulness. Excited utterances are certain statements made under the influence of a startling event. Under the Federal Rules and most courts, there are two requirements for the exception: (1) the statement must relate to a startling event or condition; and (2) the statement must have been made while the declarant was still under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

 

[wb180]

I wondered why VDM wasn't called too but since Nel did not object I'm pretty sure that what VDM said that his wife testified to would come under one of the hearsay exceptions, i.e. in the UK under "Res gestae" and in the US under "Excited utterance". And there will I am sure be a similar exception rule in SA for statements made by another at the time of an event or in the immediate aftermath, i.e. within minutes or at most hours. The reason for allowing this type of out-of-court statements is because a spontaneous statement made at the time of a sudden event is unlikely to be a premeditated lie and any time there was for thought reduces their reliability. Death bed confessions also come under a hearsay exception for the same reasons.

In any case Masipa hasn't "assumed" anything. She was merely stating the obvious, i.e. that the fact that VDM had spontaneously corrected EVDM that it was OP crying and not a woman must raise doubts as to the reliability of witnesses that believed they heard a woman since it is highly improbable that someone in that situation, without any knowledge of what had happened nor any reason to cover up for anyone, would trump up the name of a neighbour he had spoken to a few times.

"Res gestae" as per The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 11, Ch. 2, S 118:



"Excited Utterance" as per US Legal:

Well if we use that line of reasoning, the whole OP testimony should be thrown out too. But Masipa didn't. And people wonder why many people is saying Masipa is selecting her evidence to suit her needs.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I wondered why VDM wasn't called too but since Nel did not object I'm pretty sure that what VDM said that his wife testified to would come under one of the hearsay exceptions, i.e. in the UK under "Res gestae" and in the US under "Excited utterance". And there will I am sure be a similar exception rule in SA for statements made by another at the time of an event or in the immediate aftermath, i.e. within minutes or at most hours. The reason for allowing this type of out-of-court statements is because a spontaneous statement made at the time of a sudden event is unlikely to be a premeditated lie and any time there was for thought reduces their reliability. Death bed confessions also come under a hearsay exception for the same reasons.

In any case Masipa hasn't "assumed" anything. She was merely stating the obvious, i.e. that the fact that VDM had spontaneously corrected EVDM that it was OP crying and not a woman must raise doubts as to the reliability of witnesses that believed they heard a woman since it is highly improbable that someone in that situation, without any knowledge of what had happened nor any reason to cover up for anyone, would trump up the name of a neighbour he had spoken to a few times.

"Res gestae" as per The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 11, Ch. 2, S 118:



"Excited Utterance" as per US Legal:

you say vdm had only spoken to op a few times... how many times had he heard op crying, to be so sure it was indeed op?

any ideas why the vdm's were discussing op crying? rather than screaming? was this sometime after the event...?

 

[sleuth-d-]

So true! Reeva would have to have been standing on her right leg with her left leg extended nearly the width of the room to kick the magazine rack. He shot immediately, so she would have dropped to the floor, right there by the door, when she was shot in the hip. Then she would have to levitate backwards into the magazine rack to receive the bruises on her back. The magazine rack would have had to move into the corner after that, and Reeva would have had to levitate, again, to the left side of the toilet. Shots C and D would have had to occur while she was levitating in mid air. And she would have had to regain the use of her right arm, so that she could come to rest lying with on her right shoulder, with her arm stretched across the toilet. They kind of left that part out of the video. Wonder why, Jeez!

BIB- Exactly. She fell backwards into the magazine rack after the hip shot, letting OP know where to aim his next three shots. Of course, her screams helped him there too. I remember OP saying that he hit the door on the far right side so that he wouldn't hit Reeva when he bashed it in. It must have seemed like a considerate thing to say sat the time, but how did he know where she was? He said that he didn't hear a thing.

op talking about the magazine rack moving, and in so doing causing the so called '3rd startle' is such an easily exposed lie. which destroys the whole 3rd startle.

op needed a sound from the toilet to justify shooting [but obviously it had to be inanimate. it couldn't be the intruders - they didn't exist. and obviously it couldn't be reeva - or it is murder.

the magazine rack could not have been the sound.

and without any sound from the toilet... then there is no startle... and then there is no reason to fire.


bib
omg, did he really say that? another great spot by homegirl. it certainly suggests he knew where she was lying - when under his version, he couldn't have done.
yes he could have heard, or... if the earlier bat strikes had opened up a small crack in the door... he could have peered in before the prising out process.

 

[Cherwell]

you say vdm had only spoken to op a few times... how many times had he heard op crying, to be so sure it was indeed op?

any ideas why the vdm's were discussing op crying? rather than screaming? was this sometime after the event...?

Do we know he didn't go out and have a look at what was going on? He might have caught a glimpse of OP.

In any case I can't agree that this actually contradicts what Mrs vdM heard earlier. A voice raised as though in argument is quite different from the sound of crying, and since she had heard a woman earlier I think it's natural that she thought the crying would be the same person.

 

[IndianSummer]

The pathologist who performed the autopsy on Steenkamp's body said it would have been "abnormal" for her not to scream from some of her injuries.
A police ballistics expert concluded that the first shot Pistorius fired through a toilet door hit Steenkamp in the hip and caused her to collapse, but didn't immediately kill her. The second shot missed.
According to the testimony, Steenkamp probably had time to yell out before she was hit by two more shots as she covered her head with her arms in a desperate attempt to protect herself.
"Suddenly what we have is Oscar Pistorius firing at Reeva Steenkamp while her hands are covering her head while she's screaming in the toilet, and that's murder," said Marius du Toit, a defence lawyer and former state prosecutor who says he has worked on at least 100 murder cases.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/oscar-pistorius-trial-murdered-reeva-steenkamp

She was a firecracker...I am sure she screamed.
I have heard couples argue 3am way down the alley in my little beach town.
It wakes me up with a fright.
You don't imagine or forget that distress that someone is raging toward another person.
It's a helpless feeling but one does listen. It's very THERE.
The witnesses tried. They tried to be a voice for Reeva.

JMO

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Lux: What is this about Stander helping OP with the Taylor-Memmory situation? Where do you know that from? I am genuinely interested to know more about that "case". I also want to know when that case was settled (before or after he killed Reeva?).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm looking through my bookmarks and this is the only article I can find so far. I'll see if I have one or two more.

... Frans Stander, the estate's general manager, this week spoke of his shock at the arrest.

"Oscar is the most decent man you will ever meet in your life. He treats everyone with so much respect and I have never received a complaint about him since his been living here, that's why I was shocked at what had happened," he said.

Estate security guards praised the Blade Runner for being down to earth and helping out whenever he could.

Stander added that although Pistorius had thrown numerous parties since he moved in, all of them had been peaceful.

"His parties are loved by everyone, even the old couples at the estate look forward to going to them."

When asked about the incident, Stander said Memory had probably been drunk.

"At parties, alcohol always flows freely, and Memory had a lot to drink. She hit a (stormwater) drain on her way out of the estate," he added. ...

("Frans" Stander is obviously Johan.)
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/neighbours-rally-in-support-of-blade-runner-1.459034

I believe OP settled with CTM in December 2013. He certainly didn't want a lawsuit for assault on a female hanging over his head during his murder trial for killing Reeva - no doubt it would have come up...NOT GOOD.

 

[G.bng]

I think you are probably right, I recorded them a while ago, probably young guys.

I wish Oscar's recording had have been played in court, it would have been revealing... [emoji4]

I think the witnesses reporting hearing a woman screaming must be the most difficult thing to deal with for Reeva's family and friends. To think of her final minutes being like that must be tormenting.

That is precisely why I was so happy when the graphic analysis I did of the timeline (based simply on call data and witness testimony) before the HOAs were out proved it could not have been Reeva screaming and therefore could only have been OP.

Because I can't think of anything worse than living the rest of my life believing the State's version, i.e. that for some FIFTEEN minutes (from 3:02 aprox per the State's HOAs based on Stipp's 2-3 min fast clock up until AFTER 3:17, per the State's HOAs based on Johnson's 3:16+58 second call) my daughter, according to the State's version, would have been screaming, terrified and petrified and in fear of her life and out of her mind. And if Reeva's parents don't come to realise that the Stipps timings must be wrong and the timeline proves they are, then her parents will have to live and die believing the State's version, i.e. that despite hearing shots and a woman's terrified and petrified screams, the Stipps took some 12 minutes before calling for help when had they called security within ONE, or at the very most TWO minutes of first hearing the screams Reeva could well be alive today. I mean, compare the Stipp's actions with those of Johnson and Burger who called security within 4-5 mins of hearing a woman screaming and they hadn't even heard shots. Or even worse, compare the Stipps with Mr Nhlengethwa who called security within FIFTEEN to TWENTY SECONDS of only hearing a man crying, no shots, just a man crying. That is a good neighbour not the Stipps. I personally would never forgive the Stipps even though Dr Stipp later went to see if he could help but by then, after waiting TWELVE minutes listening to my daughter screaming for her life before calling for help I would have to say that was just too little too late. jmho.

 

[jay-jay]

Wow? .. you're blaming the Stipps? There is only one person who is responsible for this and that person is the one who pulled the trigger, Oscar Pistorius.

Reeva's parents want the truth, and they know that what they have got from OP is not the truth because they know just how much Reeva and OP had been arguing in the run up to her death.

 

[G.bng]

If anyone could take the time to explain to me, these hanging questions:

1.It seem's the entire premise of the bat before gunshot (therefore preferring defense version) completely hinges
on the expert forensics stating the bat happened before gunshots due to certain markings,
but after watching the testimony, this seem's far less certain then previously thought
When asked by Roux to Vermelluon whether cricket happened before or after he replied
After, or at least a part of it, i am un-sure as to exactly what this mean.

Can anyone clarify?

For me it hinges on the correct timeline as well as the bat marks and common sense. A lot of common sense.

 

[jay-jay]

So, are you saying that victim's families should basically try and kid themselves that something 'nicer' happened to their loved one, just so that they feel better about it, and in the process enables a dangerous killer to walk free?

 

[sleuth-d-]

Do we know he didn't go out and have a look at what was going on? He might have caught a glimpse of OP.

In any case I can't agree that this actually contradicts what Mrs vdM heard earlier. A voice raised as though in argument is quite different from the sound of crying, and since she had heard a woman earlier I think it's natural that she thought the crying would be the same person.

i agree with you.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-2/

"Sometime around 3am, she heard 4 banging sounds. After these banging sounds there was total silence. She asked her husband what he thought the sounds were and he said gunshots. Her husband looked out the window but didn’t see anything so went back to bed. Shortly afterwards they heard a commotion so her husband called security. After that call, they heard somebody crying loudly. Mrs. van der Merwe thought it was the lady crying but her husband said it was Oscar crying"

looks like hearing op crying came after the shooting. so this in no way proves that op did the screaming.
vdm heard the argument... and woke to the second 4 bangs [so missed the screaming and the first set of bangs]

odd isn't it that masipa disregards that mrs vdm heard the argument as coming from op's house. but entertains the bit about hearing the crying from op's house. did masipa not realise that mrs vdm was commenting that both sounds came from the same place...

also odd isn't it that masipa disregards that mrs vdm heard the argument as coming from op's house, when mrs vdm heard the later tests done at 3am at op's house [21 feb 2014]... she was clearly capable of hearing raised voices at the op house from her bedroom.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

That is precisely why I was so happy when the graphic analysis I did of the timeline (based simply on call data and witness testimony) before the HOAs were out proved it could not have been Reeva screaming and therefore could only have been OP.

Because I can't think of anything worse than living the rest of my life believing the State's version, i.e. that for some FIFTEEN minutes (from 3:02 aprox per the State's HOAs based on Stipp's 2-3 min fast clock up until AFTER 3:17, per the State's HOAs based on Johnson's 3:16+58 second call) my daughter, according to the State's version, would have been screaming, terrified and petrified and in fear of her life and out of her mind. And if Reeva's parents don't come to realise that the Stipps timings must be wrong and the timeline proves they are, then her parents will have to live and die believing the State's version, i.e. that despite hearing shots and a woman's terrified and petrified screams, the Stipps took some 12 minutes before calling for help when had they called security within ONE, or at the very most TWO minutes of first hearing the screams Reeva could well be alive today. I mean, compare the Stipp's actions with those of Johnson and Burger who called security within 4-5 mins of hearing a woman screaming and they hadn't even heard shots. Or even worse, compare the Stipps with Mr Nhlengethwa who called security within FIFTEEN to TWENTY SECONDS of only hearing a man crying, no shots, just a man crying. That is a good neighbour not the Stipps. I personally would never forgive the Stipps even though Dr Stipp later went to see if he could help but by then, after waiting TWELVE minutes listening to my daughter screaming for her life before calling for help I would have to say that was just too little too late. jmho.

What about Stander's daughter who just closed her doors and hopped back into bed?

 

[akp]

I wondered why VDM wasn't called too but since Nel did not object I'm pretty sure that what VDM said that his wife testified to would come under one of the hearsay exceptions, i.e. in the UK under "Res gestae" and in the US under "Excited utterance". And there will I am sure be a similar exception rule in SA for statements made by another at the time of an event or in the immediate aftermath, i.e. within minutes or at most hours. The reason for allowing this type of out-of-court statements is because a spontaneous statement made at the time of a sudden event is unlikely to be a premeditated lie and any time there was for thought reduces their reliability. Death bed confessions also come under a hearsay exception for the same reasons.

In any case Masipa hasn't "assumed" anything. She was merely stating the obvious, i.e. that the fact that VDM had spontaneously corrected EVDM that it was OP crying and not a woman must raise doubts as to the reliability of witnesses that believed they heard a woman since it is highly improbable that someone in that situation, without any knowledge of what had happened nor any reason to cover up for anyone, would trump up the name of a neighbour he had spoken to a few times.

"Res gestae" as per The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 11, Ch. 2, S 118:



"Excited Utterance" as per US Legal:

So let us examine this part of the verdict a little closely, shall we?

EVDM was one of the most crucial State witnesses for the State, and in rejecting her testimony, the judge cites three reasons:
1. she could not understand what was being said or in what language was the `female voice' speaking,
2. she was not sure about the source of the voice,
3. her husband confirmed the loud cry after the bangs as OP's voice.

About point (1), I really do not know what to say. Surely this can not by itself be a valid reason for ignoring what she did hear. But let us go to points 2 and 3. As some people have pointed out, it is debatable whether what EVDM's husband said should be acceptable or hearsay, but as you argue and in any case fact is that judge did accept her husband's confirmation. Now that implies, post facto, that EVDM did in fact know that the sound was indeed from OP's house, because all the sounds starting from 1:56 emanated from the same place.
Second, her husband only identified the loud cry after the bangs as OP's, not the argument that EVDM heard since 1:56. But again, let us assume even that voice was male voice. The source now being identified to be OP's house, male voice could only have been OP himself. Isn't it much more damning for OP's version then that he was wide awake and involved in an argument for an hour prior to the incident?

 

[G.bng]

Wow? .. you're blaming the Stipps? There is only one person who is responsible for this and that person is the one who pulled the trigger, Oscar Pistorius.

Reeva's parents want the truth, and they know that what they have got from OP is not the truth because they know just how much Reeva and OP had been arguing in the run up to her death.

Nope, I don't blame the Stipps, not least because since analysing the timeline myself using the call data and all the witness testimonies (which I transcribed myself in full so as not to miss anything) before the defence released the HOAs I was convinced the Stipp's timings were mistaken and that the first volley had to have been around 3:12 and NOT at around 3:00 as per Mrs Stipp's or Burger's testimonies.

But yes, if it had been my daughter that they were hearing screaming for her life for 12 minutes as per State, Stipp's and even WS's timeline, I would of course blame OP for killing her but human nature as it is I am not sure I would be able to help myself never forgiving them for not heeding my daughter's desperate pleas for help as a matter of the utmost and overriding urgency and which just might have saved her life instead of simply listening to her scream from their balcony for 12 minutes, and more especially since they heard shots before the screams which would make it all the more urgent to call for help.

But I repeat, I don't believe the Stipp's timeline is correct so I believe they were a mere 3 to 4 minutes hearing the screams before calling security which makes them the good people I think they are and not the irresponsibles the State's timeline has made of them with the 12 minutes wait before calling for help.

 

[G.bng]

What about Stander's daughter who just closed her doors and hopped back into bed?

Dang, I must have fell asleep during the part where CS said she heard a woman screaming in fear of her life for 12-15 minutes when I was doing the transcript of her testimony ?!

Seriously now, they are just not comparable. CS didn't hear anything more than a man calling "help, help, help" from an unknown direction, and even though it could I suppose be said she "hopped" back into bed, I don't think it was without some consternation, at least not according to her testimony:

CV: Ok. I'm sorry, my lady. I appologise. So I heard somebody shouting help 3 times. I then, first of all froze in my bed and I thought, oh my gosh, you know, something is wrong and the bark... the dogs were even like barking bit more. Errr. I then decided I need, I need to get up. I closed my sliding door because it sounded like something was wrong somewhere and I was scared somebody is going to climb maybe up my... onto my balcony and come into my bedroom. So I got, I roll out of my bed and I got up and I stood by my sliding door. First of all I dropped my blinds that were still tilted open and I then stood by the door and I le... and I opened it a little bit and I kept my ear there if I cou... to try and hear if I can't hear where, where did this sound come from, because I couldn't pinpoint where it was coming from because it was clear somebody needed help. I then... I couldn't hear anything. I closed my sliding door. I latched it. I then closed my blind and then I got back into my bed. I remember my heart was pounding so fast. I was very afraid. And, emm, my dogs were still very restless so I, I was first then sitting on my bed and trying to think, oh my gosh I don't know where this is coming from, and I don't know what to do. And then I was... tried to get my dogs closer to me again 'cos they kept on barking and they were really not... they didn't want to calm down. And then slowly but surely settled back into bed and pulled the covers over myself. And [01:36:19.06][01:36:19.10][01:36:19.12] my heart was going so fast and I kept on thinking, how am I going to fall asleep now after I heard that.. or I don't... I was so scared. And slowly but surely my heart settled again and I was laying down and I pulled the covers over me and then the dog was barking again and I had to go fetch her at the end of the bed and I was holding her just to try and quiet her down. And then I settled back into bed and I pulled the covers over myself and I was just lying there thinking, oh my gosh, I don't know what happened and I don't know how to help whoever's in trouble. And...

And a bit later:

CV: My lady, like I mentioned before, I tried to settle the dogs down, still on my bed, trying to get my own heart beat to slow down, and settle back in... under the covers with my dogs. I was lying in my bed thinking, oh my gosh, how am I going to sleep now because that, the voice I heard I know for... it sounded to me it's a man's voice. I could hear a man shouting meaning that there must be terrible trouble because where is the lady? I was then still lying on my bed thinking, I don't know where this is coming from, I don't know how to help. And how does one fall back to sleep after hearing something like that? And I was... in the end I settled back in, and then when I lie in my bed in my bedroom I can see my parent's bedroom on the far side and then I saw commotion in their room. The lights went on and I could hear they were awake. I then proceeded by standing up and walking towards my parent's room and telling my mom, mom I heard somebody shout help. Somebody is in trouble. And my mom then proceeded by saying, yes, Oscar phoned your dad. He shot Reeva, he thought she was an intruder. We then immediately... To my dad and I we knew, we had to go and how. So I went downstairs and I pulled my car out of the garage, so long, and waited for my dad in the street. I remember my foot was still like on... I couldn't even put the clutch in 'cos my leg, I couldn't get my leg still. And I was hooting and my dad then also came running out. Then we both were in my car and then I drove to Oscar's house.

And then add to that her young age and the obvious lack of life experience compared with the Stipps. So no, I think she is hysterical and a bit loopy but her failure is just not the same as hearing a woman screaming for her life for 12 minutes before calling for help. Not in my book, at least, and I would hope not in anybody of a certain age and intelligence.

 

[G.bng]

So let us examine this part of the verdict a little closely, shall we?

EVDM was one of the most crucial State witnesses for the State, and in rejecting her testimony, the judge cites three reasons:
1. she could not understand what was being said or in what language was the `female voice' speaking,
2. she was not sure about the source of the voice,
3. her husband confirmed the loud cry after the bangs as OP's voice.

About point (1), I really do not know what to say. Surely this can not by itself be a valid reason for ignoring what she did hear. But let us go to points 2 and 3. As some people have pointed out, it is debatable whether what EVDM's husband said should be acceptable or hearsay, but as you argue and in any case fact is that judge did accept her husband's confirmation. Now that implies, post facto, that EVDM did in fact know that the sound was indeed from OP's house, because all the sounds starting from 1:56 emanated from the same place.
Second, her husband only identified the loud cry after the bangs as OP's, not the argument that EVDM heard since 1:56. But again, let us assume even that voice was male voice. The source now being identified to be OP's house, male voice could only have been OP himself. Isn't it much more damning for OP's version then that he was wide awake and involved in an argument for an hour prior to the incident?

Point 1: Masipa gave her reasons for "ignoring" what VDM heard. It was one voice, no known direction, no language, and no words, what inference would you expect her to find beyond reasonable doubt? It could have been Reeva arguing on the phone with an ex or a friend and for those looking for a reason for the shots this could have been the cause. Or maybe it was Reeva practising her impassioned speech (apart from a telephone conversation the only other one voiced argument I can think of are speeches) that she was to give the next day, or it could have been from another house, a loud TV retransmitting a speech by Hillary Clinton. Who knows. Certainly there was more than reasonable doubt for her not to be able to find an argument Reeva-OP.

Point 2: And your point was...?

Point 3: Yep. Correct. That's after the first bangs by the timeline and the loud crying was at the same time as the screaming so how can that tally?

Unnumbered point: No it is not imo more damning since from once voice, no language, no words and from an unknown direction there is no argument only Reeva ranting away at OP for an hour in the early hours of the morning.

Last post as night duty is at an end I need some sleep. Night night.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Dang, I must have fell asleep during the part where CS said she heard a woman screaming in fear of her life for 12-15 minutes when I was doing the transcript of her testimony ?!

Seriously now, they are just not comparable. CS didn't hear anything more than a man calling "help, help, help" from an unknown direction, and even though it could I suppose be said she "hopped" back into bed, I don't think it was without some consternation, at least not according to her testimony:



And a bit later:



And then add to that her young age and the obvious lack of life experience compared with the Stipps. So no, I think she is hysterical and a bit loopy but her failure is just not the same as hearing a woman screaming for her life for 12 minutes before calling for help. Not in my book, at least, and I would hope not in anybody of a certain age and intelligence.

LOL, funny that, how she woke to her 'bestest' friend yelling, Help, Help, Help! All the other witnesses are not friends or enemies of OP so no cause to mislead the court. Interesting turn of events with Mr and Ms Stander, imo, they are the least reliable. Oh my gosh, really says everything.

So in your book, Carise has absolutely no reason to be bias towards OP, she knows where he keeps his linen, lol, what acquaintance would know that I ask myself?

I think it would open another can of worms to scrutinize Carise behaviour and testimony, she took Reeva's handbag from a crime scene, we don't know what was in that bag. She's a lawyer and should know better, or maybe she does and that's why she did it. jmo