Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think this is correct......really...if you have a bed partner......and you leave the room for a moment.......come back in and hear noises......why not check if it is the other person in the bathroom?????

Especially given that he had two guard dogs roaming in the yard area that any intruder would have gone through to get into his bathroom window. He did not hear any barking, yet assumed the noise coming from the bathroom was an intruder, without even checking the bed for his girlfriend.
 
Didn't she say that he awoke her everytime he heard a single noise? He apparently didn't do that with Reeva.

Unlike some FMs, I thought she was fairly convincing for the most part. However...in the case of this statement how could she say with any certainty that he always woke her up if he heard a suspicious noise? OP could refute that easily by saying that there were other occasions when he thought he heard something or even got up to investigate but didn't tell her as he didn't wish to alarm her. Not saying that's the case but I don't understand how she could be 100% sure about that?
 
I think the most damaging detail given so far was the answer to the security guards question : everything's fine.

Even if he was saying" I'm Fine" , imo, it is very damning. He should have been scream urgently for an ambulance.
 
I don't think so much about the gun in the bar - they should not have been handling it, but the culpability for that falls more squarely on the gun owner who was passing it around, in my view.

If he was shooting out of a car, that is certainly reckless. From what I have read, Oscar does seem to be rather reckless and a thrill seeker. But I really don't think any of that matters on the issue of premeditated murder. He's not claiming he did not shoot her, nor is he denying that it was dark and he did not know where Reeva was or who was behind the door - so on those facts alone the judge will decide whether he acted reasonably or recklessly. I don't think any of the past episodes really come into play.

I have no idea if the Judge will apply the evidence that has come out regarding the firearms charges to the murder charge, and even if she doesn't it won't negate its significance to me, personally.

IMO, the testimony regarding the firearms charges portrays a man who is not only dangerously reckless with firearms, but is also prone to episodes of rage, thinks it's perfectly acceptable to threaten others with his gun, has little respect for the law or law enforcement officers, and has demonstrated that he will not hesitate to lie to avoid criminal charges for his illegal actions.

As for OP admitting that he did, in fact, shoot and kill Reeva: what else could he do after security showed up at his house, after multiple witnesses had alerted security to the gunshots that rang out from his house, after his neighbor Dr. Stipp arrived at the scene, after multiple witnesses observed him carrying Reeva's lifeless body down the stairs of his house?

He had no choice but to admit that he had killed her. He was backed into a most precarious corner. His only possible way out of that corner was to claim that he mistook Reeva for a burglar.
 
And what about the lights. Didn't OP say lights were off, but doctor saw bathroom light on?

It appears that OP didn't even call 911, as the doctor even beat them there. He was too busy contemplating what to do, but was busted by neighbors that heard the fight, then shots and called security to check things out.
 
Unlike some FMs, I thought she was fairly convincing for the most part. However...in the case of this statement how could she say with any certainty that he always woke her up if he heard a suspicious noise? OP could refute that easily by saying that there were other occasions when he thought he heard something or even got up to investigate but didn't tell her as he didn't wish to alarm her. Not saying that's the case but I don't understand how she could be 100% sure about that?

:Welcome1:

Thanks for joining the discussion! :seeya:
 
He's not claiming he did not shoot her, nor is he denying that it was dark and he did not know where Reeva was or who was behind the door - so on those facts alone the judge will decide whether he acted reasonably or recklessly.

On a point of order m'lud :)

We do not know whether any of those (BIB) are facts!
 
I was surprised that she was still so emotional and raw when the break up was over a year ago...

I would guess that she feels very emotionally fragile, knowing that she could easily have met the same fate as her successor. Plus the whole experience of being in court and in the witness box.
 
If you take each witness, individually, you can see where Roux was able to poke some holes in their testimony. In that context, he did a great job. But after a week of witness testimony, if you look at the entire week's testimony as a whole, then OP is in big trouble. I think in the big picture, as a whole, they have painted a picture of an entitled, reckless, arrogant tyrant, who was most likely angry at Reeva, and not going after a phantom burglar at all. :moo:

Roux has a difficult job because the holes that he is poking cannot just be looked at on their own, they have to be viewed in the context of all the other witnesses as well. When you consider it globally, and if you try to reconcile all of the witnesss' testimony with each other, it really does line up with Oscar's own statement.

There is nothing that suggests premeditation. Let me see if I can give you an example of what I mean:

First of all, the most reliable statements from the witnesses are going to be the statements they gave shortly after the event, while it was fresh in their minds and all they were reporting were facts of what they witnessed. Many of the witnesses have now come to court and have embellished and added "emotional" information that was not in their original statements. I think you have to discount those additions.

Shipp

He is the closest of the witnesses and had a direct line to Oscar's house via his open balcony.

1. He heard 3 "shots" and got up and went to balcony to see where it was coming from

2. On balcony, he heard a woman "screaming or yelling" 2 or 3 times

3. At 3:17 (verified by phone records) he heard "2 or 3" additional "shots"

4. At 3:27, he called security again

5. After his 3:27 call to security, he THEN heard Oscar yell "help, help, help"

6. At 3:28 he phoned Stander from Oscar's house.

Although his testimony included the an additional claim to have heard a man's screams intermingled with a woman's screams between the first and second set of bangs, this is no in either of his statements to police given on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13

I consider Shipp's testimony to be the most reliable because he is close by and would have had the best opportunity to hear what happened. He also gave a written statement on 2-15-13, before the bail hearing and before an opportunity to be influenced by media or other witness accounts, etc

Burger and Johnson

1. Heard a woman screaming and were woken up by the sound

2. They heard "help help help" -before the sounds they interpreted as gunshots

3. Heard a number of "gunshots" at 3:17, coinciding perfectly with the second set of bangs heard by Shipp and his wife. At the time they gave their written statements, neither of them could identify the number of "shots" as 4, contrary to Burger's court testimony

4. They did not hear any other sets of bangs.

While they both claim at trial that the woman's screams were "blood-curdling" and the woman was "in fear for her life" that was not in either of their statements to police.

They did not come forward until after listening to the bail hearing. They did not give a statement to police until 6 weeks after the events. Their testimony is the most suspect because of the timing and the ability to be influenced by each other and by media accounts. There's also a problem with their testimony changing in important aspects compared to Johnson's written notes and statements.

Werwe

1. She heard a woman's voice that sounded like one side of an argument around 2 a.m. It has not been established that this was coming from Oscar's house.

2. She heard what sounded like gunshots, and then she heard loud crying and yelling from Oscar - she initially thought it was a woman screaming, but her husband identified the voice as Oscar Pistorius

I believe that she was being honest and factual in her testimony. She did not try to interpret what anything meant, she simply reported what she heard.

So you try to reconcile all of these accounts with each other and what you are left with is -

- Shipp was woken up by the actual gunshots some time before 3:17;

- the noises at 3:17 were the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door (Shipp said they sounded the same, so it's no longer in dispute whether a cricket bat hitting the door can sound like a gunshot);

- the screaming and yelling between the initial gunshots and the banging at 3:17 was Oscar screaming and crying loudly. This was heard by all 4 witnesses, all of whom believed it to be a woman screaming

- Oscar yelled help, help, help after he broke the door with the cricket bat
 
Unlike some FMs, I thought she was fairly convincing for the most part. However...in the case of this statement how could she say with any certainty that he always woke her up if he heard a suspicious noise? OP could refute that easily by saying that there were other occasions when he thought he heard something or even got up to investigate but didn't tell her as he didn't wish to alarm her. Not saying that's the case but I don't understand how she could be 100% sure about that?

Sure he could refute that. According to her testimony, he awoke her everytime he heard a noise. She was in a dead sleep and I think safe to assume that due to numerous times, she figured he woke her up every time. Sure. Maybe this one time, he didn't. Perhaps we can agree on 'generally' he awoke her.
 
On a point of order m'lud :)

We do not know whether any of those (BIB) are facts!

It is a fact that he shot Reeva. And if we're talking about reckless homicide, he has admitted that he shot through a door without knowing who was behind it.

We were just talking about the possibility of reckless homicide and not premeditated murder. Obviously if he is found guilty of premeditated murder then the judge has rejected his claim of not knowing it was Reeva in the bathroom.
 
:Welcome1:

Thanks for joining the discussion! :seeya:

Thank you :) I'm in the UK so watching the trial live (with copious tea breaks!) and find it interesting to hear what other FMs think about the case as it unfolds. Also interesting to see a different cultural perspective on crime and justice system. I just wish I could erase that image of Reeva as described by the doctor and Baba...how her poor family must feel listening to that I cannot imagine.
 
I was surprised that she was still so emotional and raw when the break up was over a year ago...

I'm not. This is a worldwide broadcast. Nerves...emotions....she had feelings for Ocar.....He dumped her.....took Reeva to an Award's ceremoney. She's young..lots of emotion going on there. The breakdown was probably a release.
 
Unlike some FMs, I thought she was fairly convincing for the most part. However...in the case of this statement how could she say with any certainty that he always woke her up if he heard a suspicious noise? OP could refute that easily by saying that there were other occasions when he thought he heard something or even got up to investigate but didn't tell her as he didn't wish to alarm her. Not saying that's the case but I don't understand how she could be 100% sure about that?

A lot of people have made the point about him waking her when he heard a noise but not waking Reeva, but it doesnt necessarily follow. She said he'd be asleep, wake and think he'd heard a noise, then wake her for confirmation. His story is that he was already awake when he heard a noise. So why would he need to wake someone else to determine of he'd heard it or dreamt it?
 
I was too. That really took me by surprise.

With that in mind, I agree that we have to consider there may be a greater element of confirmation bias in her evidence as she has such a strong emotional connection to the accused...although it is bound to be present to some degree or another with most, if not all, witnesses due to OP being so well known and the media coverage. I don't think it would be possible for anyone to walk into that courtroom with a completely objective viewpoint under these circumstances. However this will apply to witnesses on both sides I suppose.
 
With that in mind, I agree that we have to consider there may be a greater element of confirmation bias in her evidence as she has such a strong emotional connection to the accused...although it is bound to be present to some degree or another with most, if not all, witnesses due to OP being so well known and the media coverage. I don't think it would be possible for anyone to walk into that courtroom with a completely objective viewpoint under these circumstances. However this will apply to witnesses on both sides I suppose.

I agree! Everyone has bias and it would be nearly impossible to set that aside and be completely objective on the witness stand. I expect the same from Oscar's witnesses.
 
Roux has a difficult job because the holes that he is poking cannot just be looked at on their own, they have to be viewed in the context of all the other witnesses as well. When you consider it globally, and if you try to reconcile all of the witnesss' testimony with each other, it really does line up with Oscar's own statement.

There is nothing that suggests premeditation. Let me see if I can give you an example of what I mean:

First of all, the most reliable statements from the witnesses are going to be the statements they gave shortly after the event, while it was fresh in their minds and all they were reporting were facts of what they witnessed. Many of the witnesses have now come to court and have embellished and added "emotional" information that was not in their original statements. I think you have to discount those additions.

Shipp

He is the closest of the witnesses and had a direct line to Oscar's house via his open balcony.

1. He heard 3 "shots" and got up and went to balcony to see where it was coming from

2. On balcony, he heard a woman "screaming or yelling" 2 or 3 times

3. At 3:17 (verified by phone records) he heard "2 or 3" additional "shots"

4. At 3:27, he called security again

5. After his 3:27 call to security, he THEN heard Oscar yell "help, help, help"

6. At 3:28 he phoned Stander from Oscar's house.

Although his testimony included the an additional claim to have heard a man's screams intermingled with a woman's screams between the first and second set of bangs, this is no in either of his statements to police given on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13

I consider Shipp's testimony to be the most reliable because he is close by and would have had the best opportunity to hear what happened. He also gave a written statement on 2-15-13, before the bail hearing and before an opportunity to be influenced by media or other witness accounts, etc

Burger and Johnson

1. Heard a woman screaming and were woken up by the sound

2. They heard "help help help" -before the sounds they interpreted as gunshots

3. Heard a number of "gunshots" at 3:17, coinciding perfectly with the second set of bangs heard by Shipp and his wife. At the time they gave their written statements, neither of them could identify the number of "shots" as 4, contrary to Burger's court testimony

4. They did not hear any other sets of bangs.

While they both claim at trial that the woman's screams were "blood-curdling" and the woman was "in fear for her life" that was not in either of their statements to police.

They did not come forward until after listening to the bail hearing. They did not give a statement to police until 6 weeks after the events. Their testimony is the most suspect because of the timing and the ability to be influenced by each other and by media accounts. There's also a problem with their testimony changing in important aspects compared to Johnson's written notes and statements.

Werwe

1. She heard a woman's voice that sounded like one side of an argument around 2 a.m. It has not been established that this was coming from Oscar's house.

2. She heard what sounded like gunshots, and then she heard loud crying and yelling from Oscar - she initially thought it was a woman screaming, but her husband identified the voice as Oscar Pistorius

I believe that she was being honest and factual in her testimony. She did not try to interpret what anything meant, she simply reported what she heard.

So you try to reconcile all of these accounts with each other and what you are left with is -

- Shipp was woken up by the actual gunshots some time before 3:17;

- the noises at 3:17 were the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door (Shipp said they sounded the same, so it's no longer in dispute whether a cricket bat hitting the door can sound like a gunshot);

- the screaming and yelling between the initial gunshots and the banging at 3:17 was Oscar screaming and crying loudly. This was heard by all 4 witnesses, all of whom believed it to be a woman screaming

- Oscar yelled help, help, help after he broke the door with the cricket bat

Agree. I can easily see a case for second degree murder, but premeditated? There is literally nothing there.
 
It is a fact that he shot Reeva. And if we're talking about reckless homicide, he has admitted that he shot through a door without knowing who was behind it.

We were just talking about the possibility of reckless homicide and not premeditated murder. Obviously if he is found guilty of premeditated murder then the judge has rejected his claim of not knowing it was Reeva in the bathroom.

I didn't question the fact that he shot Reeva. The "facts" I don't accept are:

1. that it was dark
2. that he didn't know where Reeva was
3. that he didn't know who was behind the door

You referred to them as facts, but these have not so far been established as facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
2,043
Total visitors
2,191

Forum statistics

Threads
595,318
Messages
18,022,408
Members
229,622
Latest member
lcd115
Back
Top