Trial Discussion Thread #3 - 14.03.08-09, Weekend

[minor4th]

Everyone has a bias... everyone on earth has a bias as to what they heard, what they saw.. its a given. Roux is paid to have a bias, he is employed by Oscar to maintain and present a bias.. Nel is paid and employed by the Republic of South Africa to present a bias... it is a meaningless accusation, and the bottom line here is who has the strongest reason to have a bias.... no question that platform is occupied by Oscar.. his life depends on his bias being the one that prevails.

Witnesses being catalogued as 'biased' is redundant.. Any one who is a witness for the prosecution has ipso facto a bias.. ditto for the witnesses for the defence, its intrinsic. It is the position they have been put in by Oscars shooting of Reeva.. if he hadn't shot her, would they be biased? could they be portrayed as biased? Absolutely not. This applies to both sides of the case in equal and exact measure. That is.. the witness for the defence of Oscar are and must be as biased, logically..

None of these people, the ones already testified, the ones to come, would be there , including Nel and Roux , if Oscar hadn't pulled the trigger. Oscar wouldn't be in court having his bias towards his actions being presented.

Its a huge huge stretch to conclude that Ms Burger, for example, woke up that night from the sounds she heard and instantly formed an inaccurate bias against Oscar. To assume that, there has to be some previous interchange between Oscar and Ms Burger that provoked a desire to form (a) a bias and (b) an inaccurate and malicious bias and then , astonishingly , perjure herself in a murder trial.. That is one hell of a leap of logic, so huge it cannot be even put in the rational basket..

I don't think she became biased the moment she woke up and heard screaming - I think her bias developed over time. It may be totally unintentional and even unknown to her - like confirmation bias.

 

[Cherwell]

I can't read, any chance you can skip the colors etc.?

+1.

I am not reading those posts because the colours and fonts hurt my eyes. Surely there's no need for it.

 

[Trooper]

I think it would be best to wait until Roux provides this proof, he states it as proof that Oscar can scream like a woman.. but Oscar has a bigger problem than that. .he has to replicate exactly the scream of a woman that the witnesses have testified to.. Roux has not entered into claiming he can provide proof that Oscar can simultaneously scream as both genders.. even this is too much for Roux to claim, under instructions from his client..

But if there is some documented proof that would enable me to even entertain the possibility that Oscar can, and indeed, has on previous occasions, managed to produce a scream exactly like the womans scream the witnesses heard, I, for one, would be gobsmacked .... that would be a tremendous act of premeditation on Oscars part..to have rehearsed PREVIOUS to shooting Reeva her exact screams of terror, to confuse anyone who was woken up that night by those particular sounds.. .

I would have to form a terrific and particular bias towards the witnesses that heard those screams.. a malicious and stubborn bias towards them, to even entertain the possibility that they didn't hear those screams, those particular sounds. Where would I form that bias from?? big mystery. Lemme think about it..

 

[minor4th]

I am not going to consider the possibility that Oscar can and did scream like a woman AND a man simultaneously while shots were being fired.. this would require a bias from me that would render me incapable of distinguishing whether the sun rose in the east or in the west. Since this is what Dr Stipp testified to hearing, I'm inclined to believe that he heard that as he has NO REASON TO CREATE A BLATANT LIE on the stand in a murder trial..

no evidence has been provided by Roux or the poster that Dr Stipp has a record, short or long in his previous life of being a man of confusion and bias and propensity to lie at whim and at will. No evidence provided that Dr Stipp or others have a long and protracted enmity towards Oscar based on documented incidences of malignancy or confrontation.

Can Oscar scream like man, AND a woman AT the same time?? I don't think so.. if any poster does believe that he can, may I respectfully enquire on what foundation this belief rests upon?

See, you have to really pay attention, not only to what the witnesses testify in court, but what they said in their initial statements to police - and note how they are different.

In Shipp's, Burger's and Johnson's initial statements, none of them said anything about a man screaming, they only mentioned a "woman" screaming.

We are talking about discrepancies and additions to Oscar's two statements, and I've seen plenty of comments that the discrepancies make the second statement more suspicious. The same is true of the State's witnesses. The addition and embellishment of a man screaming intermingled with a woman screaming should be suspicious because they did not mention this in their statements when it was fresh in their minds and close to the event.

 

[Harmony 2]

Please stay on topic... When other cases are brought into the discussion it creates a parallel discussion... :gthanks:

 

[Trooper]

I cannot in any capacity fathom how a cricket bat striking a door can sound anything like a gun firing. My thought is that either Oscar fired twice and we don't know about it, or the sounds didn't sound perfectly identical and Stipp is mistaken about them sounding the same.

Stipp didn't say they sounded the same.. he said he understood that Roux was making an observation on the possibility of the sounds being the same.


( I hear what you are suggesting, Mr Roux.. I understand your phrasing, and your content, perfectly, we both speak a common language, but I disagree )

 

[minor4th]

I think it would be best to wait until Roux provides this proof, he states it as proof that Oscar can scream like a woman.. but Oscar has a bigger problem than that. .he has to replicate exactly the scream of a woman that the witnesses have testified to.. Roux has not entered into claiming he can provide proof that Oscar can simultaneously scream as both genders.. even this is too much for Roux to claim, under instructions from his client..

But if there is some documented proof that would enable me to even entertain the possibility that Oscar can, and indeed, has on previous occasions, managed to produce a scream exactly like the womans scream the witnesses heard, I, for one, would be gobsmacked .... that would be a tremendous act of premeditation on Oscars part..to have rehearsed PREVIOUS to shooting Reeva her exact screams of terror, to confuse anyone who was woken up that night by those particular sounds.. .

I would have to form a terrific and particular bias towards the witnesses that heard those screams.. a malicious and stubborn bias towards them, to even entertain the possibility that they didn't hear those screams, those particular sounds. Where would I form that bias from?? big mystery. Lemme think about it..

Good idea. That is why I say that it's premature to say the evidence establishes this or that with any confidence without even hearing any of the defense case. It is very premature to say that there is zero chance that a cricket bat breaking a door could sound like gunshots, and to say there is absolutely no way all the witnesses mistook Oscar's screams for the screams of a woman.

I agree that it is intuitively hard to grasp that 4 witnesses were mistaken about hearing a woman scream - but we already have one witness who has confirmed that she thought the screams were a woman but it was actually Oscar (whose voice her husband recognized).

It is pretty much always the case that during the prosecution's case, defendants appear guilty, and it's hard to imagine any other outcome - but that can change when the defense puts on their case.

 

[minor4th]

Stipp didn't say they sounded the same.. he said he understood that Roux was making an observation on the possibility of the sounds being the same.


( I hear what you are suggesting, Mr Roux.. I understand your phrasing, and your content, perfectly, we both speak a common language, but I disagree )

He heard two sets of "2 to 3" gunshots 10 minutes apart. If one of those "2 to 3" bangs was not the cricket bat and not gunshots, but it was loud enough to sound like gunshots - what do you suggest it was?

 

[Trooper]

See, you have to really pay attention, not only to what the witnesses testify in court, but what they said in their initial statements to police - and note how they are different.

In Shipp's, Burger's and Johnson's initial statements, none of them said anything about a man screaming, they only mentioned a "woman" screaming.

We are talking about discrepancies and additions to Oscar's two statements, and I've seen plenty of comments that the discrepancies make the second statement more suspicious. The same is true of the State's witnesses. The addition and embellishment of a man screaming intermingled with a woman screaming should be suspicious because they did not mention this in their statements when it was fresh in their minds and close to the event.

again, I ask this poster, to provide some reason why the possibility of Oscar being able to scream exactly like those screams testified to should be entertained. Its a simple request.. it shouldn't be a difficulty. I , personally, discard in its entirety very nearly all of Oscars statements.. the only thing I credit with reality is he actually did fire the shots thru the toilet door.. everything else is, to me, an embellishment, filigree and embroidery.. this is a victim friendly site.. I am biased towards Reeva... he shot her, and killed her, and its only a matter of why.

if there is a good and solid reason WHY anyone should entertain the possibility of Oscar's capacity to scream to the extent completely disinterested hearers heard as a woman screaming, I'd be interested.. But I'm not interested merely because Oscar says so. That would be a waste of my valuable time.

 

[Ranchgirl]

:gthanks:



Thank you so much! I was going to review Baba's testimony, but you've saved me the time!



I would also like to add that Dr. Stipp testified to asking Stander if an ambulance had been called, and Stander told him no.



So I think Dr. Stipp arrived, rendered what medical assistance he could, and asked Stander about an ambulance before Stander instructed Baba to phone the police and ambulance.

For clarification: how would anyone but OP know if anyone was called much less ambulance? Stander and others all arrived at the same time. So how would Stander know? Hmmm!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

again, I ask this poster, to provide some reason why the possibility of Oscar being able to scream exactly like those screams testified to should be entertained. Its a simple request.. it shouldn't be a difficulty. I , personally, discard in its entirety very nearly all of Oscars statements.. the only thing I credit with reality is he actually did fire the shots thru the toilet door.. everything else is, to me, an embellishment, filigree and embroidery.. this is a victim friendly site.. I am biased towards Reeva... he shot her, and killed her, and its only a matter of why.

if there is a good and solid reason WHY anyone should entertain the possibility of Oscar's capacity to scream to the extent completely disinterested hearers heard as a woman screaming, I'd be interested.. But I'm not interested merely because Oscar says so. That would be a waste of my valuable time.

You don't have to entertain it. All I'm saying is wait until all the evidence is in before you make a conclusion that it's false and no matter what evidence is brought forth, you are not going to believe it no matter what.

I am a strong victim's advocate! Have I ever indicated anything resembling disrespect or disdain toward Reeva? No! It is horrible that she was killed, and it was Oscar's fault and he should be held accountable ..I'm just not willing to make a conclusion that it was definitely premeditated before the evidence is in.

I certainly hope that being "victim friendly" does not mean that we agree with the prosecution at all times and hope for a conviction irrespective of what the evidence shows.

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

I think OP home is in the middle of photo - with all the shrubs around it. Which home is the doctors? The one with red on it, on corner, or behind his? Just wondering since he is the one who heard the double sets of noises and must be in closest proximity (of the neighbors who have testified).

Yes on OP's house. Stipp's house is across the open area behind OP's house. It's at the lower left end of the photo.

 

[minor4th]

For clarification: how would anyone but OP know if anyone was called much less ambulance? Stander and others all arrived at the same time. So how would Stander know? Hmmm!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He wouldn't - and there are apparently phone records that show that Oscar called NetCare at 3:20

 

[Feynman]

Sorry Kittychi, I missed the underlined. So the phone had been used. Curiouser and curiouser. Why would he run three phones? What else was he up to in his life that required 3 phones.

He had four phones I believe.

 

[Trooper]

I merely request that the poster who wishes me to entertain the possibility that Oscar can and indeed DID scream exactly like the witnesses heard can give me a reason to do so..

Its not the first time I have politely requested this, either.. its now about the 10 th, but perserverance is no stranger to me..

I don't have ANY obligation to take what Oscar says as the definitive truth, in each and every particular.. that would be naieve of me.. Oscar has an agenda, as does anyone accused of murder and a defendant in the dock.. the question remains unanswered... what agenda do the witnesses have? .. none whatsoever and certainly none as provided by the poster who claims they have.. I'm prepared to consider that possibility if, and ONLY if the poster provides a foundation for that belief.. a simple claim that it IS so, without any qualification is vacuous.

 

[minor4th]

On the PM Charge

I am not an attorney, but attorney Gerrie Nel has said that PM charge does not require days, hours or even many minutes or such. It appears to be action based, and/or intent based.

I am paraphrasing or summarizing.

The Pros. has stated that the premeditation here is that an argument occurred in the bedroom, and that Reeva fled to the bathroom. By his own affidavit, Oscar has admitted to arming himself with his gun in the bedroom, and going to the bathroom. State alleges that he armed himself and went after Reeva in the bathroom with the intent to kill her and did kill her. State also alleges Oscar never ascertained that the person in the loo was of any threat to him. [And since we know who was in there, the unarmed Reeva, clearly Oscar never was threatened].

Oscar and DT apparently know the importance of the argument to the PM charge and so Oscar’s new statement several times swears there never was any argument between them that night.

JMOOC

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-online-antics-1.1651226

Likewise, I could say that Shipp, Burger and Johnson know the importance of hearing screams from a man and a woman (intermingled) and so they have sworn in their testimony that is what they heard - despite having completely failed to mention it in their police statements.

See how that goes? If that's your logic, you cannot selectively apply it only to Oscar's statements

 

[minor4th]

I merely request that the poster who wishes me to entertain the possibility that Oscar can and indeed DID scream exactly like the witnesses heard can give me a reason to do so..

Its not the first time I have politely requested this, either.. its now about the 10 th, but perserverance is no stranger to me..

I don't have ANY obligation to take what Oscar says as the definitive truth, in each and every particular.. that would be naieve of me.. Oscar has an agenda, as does anyone accused of murder and a defendant in the dock.. the question remains unanswered... what agenda do the witnesses have? .. none whatsoever and certainly none as provided by the poster who claims they have.. I'm prepared to consider that possibility if, and ONLY if the poster provides a foundation for that belief.. a simple claim that it IS so, without any qualification is vacuous.

Please see my post above addressing the exact same question. There's no need to keep repeating the question.

I am not claiming it is so, I'm saying (again) that it's too early in the trial to conclusively rule it out.

 

[Canadian4]

I'm asking because I really don't know the answer. Did the clocks change in SA this weekend?

 

[minor4th]

Trooper, I do not want to argue with you or get in some kind of contest of words. I am not trying to persuade you to change your beliefs - I'm simply stating mine and the reasons I have a different perception of the evidence.

It does not matter to me what anyone thinks of Oscar's guilt or innocence, and I have not even formed a conclusion.

 

[Trooper]

You don't have to entertain it. All I'm saying is wait until all the evidence is in before you make a conclusion that it's false and no matter what evidence is brought forth, you are not going to believe it no matter what.

I am a strong victim's advocate! Have I ever indicated anything resembling disrespect or disdain toward Reeva? No! It is horrible that she was killed, and it was Oscar's fault and he should be held accountable ..I'm just not willing to make a conclusion that it was definitely premeditated before the evidence is in.

I certainly hope that being "victim friendly" does not mean that we agree with the prosecution at all times and hope for a conviction irrespective of what the evidence shows.

simple question then.. is it your belief that Oscar can and did in fact scream exactly like a woman in terror would, and do you think Oscar can in fact replicate that scream , to the satisfaction of the court and witnesses to the scream in its exactitude??

if this is your belief, may I ask, in all fairness and with respect ( a little touch of Roux ) what the foundation of your belief is??

the foundation of my belief that he couldn't and didn't, and cant, is that (a) very few men can do it, (b) the person who testified that she has heard Oscar scream in rage rejects the proposition that he sounds like a woman, and (b) that the one time there is archival footage ( with sound) of Oscar in an incandescent rage ( London Olympics race that he lost), the biggest loss Oscar had endured , caught on camera, he is in a complete meltdown for about 10 mins, and doesn't scream with the pitch , frequency and timbre of a woman..

now its over to you, Minor.. your foundation for belief that he can. thankyou.