There is definitely some witness confusion (ETA: "difference in testimony") on this according to my timeline, which I put together some while ago. Dr Stipp has 'help, help, help' shouted after second set of 'shots', which makes sense and is also in keeping with OP phoning for help at the same time also. I think Berger and Johnson have 'help, help, help' before, as you say. Not sure what to make of this. I'll listen to their testimony again tomorrow. They can't all be right.
Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
FL - Doug Benefield, 58, shot and killed by estranged wife, Manatee County, 27 Sept 2020- Latest: nodamselindistress
- Status
There is definitely some witness confusion (ETA: "difference in testimony") on this according to my timeline, which I put together some while ago. Dr Stipp has 'help, help, help' shouted after second set of 'shots', which makes sense and is also in keeping with OP phoning for help at the same time also. I think Berger and Johnson have 'help, help, help' before, as you say. Not sure what to make of this. I'll listen to their testimony again tomorrow. They can't all be right.
In his closing argument without proof I agree.
Why didn't he do this during the trial?
Horse/cart/door/bolted.....................whatever..................judge and assessors are not idiots and nor are people on here with all due respect
Angela Carr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 9
I agree with you to a certain extent.
I don't think Nel needs to argue his case anymore and definitely not by discrediting the defence.
In a game of poker..............Nel already has a full house................5 witnesses to Reeva screaming for her life.
The rest ( bat strikes/gun shots/distance away/curtains in the way/light on) really are all academic.
OP executed her quite simply no doubt about it..................Roux is muddying the waters as he must.
As a lawyer I'm surprised/nay astounded you cannot see this?
Not once has the defence refuted the ear witness testimony of the 5 witnesses with concrete evidence they didn't hear what they heard.
Are you honestly telling me the judge and her 2 assessors are going to rule that ear testimony out?
Forget about the rest of the evidence.................Nel knows this is the crucial piece of the jigsaw and has left 'well alone' pieces that would only fog the issue..................jeans outside bathroom window in garden/damage to bedroom door/pellet hole through bedroom door/smashed bath panel etc etc.
AIMVOHOOC
Agree, absolutely.
But what does AIMVOHOOC mean?
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Why do you want more time after the gunshots…?
OP kicked the door panel and pried it out… unlocked and opened the toilet door… dragged Reeva's body outside into the bathroom… went into the bedroom to grab his phone and dialed Stander… all this in 3-4 minutes
How much more time do you think OP required to do that ?
Having OP's "explanation" for the screams does not negate the corroborated ear witness testimonies
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
The court transcripts are in english… but a recording is also available.
All in my very own humble opinion of course (IMO, I'm guessing!)
Angela Carr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 9
What did Lux say?!!!!?
I believe the defence also supplied a transcript to the judge of the testimony that was given in Afrikaans
Exchange973
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 0
Well on the Defence's case the shots were between 3:12-3:14, so that leaves only 5 minutes before the first call. In that time he went to the bedroom, searched for her there, put on his legs (30 secs approx), went back to the bathroom, kicked the door, back to the bedroom, hit the door with the bat, broke down a panel, took reeva out of the toilet, went back to the bedroom and made the call.
Plenty to be doing in 5 minutes. Not enough time to do in one and a half mins as the state has been forced to argue (or at least there is reasonable doubt there).
Angela Carr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 9
ah ... I see what rouxs doing, the smarmy marmot.
Scrambled to have daddy pistorius belatedly take the rap for the .38 ammo (omgwtfseriously? Lol) + have baby boy pistorius bravely admit negligence for the tashas shooting - all in the wildly desperate hope that once my lady sees how contrite oscar is, how hes finally manned up, has plead guilt on this gun charge, she will be moved by admiration and pity to acquit him of murder and ch. Who could possibly send such an honest, heroic boy to prison? Why, the dear angel could never have shot four black talons into a screaming, terrified, trapped woman!
[oscar smiles sweetly here and bats his innocent eyes: im really busy tweeting more sappy, sanctimonious bible-tweets ... And furiously planning a lavish private getaway to the mozambique coast on tripadvisor.com and whatsapping some blonde chick named keleavia, who says shes the head cheerleader of the we luv u oscar! Fan club. Awesome. But, shes so gonna have to get rid of those cheezy, annoying white balloons - totally not good for the oscar brand and well, they just terrify me when they pop. Hell, if things really go south (i have thrown everyone but god under the bus, haven't i?), i may just stay in mozambique with bambi or summer or kaleesa or whatever the f her name is, i dont remember! You can't make me!]
oh, hell, no!
I believe my lady will clearly see that oscar pistorius is now officially a f##king documented liar.
He lied about tasha's - why wouldn't he lie about feb. 14 - far more serious?
His perjured testimony should be stricken from the record in its entirety.
Then whats left?
Nel. :d
remember - the bull dog took down jackie selebi, ex-national commissioner of south african police services and ex-president of interpol. If he can bring down big game like selebi, a pathetic weasel like oscar doesnt stand a chance.
(wonder if Össur makes cheetah flex-foot in prison orange?
lol!!
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Not at all. I have an open mind. I started wanting/believing to find OP guilty, but now I'm not so sure. But anyway, we'll find out the verdict soon enough
Jeez…
4 witnesses say they saw a red car… the color of the car is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his red car could not be the one the witnesses saw because he was driving fast making his car appear grey… that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the color of the car they saw… it does NOT transform the color of the car from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the accused was driving fast.
4 witnesses say they heard a woman scream… the sex of the person screaming is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his voice changes to a woman's voice when he is scared...that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the sex of the person screaming… it does NOT transform the sex of the person screaming from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the accused was scared and that when scared his voice does change into a woman's voice.
The witnesses did NOT say it was a woman screaming because they were told that a woman had been killed.
An inference is when you deduce an unknown fact from a known one… this is NOT the case with the screaming.
Look it up… it might enlightened you on legal terminology.
Why does he need to do all of this? Reeva has stopped screaming so all of his going and froing, screaming all the while is unnecessary.
Exchange973
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 0
Jeez…
4 witnesses say they saw a red car… the color of the car is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his red car could not be the one the witnesses saw because he was driving fast at night making his car appear grey… that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the color of the car they saw… it does NOT transform the color of the car from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
4 witnesses say they heard a woman scream… the sex of the person screaming is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his voice changes to a woman's voice when he is scared...that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the sex of the person screaming… it does NOT transform the sex of the person screaming from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
The witnesses did NOT say it was a woman screaming because they were told that a woman had been killed.
An inference is when you deduce an unknown fact from a known one… this is NOT the case with the screaming.
Look it up… it might enlightened you on legal terminology.
Thanks - but no need, I'm a qualified and practising barrister so I know legal terminology. Please don't forget that they didn't just hear a woman screaming - they heard a a man too. Both (male and female) were in fear of their life. Both (male and female) were anxious screams. Remember, burger's initial reaction was that the man had been killed in front of the woman. It simply isn't consistent with an argument that got out of hand for witnesses to have heard OP screaming in terror and anxiously.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Do tell where the "between 3:12-3:14" comes from.
BiB.. now you are down to 1.5 minutes… why not say 30 seconds… the time is 3-4 minutes : from 3:15-3:16 to 3:19
Just hate it when posters bend the facts more and more to suit their arguments...
I also don't get why so many don't think premeditated will stick, what else would you call deliberately, supposedly during a moment of blind panic in the "pitch black" bedroom, going and getting your gun from a location that you normally didn't keep it, unholstering it, making sure it was primed, cocked(whatever it's called) and ready to fire, then running/walking/creeping down a hallway, bracing yourself against a wall/counter and then shooting four separate times/pulls through a closed door into a room where you were convinced that a live person was, oh and then stopping short of emptying the cartridge, just in case you needed to shoot again?
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,490
- Reaction score
- 16,579
I am more cynical, and I suggest that Pistorius shouted for help to add to the plausibility of his "intruder" story. The whole "I thought she was an intruder" excuse is such an obvious one that he would have needed no time to think it up.
I've never given any weight to the mockery suggestion, I think Ms Burger came up with it in desperation to shut Roux up. It doesn't sound very likely to me.
BIB This simply isn't consistent with OP not hearing/knowing it was Reeva.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,490
- Reaction score
- 16,579
Oh, they did, did they? I wouldn't trust a word of that.
Exchange973
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 0
Defence case is shots were between 3:12-3:14 - have you actually read their Heads of Argument.....? It makes the point clearly e.g. para. 284. I'm not bending the facts at all - just stating the Defence's case.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Nice try… but utterly unconvincing.
You adopt Burger and Johnson to make this point but on other occasions you will say they cannot hear, or they are not credible or reliable, etc… make up your mind.
If they heard both a man and a woman screaming… then OP could not have screamed alternatively with a man's and a woman's voice, now could he ?… even less so with intermingling of the 2 distinct voices… unless OP is the best ventriloquist that the world has ever seen !!!
That means Reeva was screaming… and therefore OP knew he was shooting at Reeva… ergo murder.
- Status