Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

[Cherwell]

Well she was apparently mistaken about hearing the woman after the shots. If you want to take her testimony as absolute truth, that's fine. I think the point has been made that her testimony may not be so reliable.

I am not debating this from any position on Oscar's innocence or guilt. I have no idea what happened. I'm just giving my take on the witnesses. It is only my opinion - everyone has one. The only one that matters is the judge's.

That's all irrelevant to my point.

You said that Mrs Burger "should concede that it is possible that the screams she heard were a distressed male instead of a female". I repeat that she heard two distinct voices and was able to compare them.

 

[shane13]

He wasn't accusing her of lying - he was asking if she could even consider an alternate possibility if the evidence suggested such.

I heard experts on WW say she was uncooperative and was not answering the questions, but instead giving lengthy explanations of her position when a "yes" or "no" or "I don't remember" was called for.

When I am preparing a witness for trial, I always tell them to just answer honestly, do not argue with the other lawyer or get defensive or angry. You notice the last witness went much faster, and that's because she was reasonable and simply telling the truth as she remembers; when she didn't remember, she said so. She was not trying to frame her testimony in a manner that could only benefit the prosecution. IMO she was a much more believable witness and her account should be given consideration and weight.

BBM
I think you may have the temporal order wrong.

the very reason she was giving lengthy "explanations" seemed to me was because Roux was allowed to keep badgering on the same question(s).

I am not an attorney, but follow much and have friends...

I believe in the USA, with the very 2nd attempt to ask the same question, the awake attorney jumps in and says, "Objection. Already asked and answered."

But Roux was allowed to ask again and again, and this made this witness answer the way she did.

 

[minor4th]

Is this the husband of the first witness?

 

[Trooper]

When I am preparing a witness for trial, I always tell them to just answer honestly, do not argue with the other lawyer or get defensive or angry.

edited by me


she did answer honestly... she heard two voices, she made statement to the police that she heard two voices, male and female.. she testified on the stand that she heard two voices,, male and female.. what is dishonest about that>>> ???

if that's what she heard.. it would be ridiculous for her to lie and say, well maybe not, merely because the defence wants that from her.. it is a very important point, I am sure you will agree, but what would be achieved if she lied and said, maybe not.. maybe I lied in my statement, and maybe I am lying now , because you say I am ? if I am testifying to what I heard and it is almost a nail in the coffin for your client, and is an awkward testimony for your client, should I therefore lie to make it more comfortable for him> ??

 

[minor4th]

BBM
I think you may have the temporal order wrong.

the very reason she was giving lengthy "explanations" eemed to me was because Roux was allowed to keep badgering onthe same question(s).

I am not an attorney, but follow much and have friends...

I believe in the USA, with the very 2nd attempt to ask the same question, the awake attorney jumps in and says, "Objection. Already asked and answered."

But Roux was allwoed to ask again and again, and this made this witness answer the way she did.

The prosecutor did jump up and object and say the same question was asked and answered 6 or 7 times, and the judge overruled him and commented that she didn't think the witness had actually answered the question yet.

I think the witness was trying too hard not to give an answer that would benefit the defense - and as a result she kept going into long narratives that didn't really answer the question that was asked. The judge interrupted at one point and sternly lectured the witness to just answer the questions and stop going into explanations unless an explanation is asked for.

Reasonable people can disagree on what happened and what it means

 

[Cherwell]

The prosecutor did jump up and object and say the same question was asked and answered 6 or 7 times, and the judge overruled him and commented that she didn't think the witness had actually answered the question yet.

I think the witness was trying too hard not to give an answer that would benefit the defense - and as a result she kept going into long narratives that didn't really answer the question that was asked. The judge interrupted at one point and sternly lectured the witness to just answer the questions and stop going into explanations unless an explanation is asked for.

Reasonable people can disagree on what happened and what it means

What was the question?

 

[shane13]

The prosecutor did jump up and object and say the same question was asked and answered 6 or 7 times, and the judge overruled him and commented that she didn't think the witness had actually answered the question yet.

I think the witness was trying too hard not to give an answer that would benefit the defense - and as a result she kept going into long narratives that didn't really answer the question that was asked. The judge interrupted at one point and sternly lectured the witness to just answer the questions and stop going into explanations unless an explanation is asked for.

Reasonable people can disagree on what happened and what it means

If the judge said that, there may be a fascinating ruling coming...

To me,it seems that you, Roux, Judge (if what you say is true) actually want a witness to knuckle under and change their testimony.

Or to give the mindless response: "OK anything's possible."
Sorry that is often not the case.

Kudos to this witness. JMO

 

[Trooper]

I think Roux saw Ms Burger as a very very dangerous witness,, no doubt that's why the prosecutor put her up first... What she heard has tremendous connotations for Oscars explanation of the events that resulted in Reeva's murder.. her testimony tips the whole defence on the back foot, and its in recovery already.

 

[minor4th]

If the judge said that, there may be a fascinating ruling coming...

To me,it seems that you, Roux, Judge (if what you say is true) actually want a witness to knuckle under and change their testimony.

Or to give the mindless response: "OK anything's possible."
Sorry that is often not the case.

Kudos to this witness. JMO

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I want a witness who has important information to be a good witness and come across as reasonable and able to consider different possibilities when presented with new facts and evidence. I am concerned the judge may discount her testimony.

 

[minor4th]

What was the question?

I don't remember.

 

[Trooper]

What was the question?

the witness statement Ms Burger.. was... that she heard two voices.. a woman screaming , terrible screaming from the woman.. BEFORE she heard the shots fired.. then a man screaming.

this rattled Mr Roux into a frenzy of trying, against all the odds, of getting this witness to retract, redo, re think her testimony in each and every particular of her statement. It went on for ages, but she merely expanded her particulars, and never wavered.. she heard that, that what she testifies to and that's how it is.

 

[Cherwell]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I want a witness who has important information to be a good witness and come across as reasonable and able to consider different possibilities when presented with new facts and evidence. I am concerned the judge may discount her testimony.

What were the new facts and evidence?
(I haven't been following the trial in depth)

 

[zwiebel]

Oh great. Looks like I got back just in time for the end of proceedings.

There is a concise summary of events at this link. This pic is what I couldn't take my eyes off in court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rial-Witness-heard-argument-before-shots.html

 

[Really?]

What a circus....who still has their feed up. This guy/reporter keeps practicing his report.

 

[zwiebel]

Putting your hands over your ears doesn't actually stop a person hearing anything. I just tried it at home.

 

[Trooper]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I want a witness who has important information to be a good witness and come across as reasonable and able to consider different possibilities when presented with new facts and evidence. I am concerned the judge may discount her testimony.

Mr Roux did not give new facts or new evidence . I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. He stated , that he thought that she may be mistaken..he gave no evidence or facts for this remark.. none at all. He merely stated over and over in various ways that she may be mistaken, but he gave no platform or facts , or evidence for this proposal. Perhaps you heard something I didn't . so if there were, surprisingly and astonishingly new facts and evidence given under oath from the DEFENCE lawyer, that would be headline stuff.. please do expand on this.

 

[Cherwell]

the witness statement Ms Burger.. was... that she heard two voices.. a woman screaming , terrible screaming from the woman.. BEFORE she heard the shots fired.. then a man screaming.

this rattled Mr Roux into a frenzy of trying, against all the odds, of getting this witness to retract, redo, re think her testimony in each and every particular of her statement. It went on for ages, but she merely expanded her particulars, and never wavered.. she heard that, that what she testifies to and that's how it is.

That's the impression I've got but was there a specific question that she didn't answer? I can't see anything myself, but I haven't been following in depth.

 

[shane13]

Fascinating listening online to the so-called talking heads--after the day in Court--that whoop station.

And the man is repeating Roux' statements as gospel truth. He is parroting (as I excpect the MSM to do) the how could Dr. Burger hear anything from 177 m with the bathroom window closed?

But as I noted above, OP's bail Affidavit says that window was open and was the very reason he cited for his alleged fear and for shooting into the toilet door!

I had to shut it off.

 

[Trooper]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I want a witness who has important information to be a good witness and come across as reasonable and able to consider different possibilities when presented with new facts and evidence. I am concerned the judge may discount her testimony.

What I think has happened here , is there is some confusion about 'new facts and evidence' as opposed to what is merely Mr Roux opinion, or hope, or whatever.... I checked back with the transcript and at no part of it does Mr Roux, under oath , present new facts, or / and evidence to the court in the matter of Mr Pretorious.

 

[soozieqtips]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I want a witness who has important information to be a good witness and come across as reasonable and able to consider different possibilities when presented with new facts and evidence. I am concerned the judge may discount her testimony.

So it would have been okay if she'd said to Roux: "I accept that a man screaming might sound like a woman screaming to you - but since I heard 2 different voices, I don't accept that it was one person"?

I don't see any other way she could word it without adding doubt to her own testimony, and she seemed very sure about it.