Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 16,722
Court adjourned till tomorrow as they don't have Dr Michelle Burgers husbands ipad notes. lol
I still can't see why this matters.
Court adjourned till tomorrow as they don't have Dr Michelle Burgers husbands ipad notes. lol
I'm not sure they actually have discovery in the SA judicial system - or not like the US does anyhow. Do any locals know how it works there?
excerpted quote:
Clearly, OP expected the intruder to dive out of the toilet window!
IMO there seems to be a LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHO SCREAMED AND WHEN.
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I would like us to work on a timeline for what the witnesses have told us so far. You are welcome to improve, correct and enhance this.
TIMELINE
1.56am Estelle woke up hearing voices assuming they were arguing as it was loud enough for her to hear. The female voice was louder than the male voice. There were gaps in the arguing/talking.
About 3am Michelle woke up to the screams of a woman and so did her husband, Charl, who went out on to the balcony to see if he could see anything. They assumed it was a breakin.
They tried to phone security but it was the wrong number.
The woman screamed again loudly which was blood curdling and increasing in intensity.
The man called help, help, help unemotionally
They then heard one shot
Then a gap then three more shots....eg bang......bang, bang, bang
Charl said he heard the shots which could have been 4, 5 or 6. (IMO that could have been because of the echo from the bathroom tiles.)
Throughout this time the woman was screaming until moments after the fourth bullet then silence and they went back to sleep.
Estelle heard four sounds that sounded like "bang, bang" and later heard a person crying. She thought it sounded like a woman's voice. She went into her husband's bedroom and he told her it was Pistorius crying.
Some people IMO are getting mixed up saying that either OP was heard crying before the shots - not later - or not mentioning the crying later .
IMO OP yelled help help help.........bang (pause) bang, bang bang....crying
Now Roux seems to have been trying to get Michelle to say that all the sounds heard were that of a male voice and that OP sounds like a woman when he screams.
Over to you now......
I think he tailored his original affidavit around facts that were known at the time. He had to have his own screaming in his version so it would match what was heard by witnesses. So in his version he was screaming to Reeva. In the witness version he was screaming while fighting with Reeva. I thnk his entire affi was written in this manner.
According to the below, even the prosecution has backed off the "prosthetics on" claim.
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/exclusive-documents-expose-prosecution-case-against-pistorius
Burger suggests mockery:
"Burger also said that the man she heard before the sound of the gunfire was calling for help, a piece of testimony that muddied the prosecution's narrative that Pistorius was the aggressor. Challenged by Roux, Burger speculated that perhaps the voice was that of Pistorius ridiculing Steenkamp's calls for help. 'Was it a mockery? I don't know. I'm not Mr. Pistorius,' she said."
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio..._calm_witness_cries_at_pistorius_murder_trial
Based on testimony, I'm gonna say there was an altercation going on and Reeva locked herself in the bathroom to hide from him. Seems logical.
I think you are confusing the meaning behind Roux fishing expedition here.. his agenda is plain, and necessary for his client.. but Charl is merely stating what he heard, and even though this is inconvenient for Roux and his client, Charl is re stating and re re stating his position.. as a witness should
I still can't see why this matters.
LOL!
That's true!
But my point was, that if this is a "story" he is telling to cover-up for intentional murder, then why would he claim that he was yelling at the intruder to get out as he was going to the bathroom? B/c, obviously, if it was Reeva in the bathroom, she would have just replied to him, "No, Oscar, it's just me!! Don't worry! It's just me!!"
Was this just a mistake on his part? He didn't think about this?
But the defense seems to have made other "adjustments" to his story? Yet they left part as be, apparently.
Just confusing.
That's kind of a good point - they said they thought the husband was shot until they heard the news about OP. Now, however, they testify about the fear and mortal danger conveyed in the woman's screams.
Charl just said that they thought the husband was shot because they heard the wife screaming after the shots ended. That is what they feel certain about, but it has now come out through yesterday's witness that it was actually Oscar crying and screaming after the shots ended. Given that, I don't think we can really rely on their statements about a woman screaming before and during the shooting either.
I'm just curious how you cannot see the discrepancies in their statements and their collaboration and embellishment since their police statements.
It's not just me and Roux saying they have misinterpreted - it could not have factually occurred in the new embellished manner they are now describing. If they heard screams after the shooting stopped, it could not have been Reeva, although it is quite clear that is what they believe.
Oh, I do see problems with Oscar's statements, and I'll be commenting on any discrepancies or embellishments when he testifies as well.
It's just that, what motive do these witnesses have to come on the stand and lie about what they heard? On the other hand, we have Oscar the defendant, who has beaucoup of incentive to lie.
I don't see any reason why this husband and wife are going to team up together to lie and say they heard something which they didn't hear. Or, embellish or simply add things or subtract things from what they heard that night.