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

[Cherwell]

Court adjourned till tomorrow as they don't have Dr Michelle Burgers husbands ipad notes. lol

I still can't see why this matters.

 

[rachael123]

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?

Thanks for all the updates.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Due to prior engagements, I had to miss most of today's proceedings. Many thanks to all of you who keep us posted as to what is happening. We have special report here in the UK at 9.30 pm each day. I am looking forward to that. It won't be quite like watching it live though

 

[aa9511]

excerpted quote:
Clearly, OP expected the intruder to dive out of the toilet window!

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.

 

[aa9511]

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......

Good job!!

What I get from the testimony so far is that there is no doubt, IMO, that a woman was screaming. There is confusion, IMO, as to what sounds were coming out of OP's mouth and when.

 

[aa9511]

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.

So did his defense know what the witnesses had said at the time when this original affidavit was written?

But I'm not talking about where he screams at Reeva to call the police or whatever he says.

I'm talking about in the graphic, where it says OP thought there was an intruder in the bathroom, and as he's going to the bathroom, he's screaming at the intruder to get out.

TIA.

 

[aa9511]

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

That is surprising b/c, if the bat was used to hit Reeva, how could he have done that with his stumps on w/o Reeva being able to find the key and run out of the house?

IDK, unless she couldn't find the key, but one would assume that would just be on the key chain in a place she knew.

I am just having trouble imagining how he would be able to threaten her with a bat or just threaten her in general with his stumps (w/o his prosthetics on).

OMG UNLESS HE WAS THREATENING HER WITH THE GUN BEFORE SHE RAN INTO THE BATHROOM.

 

[aa9511]

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

Wow, just like someone on here mentioned.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Going on one of my previous posts, I am now thinking he was threatening her with the gun, which is what caused her to run into the bathroom, the closest place of refuge she could think of, where she could lock herself and there was a barrier b/w her and Oscar.

I believe that if he was on his stumps, she would have had to feel very threatened to go into that bathroom and run away from him. It was an immediate threat, IMO.

IMO he had that gun pointed at herstarting in the bedroom.

 

[aa9511]

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

Any defense lawyer would do this.

I saw what he was doing with Burger, he was throwing the kitchen sink at her trying to get something to stick.

He claims she couldn't hear, she couldn't hear right, she is making things up with her husband, etc..

 

[aa9511]

Not to mention, there is also the other (3rd, independent) witness who heard a woman's screams.

 

[zwiebel]

I have such an uneasy feeling about this trial. I personally believe OP did murder Reeva, in a rage because she wouldn't open the bathroom door and was going to expose he had threated her by calling police or - like she did before - her mom.

But all the witnesses so far - including Reeva's mom - have demonstrated that, if there is one person reckless and impulsive enough to fire a gun through a closed bathroom door, it is Oscar P.

Nobody, as far as I can see, has testified to anything that suggests this is a man capable of murder. Perhaps a former girlfriend or friend will have information that's more revealing of the anger issues I believe he has. If not, I fear reckless, accidental death will be easily proved, but deliberate murder will be a huge struggle.

I hope I'm wrong.

ETA: Reeva's mom hasn't testified, I know. I'm talking about her story of Reeva's panicked call from Oscar's car.

 

[canny]

I still can't see why this matters.

If the defence is adamant that they want to investigate Charl Johnson’s ipad notes thoroughly which he claimed in his court testimony to have written within few a days after the night in question on the advice of his attorney and only then will they be able to proceed with his cross examination,since he happens to a very crucial witness for the prosecution the judge has no option but to adhere to their request to avoid any demand for declaring a miss trial if the final verdict goes against their client. It’s obvious that during the lunch break Roux made it quite clear to My Lady in her chamber that Johnson’s notes are crucial evidence which the prosecution should have collected and submitted as evidence to the defence team , she without any doubt must have censured the prosecutor for this glaring anomaly that is portraying her court in an undignified manner. The judge at all times has to be seen as completely neutral even if during the past two days there is sufficient evidence that the Prosecution has not done its homework properly that is making My Lady’s court proceedings look farcical.


Whenever trial proceedings in high profile cases are adjourned repeatedly for long durations due to blunders by the State, the spin doctors in the defence team go to town bragging about the psychological and moral defeat they have inflicted on the prosecution.

 

[dgfred]

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.

If she was in the bathroom and heard him suddenly yell 'get out'... she may have wondered who the heck he was yelling at and been stunned for a second or two. Then he shot.

I believe even if on his stumps he could have held the gun over his head to fire at what he thought was the correct level. The bat doesn't mean too much to me.

I think maybe he saw her phone or something and it caused a big fight. After all... why would they be fighting if she brought him a valentine's gift?
Why would she bring a gift if she was already upset with him?
I think he flew into a rage for some reason.

 

[aa9511]

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.

:scared::scared::scared:

But I thought all 3 witnesses say they heard a woman screaming? How could all 3 be mistaken, all 3 misunderstood, all 3 confused, all 3 "heard wrong"??

And Burger was adamant that she heard 2 distinct, separate voices.

 

[aa9511]

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.

I thought they all said that the woman's scream "faded away" after the last shot?

 

[aa9511]

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.

 

[dgfred]

I don't think he would have needed the bat to hurt Reeva... but she ran to the bathroom before he could get hold of her regardless. Once there the only way he could harm her quickly was by gun.

 

[zwiebel]

As far as I can make out, original investigators told witnesses to write down their personal memories of what they heard, then took official statements from them. Maybe allowing them to refer to their personal notes when they made their official statements?

And prosecution didn't realize how important that would be, so just came to court with the official statements. If the notes are found, there are sure to be discrepancies between what civilian witnesses wrote down on their own time, and statements taken by (Hopefully) experienced investigators.

I'm quite shocked investigators asked potential witnesses to write personal, memory jogger statements, in addition to their official statements. I'd have thought the potential for a conflict in court later would have been obvious.

 

[dgfred]

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.

I don't really see a problem with adapting your story some too... after discussing with a sensible person what you both heard. They heard screaming which was out of the ordinary.

OP may have been fake screaming, yelling high pitched, etc anyway at different times. He needed to act devastated once he realized he had killed her too... whether he meant to or not.