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

[aa9511]

If I needed a lawyer, on present showing, Roux would be the last person I would choose. Half the time he is incoherent, changing tack mid sentence because some new idea has popped into his mind, forgets where he is, both verbally and in his notes. I don't think television has done him any favours. He may well rue the day (sorry about the pun). He seems to be going nowhere fast at the moment :back:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

I don't know hey, Roux is one of the best in this country, he is very highly respected, I wouldn't underestimate him, I don't know what game he is playing but I'm sure as hell convinced he is up to something...and soon enough I'm sure we will find out

I think he is very effective. This may come across as bumbling or bullying to those who are convinced OP is guilty of premeditated murder - but I assure you he is making his points and it will have an impact on the judge unless she is biased or incompetent.

Roux has successfully gotten the prosecution witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. When the state's witnesses' accounts cannot be reconciled, then you have to choose to believe one and not the others or discount all of them.

 

[minor4th]

All right, but that's just normal human behaviour that I would expect anyone to identify with. It doesn't make them liars.

Collaborating on their testimony does not in itself make them liars. What makes them liars is when they strongly insist that there was no collaboration and then it is proved that there was in fact collaboration.

 

[minor4th]

This couple did not offer to become witnesses until sometime after the event. I am sure, in the same situation, my family would have discussed what had happened on the day and for many days thereafter. IMO it would be the norm. It would worry me more if their accounts were different. I feel sure when they were asked to write their statement they would not have discussed what each had said. This couple came across as honest, open and dutiful and, thankfully, strong.

Well, that's my point - of course they discussed it because they are husband and wife. The problem is that they have denied discussing it, but then Charl had to admit that they had discussed it and even discussed it during the trial while they were waiting together in the witness area. Charl even knew exactly what Burger had said in her testimony - it's not unreasonable to believe that he watched a video replay of her testimony, and that is a problem because it discounts their reliability.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Truth be told, I don't know anyone that owns a gun, we have incredibly strict gun laws. Yes, we have very high levels of crime, hijacking and home invasions are daily occurrences but I believe there is crime everywhere in the world. The difference with us is the level of violence shown here, a "routine" home invasion usually ends in rape/torture/death..there is no mercy for children or the aged. We barricade ourselves in our homes, I live 2 streets away from my daughters school but she may not walk there, play in the street and I don't even know my immediate neighbours. People are randomly shot/stabbed for something trivial like a cellphone. We are used to it, this is our way of life. That being said, we have a huge influx of tourists who do enjoy the country and most make it home without incident. You just need to be cautious and ALWAYS aware. Hth

It is very sad to hear the difficulties with which you live. I have many SA friends who have moved to the UK because of the type of trouble you describe and are very happy here. In fact whole families now have come.

There only grumble is the weather!

However, OP is not living in the same circumstances as you and he cannot be judged as being in the type of danger that concerns you. He leads a very privileged existence.

 

[aa9511]

I think Roux is doing the best he can. He tried to poke as many holes as he could in the witnesses' testimonies. Unfortunately, or fortunately, when it's the truth it will withstand the barrage.

It it was one witness, I might say, they might be mistaken. But it's not one. It's not two - so far, it's three. And it doesn't matter to me if one is husband and wife - I do not see, nor have we been given, any reason for them to conspire against OP. Much less to the extent of making up a story, getting their stories "together," and then lying on the witness stand. Two completely independent people who have nothing to do with OP.

And then, on top of the husband and wife, there is another witness who is completely independent of the husband and wife, who also testified to hearing screams and a woman's screams.

I don't think the question is whether they are lying or not. I think the question is whether they could be mistaken in whose voice they heard in the screams.

***I also have to add, concerning the above (could they be mistaken in whose voice they heard), Roux was also trying to say that they could confuse the sound of a cricket bat hitting the door with gunfire (!!). So, because he did that, it makes me less likely to believe that the 3 witnesses are confused about hearing a woman's voice, and that it was actually OP's voice, but in a high pitch. Perhaps Roux shouldn't have tried to go the line of cricket bat = gunfire. Because, IMO, it makes OP defense less credible in the other issue, which is Reeva's screams = OP's screams.

JMO.

 

[sorrell skye]

James Grant, Ph.D. in criminal law and senior lecturer in criminal law and evidence at South Africa's University of the Witwatersrand, in an interview with CNN, explains SA's legal system.

The article is lengthy and contains a lot of info already known about the case, but also offers additional info about trial procedure and sentencing.

Referring to the Defense, he said:

"They could dispute everything, in which case there could be 'trials within trials,' " he said.

But he said the defense would have to balance that "against not appearing to challenge things for the sake of it" and alienating the court.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/index.html

Somebody needs to explain this to Roux. :judge:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Well, that's my point - of course they discussed it because they are husband and wife. The problem is that they have denied discussing it, but then Charl had to admit that they had discussed it and even discussed it during the trial while they were waiting together in the witness area. Charl even knew exactly what Burger had said in her testimony - it's not unreasonable to believe that he watched a video replay of her testimony, and that is a problem because it discounts their reliability.

I think that is a bit rich, how does it make their testimony unreliable? It doesn't mean they have changed anything they have attested to.

 

[Madeleine74]

If you are found lying or, let's say, dancing around a question at any point during your testimony, even if it's on a detail that shouldn't matter, your credibility as a witness will be questioned. It may not be fair, but that's what can make a witness look like they have something to hide.

Obviously there were screams. Obviously there were shots (4 of them). The exact sequence of them, along with who was screaming, is part of what will determine the outcome in the murder part of this case. It could be the difference between premeditated and not.

 

[MeeBee]

What I don't understand is why did Oscar shoot at all if he thought this was an intruder? He's got the man pinned down in an upstairs toilet. He's calling out to him that he has a gun and is calling the police. Why then unload into the door? And at no point before the final fatal shot did she scream out, being hit in the hip and such, causing Oscar to stop? I just don't buy his story.

I also had the same thought process as you, aa, that if he was on his stumps threatening her, she might not have been so deathly terrified and could have run out the door to safety. Which leaves me to believe he must have been threatening her with the gun before she ran to the bathroom. Maybe she brought her phone with the intention of calling the authorities, the door was locked and that's why he shot.

So far the minor inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and typical defense posturing are not enough to convince me that there wasn't some kind of altercation going on in the house before the shooting. All three heard shouting and screams. I don't imagine OP. Would be calling out to a would-be intruder in his girliest possible voice. Perhaps the one witness' husband said it was Oscar screaming because he could see that it was coming from his place and knowing him to live alone assumed it was him. Or perhaps it was his way of saying it's coming from his place, he must be in trouble.

At the least his guilty of gross and reckless negligence. At the worst he's guilty of cold blooded murder. I'd imagine it's somewhere in the middle.

 

[Rumpole]

I think he is very effective. This may come across as bumbling or bullying to those who are convinced OP is guilty of premeditated murder - but I assure you he is making his points and it will have an impact on the judge unless she is biased or incompetent.

Roux has successfully gotten the prosecution witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. When the state's witnesses' accounts cannot be reconciled, then you have to choose to believe one and not the others or discount all of them.

I agree.
Roux seems a little bumbling at times, and I wondered why he was taking so loooooong questioning MR... but in the end he got her to paint herself into a corner and appear stubborn (with an agenda) because she would not concede points in her testimony that were unlikely or even impossible. I think he has also clearly shown collusion with husband over testimonies.. and at the same time maneuvered her into denying it adamantly. That does bring her honesty in general into question in regards all her testimony.
I think (as always early in a trial) people should keep in mind that the Prosecution get to go first. You might expect them to be "winning" at this stage, but the Defense presentation is yet to come. Roux has given some hints of Expert testimony etc and other evidence that will counter what is being presented by Prosecution witnesses now. I get the impression he is setting some of that up now... and will "spring the trap" later.
As you imply... I have hopes that a Judge will "get it". With a Jury one can never be sure if a lot of good points are "wasted" on them.
<modsnip>

 

[sorrell skye]

Anyone know the current best estimate for the trial's duration.
I recall 2 weeks being said months ago. Now I gather it will be longer.

Anyone know what is now being claimed for the trial's duration?
TIA

Shane - I found this article that discusses the timeframe. It gives a range of 3 weeks to 4-6 months. I hope it doesn't last 6 months, but the way Roux is going, it just might.

In South Africa, courtrooms are booked in tranches of a few weeks at a time, so the first phase of Pistorius's trial will last three weeks beginning on March 3. Asking how long the trial will take "is akin to asking how long a piece of string is," legal expert Kelly Phelps said. "The chance of this being argued out over three weeks would be a small miracle."

If the trial follows an ordinary course, James Grant said, he would expect it to last four to six months -- but that would depend on how aggressively the defense challenged the prosecution's case.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/index.html

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think he is very effective. This may come across as bumbling or bullying to those who are convinced OP is guilty of premeditated murder - but I assure you he is making his points and it will have an impact on the judge unless she is biased or incompetent.

Roux has successfully gotten the prosecution witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. When the state's witnesses' accounts cannot be reconciled, then you have to choose to believe one and not the others or discount all of them.

I must have missed where he has got witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. Leaving aside the fact that Johnson may have spoken to his wife in the witness room, to which you have already alluded, where can I find these contradictions you mentioned that seem to have escaped me. I was open minded about whether this was an accident but after hearing OPs bail affidavit, you are right, I now think he is guilty <modsnip>

 

[Lyra500]

I am following this trial on two forums and on both there seems to be at least one member going all out to rubbish or undermine the testimony of the witnesses and push the angle that OP's version is the most feasible explanation and OP's lawyer has really got the witnesses on the ropes. I am totally bemused by this. Totally.

 

[shane13]

Shane - I found this article that discusses the timeframe. It gives a range of 3 weeks to 4-6 months. I hope it doesn't last 6 months, but the way Roux is going, it just might.



http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/index.html

Thanks Sorrell.

Hard to believe this could go for half a year!

But with Roux allowed to ask the same thing 8X or so, maybe that's possible.

 

[dgfred]

Not necessarily, if the truth was told from the beginning, if anyone got into trouble or lost their license, I believe it would have been the licensed gun owner, for having it unholstered in a public place and for negligence. OP could have quite possibly have walked away with nothing more than a warning.

Not only that... even if lost license I believe that person could still get a gun.

 

[minor4th]

I think that is a bit rich, how does it make their testimony unreliable? It doesn't mean they have changed anything they have attested to.

If they are lying about collaborating their testimonies, it calls into question whether they are lying about their accounts. Simple logic.

 

[minor4th]

I must have missed where he has got witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. Leaving aside the fact that Johnson may have spoken to his wife in the witness room, to which you have already alluded, where can I find these contradictions you mentioned that seem to have escaped me. I was open minded about whether this was an accident but after hearing OPs bail affidavit, you are right, I now think he is guilty BUT I also feel you come across as an OP apologist and that concerns me if you really have anything to do with the law.

Sorry you missed it. If you listen to all three neighbor witnesses their discrepancies are clear.

 

[Carol70]

It is very sad to hear the difficulties with which you live. I have many SA friends who have moved to the UK because of the type of trouble you describe and are very happy here. In fact whole families now have come.

There only grumble is the weather!

However, OP is not living in the same circumstances as you and he cannot be judged as being in the type of danger that concerns you. He leads a very privileged existence.

Thank you. I'm married to a British subject so we have options but not quite ready to throw in the towel. This country does have a lot of potential and it's very beautiful

And our criminals don't care for security, wealth, race etc. OP is no more privileged in existence than I am when it comes to crime. Just a few weeks ago, our very own esteemed deputy prime minister was subject to a home invasion lolol. I assure you, with his government position, he would have very good security.

http://bahamaspress.com/2013/12/09/...ery-at-the-home-of-the-deputy-prime-minister/

 

[dgfred]

Well it could be seen as 'collaborating' or just 'discussing' about what they had heard depending on what that person viewing them wants it to look like.