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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Husband- I heard this and this... then that.

Wife- I heard this and that... but I didn't hear the other.

Husband- Maybe you are right... I had just woke up.

Wife- No, I think you are right as I had not even got out of bed yet.

Is that lying? Discussing? Collaborating? Or What?
 
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>[

<modsnip>

Yes, I believe a lot of Roux' questioning is geared towards laying foundation for future witnesses and evidence. He has gotten Burger to lock in on her testimony - and while some see that as strong for the prosecution, I believe it will come back to harm their case and discredit Burger's account.

Some have suggested that I am invested in OP's innocence, but that is not at all the case. I am simply commenting on the witnesses who have testified so far. There's no way to make a determination of guilt or innocence or even the credibility of the witnesses after such a limited presentation so far.
 
I don't believe the case rest on whether the ear-witnesses got everything right.

I believe the evidence in the home and the actions of OP tell plenty.
 
Husband- I heard this and this... then that.

Wife- I heard this and that... but I didn't hear the other.

Husband- Maybe you are right... I had just woke up.

Wife- No, I think you are right as I had not even got out of bed yet.

Is that lying? Discussing? Collaborating? Or What?

That is discussing, but it's also influencing each other's perception and recollection of events. I think everyone would agree is a normal interaction between husband and wife, but it affects the independence and reliability of their accounts because there's no way to know exactly who influenced whom on what aspects. Then to come to court and lie about ever having that type of discussion, it makes it look like they have an agenda and will even lie to accomplish their desired result.
 
rather disturbing evidence from the Tashies restaurant owner here.... first instinct to lie.. and get someone to lie for him..

I agree.

While Roux is focused on undermining the credibility of the trial witnesses, he hopes everyone will turn a blind eye to the fact that his own client has a very recent history of lying to avoid responsibility for his actions i.e. possible criminal charges resulting from those actions.

Although Lerena's testimony was pertaining to the firearm charge, it also casts doubt on OP's credibility.

He lied before regarding a serious incident. As good ol' Dr. Phil says: "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior".

Why should anyone believe what OP says regarding the night he killed Reeva when he has already demonstrated that he's a liar?
 
Husband- I heard this and this... then that.

Wife- I heard this and that... but I didn't hear the other.

Husband- Maybe you are right... I had just woke up.

Wife- No, I think you are right as I had not even got out of bed yet.

Is that lying? Discussing? Collaborating? Or What?


It's normal behaviour, and it's quite unrealistic to forbid such discussion. So the witnesses are in a cleft stick. Either they admit to discussing it when they have been told not to do so, or they deny it and are accused of lying. They can't win.

If there are discrepancies among the witness accounts, that's quite normal too, since some people have better recall than others. I believe all three are giving honest accounts of what they remember. They may not be 100% accurate, but that too is normal.
 
Well, if you ask them if they were collaborating they probably would say no.

If you asked them if they discussed it they probably would say yes.

So I would guess they think they are NOT lying regardless of the wording. Not agenda IMO.
 
<modsnip>

Yes, I believe a lot of Roux' questioning is geared towards laying foundation for future witnesses and evidence. He has gotten Burger to lock in on her testimony - and while some see that as strong for the prosecution, I believe it will come back to harm their case and discredit Burger's account.

Some have suggested that I am invested in OP's innocence, but that is not at all the case. I am simply commenting on the witnesses who have testified so far. There's no way to make a determination of guilt or innocence or even the credibility of the witnesses after such a limited presentation so far.

I have taken to heart the words of my (fictional) namesake, "Rumpole of The Bailey":
The GOLDEN THREAD that runs through British (and US) Justice system is the Presumption of innocence.

[video=youtube;Ua9QU6RjGcg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua9QU6RjGcg[/video]

And stemming from that is the(considerable) BURDEN that the prosecution has to present and PROVE a case beyond reasonable doubt.
We have, as a society, intentionally chosen to weight the system towards letting guilty people walk free, rather than risk convicting an innocent man.
In this case the Burden is on the prosecution to disprove what OP claims. To present an alternative that is supported by evidence and testimony beyond reasonable doubt.
It's early days, but they have not done that so far.
 
Ok, here are some questions for those of you who do not believe that the the witnesses have contradicted each other and believe that these witnesses have successfully discredited Oscar's statements:

1. When did Oscar scream "help, help, help" - before, during or after the shots were fired?

2. Who screamed after the shots were fired, Oscar or Reeva?

3. On the night of the shooting, did the husband and wife hear a woman's screams that sounded fearful and like her life was in danger? Or did they hear a confrontation that made them believe a house intrusion was happening and the husband was shot in front of the wife?

4. Was Burger awoken by a woman's screams or by her husband jumping out of bed when he heard screams or gunshots?

5. Did Burger and Johnson discuss their statements and testimony or did they not?
 
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.

The fact is that Reeva is dead and Oscar admits to killing her although he says it was an accident. He put 4 shots through a closed door.

If the Judge rules that it was murder, he goes away for 25 yrs. If she rules he didn't kill Reeva intentionally, she can either put him away for up to 15 yrs or give him an non-custodial sentence. I think he's going to jail either way.
 
I think asking any witness to opine on what was occurring inside the residence is wrong. A witness can only say what they heard, how it sounded, and when they heard it. What it means should be for the judge to decide (or a jury if there were a jury trial).

I could come up with a whole narrative around sounds I hear but that doesn't make my narrative correct. And it's not relevant except for the fact I heard sounds at xyz time, in this order, and to me it sounded like (female, male, animal). The meaning of what was behind those sounds is not something an ear witness can possibly say with any accuracy.
 
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.

I agree.
 
1. After or it was Reeva before the shots.
2. Reeva first, then OP fake worried.
3. Not sure what they were hearing.
4. She awoke with her husband jumping out of bed and screams happening.
5. They discussed what they had heard/did.
 
1. After or it was Reeva before the shots.
2. Reeva first, then OP fake worried.
3. Not sure what they were hearing.
4. She awoke with her husband jumping out of bed and screams happening.
5. They discussed what they had heard/did.

And if Reeva screamed at any point, before or after, shouldn't, Oscar have heard her too and stopped shooting? He says the only way he figured out it might be Reeva in the toilet was that he saw she wasn't in bed. Nothing about her screaming...
 
I think asking any witness to opine on what was occurring inside the residence is wrong. A witness can only say what they heard, how it sounded, and when they heard it. What it means should be for the judge to decide (or a jury if there were a jury trial).

I could come up with a whole narrative around sounds I hear but that doesn't make my narrative correct. And it's not relevant except for the fact I heard sounds at xyz time, in this order, and to me it sounded like (female, male, animal). The meaning of what was behind those sounds is not something an ear witness can possibly say with any accuracy.
I agree.
An ear witness should report what they hear.
IMO MB goes way beyond that. She has an idea IMPRINTED in her mind of what transpired, and she is trying to promote what she imagines with her testimony (and what she has got her husband to testify to).
"Blood curdling" "Woman in extreme distress and fear" etc are not part of what she heard, but rather part of what she imagines. And she will not concede that other interpretations are not only possible, but are far more likely.
She (they) think they heard female and male at various points but they can no testify to that as a fact.
The phone call times sort of PROVE that the bangs they heard were from the cricket bat on the door. If you accept that at least for the sake of argument, then the timing suggests that all they heard was after the shots (while they were asleep)... and their testimony with cries and calls for help is a confirmation of what OP says he did after the shooting.
 
My responses in red.

Ok, here are some questions for those of you who do not believe that the the witnesses have contradicted each other and believe that these witnesses have successfully discredited Oscar's statements:


1. When did Oscar scream "help, help, help" - before the shots were fired or after? Based on witness testimony, I believe he yelled out help before the gunshots, possibly mocking Reeva. It's interesting to me that Ms. Burger had considered that possibility, as there had been a few of us here on this forum, including myself, who had entertained the same notion (I believe it was whiterum who first posted about it prior to Ms. Burger stating so in court the following day).

2. Who screamed after the shots were fired, Oscar or Reeva? At least two posters (IIRC, they were Shane and Interested Bystander) have posted information regarding bullets and the sound barrier. Apparently, the sound of a gunshot travels at a faster rate of speed than the human voice. I think it's entirely possible that what was described as the "fading" of Reeva's final scream following the 4th gunshot was due to this phenomenon.

3. On the night of the shooting, did the husband and wife hear a woman's screams that sounded fearful and like her life was in danger? Or did they hear a confrontation that made them believe a house intrusion was happening and the husband was shot in front of the wife? I think both these possibilities crossed their minds as events unfolded that night. Since they could only hear (and not see) what was going on, their minds went to what were logical scenarios.

4. Was Burger awoken by a woman's screams or by her husband jumping out of bed when he heard screams or gunshots? Ms. Burger testified that she was awakened by screaming. Mr. Johnson testified that he jumped out of bed when he heard the screams. I don't believe he could know with precise certainty when his wife woke up or what caused her to be startled awake as he does not reside in her mind or body. Only Ms. Burger can attest to that and she affirms it was the screams that awoke her.

5. Did Burger and Johnson discuss their statements and testimony or did they not? I believe over the course of this past year, they have talked to one another regarding what happened on that fateful night. I don't believe they collaborated to arrive at similar versions, as Roux would like the Judge to believe. I think it's perfectly natural for two people who live together & have been together for a number of years to share a similar vocabulary. I believe they are credible witnesses who testified as to what they each individually heard and pondered on the night of the shooting.
 
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.

bbm

Yes, Meebee, that sounds very possible and likely.

Let's go to the witness today, who said basically, he told him to take the rap for it b/c basically, it would bring him a lot of unwanted/unneeded attention.

People had put the "hero" light on him from the last Olympics.

His story had potential to make him so much money after the Olympics in terms of endorsements.

He had to keep his "hero" status/good name. He couldn't have it going around that he shot a gun in the middle of a crowded restaurant.

Now, let's say Reeva and Oscar are arguing about something, what we don't know.

Reeva picks up the phone and says something like, Oscar if you don't stop right now, I'm going to call the police and I'm going to tell them everything, I'm going to tell them you're threatening me (perhaps he verbally threatened her), that you're cursing at me, etc.. If he was on his stumps, I imagine she would have felt she could say that without being in grave danger.

That's when he picked up the gun. He was overrun with emotion, thinking of what would happen to his career if Reeva made that phone call. Thinking of the headlines. Thinking of the aftermath. In his panic, he picked up the gun and pointed it at her to not call anyone.

She runs into the bathroom, with the phone.

He is afraid she is definately going to call the police now. Now it will be even worse b/c he's already held a gun and threatened her with a gun.

And in his panic, he shoots her.

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

But why would they lie about all of this? I don't understand. They are two people independent of Oscar. ANd their testimony is corroborated by a third witness, independent of them.

I don't believe they're lying.

I believe Roux is trying many different angles and seeing what will stick or what might possibly stick with the Judge.

He is trying: That they're lying, that they're embellishing, that they mistook the sounds, that they are confused about which sound is which, that they are confused about exactly what they heard, that they are confused about all the sounds that they heard.

Pick one, two, or all - that's what Roux is trying to do.
 
IMO there seems to be a LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHO SCREAMED AND WHEN.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but .............................

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

...........................................



Over to you now......

"Unemotionally" is the most significant word of the sentence, I think. The witness MB certainly may be very correct with her presumption of mockering. That makes completely sense to me! OP had ridiculed Reeva and perhaps at this moment still with a good portion of "schadenfreude".

Thank you Estelle and all WS for your many posts! To click "Thanks" is too cumbersome, because of permanent logout (unintentionally). :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
451
Total visitors
544

Forum statistics

Threads
608,464
Messages
18,239,764
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top