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

[aa9511]

It may be that I've been living in England too long but I am flabbergasted that anyone experienced in firearms would be passing around a loaded weapon in a crowded restaurant.
It just so defies any lick of common sense.

JMO

Just can I say that I probably won't be visiting South Africa anytime soon.

I know I think Carol and maybe some others live there, they would be able to shed more light on this, and I'm sorry if I am wrong, but it is worrisome that guns seems to be carried and passed around like water bottles!

 

[dgfred]

Well, gun lovers are gun lovers.

I think because of kidnappings and such... more people carry/have guns there for protection.

 

[zwiebel]

A bookmaker in the UK has just been ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority to remove all its ads immediately, for the bets on the outcome of this trial. They have received a huge number of complaints about them.

Sorry, forgot link.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26457881

This was disgraceful, in my opinion. What would it do to a trial if it was found a witness or even relative of a witness had a bet riding on the outcome?

 

[aa9511]

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.

You may be right about being stunned for a second or two. But if he was walking or shuffling from the bedroom to the bathroom, yelling out to the "intruder," I would think she would realize he was coming in her direction. Especially as he enters the bathroom, of course from the tiles and the echoing in the bathroom, the sound would be different than when he was in the bedroom, and she would have realized that he was coming INTO the bathroom.

IMO she would have definately said or done something.

We are getting the picture of a trigger-happy guy.

IT was probably that they were arguing, Oscar gets more and more agitated, suddenly he grabs his gun in a rage, in the bedroom. Threatening Reeva with it. Perhaps, at this time, Reeva is facing Oscar in the bedroom with her back towards the bathroom. He gets closer and closer to her, she backs up and backs away from him. When she gets close to the toilet room, she locks herself in there. Maybe the whole argument centered around what was in her phone, that's why she was holding her phone in her hands, to keep it away from Oscar to wanted to check it some more (after he found whatever it is which set him off).

JMO.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Yes, I agree. I wouldn't expect my own rough notes to be anybody else's business, frankly. You write something down and later think of a better way of putting something, or a better way to describe it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can anyone explain to me why the DT are allowed to use Johnson's personal notes? He has given a sworn statement. Is this usual behaviour from a DT or is it Roux's desperate attempt to make an issue out of a possible slight difference in Johnson's recollection maybe because Roux is doing so badly in his defence of OP at the moment?

 

[minor4th]

Ok, let's say that Oscar was screaming and or shouting BEFORE the shots.

If so, doesnt that mess up his story that Reeva was just innocently using the toilet and he shot her by mistake? Because if I was in the toilet, and my bf started screaming at the top of his lungs, at 3 am, I would call out and say WHAT"S WRONG?

Are we now to believe that Oscar started screaming in blood curdling fashion, before shooting, and yet Reeva said nothing from behind the locked toilet?

I have no idea. So far no one's account matches anyone else's.

 

[shane13]

Can anyone explain to me why the DT are allowed to use Johnson's personal notes? He has given a sworn statement. Is this usual behaviour from a DT or is it Roux's desperate attempt to make an issue out of a possible slight difference in Johnson's recollection maybe because Roux is doing so badly in his defence of OP at the moment?

Good interpretation, IB.
Not an atty here, but it may be that Roux' tactics throughout are to counter their desperation with a public personna of confidence and arrogance.

It is fascinating how Roux is allowed to, in effect, present evidence in his utterances that are not [yet or ever?] corroborated by actual evidence or testimony. But maybe court rules are vastly different there than in USA? But maybe not, because every once in a while, Nel objects.

Also Roux has stated with such certainty matters that involve physics or medicine--and he is often dead wrong.

 

[minor4th]

My concern is that the defence will produce a witness/es who is prepared to say that they themselves were having an argument that night in a neighbouring house.

As for the evidence of Michelle and Charl - I simply cannot see the point of accusing them of collaboration. Of course their accounts will be similar, they were together, of course they discussed it! It's not reasonable to expect anything else. It's just the way it is. Had they been two strangers in adjoining hotel rooms, it might be worth attacking the point, but it is what it is.

IMO the point of discussing the collaboration is getting the witnesses to deny the collaboration when it is pretty obvious they did discuss it and came up with the same phraseology. Denying it makes it seem like they are not being entirely truthful for the benefit of the prosecution. Roux caught Johnson in a lie when he denied that he had spoken to his wife about her statement or her testimony - then a few moments later Johnson admitted that he did discuss her testimony with her because all the witnesses were sitting together in a holding room and Burger was talking about her testimony.

Also, if they collaborated, it suggests that they influenced each other's perceptions and memories of events (unintentionally perhaps)

 

[Carol70]

Just can I say that I probably won't be visiting South Africa anytime soon.

I know I think Carol and maybe some others live there, they would be able to shed more light on this, and I'm sorry if I am wrong, but it is worrisome that guns seems to be carried and passed around like water bottles!

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

 

[minor4th]

This incident alone if it was reported truthfully as it happened would have resulted in Oscar Pistorius losing all his gun licences for life and Reeva would still be alive today.

Very good point.

 

[Cherwell]

IMO the point of discussing the collaboration is getting the witnesses to deny the collaboration when it is pretty obvious they did discuss it and came up with the same phraseology. Denying it makes it seem like they are not being entirely truthful for the benefit of the prosecution. Roux caught Johnson in a lie when he denied that he had spoken to his wife about her statement or her testimony - then a few moments later Johnson admitted that he did discuss her testimony with her because all the witnesses were sitting together in a holding room and Burger was talking about her testimony.

Also, if they collaborated, it suggests that they influenced each other's perceptions and memories of events (unintentionally perhaps)

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

 

[Interested Bystander]

Good interpretation, IB.
Not an atty here, but it may be that Roux' tactics throughout are to counter their desperation with a public personna of confidence and arrogance.

It is fascinating how Roux is allowed to, in effect, present evidence in his utterances that are not [yet or ever?] corroborated by actual evidence or testimony. But maybe court rules are vastly different there than in USA? But maybe not, because every once in a while, Nel objects.

Also Roux has stated with such certainty matters that involve physics or medicine--and he is often dead wrong.

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:

 

[ShadyLady]

Good discussion

One thing I'm having trouble reconciling is why did she lock the bathroom door just to use the bathroom. Did she lock it to protect herself from harm or was it her regular practice? Something seems to be going on before the shots were fired, not put my finger on it all yet.

....last time I locked myself in a toilette room with door locked, I was calling for help because husband was about to hit me again. Now....divorced...lol.

 

[Carol70]

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:

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

 

[Carol70]

Originally Posted by canny
This incident alone if it was reported truthfully as it happened would have resulted in Oscar Pistorius losing all his gun licences for life and Reeva would still be alive today.

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.

 

[Interested Bystander]

IMO the point of discussing the collaboration is getting the witnesses to deny the collaboration when it is pretty obvious they did discuss it and came up with the same phraseology. Denying it makes it seem like they are not being entirely truthful for the benefit of the prosecution. Roux caught Johnson in a lie when he denied that he had spoken to his wife about her statement or her testimony - then a few moments later Johnson admitted that he did discuss her testimony with her because all the witnesses were sitting together in a holding room and Burger was talking about her testimony.

Also, if they collaborated, it suggests that they influenced each other's perceptions and memories of events (unintentionally perhaps)

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.

 

[Lyra500]

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

For me, the major question is what do they have to gain by lying? Where is the motive? I can see a really strong motive for OP lying if he is guilty (I am afraid i think he is) but i really do not see his neighbours all gathering round and colluding to lie about what they heard.

 

[aa9511]

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

That is so sad. I do hope the violence situation gets better there. And that it stays far away from you and your family.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

If he is the best SA can offer I feel very sorry. SA people deserve better than a rude bully. I would like to see him in a UK or US court. From what I have seen of UK law in operation this man would be considered inept.