Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[sorrell skye]

I'll try, but in my experience it is VERY rare that anybody is convinced of anything at a forum like this. It can be fun trying, but also very frustrating and it often gets personal and so not fun at all.

I have stated over and over that I am sure the gunshots were around 3:10 and that the bangs at 3:17 were the sounds of cricket bat on door. I see so much evidence for this just in PROSECUTION witness testimony I don't consider that to be an issue at all any more.
The screams that burgers heard, after they woke up having MISSED hearing the gunshots, were wails of anguish from OP... he stopped around the time he was banging the door. After that he had a VERY full minute or so, dragging Reeva to bathroom and phoning for help.

I see people speculating about all sorts of variations on details of events.. they are all a huge stretch to fit the State contention that the shots were at 3:17

OP's version of events is at least supported by his own testimony. Speculation about a different version of those events is speculation with nothing to support it. It is infinitely variable to suit and so pointless. IF the State want to suggest a version of events at odds with details that OP has testified to, they need to put it before the Judge, with the evidence that supports it.. else she will not be considering it. The Judge will not just think... I have my doubts about OP's version, I think I will go for any old version other than OP's version. She will accept OP's version and give it as much weight as she feels is due to OP's testimony in general.
OP is the only witness to details of events around shooting and the minutes after. His version stands unless there is credible evidence to contradict it. Just speculating anything that fits a preferred hypothesis is not evidence, and besides it wont be considered unless it is put before the Judge.

BBM

OP hasn't testified. Although Roux has managed to testify in his stead quite a lot during his cross-examination of witnesses.

OP has submitted an affidavit at his bail hearing. The affidavit is not testimony.

OP has submitted a plea statement. The plea statement is not testimony.

 

[Insp.Dots]

With the State case mostly in...

Lets assume there are NO huge bombshells to come, just for this question.

WHO would say that OP is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of firing into the door KNOWING that Reeva was behind it?

And the Defence has not even responded yet.

Am as things stand still ..Guilty of Culpable Homicide...I would love to SEE and HEAR OP give his testimony but sounds like he will not be filmed. I actually think if that is his 'personal' choice it may be telling. If it was me and I was innocent I would be happy for the whole world to see me telling my story! Only he knows and only time will tell us all for sure. I GENUINELY hope it doesn't end with people calling the Judge names or for an appeal or retrial. Justice needs to be seen and done for Reeva!
Night all

 

[Viper]

With the State case mostly in...

Lets assume there are NO huge bombshells to come, just for this question.

WHO would say that OP is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of firing into the door KNOWING that Reeva was behind it?

And the Defence has not even responded yet.

I already owned up to a typo and edited that post.
(Se previous explanation)

Could you delete your quote of it please?

I meant shots around 3:10

I edited it and put 3:10, ok?

 

[minor4th]

You actually said that there is reasonable doubt that she heard anything at all. No there isn't because there's phone evidence that her husband tried to call security. Whatever you personally think of their subsequent inaction, the evidence proves they heard something.

We then have to consider whether it's an astonishing coincidence that they report hearing almost exactly the same sounds as Stipp did and Mrs Berger's impression of the shots (bang......bang bang bang) is exactly how the ballistics expert says they must have happened.

Of course, it's not impossible that this university lecturer and her professional husband waited until the bail hearing then constructed a tale around the evidence they heard from that purely in order to play a part in putting a man they've never met in prison for the rest of his life.

Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

Actually the ballistics expert said the shots were bang bang bang bang, no pause.

And Stipp heard additional sounds that woke him up earlier - and he identified those sounds as gunshots.

Here's what I think the evidence has pretty well established, and everything else is interpretation by the witnesses:

1. There were 2 sets of loud bangs within minutes of each other

2. After the first set of bangs and before the second set of bangs there was loud screaming/wailing

3. The second set of bangs happened very close to 3:17

4. Screaming occurred up to and perhaps throughout the 2nd set of bangs at 3:17

5. For a period of time after the 3:17 bangs there was silence and no screaming or yelling was heard

6. The gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door

7. One of the sets of bangs was gunshots

8. The other set of bangs was the cricket bat hitting the door - or it was some other sound that has not been explained or alleged by either side

 

[minor4th]

Just speculating, but I think Nel's remaining witnesses, or at least some of them will be pretty important witnesses who may have new information that we haven't heard yet.

 

[james83]

]Actually the ballistics expert said the shots were bang bang bang bang, no pause.[/B]

And Stipp heard additional sounds that woke him up earlier - and he identified those sounds as gunshots.

Here's what I think the evidence has pretty well established, and everything else is interpretation by the witnesses:

1. There were 2 sets of loud bangs within minutes of each other

2. After the first set of bangs and before the second set of bangs there was loud screaming/wailing

3. The second set of bangs happened very close to 3:17

4. Screaming occurred up to and perhaps throughout the 2nd set of bangs at 3:17

5. For a period of time after the 3:17 bangs there was silence and no screaming or yelling was heard

6. The gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door

7. One of the sets of bangs was gunshots

8. The other set of bangs was the cricket bat hitting the door - or it was some other sound that has not been explained or alleged by either side

Mangena said the first shot Pistorius fired struck a standing Steenkamp in her hip — according to the height of the wound and the bullet hole in the door — while the second missed her and ricocheted.
“Between the first shot and the second shot there is a break,” he added.

http://www.dispatch.co.za/news/steenkamp-shot-in-defensive-position/

 

[minor4th]

BBM

OP hasn't testified. Although Roux has managed to testify in his stead quite a lot during his cross-examination of witnesses.

OP has submitted an affidavit at his bail hearing. The affidavit is not testimony.

OP has submitted a plea statement. The plea statement is not testimony.

Reminds me of something else I learned from reading the SA cases and law - when the defense is cross examining a state witness, and they plan to lead evidence that contradicts or impeaches the witness, the defense attorney is required to "put to" the witness the contradicting evidence to give the witness the opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

 

[minor4th]

Mangena said the first shot Pistorius fired struck a standing Steenkamp in her hip — according to the height of the wound and the bullet hole in the door — while the second missed her and ricocheted.
“Between the first shot and the second shot there is a break,” he added.

http://www.dispatch.co.za/news/steenkamp-shot-in-defensive-position/

Between the 1st and 2nd shot that hit Reeva there was a break is what I think he was saying.

When Roux was questioning him he said it was bang bang bang bang, all together.

 

[james83]

Between the 1st and 2nd shot that hit Reeva there was a break is what I think he was saying.

When Roux was questioning him he said it was bang bang bang bang, all together.

Retweeted 8 times
Alex Crawford ‏@AlexCrawfordSky Mar 19
#OscarPistorius Nel refers to Michelle Burger's evidence..a shot (pause) then 3 others in succession. 'That's possible', says Mangena

 

[MeeBee]

Retweeted 8 times
Alex Crawford ‏@AlexCrawfordSky Mar 19
#OscarPistorius Nel refers to Michelle Burger's evidence..a shot (pause) then 3 others in succession. 'That's possible', says Mangena

He said it was possible. He didn't say that's what it was.

 

[james83]

He said it was possible. He didn't say that's what it was.

Direct me to the point where i said otherwise please?.

 

[Rumpole]

I edited it and put 3:10, ok?

Thanks :blowkiss:

 

[Viper]

Actually the ballistics expert said the shots were bang bang bang bang, no pause.

And Stipp heard additional sounds that woke him up earlier - and he identified those sounds as gunshots.

Here's what I think the evidence has pretty well established, and everything else is interpretation by the witnesses:

1. There were 2 sets of loud bangs within minutes of each other

2. After the first set of bangs and before the second set of bangs there was loud screaming/wailing

3. The second set of bangs happened very close to 3:17

4. Screaming occurred up to and perhaps throughout the 2nd set of bangs at 3:17

5. For a period of time after the 3:17 bangs there was silence and no screaming or yelling was heard

6. The gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door

7. One of the sets of bangs was gunshots

8. The other set of bangs was the cricket bat hitting the door - or it was some other sound that has not been explained or alleged by either side

That's funny because I heard him describe a shot to the hip, then a pause as Reeva fell down on to the magazine rack, and then the following three shots without pause. Weird how people can hear the same event but have slightly different recollections isn't it! :floorlaugh:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

He said it was possible. He didn't say that's what it was.

Just from my recollection I thought he said there had to have been a pause because of the fact that she would have slumped after been hit with the first bullet otherwise she couldn't have been hit in the head ?
I do get confused lol

 

[BritsKate]

Actually the ballistics expert said the shots were bang bang bang bang, no pause.

And Stipp heard additional sounds that woke him up earlier - and he identified those sounds as gunshots.

Here's what I think the evidence has pretty well established, and everything else is interpretation by the witnesses:

1. There were 2 sets of loud bangs within minutes of each other

2. After the first set of bangs and before the second set of bangs there was loud screaming/wailing

3. The second set of bangs happened very close to 3:17

4. Screaming occurred up to and perhaps throughout the 2nd set of bangs at 3:17

5. For a period of time after the 3:17 bangs there was silence and no screaming or yelling was heard

6. The gunshots happened before the cricket bat hit the door

7. One of the sets of bangs was gunshots

8. The other set of bangs was the cricket bat hitting the door - or it was some other sound that has not been explained or alleged by either side

If memory serves, it was Roux who claimed the bang, bang, bang, bang to suggest double firing.

The ballistics expert countered that, stating there wouldn't have been time for her to have moved between shots, and all the bullets would have been in the same area.

On redirect, Nel specifically asked if bang pause bang bang bang was possible - consistent with Burger's testimony - and Mangena confirmed it was indeed possible.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/live-oscar-trial-reeva-defensive-position-when-shot

Roux argues that Pistorius fired four shots in quick succession, or two "double taps."
Mangena said that was "impossible," since there would have been no time for Steenkamp's body to change positions between shots.
Pistorius' defense grills investigator Narratives develop in Pistorius trial Pistorius gets physically ill again
Prosecutor Nel pointed out that the first witness, neighbor Michelle Burger, said she heard a pause after the first shot, then three more in quick succession.
"That is possible," Mangena said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/

 

[Rumpole]

Just speculating, but I think Nel's remaining witnesses, or at least some of them will be pretty important witnesses who may have new information that we haven't heard yet.

Barry Bateman @barrybateman

@WillemAucamp the police’s cellphone analyst will be called next week.

https://twitter.com/barrybateman/statuses/447078656171446273

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes?

Despite what people might think of OP... his testimony is in evidence.. and it stands unless it is refuted.

People my consider that not much... but it's a heck of a lot more than pure speculation "I think such and such happened" with no evidence to support it at all.

Er...well, his version IS his testimony for a start. And I truly struggle to see any situation where his version would be inconsistent with his own testimony. They are the same thing.

So his version is consistent with his version?

You keep saying I am presenting no evidence.

Berger? Stipp? Johnston? Van de Merwe? The ballistics? The blood spatter? The pathology?

All of this is inconsistent with OP's version. All of it.

On the other hand, your evidence is OP's version is consistent with his version. True - but so far it's the only thing it's consistent with.

 

[steveml]

Reminds me of something else I learned from reading the SA cases and law - when the defense is cross examining a state witness, and they plan to lead evidence that contradicts or impeaches the witness, the defense attorney is required to "put to" the witness the contradicting evidence to give the witness the opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

The one that surprised me very early on was Roux's questioning of Ms Burger. He regularly used the contents of other witness statements in his questioning towards her. In the UK you're simply not allowed to discredit a witness by asking them to comment on what a future witness may say.

 

[james83]

What's telling for me about Stipp's testimony is
1) On the screams he heard "She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of his or her life," said Johan Stipp, continuing his testimony after the lunch adjournment.

2) Stipp returned to the balcony and heard a man screaming three times for help.

Clearly identifies a male scream from a female scream.

 

[Rumpole]

Er...well, his version IS his testimony for a start. And I truly struggle to see any situation where his version would be inconsistent with his own testimony. They are the same thing.

So his version is consistent with his version?

You keep saying I am presenting no evidence.

Berger? Stipp? Johnston? Van de Merwe? The ballistics? The blood spatter? The pathology?

All of this is inconsistent with OP's version. All of it.

On the other hand, your evidence is OP's version is consistent with his version. True - but so far it's the only thing it's consistent with.

I TRY to not direcect comments at people personally... sorry if I did.

I was thinking about things generally... people saying OP might have done this, and not that etc. Things that can not be evaluated other than with reference to OP's testimony.

I see NOTHING inconsistent with OP's testimony. Amazingly the State witnesses have confirmed his version. I see a complete and utter FAIL by State so far... and I do not envision 5 more witnesses changing that. If THAT is the bulk of what the State have to put before M'Lady then... it aint much?

No wonder Nel wanted an early 4 and a half day tea break to think up more stuff

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.