Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

[lisasalinger]

It was Oscar screaming after Reeva had been shot. The subsequent set of bangs was not gunshots, it was cricket bat hitting the door. Oscar turned on the light and was walking in the bathroom. It could not have been Reeva screaming because she was already dead.

Ok, so let's go with Oscar's version.

He shoots her accidently (let's say at roughly 3:15am) and instantly starts wailing, so much so that all of the neighbors hear a woman screaming (although, he never states that he does this in his affidavit). THIS IS WHEN STIPP WAKES UP AND GOES OUT ON HIS BALCONY AND SEES THE BATHROOM LIGHT ON, AND HEARS THE SCREAMS. That light was on immediately after the FIRST SET of bangs so that would have to mean that it was either on during the gunfire (if she was shot at about 3:15am) or Oscar turned it on immediately after the gunfire. Remember, Oscar supposedly didn't know immediately that he shot her.

This is what Oscar said in his affidavit:

After he fired the shots, he yelled to Reva to call the police and she did not respond. He moved away from the bathroom, keeping his eyes on the entrance and everything was still pitch black in the bedroom. (The bedroom and the bathroom are not that far apart that light in the bathroom wouldn't provide some illumination down the hallway)

He specifically states "I was still too scared to switch on a light". Those are his words, not mine. Again, I have to remind you that at this point Stipp is seeing the light on and hearing intense high pitched screaming, yet Oscar still doesn't know that it's Reeva in the bathroom.

Oscar makes his way to the bed and realizes she's not there and omg it might be her in the toilet, not an intruder. He goes back to the bathroom and he realizes the toilet door is locked and goes back to the bedroom again. He then opens the balcony door, walks out and yells help, help, help. The problem here is that Stipp did not hear the "help, help, help" until AFTER the 2nd set of bangs. At this point in Oscar's story, he still hasn't knocked on the door.

When he comes in from the balcony, he puts his legs on, goes to the bathroom to kick it in and in his own words, again not mine - "I think I must then have turned on the lights"

He goes back to the bedroom to get the cricket bat to bash the door in.

So, I'm sorry to say - Even though Roux and Oscar desperately want to make their timeline fit with what Stipp heard - it just doesn't.

 

[Schuby]

Already addressed in several previous posts of what she has been though.

She obviously got over him pretty quick ,in truth.

She went right out with Quinton vdB. It was OP who then went ballistic as is well known. And as I pointed out in a previous post.
Clearly a very brave woman who honestly testified to some very important points..

Not really. She was writing a tell all? That isn't really something one does when they are over a person.

 

[jilly]

Roux has a difficult job because the holes that he is poking cannot just be looked at on their own, they have to be viewed in the context of all the other witnesses as well. When you consider it globally, and if you try to reconcile all of the witnesss' testimony with each other, it really does line up with Oscar's own statement.

There is nothing that suggests premeditation. Let me see if I can give you an example of what I mean:

First of all, the most reliable statements from the witnesses are going to be the statements they gave shortly after the event, while it was fresh in their minds and all they were reporting were facts of what they witnessed. Many of the witnesses have now come to court and have embellished and added "emotional" information that was not in their original statements. I think you have to discount those additions.

Shipp

He is the closest of the witnesses and had a direct line to Oscar's house via his open balcony.

1. He heard 3 "shots" and got up and went to balcony to see where it was coming from

2. On balcony, he heard a woman "screaming or yelling" 2 or 3 times

3. At 3:17 (verified by phone records) he heard "2 or 3" additional "shots"

4. At 3:27, he called security again

5. After his 3:27 call to security, he THEN heard Oscar yell "help, help, help"

6. At 3:28 he phoned Stander from Oscar's house.

Although his testimony included the an additional claim to have heard a man's screams intermingled with a woman's screams between the first and second set of bangs, this is no in either of his statements to police given on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13

I consider Shipp's testimony to be the most reliable because he is close by and would have had the best opportunity to hear what happened. He also gave a written statement on 2-15-13, before the bail hearing and before an opportunity to be influenced by media or other witness accounts, etc

Burger and Johnson

1. Heard a woman screaming and were woken up by the sound

2. They heard "help help help" -before the sounds they interpreted as gunshots

3. Heard a number of "gunshots" at 3:17, coinciding perfectly with the second set of bangs heard by Shipp and his wife. At the time they gave their written statements, neither of them could identify the number of "shots" as 4, contrary to Burger's court testimony

4. They did not hear any other sets of bangs.

While they both claim at trial that the woman's screams were "blood-curdling" and the woman was "in fear for her life" that was not in either of their statements to police.

They did not come forward until after listening to the bail hearing. They did not give a statement to police until 6 weeks after the events. Their testimony is the most suspect because of the timing and the ability to be influenced by each other and by media accounts. There's also a problem with their testimony changing in important aspects compared to Johnson's written notes and statements.

Werwe

1. She heard a woman's voice that sounded like one side of an argument around 2 a.m. It has not been established that this was coming from Oscar's house.

2. She heard what sounded like gunshots, and then she heard loud crying and yelling from Oscar - she initially thought it was a woman screaming, but her husband identified the voice as Oscar Pistorius

I believe that she was being honest and factual in her testimony. She did not try to interpret what anything meant, she simply reported what she heard.

So you try to reconcile all of these accounts with each other and what you are left with is -

- Shipp was woken up by the actual gunshots some time before 3:17;

- the noises at 3:17 were the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door (Shipp said they sounded the same, so it's no longer in dispute whether a cricket bat hitting the door can sound like a gunshot);

- the screaming and yelling between the initial gunshots and the banging at 3:17 was Oscar screaming and crying loudly. This was heard by all 4 witnesses, all of whom believed it to be a woman screaming

- Oscar yelled help, help, help after he broke the door with the cricket bat

Let's get back to South African law:

......“The court has to look at the facts objectively and must make a finding if it was reasonable for the accused to think he was in danger.

“In a scenario where you hear a noise behind a door and fire a shot through the closed door knowing a human being is behind it and foresee the possibility of injuring a person, you accept the risk that you might kill someone.

If it’s totally unreasonable to think your life is in danger under the prevailing circumstances, it is murder. ”However, if the accused thought his actions were reasonable but the reasonable man would have realised that his life was not in danger, then he’s guilty of culpable homicide.

“Murder is the intentional killing of a human being while culpable homicide is the negligent killing of a person.

“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.

“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”.....

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

 

[aa9511]

What do you guys think of the 2 sets of "gunshot" sounding noises that the doctor heard? And remember, he said the yelling continued after the first round of noises.

Yes, I have posted many times that I think the order was this:

-cricket bat first
-gunshots second

I thinnk he tried to get the door open with the cricket bat first, out of rage. Then, he either gave up or he couldn't reach the key or he just got more frustrated, and he got the gun. I am speculating that it could be that the gun was already with him, that he was threatening Reeva by holding the gun up, that's why she backed up to go to the restroom.

IDK exact specific details, but I am pretty sure the order was cricket bat first, gunshots second.

IMO.

 

[minor4th]

Let's get back to South African law:

......“The court has to look at the facts objectively and must make a finding if it was reasonable for the accused to think he was in danger.

“In a scenario where you hear a noise behind a door and fire a shot through the closed door knowing a human being is behind it and foresee the possibility of injuring a person, you accept the risk that you might kill someone.

If it’s totally unreasonable to think your life is in danger under the prevailing circumstances, it is murder. ”However, if the accused thought his actions were reasonable but the reasonable man would have realised that his life was not in danger, then he’s guilty of culpable homicide.

“Murder is the intentional killing of a human being while culpable homicide is the negligent killing of a person.

“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.

“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”.....

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

Like I've said, I would not be at all surprised if he is convicted for reckless or negligent homicide. I do not believe the evidence supports premeditated murder though.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, I have posted many times that I think the order was this:

-cricket bat first
-gunshots second

I thinnk he tried to get the door open with the cricket bat first, out of rage. Then, he either gave up or he couldn't reach the key or he just got more frustrated, and he got the gun. I am speculating that it could be that the gun was already with him, that he was threatening Reeva by holding the gun up, that's why she backed up to go to the restroom.

IDK exact specific details, but I am pretty sure the order was cricket bat first, gunshots second.

IMO.

Even the state is not alleging that the cricket bat was first. Yes, to come up with that scenario it takes quite a lot of speculation and assumptions of things that are not in evidence and not even alleged.

 

[minor4th]

Ok, so let's go with Oscar's version.

He shoots her accidently and instantly starts wailing, so much so that all of the neighbors hear a woman screaming (although, he never states that he does this in his affidavit). THIS IS WHEN STIPP IS OUT ON HIS BALCONY AND SEES THE BATHROOM LIGHT ON, AND HEARS THE SCREAMS. That light was on immediately after the bangs. Oscar supposedly didn't know immediately that he shot her.

This is what Oscar said in his affidavit:

After he fired the shots, he yelled to Reva to call the police and she did not respond. He moved away from the bathroom, keeping his eyes on the entrance and everything was still pitch black in the bedroom. (The bedroom and the bathroom are not that far apart that light in the bathroom wouldn't provide some illumination down the hallway)

He specifically states "I was still too scared to switch on a light". Those are his words, not mine. Again, I have to remind you that at this point Stipp is seeing the light on and hearing intense high pitched screaming.

Oscar is now realizing that maybe it was Reeva in the bathroom because she's not in the bedroom and he's going back to the bathroom to check it out. He realizes the toilet door is locked and goes back to the bedroom again. He then opens the balcony door, walks out and yells help, help, help. The problem here is that Stipp did not hear the "help, help, help" until AFTER the 2nd set of bangs. At this point in Oscar's story, he still hasn't knocked on the door.

When he comes in from the balcony, he puts his legs on, goes to the bathroom to kick it in and in his own words, again not mine - "I think I must then have turned on the lights"

He goes back to the bedroom to get the cricket bat to bash the door in.

So, I'm sorry to say - Even though Roux and Oscar desperately want to make their timeline fit with what Stipp heard - it just doesn't.

Ok, so which witness is lying and what's your reasoning?

 

[Cherwell]

It was Oscar screaming after Reeva had been shot. The subsequent set of bangs was not gunshots, it was cricket bat hitting the door. Oscar turned on the light and was walking in the bathroom. It could not have been Reeva screaming because she was already dead.

Are you stating these things as fact?

 

[minor4th]

Are you stating these things as fact?

I'm stating this as what has been established by the evidence.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm stating this as what has been established by the evidence.

I don't agree. We've heard very little evidence so far.

 

[Jamtart]

Let's get back to South African law:

......“The court has to look at the facts objectively and must make a finding if it was reasonable for the accused to think he was in danger.

“In a scenario where you hear a noise behind a door and fire a shot through the closed door knowing a human being is behind it and foresee the possibility of injuring a person, you accept the risk that you might kill someone.

If it’s totally unreasonable to think your life is in danger under the prevailing circumstances, it is murder. ”However, if the accused thought his actions were reasonable but the reasonable man would have realised that his life was not in danger, then he’s guilty of culpable homicide.

“Murder is the intentional killing of a human being while culpable homicide is the negligent killing of a person.

“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.

“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”.....

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

Thanks Jilly, that's a really helpful and clear explanation of how this stands in SA law...very interesting indeed. I am wondering though about this point regarding the locked door. If events occurred as described by OP, then the 'burglar' had locked himself in the bathroom and had the key, so on that basis he might have felt threatened as the burglar could have unlocked the door and entered the house at any time.

 

[minor4th]

I don't agree. We've heard very little evidence so far.

True. But we have heard from all of the state's ear witnesses I believe, and it has established a time line that leaves little room for doubt as to what happened when - thanks to the phone records.

 

[minor4th]

Nothing too substantive in the CNN special so far.

 

[Schuby]

Well, the CNN special was a big waste of time. No worries if you missed it.

 

[Schuby]

Nothing too substantive in the CNN special so far.

Lol, beat me

 

[minor4th]

Well, the CNN special was a big waste of time. No worries if you missed it.

That really was a big nothing. I'm disappointed.

 

[Schuby]

That really was a big nothing. I'm disappointed.

A whole lotta nuthin

 

[lisasalinger]

Ok, so which witness is lying and what's your reasoning?

I don't think that the ear witnesses are lying at all.

Stipp heard something banging at 3:15am and I honestly don't know what it was. He was much closer than Burger & Johnson so it's feasible that there was a fight going on, maybe the cricket bat was being used in some capacity, I don't know.

But what does line up is the female screaming frantically in the minute or so PRIOR to 3:17am, and the loud bangs that everybody heard right at 3:17am, which right now I believe was the gunfire.

The fact that 4 different witnesses have now testified and none of them match what Oscar said happened is very problematic to me.

 

[sorrell skye]

I agree! Everyone has bias and it would be nearly impossible to set that aside and be completely objective on the witness stand. I expect the same from Oscar's witnesses.

I don't think the incidents in Samantha's testimony are tainted with confirmation bias. She testified to the court her firsthand recollection of events.

1. She described episodes of OP's rage not only against her, but also against others.

2. She recounted an incident during which OP angrily threatened a total stranger with his gun because OP believed that person was following them.

3. She told the Court about the incident when OP yelled at the police officer (after being pulled over for speeding) who admonished OP for having his gun out in the open on the seat of the car.

4. She explained what she personally experienced as OP's general pattern of behavior regarding cell phones, where he kept his gun, on which side of the bed he typically slept, how he reacted to 'noises in the night' and whether or not he awoke her & consulted with her when he heard those noises (she testified that he did awaken her).

I found her testimony to be illuminating regarding OP's temperament as well as his historic pattern of behavior at home.

I think the 'woman scorned' meme is conveniently trotted out in cases when the accused male is faced with damning testimony and/or evidence, in an attempt to discredit a credible witness. :moo:

 

[jilly]

Like I've said, I would not be at all surprised if he is convicted for reckless or negligent homicide. I do not believe the evidence supports premeditated murder though.

We have a ways to go as far as the prosecution's case. At the moment, Culpable Homicide, for sure, imo. I'm looking forward to learning what she was wearing when she was shot 3x. If she was dressed in white shorts and black tank top as per the Dateline show, it's a given for murder, imo. So far, video shows her entering his complex that nite with a black top (which appears to be a tank top).