Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

[jilly]

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:

Excellent post!

 

[Jamtart]

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:

Yes, and that is your perception and interpretation of her evidence...and her evidence is her perception and interpretation of other events and behaviour. I also thought she came across as being quite credible over all, although I have queried a couple of points. My issue is that we have only heard her description of these events; other people present might corroborate her version of events, otoh they might have a very different perception of the same events. We don't know because they haven't testified. For what it's worth, the image I am getting of him so far is an immature, reckless, fairly unpleasant individual with a nasty temper and a penchant for young girls that he can keep in their place. But that is only my perception and interpretation of the information that I have, combined with my own experience of once being married to a man that OP reminds me of. I experienced DV at his hands, and this has coloured my judgement of OP from the get-go. So that forms my bias and at the start of the trial I was convinced he was guilty; after listening to the evidence so far I'm not so sure. But there's still a long way to go yet

 

[djameson]

for the sake of a fair trial, I don't like taylor's testimony at all .. talking about nonsense that has nothing to do with the case about him cheating on her .. her testimony was just a carefully strategized smear tactic on op .. what does she know about the evidence ? .. that's all that should matter ..

these type of witnesses offer nothing but painting the defendant in a bad light .. that doesn't make the defendant guilty but it's something that could influence the judge/jury in deciding so, therefore it shouldn't be allowed imo .. it should be about the events of that night and only that ..

and to those who say she was over him .. plenty of people quickly jump to another partner while not being over their last one .. plenty of people do that .. not everyone withdraws themselves and stops going out ..

also, this lady went to the media and wanted to do a 'tell all' and then here she is over a year later breaking down everytime they mention their split .. I'm looking at her testimony with plenty of skepticism

 

[minor4th]

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.

None of them match each other. Shipp's testimony closely matches Oscar's account.

So no explanation for the three bangs that woke up Shipp and the absence of any other bangs - you just know it was the gunshots at 3:17 (even though Shipp said the two sounds were identical). Ok ....

 

[minor4th]

for the sake of a fair trial, I don't like taylor's testimony at all .. talking about nonsense that has nothing to do with the case about him cheating on her .. her testimony was just a carefully strategized smear tactic on op .. what does she know about the evidence ? .. that's all that should matter ..

these type of witnesses offer nothing but painting the defendant in a bad light .. that doesn't make the defendant guilty but it's something that could influence the judge/jury in deciding so, therefore it shouldn't be allowed imo .. it should be about the events of that night and only that ..

and to those who say she was over him .. plenty of people quickly jump to another partner while not being over their last one .. plenty of people do that .. not everyone withdraws themselves and stops going out ..

also, this lady went to the media and wanted to do a 'tell all' and then here she is over a year later breaking down everytime they mention their split .. I'm looking at her testimony with plenty of skepticism

This is not a girl who was over Oscar. She was trying to smear him back in 2012 and her lawyers had to issue a retraction to the newspaper and told them to disregard what she had said. She finally got her chance to smear him like she intended to do in 2012.

In her interview with City Press’ sister newspaper Rapport, Taylor first said she was “prepared to reveal what (Pistorius) made me go through”, but in a lawyer’s letter late on Friday evening she withdrew everything she had said.

This was after her earlier request for a personal meeting with the newspaper.

“We have considered our client’s communication with you and request you to disregard it. Our client withdraws her statements and requests you not to contact her again,” wrote June Marks, Taylor’s lawyer.

http://www.channel24.co.za/News/Local/Ex-girlfriend-slams-Oscar-Pistorius-20121111

 

[sorrell skye]

I believe Roux dropped the questioning of Samantha because her testimony was irrelevant to the murder charge. She wasn't there, she didn't see anything or hear anything - Roux established that, and there's really no more to ask her.

It's also highly likely that Roux ended his questioning of Samantha because her testimony was damaging to his client and he wanted her out of the witness box ASAP.

During his cross, he promised to produce e-mails that he implied would show she was lying. Samantha called his bluff and he never produced those e-mails.

Roux didn't establish that Samantha wasn't in OP's house on the night OP killed Reeva. It was already a known fact.

 

[minor4th]

It's also highly likely that Roux ended his questioning of Samantha because her testimony was damaging to his client and he wanted her out of the witness box ASAP.

During his cross, he promised to produce e-mails that he implied would show she was lying. Samantha called his bluff and he never produced those e-mails.

Roux didn't establish that Samantha wasn't in OP's house on the night OP killed Reeva. It was already a known fact.

Right, she knew nothing of what happened that night, and that was made clear. Point being, she was not a witness who had any information relevant to the murder charge. She was there to malign Oscar and to give evidence about shooting a gun through a sunroof.

Dont you think it's pretty convenient that the state added those additional charges just in time for trial so they had a pretext for getting Samantha on the stand to gratuitously accuse Oscar of cheating and being a meanie?

 

[shane13]

The fact remains, you do not know why she was crying, and you do not know that it wasn't because she lost her boyfriend. She is obviously still upset and angry at him.

True neither of us, nor anyone else, can know what is in her brain as she is tesifying. Obvously I grant you that.

But it is highly likely given all the threats she has received, that this would be very vivid for her. PTSD has been well studied and is known to frequently include almost constant fear or reliving of stressful events and such. Her behavior in court likely confirms this. And it is less likely to be about the breakup, because as I already noted, she quickly dated another man. And Oscar then went severely ballistic and his threats to the man who dated her Quinton van der Burgh, made big news certainly in SA and later worldwide.

Furthermore what you have posted, stated or implied: her testimony should be discarded or have liittle or no weight simply because the two went out together and broke up.

Of course the opposite is true. She has intimate knoweldge of where he usually sleeps and what his enraged screaming sounds like ["A Man'] and many other crucial aspects.

But apparently because her testimony goes against OP, you stated or implied it should all be considered of little or no value [merely because they dated and broke up] or words to that effect. "Scorned' was the derogatory term you used,yes?

Can I ask you, have you said any of the Pros.' witnesses so far were excellent or such?

Speaking generally (and not about you), it is troubling if any vetted attorney might have an agenda here

I have been ignoring your posts despite so many things, just to have harmony at this thread. I so wish you would ignore mine.

Thank you kindly. I wish you only the best--life is so very short, we don't need extra stress. Have a happy weekend.

 

[Jamtart]

Right, she knew nothing of what happened that night, and that was made clear. Point being, she was not a witness who had any information relevant to the murder charge. She was there to malign Oscar and to give evidence about shooting a gun through a sunroof.

Dont you think it's pretty convenient that the state added those additional charges just in time for trial so they had a pretext for getting Samantha on the stand to gratuitously accuse Oscar of cheating and being a meanie?

Given that she could give no information pertaining to the events on the night of the alleged murder, it crossed my mind that they had sneaked her in as a character witness, through the back door so to speak. At times, I was confused as to which crime she was testifying about. A lot of the questions seemed pointless and irrelevant, to me anyway but then I know nothing of SA law!

 

[minor4th]

True neither of us, nor anyone else, can know what is in her brain as she is tesifying. Obvously I grant you that.

But it is highly likely given all the threats she has received, that this would be very vivid for her. PTSD has been well studied and is known to frequently include almost constant fear or reliving of stressful events and such. Her behavior in court likely confirms this. And it is less likely to be about the breakup, because as I already noted, she quickly dated another man. And Oscar then went severely ballistic and his threats to the man who dated her Quinton van der Burgh, made big news certainly in SA and later worldwide.

Furthermore what you have posted, stated or implied: her testimony should be discarded or have liittle or no weight simply because the two went out together and broke up.

Of course the opposite is true. She has intimate knoweldge of where he usually sleeps and what his enraged screaming sounds like ["A Man'] and many other crucial aspects.

But apparently because her testimony goes against OP, you stated or implied it should all be considered of little or no value [merely because they dated and broke up] or words to that effect.

Can I ask you, have you said any of the Pros.' witnesses so far were excellent or such?

Speaking generally (and not about you), it is troubling if any vetted attorney might have an agenda here

I have been ignoring your posts despite so many things, just to have harmony at this thread. I so wish you would ignore mine.

Thank you kindly. I wish you only the best--life is so very short, we don't need extra stress. Have a happy weekend.

No, if you read my first posts about this, I mentioned that any testimony from a scorned ex-girlfriend should be viewed with caution - that is true across the board, and not limited to this trial or anything in particular that Samantha testified to.

She has an axe to grind. That is very clear.

And please stop referring to my profession as if that has anything to do with my opinions. I am blocking any poster who brings it up in a demeaning way such as this.

 

[minor4th]

Given that she could give no information pertaining to the events on the night of the alleged murder, it crossed my mind that they had sneaked her in as a character witness, through the back door so to speak. A lot of the questions seemed pointless and irrelevant, to me anyway but then I know nothing of SA law!

That is exactly what it looked like to me. SA rules of evidence and procedure are obviously quite different than the US because general character evidence like that would never be allowed. Since it is in front of a judge instead of a jury, however, the potential is small that the judge will be biased by irrelevant statements

 

[lisasalinger]

None of them match each other. Shipp's testimony closely matches Oscar's account.

So no explanation for the three bangs that woke up Shipp and the absence of any other bangs - you just know it was the gunshots at 3:17 (even though Shipp said the two sounds were identical). Ok ....

BBM

Well obviously I can't "explain" it, I wasn't there. But I did theorize that perhaps it was some type of banging from a fight. Maybe it involved the cricket bat. I honestly don't know, but I am theorizing.

And I didn't say "I just know it was gunshots." I said I believed it was gunshots. Believing and knowing are two different things. For me, the witnesses thus far have seemed credible. I don't expect every single detail and word to align exactly. As with a judge or jury, I have a right to deem somebody credible or not.

Please do go back and read my original post that you responded to. I believe I very clearly detailed why I have a problem with Oscar's timeline.

It's not because I don't like Oscar. It's not because I think people lie. It's not because I hate the lawyers. I gave very specific information based on Oscar's affidavit, Stipp's witness account, and I applied my common sense.

 

[shane13]

It's also highly likely that Roux ended his questioning of Samantha because her testimony was damaging to his client and he wanted her out of the witness box ASAP.

During his cross, he promised to produce e-mails that he implied would show she was lying. Samantha called his bluff and he never produced those e-mails.

Roux didn't establish that Samantha wasn't in OP's house on the night OP killed Reeva. It was already a known fact.

BBM

Very asute, Sorrell.

That alone implies she was a tremendous witness. And of course, that she knew the truth and was testifying to the same, and wouldn't be budged.

Again I wish OP could be found innocent--if he really is, but all these witnesses this week, including the "Everything is fine" do not seem to fit this possibility.

 

[sorrell skye]

Wait, when did Oscar threaten others with a gun?
Why can't it be that he admitted to killing her simply because that is what happened. There's absolutely no evidence that he was trying to blame it on someone else or would have blamed it on someone else if he had been able to.

As far as lying to get someone else to accept responsibility for his criminal actions - he accidentally discharged a firearm, it was an ACCIDENT and we don't know yet if Oscar asked someone else to take the blame or if someone else did that on their own or offered to do it. Either way, that is a far cry from intentionally murdering someone and looking for someone else to blame.

If he was going to blame someone else, would he have immediately shouted help, help, help? Would he be carrying her lifeless body down the stairs? Would he have called security for an ambulance?

BBM

Samantha Taylor testified that one night when she & OP were returning to his house, OP thought a car was following them. He pulled over, jumped out of his car with his pistol, approached the other car and pointed his gun at the other car's window.

ST also testified that as he did so, he appeared to be angry.

It's all in the trial testimony.

WAT (wildabouttrial) has each day of trial taped & archived.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

 

[Jamtart]

That is exactly what it looked like to me. SA rules of evidence and procedure are obviously quite different than the US because general character evidence like that would never be allowed. Since it is in front of a judge instead of a jury, however, the potential is small that the judge will be biased by irrelevant statements

Ah, ok so it seems that the absence of a jury makes a difference to the way that the evidence is presented. Very different to the UK as well, which is probably why I am finding Roux so intolerable at times!

 

[minor4th]

BBM

Samantha Taylor testified that one night when she & OP were returning to his house, OP thought a car was following them. He pulled over, jumped out of his car with his pistol, approached the other car and pointed his gun at the other car's window.

ST also testified that as he did so, he appeared to be angry.

It's all in the trial testimony.

WAT (wildabouttrial) has each day of trial taped & archived.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

I missed that part of her testimony. I have reviewed as much as I can but at times I do tune out lol

 

[Jamtart]

BBM

Samantha Taylor testified that one night when she & OP were returning to his house, OP thought a car was following them. He pulled over, jumped out of his car with his pistol, approached the other car and pointed his gun at the other car's window.

ST also testified that as he did so, he appeared to be angry.

It's all in the trial testimony.

WAT (wildabouttrial) has each day of trial taped & archived.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

This was interesting because when she talked about that incident, Roux thought she was referring to another (similar) incident with a white car which suggests that, if true, then he behaved in a reckless and threatening manner involving guns on at least 2 occasions...in addition to the restaurant incident, allegedly firing out of the sunroof and fatally shooting his girlfriend. That would suggest a pattern of behaviour. I don't think the prosecution asked her about it though, which seemed strange. Unless I missed that?

 

[katydid23]

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

BBM

Sure, it fits OP's narrative perfectly. I wouldn't expect anything less from a topnotch defense attorney. They have had plenty of time to fit their narrative to the known facts. HOWEVER that does not mean it is true.

Judge Alex on HLN had a narrative that also fit. So we will see what happens when the state sets forth it's forensics and does it's closing arguments.

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

I bolded something but can't remember which bit I bolded because you had already bolded bits lol.

:goodpost:

Thank you!!!

ETA Oh - it's the part about Dr. Stipp not hearing "help help help" until AFTER the 2nd set of bangs.

 

[minor4th]

BBM

Sure, it fits OP's narrative perfectly. I wouldn't expect anything less from a topnotch defense attorney. They have had plenty of time to fit their narrative to the known facts. HOWEVER that does not mean it is true.

Judge Alex on HLN had a narrative that also fit. So we will see what happens when the state sets forth it's forensics and does it's closing arguments.

Well when it comes down to it, if it fits another narrative and it also fits Oscar's narrative then I don't think you can get beyond a reasonable doubt, and you're right - that does not make it true. Do you agree?