Trial Discussion Thread #32

[lisasalinger]

Did Roux say it was 2 double taps before the ballistics were known?

Roux said it while cross-examining Mangena. But the Defense would have had the State's ballistics report long before trial.

Not only did he challenge Mangena with the double tap theory, he went so far as to say that it was Oscar's version.

And then several days later Roux withdrew that and said it was his mistake, he mispoke. He went on to say that supposedly Oscar informed him of the mistake that same day but for some unknown reason they didn't mention it to the State until several days later in trial when it came up as kind of a side note. Nel, understandably, had a little flip out session over that.

The whole thing was absurd. A defense attorney does NOT make a mistake about how their client fired his gun on the night he shot 4 bullets and killed a woman. Oscar clearly changed his version to the rapid succession when the double taps were destroyed by Mangena.

 

[Really?]

You are paraphrasing Dixon to support an argument. Really?

what?

 

[liesbeth]

Just in case.

 

[crasshopper]

I think the best way to do it would be to cut and paste it from elsewhere...unless I can talk you out of an indented and bulleted list entirely lol

Thank you

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

That's a fairly pi$$weak motive. So, in effect, you're saying that she has stuck her neck out to undergo cross-examination and lie under oath because she wants to help convict a man she has no reported prior animosity with???

Occam's Razor would suggest that this explanation is "pushing it".

 

[sicknote]

Roux said it while cross-examining Mangena. But the Defense would have had the State's ballistics report long before trial.

Not only did he challenge Mangena with the double tap theory, he went so far as to say that it was Oscar's version.

And then several days later Roux withdrew that and said it was his mistake, he mispoke. He went on to say that supposedly Oscar informed him of the mistake that same day but for some unknown reason they didn't mention it to the State until several days later in trial when it came up as kind of a side note. Nel, understandably, had a little flip out session over that.

The whole thing was absurd. A defense attorney does NOT make a mistake about how their client fired his gun on the night he shot 4 bullets and killed a woman. Oscar clearly changed his version to the rapid succession when the double taps were destroyed by Mangena.

I agree, totally absurd. Tailoring at its finest......

 

[crasshopper]

Just in case.

That is awesome, huge THANK YOU !!!

 

[crasshopper]

Minor,

I'd like to offer you some support by warmly inviting you to the "other side" ;-)

 

[steveml]

But what does Burger have to gain by adding this info to her testimony?

It's not so much about what Ms Burger has to gain, it's more about the effect an embellished testimony can have on the outcome of a trial.

This is why it can be quite frustrating when we often hear the response 'why would he/she lie' whenever a witnesses recollection is brought into doubt.
A witness doesn't have to be lying to inaccurately state the facts of the case. Once a witness has decided on a perpetrator's guilt prior to testimony, it's quite common for them to become unwilling to reconsider their initial understanding.

I'd be interested to know if anybody watched the complete testimony of Ms Burger without feeling a strong sense that she had already determined OP's guilt. There are many clues in there.

 

[Forensics]

Embellish

Dictionary definition for embellish is to "enhance (a statement or narrative) with fictitious additions."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embellish

...oops someone had already posted this..sorry

 

[steveml]

Roux said it while cross-examining Mangena. But the Defense would have had the State's ballistics report long before trial.

Not only did he challenge Mangena with the double tap theory, he went so far as to say that it was Oscar's version.

And then several days later Roux withdrew that and said it was his mistake, he mispoke. He went on to say that supposedly Oscar informed him of the mistake that same day but for some unknown reason they didn't mention it to the State until several days later in trial when it came up as kind of a side note. Nel, understandably, had a little flip out session over that.

The whole thing was absurd. A defense attorney does NOT make a mistake about how their client fired his gun on the night he shot 4 bullets and killed a woman. Oscar clearly changed his version to the rapid succession when the double taps were destroyed by Mangena.

Hi Lisa,

What's your theory regarding the strong assertion of the double-tap suggestion made by Roux.

Do you think his purpose was to use it to explain a shooting accuracy issue or a shooting speed issue?

 

[Greater Than]

It's not so much about what Ms Burger has to gain, it's more about the effect an embellished testimony can have on the outcome of a trial.

This is why it can be quite frustrating when we often hear the response 'why would he/she lie' whenever a witnesses recollection is brought into doubt.
A witness doesn't have to be lying to inaccurately state the facts of the case. Once a witness has decided on a perpetrator's guilt prior to testimony, it's quite common for them to become unwilling to reconsider their initial understanding.

I'd be interested to know if anybody watched the complete testimony of Ms Burger without feeling a strong sense that she had already determined OP's guilt. There are many clues in there.

If I had heard what she heard and then later found out what I heard was a trapped woman being gunned down, I'd probably have made my mind up too. I bet she'd give anything to unhear those screams and gunshots. They will undoubtedly haunt her for the rest of her life.

 

[sicknote]

As I have mentioned previously, Dixon must have recordings of double taps on his laptop.

They had to repeat the recordings THIS MONTH......how on earth is this even allowed?

There must have been times throughout OP's testimony where the Judge thought 'seriously, these xxxxx expect me to believe that'.

 

[Really?]

If I had heard what she heard and then later found out what I heard was a trapped woman being gunned down, I'd probably have made my mind up too. I bet she'd give anything to unhear those screams and gunshots. They will undoubtedly haunt her for the rest of her life.

BBM:

I agree......I just re-watched her x-exam 2 days ago....

 

[Forensics]

Just stumbled across another interesting article regarding domestic violence against women and how the OP case has cast a world spotlight on what is happening to women in South Africa. In particular, the way the justice system addresses this case has the power to send a significant message. This quote also stood out:....

"The smiling superman of 2012 has slowly but surely morphed into an arrogant, pathetic man-child. One who is so used to getting his own way, and being so supremely powerful in the world he inhabits, that even in face of undeniable responsibility, he is prepared to blame everyone else (including his victim) for the heinous crime that has been committed."

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/20...aculous-change-for-the-women-of-south-africa/

 

[steveml]

If I had heard what she heard and then later found out what I heard was a trapped woman being gunned down, I'd probably have made my mind up too. I bet she'd give anything to unhear those screams and gunshots. They will undoubtedly haunt her for the rest of her life.

With this in mind, if someone was that distressing to the point that it immediately affected my well-being, I would feel an overwhelming to report the crime as soon as it was practically possible.
This would also have the added benefit that my recollection of the morning wasn't influenced by any outside sources.

 

[mister happy]

BBM:

I agree......I just re-watched her x-exam 2 days ago....

Where can I find it? Is it on Youtube?

 

[Really?]

Where can I find it? Is it on Youtube?

yes.....that is where I watch it from....enjoy

 

[mister happy]

yes.....that is where I watch it from....enjoy

Thanks Really, but do you know the title of the Youtube video? There are so many about the Pistorious trial.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

It's not so much about what Ms Burger has to gain, it's more about the effect an embellished testimony can have on the outcome of a trial.

This is why it can be quite frustrating when we often hear the response 'why would he/she lie' whenever a witnesses recollection is brought into doubt.
A witness doesn't have to be lying to inaccurately state the facts of the case. Once a witness has decided on a perpetrator's guilt prior to testimony, it's quite common for them to become unwilling to reconsider their initial understanding.

I'd be interested to know if anybody watched the complete testimony of Ms Burger without feeling a strong sense that she had already determined OP's guilt. There are many clues in there.

So, Dr Burger doesn't need a motive for her alleged illegal behaviour on the stand, but the PT has to have a "provable" non-circumstantial motive for OP murdering Reeva??