Trial Discussion Thread #32

[jay-jay]

I also said here weeks ago that most bullets are shot out at supersonic speeds. Some at several times the speed of sound.

Even if the scream and shot were at the same time, at the larger distances of the witnesses, say 177m, the supersonic sound waves of the gunshot would arrive at some part of a second ahead of the last scream, even if the two occured at the same time or if the scream occurred a bit before the shot. I've said for year here I hope PT has got a physicist there to testify. Sorry they didn't.

Thanks Shane .. I didn't see your previous posts on this, but it's what I was trying to get at in my post yesterday. I've been doing a bit of reading up on accoustics and it's really not as simple as 'it's not possible for Burger to have heard a scream after the shot' .. although the speed of sound is constant, it depends of the type of sound and the frequency, whether they are supersonic sound waves, etc as to whether that speed changes and in addition to that, decibels (depending on the type of sound) can be heard in different ways (i.e. something can be the same decibel as something else, but can be heard in different ways). Add to that the possibility that Reeva's last scream (which we don't know whether it started a fraction before the head shot, or directly on impact as an involuntary action) could've continued just slightly past the actual impact (i.e. her scream would not have stopped at the *exact* same time as the impact and would've tailed off), then I see no reason whatsoever for Burger not to have heard what she described she heard.

p.s. loved your 'Into the light' parody! I meant to have said when you first posted it, but the thread had been shut before I got the chance to!

 

[jay-jay]

My point was:

So, why is it when OP changes or adds to his story, a number of posters insist that he is telling the truth. That being the case, why would one think that Burger is lying/misrepresenting/making stuff up? What is her investment in misleading the judge? In contrast, OP has everything invested in his changes and additions to his original statements.

Not only that, but apparently she is 'belligerent' .. well, I think I would probably become belligerent if someone (i.e. Roux) was trying to bully me into saying something other than what I believed to be true.

 

[BritsKate]

I think the posters here who believe that Oscar believed there was an intruder have all conceded that Oscar is a terrible witness and has hurt his own credibility and defense.



Why is it that those who believe he's guilty of murder cannot concede even a tiny point that a state's witness could be mistaken or embellishing their testimony?

I just don't believe Michelle Burger IS embellishing her testimony so its a point I can't concede. I don't know when or if that part of the ballistics were known before trial and she testified before Mangena. Its been too long, but Roux grilled her pretty hard, did he elicit when she found out about the ballistics?

For me this becomes a chicken vs. egg argument. Instead of embellishing the truth because she thinks he's lying and wants him convicted, couldn't it be, assuming its true, that she believes he's guilty of murder (and knows he's lying) because of what she heard that night?

And Oscar has conceded the majority of her testimony, at least, by attempting to explain it.
Compared to the testimony of the Stipps, whom he called out as liars from the stand.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[jay-jay]

Originally Posted by minor4th View Post
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.

BIB. How could you possibly know that to be a fact?

Yes, absolutely .. how can you know that, Minor? First Mrs Stipp, now Burger, both are lying just in order to frame OP are they? .. no doubt all the other witnesses too? .. and the police trying to frame OP by 'contaminating' the crime scene .. goodness me, they're all out to get him, aren't they??! :facepalm:

 

[PPKik]

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.

BBM

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.


Yes, I totally agree. I had a very strong sense that she had already decided. Her belligerence and stubborn non-responsiveness to Roux when he tried to cross examine her made me extremely anxious and frustrated. Her description of the fading screamafter the last shot doesn't seem possible or make any sense; I question all of what she said she heard.


Refusing to buckle under pressure from the defence lawyer, Barry Roux, Burger added: "I heard petrified screaming before the gunshots and just after the gunshots.

"I couldn't understand why Mr Pistorius didn't hear the screams of the woman. And if he didn't hear the screams of the woman, that's a question that needs to be asked to Mr Pistorius."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rger-paralympian-reeva-steenkamp-murder-trial

At what point did she first think she "couldn't understand why Mr. Pistorius didn't hear the screams of the woman." When she heard the screams, she didn't even know they were coming from OP's house, did she? Using the words "I couldn't" sounds like she is saying she thought that at the time of the screaming.

So, when did she think this? During the screaming, later in the day when she heard about the shooting, months later, or on the witness stand? That alone seems to be a very inappropriate and contaminated judgement coming from a witness.

 

[patCee]

I also said here weeks ago that most bullets are shot out at supersonic speeds. Some at several times the speed of sound.

Even if the scream and shot were at the same time, at the larger distances of the witnesses, say 177m, the supersonic sound waves of the gunshot would arrive at some part of a second ahead of the last scream, even if the two occured at the same time or if the scream occurred a bit before the shot. I've said for year here I hope PT has got a physicist there to testify. Sorry they didn't.

I don't know anything about supersonic sounds or physics of sound as such, but regarding the clay pigeon shoot I mentioned 1 and half miles away, Shotguns are used for this. My understanding is that a rifle, and in particular a pistol has a lot more resonance and will create the ringing in the ears. So the sound is more likely to travel further, I would guess. Arguably a shotgun is less likely to do so because there is less powder in the ammo.

 

[BritsKate]

Sigh. The obligation of a witness is to testify truthfully. They are not legally bound to remain impartial. It is the job of the prosecutor to weigh whether any perceived negativity about the witness that could be elicited (criminal history, bias, drug use, etc.) during cross against the benefit of their testimony. And it is, of course, the job of the defence to expose it. And hell, let's say Michelle Burger does think OP deliberately executed Reeva, who or what says she isn't allowed that opinion as long as she testifies truthfully?

I still applaud Burger and Johnson for coming forward when they were clear they didn't want to get involved, much it could be argued, to their personal detriment.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[fox1lady]

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.

It must be a very scary thing to have to consider. I think I would need to give a statement of what I heard, I'd have to. However, the weight of what it would all mean for me to testify knowing that OP was such a kind of demigod in SA and that soooo many people look up to him, not being believed, words twisted, death threats etc etc, would mean I would have some serious doubts although I feel that in the end I would just have to do it.

 

[patCee]

Not only that, but apparently she is 'belligerent' .. well, I think I would probably become belligerent if someone (i.e. Roux) was trying to bully me into saying something other than what I believed to be true.

This is so true. I can remember as a witness being questioned in a belligerent style by a 'clever dick' lawyer. I could feel my hackles rising and my inner voice telling me not to react, but to just tell the court what I knew. It would have been easy to forget the reason I was there and just react to the lawyer to the detriment of his client. I don't think Burger embellished because of this, but I do think a lawyer can do their client a disservice in this way, it's a delicate path.

 

[BritsKate]

While the discussion is at witnesses with a perceived bias...anyone recall Amber Frey from the Scott Peterson trial? Now there was a witness who quite obviously believed the defendant was both lying and guilty. Yet, she was the State's star witness and few ever questioned her credibility. Especially the jury. It was her testimony that helped sway them (to a DP sentence, no less) in an overwhelmingly circumstantial case.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[wb180]

Man the defense case is pretty weak that we are now discussing whether a witness has already determined someone's guilt haha.

 

[PPKik]

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

The "ear witness" testimony has been gathered at the link below. This page has been extremely helpful for me.

Yes, there are so many on youtube. This page is not only beautifully organized with the videos labeled and numbered, but contains relevant transcriptions of testimony.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10488214&posted=1#post10488214

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Man the defense case is pretty weak that we are now discussing whether a witness has already determined someone's guilt haha.

The issue that I've been discussing is not about one witness's impact on the outcome of the trial. I'm discussing this as part of the much larger picture. BTW - It's not funny.

What I've been trying to focus on is that some posters are selecting to believe what they want to believe, even if they have to make it up - irrespective of how illogical it is.

 

[Really?]

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

just checked my history and it looks like March 3.....hope that helps

 

[molly333]

I also said here weeks ago that most bullets are shot out at supersonic speeds. Some at several times the speed of sound.

Even if the scream and shot were at the same time, at the larger distances of the witnesses, say 177m, the supersonic sound waves of the gunshot would arrive at some part of a second ahead of the last scream, even if the two occured at the same time or if the scream occurred a bit before the shot. I've said for year here I hope PT has got a physicist there to testify. Sorry they didn't.

I hope this means we are moving from dead people screaming into a more scientifically viable theory.

Nevertheless, people like the Burghers were clearly hearing the last set of bangs, making the likelihood very high that they were hearing Oscar screaming.

IMO

 

[lithgow1]

She was a very belligerent witness to the defense. I had to stop listening to it because I couldn't stand how she refused to answer one question. And, of course, it was all through a translator, which made it worse, and I expect she probably speaks English proficiently.

Her husband, Mr. Johnson, was also a belligerent witness, and also refused a straight answer to a question. I was just listening to him the other day. He had all these excuses for why he changed his 'version'.

Why do they have a dog in this fight? I hate it when witnesses will not just answer the question.

PS If we are noticing these things, chances are the Judge is, too.

IMO

I'd end up getting belligerant too if I was asked the same question repeatedly by an attorney trying to make out that I didn't hear what I know I heard.

Does it bother you to any extent when a defendant lies, repeatedly, on the stand and under oath or do you give them more leeway than other witnesses?

 

[molly333]

I'd end up getting belligerant too if I was asked the same question repeatedly by an attorney trying to make out that I didn't hear what I know I heard.

Does it bother you to any extent when a defendant lies, repeatedly, on the stand and under oath or do you give them more leeway than other witnesses?

When you see a witness like Mrs. B. who will not answer --and I mean refuse to answer--a yes or no question after the DT asks her 5 times--I tend to just dismiss all of her testimony. That might sound harsh, but she should be a completely neutral witness, and when she proves to be not a neutral witness, it calls her entire testimony into question. I don't need to know why she is behaving like this. I just need to know that for whatever reason she will not answer the question.

You think the Judge might feel the same?

Moral of the story---Just answer the question. :seeya:

IMO

 

[Trooper]

Mrs Burger did not 'embellish ' her testimony...this is a farce that some need to promote to get past Mrs Burgers damning testimony... its been going on ever since Mrs Burger testified.. ditto Mr Johnson, ditto Mrs VD Mewre, ditto Dr. Stipp, ditto Mrs Stipp.. its merely a point of view that is necessary to maintain if one hopes to hold on to Oscar being innocent.. desperate measures for desperate times..

none of these people embellished, collaborated, lied, embroidered or created stuff.. in fact.. they held on to their testimony in the face of some of the most absurd suggestions and theories put to them to persuade them to change their testimony.. all refused, all re stated their evidence, and all left the stand with the defence in tatters.. this is the main reason why some posters get cross with them, and tend to lie about their testimony.

 

[lithgow1]

When you see a witness like Mrs. B. who will not answer --and I mean refuse to answer--a yes or no question after the DT asks her 5 times--I tend to just dismiss all of her testimony. That might sound harsh, but she should be a completely neutral witness, and when she proves to be not a neutral witness, it calls her entire testimony into question. I don't need to know why she is behaving like this. I just need to know that for whatever reason she will not answer the question.

You think the Judge might feel the same?

Moral of the story---Just answer the question. :seeya:

IMO

Thanks for the response Molly - I'll relisten to her testimony to see if I perceive it in the way you do.

I don't know what the judge will think of it, just as I don't know what she will think of Pistorius lying, and I'm still interested in your thoughts as to that.

 

[weeeva]

http://citizen.co.za/145834/oscar-bedroom-door-scrutiny-oscar-trial/

And from Lisa's blog:
<modsnip> http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/oscar-trial-day-18-oscar/

(I searched high and low for an MSM link for the above but couldn't find one. I consider our Lisa to be highly reputable but felt guilty lifting from her blog. :blushing: Sorry Lisa, but thank you! :loveyou

Thank-you for going to the bother BritsKate.