Trial Discussion Thread #32

[molly333]

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.

Her testimony wasn't damning to the defense. She [thought she] heard a dead person screaming. It was actually in the defense favor.

The screams she heard had to be Oscar's. Common sense tells us dead people don't scream.

IMO

 

[Trooper]

Her testimony wasn't damning to the defense. She [thought she] heard a dead person screaming. It was actually in the defense favor.

The screams she heard had to be Oscar's.

IMO

that's your opinion.. Mrs Burger, who was there, and heard it , testified differently .. there fore your opinion wont count, I regret to inform you. Only Mrs Burgers will count with Judge Masipa.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Are you suggesting that she was privy to Capt. Mangena's evidence before he had testified? How would you know that?

 

[Trooper]

Are you suggesting that she was privy to Capt. Mangena's evidence before he had testified? How would you know that?

the absurdity of this proposal is risible.. :floorlaugh:

 

[molly333]

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.

I personally [and possibly no one else does this] give a lot of slack to a defendant who takes the stand. I consider that a totally different ballgame from a neutral witness. The defendant has a lot to lose, is probably scared out of his wits, and probably cannot remember his own name. Ever try to remember facts when you are scared out of your wits?

He is also facing a skilled and formidable opponent whose sole purpose is to make him look guilty.

Ever wonder why a defendant rarely takes the stand? We saw the reason why when Oscar testified.

IMO

 

[Trooper]

the lengths some folks will go to ..... this old stuff about the states witnesses testimony has hair on its legs.. it wont fly, that ship has sunk, its overrrrrrrr!!! ..


find another hook to hang this rapidly escalating reality of Oscar Pistorius being a lying calculated killer..

 

[BritsKate]

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

No one has ever suggested someone dead was screaming. That's really rather dismissive considering Saayman's testimony on cognitive function.

But since you apparently understand the scientific testimony better than myself, would you kindly explain how Reeva could have lived, given the extent of her injuries, long enough to die on the downstairs floor with an earlier shooting time? And a link to anyone testifying Reeva could have been alive more than mere moments after being shot in the head would be appreciated as well. (It would, by defence time line necessity, need to be approximately 10 minutes, at least.)

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

 

[liesbeth]

Where can I find it? Is it on Youtube?

There are links to her testimony here.

Ear Witnesses - Part 1 - Burger, van der Merwe, Johnson - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[molly333]

that's your opinion.. Mrs Burger, who was there, and heard it , testified differently .. there fore your opinion wont count, I regret to inform you. Only Mrs Burgers will count with Judge Masipa.

I don't always agree with the defense strategy. I would have nurtured Mrs. B's testimony instead of indicting it.

I consider her a good witness for the defense.

IMO

 

[lithgow1]

I personally [and possibly no one else does this] give a lot of slack to a defendant who takes the stand. I consider that a totally different ballgame from a neutral witness. The defendant has a lot to lose, is probably scared out of his wits, and probably cannot remember his own name. Ever try to remember facts when you are scared out of your wits?

He is also facing a skilled and formidable opponent whose sole purpose is to make him look guilty.

Ever wonder why a defendant rarely takes the stand? We saw the reason why when Oscar testified.

IMO

He would not be 'scared out of his wits' if his story was fundamentally true. Nervous sure, but not scared out of his wits when he finally had the chance to bolster his version of events. He was composed enough to correct Nel numerous times on minor points of semantics so I think it is overreaching to say his blunders were due to intense fear.

So what about all the 'little lies' such as not remembering who he called after the 'shooting on the highway' incident. That can't be put down to his fear, either at the time of the alleged incident or when he was retelling it in court.

 

[molly333]

No one has ever suggested someone dead was screaming. That's really rather dismissive considering Saayman's testimony on cognitive function.

But since you apparently understand the scientific testimony better than myself, would you kindly explain how Reeva could have lived, given the extent of her injuries, long enough to die on the downstairs floor with an earlier shooting time? And a link to anyone testifying Reeva could have been alive more than mere moments after being shot in the head would be appreciated as well. (It would, by defence time line necessity, need to be approximately 10 minutes, at least.)

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

If it happened the way the prosecution said, she was not alive on the landing. I don't believe that is arterial blood on the landing. Have we actually seen a picture of it, yet?

<modsnip>

IMO

 

[molly333]

He would not be 'scared out of his wits' if his story was fundamentally true. Nervous sure, but not scared out of his wits when he finally had the chance to bolster his version of events. He was composed enough to correct Nel numerous times on minor points of semantics so I think it is overreaching to say his blunders were due to intense fear.

So what about all the 'little lies' such as not remembering who he called after the 'shooting on the highway' incident. That can't be put down to his fear, either at the time of the alleged incident or when he was retelling it in court.

You know the saying, A lawyer cannot try his own case?

That's the position a defendant is in.

Have you ever had somebody accuse you of something you didn't do? And, they have purposely or innocently twisted the facts to make you look guilty. And, you can see how it makes you look guilty, but you are not guilty?

A good prosecutor could make his own grandmother look guilty.

I didn't see anything huge in Oscar's testimony to make me doubt his story.

IMO

 

[weeeva]

Apologies everyone for my blunder re bedroom door. I had completely forgot about that testimony.

 

[Jake18]

You are paraphrasing Dixon to support an argument. Really?

I am very fond of Dixon. He left his isolated-apart-from-the-Internet forest (which he planted himself) to testify for the DT and yet, IMO, furthered their cause not at all. He got destroyed by Nel on cross and yet still, if his postings on social media were to be believed, enjoyed the "interaction". I genuinely hope OP paid him a lot of money.

 

[lithgow1]

You know the saying, A lawyer cannot try his own case?

That's the position a defendant is in.

Have you ever had somebody accuse you of something you didn't do? And, they have purposely or innocently twisted the facts to make you look guilty. And, you can see how it makes you look guilty, but you are not guilty?

A good prosecutor could make his own grandmother look guilty.

I didn't see anything huge in Oscar's testimony to make me doubt his story.

IMO

All of that is all very well but there was no 'twisting of the facts' by the prosecutor when it came to Pistorius not remembering who he called after that particular incident. The fact that he couldn't remember proves he made it up IMO. Since you're bringing personal experiences into the debate, I know if that had happened to me I'd remember who I called as we would have talked about it all the way home.

 

[molly333]

All of that is all very well but there was no 'twisting of the facts' by the prosecutor when it came to Pistorius not remembering who he called after that particular incident. The fact that he couldn't remember proves he made it up. Since you're bringing personal experiences into the debate, I know if that had happened to me I'd remember who I called as we would have talked about it all the way home.

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to.

You mean who he called after he discovered Reeva in the toilet closet?

He couldn't remember who or in what order he called people?

 

[Emz73]

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.

So she purposely lied? And added the pause. She sat there and thought "how can I make it worse for OP. I know I'll put a pause in! That will do it! Hopefully the ballistics guy will think the same". Mwah ha ha ha.

 

[lithgow1]

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to.

You mean who he called after he discovered Reeva in the toilet closet?

He couldn't remember who or in what order he called people?

No, the incident on the highway where he claimed some car came up fast behind him and then shot at him. He testified to it as one of the reasons for his heightened sense of fear for his personal safety.

He recalled all the turns he took to get off the highway and park his car at a restaurant where he called a friend to come pick him up. Except he cannot remember the name of the friend he called or who took him back the next day to re-fetch his car. So does that dodgy at all? Sure does IMO.

 

[PPKik]

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.

That is pretty harsh and rude, to call your fellow posters liars. You have made far too many presumptions and call them fact.

I don't know when you last listened to Ms Burgers testimony, but I listened to it for hours last night, after it was posted on WS.

Burger's testimony, in places, made no sense at all. Her belligerence in the face of Roux trying to get straight answers from her was maddening.

I had hoped to get insight, before listening to her testimony. Afterwards, I felt very disturbed by her obvious biases and hostility.

Far from hoping to "hold onto Oscar being innocent," I'm trying to understand exactly what happened, dispassionately. His total lack of any sense of responsibility in his gun ownership and handling is sickening. But, what OP's intent was that night, I don't know, and will never know from the contradictory testimony I have heard so far.

How do you know "none of these people [ear witnesses] embellished, collaborated, lied, embroidered or created stuff"? The fact is you don't know unless you are in their heads, which you most definitely are not. The above is simply your opinion.

I know how Ms Burger's and Mr. Johnson's testimony left me feeling and thinking about their testimony. It had nothing to do with OP's behaviour and actions that night, but their own. How exactly was Reeva able to scream after that fourth shot?


ETA: I believe, after listening to their respective testimonies, that they both went beyond embellishing.

 

[Nausicaa]

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

Since when have witnesses not been allowed to have a firm view of the accused's guilt anyway ?