Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

[Jake18]

That was after 3:17 - on the state's timeline. Hence after the screams heard by Burger with the help help help. On burger's evidence he screamed out for help before he shot her. That would mean that he created his alibi/excuse before he committed the crime. Totally implausible.

Why is this totally implausible?

He had the presence to mind to fetch his gun.

 

[Lyra500]

That was after 3:17 - on the state's timeline. Hence after the screams heard by Burger with the help help help. On burger's evidence he screamed out for help before he shot her. That would mean that he created his alibi/excuse before he committed the crime. Totally implausible.

So do you have an explanation for all of the changes to OP's testimony or all the claims he made and then had to change when it was shown that they simply were not possible? Surely Judge Masipa has to look at the evidence and testimony as a whole.

So you actually believe that all of the ear witnesses were mistaken and did not hear a woman scream?

And you believe OPs story about going out on the balcony, well actually not going out on the balcony. Hearing a noise in the bathroom, well no actually the window banging open and then the toilet door slamming? And screaming like he had never screamed before - so are you saying all of the screams were OP?

Just wondering.

 

[Julian]

Couple of important points...the only options are not premeditated murder OR CH. It's murder - with or without premeditation - directus or eventualis; and if those are rejected, CH is looked at. SA doesn't even have a premeditated murder charge...premeditation, if proven, simply factors into sentencing.

These points are certainly worth repeating!

My own feeling is that, having heard the closing arguments, we are basically where we started. I do not feel that pre-meditated murder has been proven (far from it, in fact). I do, however, believe that Pistorius could be convicted of murder, and that this would probably be the most fitting sentence. Having said that, I would not be surprised if it turns out to be culpable homicide. A total acquittal seems out of the question.

One of the more interesting tidbits from the last few days can, to my mind, be found in the defence's "Heads of Argument" (their closing arguments). For what it's worth, they give three examples of possible murder incidents. These are:

Example One

A mother of a three year old girl hears a noise in her home. She thinks she's being burgled, and so gets her gun and heads towards the noise. She then hears the sound of her bedroom door closing. She fires a shot through the bedroom door, thinking that's where the burglar is. Instead, she hits and kills her daughter.

Example Two

X wants to kill Y. X thinks he sees Y and fires his gun. It turns out the person he thought was Y is actually Z, who simply resembled Y. Z dies.

Example Three

A wants to kill B. He shoots his gun, but misses B and instead hits C, who dies.

The odd thing is that the defence state that assuming murder in the first example would be "offensive", but that it would be the correct assumption in the second example. When you think about it, though, the two examples are actually the same. The first may be presented as a terrible domestic accident, whilst the second is treated prosaically, but, legally, I cannot see the distinction.

In the end, even when you take Pistorius's version of events, you would have to accept that he shot at a burglar he assumed was in the toilet. He intended to kill that person and he did so. The fact that that person turned out not to be a burglar, but his own girlfriend, does not change his intent. It's simply a question of mistaken identity. (Of course, Pistorius has also argued that he shot "involuntarily"; that argument is, however, not a very strong one.)

 

[44ALLAN]

Agree, absolutely.
But what does AIMVOHOOC mean?

thank you for agreeing much appreciated

AIMVOHOOC = All in my very own humble opinion of course

 

[Exchange973]

So do you have an explanation for all of the changes to OP's testimony or all the claims he made and then had to change when it was shown that they simply were not possible? Surely Judge Masipa has to look at the evidence and testimony as a whole.

So you actually believe that all of the ear witnesses were mistaken and did not hear a woman scream?

And you believe OPs story about going out on the balcony, well actually not going out on the balcony. Hearing a noise in the bathroom, well no actually the window banging open and then the toilet door slamming? And screaming like he had never screamed before - so are you saying all of the screams were OP?

Just wondering.

Yes, I think all of the screams pre-3:17 were OP. The help help help is a huge problem for me, and is when I started to really doubt the State's case. That for me means that the screams heard cannot have pre-dated the shots. Therefore, they must be after the shots - and therefore must be OP. I think the witnesses heard screams - but those screams were OP. Don't forget that one of the witnesses (I forget who) heard crying and assumed it was a woman, before her husband said - no no that's oscar - so it is possible for witnesses to confuse the two.

I don't think OP made that many changes to his testimony at all, besides semantics "talk softly vs whisper" etc. The window opening is a noise in the bathroom. These really aren't inconsistencies, or at least not big ones. If you're asking whether the Judge will be able to to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt on these semantics, I don't think she can IMO.

 

[Greater Than]

The help help help that Burger heard OP scream "before" the shots is a major problem for the state. It simply doesn't make sense that he would scream for help before shooting Reeva. And, with respect, it is highly highly unlikely that he did so to create a defence for a crime he had not yet committed.

It is far more likely that the "help help help" heard was OP after the shooting. Therefore, the screams heard were not Reeva but OP, and everything heard by Burgers post dated the shots.

Certainly, the "help help help" supposedly screamed by OP before he shot Reeva creates reasonable doubt.

I'm unclear why you accept Burger and Johnson's evidence of both a man and a woman yelling help help help, but reject their evidence of bloodcurdling screams unmistakably from a woman.

You can't have it both ways. Accept it all, or reject it all.

Even if you can justify rejecting their evidence in their entirety, there are still two additional independent ear witnesses who heard a woman screaming for her life before hearing gunshots.

 

[Val1]

I am more cynical, and I suggest that Pistorius shouted for help to add to the plausibility of his "intruder" story. The whole "I thought she was an intruder" excuse is such an obvious one that he would have needed no time to think it up.

I've never given any weight to the mockery suggestion, I think Ms Burger came up with it in desperation to shut Roux up. It doesn't sound very likely to me.

I otoh totally believe it was possible if not probable, given my own past experiences in somewhat similar situations and in light of RS's unhappy msg's, OP's attitude at losing that race and under cross. I also believe he shouted it twice, once in mockery at RS and the second time for cover.

 

[Exchange973]

I'm unclear why you accept Burger and Johnson's evidence of both a man and a woman yelling help help help, but reject their evidence of bloodcurdling screams unmistakably from a woman.

You can't have it both ways. Accept it all, or reject it all.

Even if you can justify rejecting their evidence in their entirety, there are still two additional independent ear witnesses who heard a woman screaming for her life before hearing gunshots.

I don't doubt they heard screams. I don't doubt that they heard someone shouting help help help. The question of whether it was a man or a woman screaming is something that is more subjective - and its this part that I doubt. They were clear that it was a man shouting help help help. If you accept this, for the reasons I've said, it is totally inconsistent with the State's case. I suppose it is possible that it was Reeva who shouted help help help, sounding like a man as she did so. That is the only way to reconcile Burger/Johnson's evidence with the state's case.

 

[kittychi]

We could all tweet him RS's memorial pic...

I did that, its gone now.

 

[Hazy]

BIB
I'm afraid you misunderstood. It was not specifically the phone times the Judge asked about.
Thanks to Mr Fossil for recording the exchange in post 640 of Thread 50



Judge: On page 60 to 62 of the heads of the defence there’s a chronology of events as well as a timeline. Are those common cause facts or do you disagree with him?

Nel: M’Lady. I would have to go through them. Those that are based on the cell phone data are common cause. Those that are based on what Mrs Nhlengethwa did, she had to move places and therefore we place this as 3:12 or 3:14, those are not common cause.

Judge: Ok. Cell phone data is common cause.

Nel: Yes. Cell phone ... let me not say not only cell phones, all the phone data ...

Judge: All the phone data

Nel: ... is common cause. That’s all that’s common cause

Judge: Thank you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqp502_tS1M from about 1:21:00

Hold on a minute.

Did Nel just agree to all the phone data as laid out in the DT's heads were common cause?

They won't be correct.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I agree but defence lawyers specialise and if Roux has no expertise in the defence of murder he surely will not have been as good as one who does. If I had been accused of murder I would not be too happy employing a Defence Lawyer if his speciality was corporate/company law or divorce. I hope the Pistorius's were totally aware of his abilities or Roux might be thrown under a bus yet again. However, he did do his best to defend an almost indefensible felon. Did he do it for the money and prestige - who knows - but IMO the odds are stacked that way. The few lawyers I know most definitely are very aware what they will make from defending their cases and the "juicier the better". In fact I would say it is uppermost on their minds - LOL. I don't see much evidence of ultruism.

“Advocates adhere to a “cab rank” rule which means that any person no matter how grievous a crime they are accused of, how poor or rich they may be or however unpopular they may be politically, is entitled to the services of an advocate, and it is unethical for an advocate who is available to take a case to refuse to do so because the advocate disapproves of the person's acts or behavior”.

http://www.kznbar.co.za/career.asp

SA and Australian law is based on British law. In practice the way it works is when a firm of solicitors (lawyers/attorneys) need a barrister (advocate) to represent their client they usually have a pretty good idea of who they have in mind to brief. Advocates, just like attorneys, usually specialise in particular aspects of the law, but the very best take on a wide range of cases because their knowledge of the law is vast. However, criminal law is different and there are very few advocates who have experience in defending people accused of murder. Most murders are not committed by the wealthy elite and most murders do not go to trial essentially because of the very serious cost factor. Public Defenders usually act for those accused of murder. This article explains it really well.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2012/08/so-you-are-charged-with-murder-in-illinois/

So I believe Roux did a good job working with a client like OP. I mean seriously, how many people accused of any crime behave like him.

 

[Exchange973]

I'm unclear why you accept Burger and Johnson's evidence of both a man and a woman yelling help help help, but reject their evidence of bloodcurdling screams unmistakably from a woman.

You can't have it both ways. Accept it all, or reject it all.

Even if you can justify rejecting their evidence in their entirety, there are still two additional independent ear witnesses who heard a woman screaming for her life before hearing gunshots.

According to Burger it wasn't shouted but screamed. Screaming help help help would be an odd way to mock someone I would have thought.

 

[AJ_DS]

Thanks. I disagree that its irrelevant. It calls Burger and Johnson into question. Stipp on screams isn't so damning for the defence, as he said the first sounds were shots - consistent with OP's case. Its burger's blood curdling screams that are the problem for OP - and her hearing help help help before the sounds "in the region of 3:17" suggests that these screams were after Reeva had been shot.

As for why he might have screamed before shooting - the idea that this was a deliberate act by a ruthless criminal mastermind foreseeing a potential trial/defence one and a half years down the line doesn't add up for me.

Your obfuscation on the facts is unparalleled, lol

1. Why does it call Burger and Johnson into question ?… a few posts ago you relied on their testimony to make your point.

2. It's not about "a deliberate act by a ruthless criminal mastermind foreseeing a potential trial/defence one and a half years down the line", it's about a man who realizes in a split-second after shooting Reeva that he acted so very impulsively with irreparable results… he is scared of the consequences… he is NOT thinking about his Trial… he's thinking I have a dead woman in my bathroom… I'm alone in my house, I shot her with my gun… I cannot disappear her… I cannot disappear myself… security and police will be here soon… what am I going to do ?… pretending to be the victim of an accident is the FIRST thing that would come up in anyone's mind to avoid being accused of murder… shouting HHH is the first step in constructing that reality.

You never answered to one of my previous questions… I would appreciate the same courtesy of a reply : What other story, beside the intruder mistaken identity story, could OP have furnished to explain the situation he was in ? … to answer, you may use full hindsight, all the evidence, testimony, etc...

BiB… impossible…here is Burgers testimony :

– MB woke up from a woman’s terrible screams.
– CJ also woke up from the screams.
– CJ jumped out of bed and went onto the balcony.
– MB is still hearing the woman’s terrible screams.
– MB heard the woman scream for help in a fear-stricken voice.
– Shortly afterwards, MB also heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– MB says she has absolutely no doubt that the 2 voices came from 2 different people.
– MB says that the 2 voices did not sound remotely the same.
– MB says that she never heard a man screaming, only the woman screamed.
– MB told CJ to come in off the balcony and call security.
– Cellphone was next to the bed.
– MB dialed security and gave the phone to CJ.
– CJ called Strubenkop estates security : call started or ended at 3:16 (58 seconds).
– MB heard more intense screams from the woman, scared screams that climaxed.
– MB inferred from the woman’s screams that the woman’s life was threatened severely.
– MB describes the woman’s screams as petrified, fear-stricken and bloodcurdling.
– MB heard the woman’s climaxing bloodcurdling screams moments before the gunshots.
– MB heard 4 gunshots : Bang -……………- Bang - Bang - Bang.
– MB heard the woman screaming during the gunshots.
– MB heard the woman’s voice fading very shortly (approx. 1 to 2 sec.) after the last gunshot.
– MB says CJ was on the balcony when she heard the gunshots.
– MB didn’t hear anything after the last gunshot : no screaming or bangs.

 

[Exchange973]

Your obfuscation on the facts is unparalleled, lol

1. Why does it call Burger and Johnson into question ?… a few posts ago you relied on their testimony to make your point.

2. It's not about "a deliberate act by a ruthless criminal mastermind foreseeing a potential trial/defence one and a half years down the line", it's about a man who realizes in a split-second after shooting Reeva that he acted so very impulsively with irreparable results… he is scared of the consequences… he is NOT thinking about his Trial… he's thinking I have a dead woman in my bathroom… I'm alone in my house, I shot her with my gun… I cannot disappear her… I cannot disappear myself… security and police will be here soon… what am I going to do ?… pretending to be the victim of an accident is the FIRST thing that would come up in anyone's mind to avoid being accused of murder… shouting HHH is the first step in constructing that reality.

You never answered to one of my previous questions… I would appreciate the same courtesy of a reply : What other story, beside the intruder mistaken identity story, could OP have furnished to explain the situation he was in ? … to answer, you may use full hindsight, all the evidence, testimony, etc...

BiB… impossible…here is Burgers testimony :

– MB woke up from a woman’s terrible screams.
– CJ also woke up from the screams.
– CJ jumped out of bed and went onto the balcony.
– MB is still hearing the woman’s terrible screams.
– MB heard the woman scream for help in a fear-stricken voice.
– Shortly afterwards, MB also heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– MB says she has absolutely no doubt that the 2 voices came from 2 different people.
– MB says that the 2 voices did not sound remotely the same.
– MB says that she never heard a man screaming, only the woman screamed.
– MB told CJ to come in off the balcony and call security.
– Cellphone was next to the bed.
– MB dialed security and gave the phone to CJ.
– CJ called Strubenkop estates security : call started or ended at 3:16 (58 seconds).
– MB heard more intense screams from the woman, scared screams that climaxed.
– MB inferred from the woman’s screams that the woman’s life was threatened severely.
– MB describes the woman’s screams as petrified, fear-stricken and bloodcurdling.
– MB heard the woman’s climaxing bloodcurdling screams moments before the gunshots.
– MB heard 4 gunshots : Bang -……………- Bang - Bang - Bang.
– MB heard the woman screaming during the gunshots.
– MB heard the woman’s voice fading very shortly (approx. 1 to 2 sec.) after the last gunshot.
– MB says CJ was on the balcony when she heard the gunshots.
– MB didn’t hear anything after the last gunshot : no screaming or bangs.

1. I'm not saying Burger/Johnson are lying. I think they were credible witnesses. I'm saying that they were mistaken as to whether the screams were male or female.

2. The whole point is that the help help help came BEFORE the shots (listen to burger's testimony). Therefore, he would have had to have come up with this intruder defence before he shot her. That's just nonsense. I agree that its the best defence possible, but I think its totally implausible that he came up with the idea before/during shooting her and went to the lengths of creating his defence/alibi by screaming out for help.

Its also not right to say that burger didn't say the man screamed. She said in her examination in chief that the man screamed for help (link below at 45 mins in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e9aUB5a4Ig

 

[44ALLAN]

These points are certainly worth repeating!

My own feeling is that, having heard the closing arguments, we are basically where we started. I do not feel that pre-meditated murder has been proven (far from it, in fact). I do, however, believe that Pistorius could be convicted of murder, and that this would probably be the most fitting sentence. Having said that, I would not be surprised if it turns out to be culpable homicide. A total acquittal seems out of the question.

One of the more interesting tidbits from the last few days can, to my mind, be found in the defence's "Heads of Argument" (their closing arguments). For what it's worth, they give three examples of possible murder incidents. These are:

Example One

A mother of a three year old girl hears a noise in her home. She thinks she's being burgled, and so gets her gun and heads towards the noise. She then hears the sound of her bedroom door closing. She fires a shot through the bedroom door, thinking that's where the burglar is. Instead, she hits and kills her daughter.

Example Two

X wants to kill Y. X thinks he sees Y and fires his gun. It turns out the person he thought was Y is actually Z, who simply resembled Y. Z dies.

Example Three

A wants to kill B. He shoots his gun, but misses B and instead hits C, who dies.

The odd thing is that the defence state that assuming murder in the first example would be "offensive", but that it would be the correct assumption in the second example. When you think about it, though, the two examples are actually the same. The first may be presented as a terrible domestic accident, whilst the second is treated prosaically, but, legally, I cannot see the distinction.

In the end, even when you take Pistorius's version of events, you would have to accept that he shot at a burglar he assumed was in the toilet. He intended to kill that person and he did so. The fact that that person turned out not to be a burglar, but his own girlfriend, does not change his intent. It's simply a question of mistaken identity. (Of course, Pistorius has also argued that he shot "involuntarily"; that argument is, however, not a very strong one.)

Hi Julian....................forget about your 3 examples and please answer me 1 simple question if you don't mind.
You say.............pre-meditated murder has not been proven in your mind!
ok..............that means you don't believe 5 independent people at distances of up to 177 metres away heard a woman screaming/pleading for help to save her life?
Am I right?
Because as true as I have gonads...............OP heard that pitiful screaming as well /considering he was approx 3 metres away from it before he fired 4 bullets at it !
I look forward to your response

 

[AJ_DS]

According to Burger it wasn't shouted but screamed. Screaming help help help would be an odd way to mock someone I would have thought.

Incorrect… Burger said that only the woman screamed and that the man shouted… check your facts.

 

[Val1]

State has not said shots at 3:15 - the Judge has to go on the cases presented to her, and State has never said 3:15. When Nel and Roux had their little spat during Stipp's evidence, Nel nailed his colours to 3:17.

Hmm and was Nel using the Stipp's time line(which had been testified to more than once, was using a clock that was a few minutes fast)

As for OP's timeline, he supposedly re-enacted it to come up with his 5 minute time difference between the the two sets of bang/shots. Iows, not under the same conditions at all and yet he's believed by the DT supporters?

 

[liesbeth]

Yes, the baker's dozen isn't the states' whole case. But at the same time the states' case relies heavily on showing OP lied.

OP will be found guilty at least of CH (and rightly so).

But for those who think he deliberately killed Reeva, and that those screams were her screams, let me ask this question, because everyone seems to be ignoring it: how on earth could OP have done everything that it is not in dispute that he did (run back and forth between bathroom and bedroom, go to balcony, call out for help, put on legs, smash down the door etc etc) in the space of 2 minutes?

Everyone from Nel onwards has ignored this question. The judge won't.

I'm curious. Do you honestly think that Oscar did not lie?

Because if you think Oscar did not lie then you must believe that Mrs Burger lied? And Mr. Johnson? Dr. Stipp? Mrs Stipp? Col van Rensburg? W/O van Staden? Mrs van der Merwe?

How can you believe that all these people lied for no apparent reason, yet you can not believe that Oscar lied even after his own counsel admitted that Oscar lied about Tasha's?

 

[Greater Than]

According to Burger it wasn't shouted but screamed. Screaming help help help would be an odd way to mock someone I would have thought.

I don't recall how Burger described the man's help help help, but I distinctly remember Johnson's description of the woman's being fearful and the man's being monotone, almost as if he was embarrassed to shout help help help.

 

[Exchange973]

Incorrect… Burger said that only the woman screamed and that the man shouted… check your facts.

Check the link below at minute 45. She clearly said the man screamed. She may have changed her story later - but this was her original evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e9aUB5a4Ig