Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

Because Reeva being clearly heard at that point clashes with the other evidence that she was locked behind an intact toilet door with the outside window closed, before the shots were fired. On the prosecutions version we don't even have a hole in the door through which she may have had a chance of being clearly heard.

Roux challenged the state to prove that she would have been clearly heard and they produced no evidence to support that.

It is the huge distance that is so critical.

Reeva may have been screaming right by an open window or door in another part of the house but that wasn't the prosecution's version. All the evidence has to fit together to make the version convincing and it does not.

Don't get too hung up on what the witnesses thought they were hearing and concentrate on what they actually heard. For example Mrs Burger thought she heard a woman screaming for her life but she also believed it was a house break where a man and a woman were being terrorized.

bbm
The witness hadn't an additional story thought up but was just trying to put this extraordinary unique screaming in words, I think - and then combined as we all would have done in that situation.
Next time Mrs Burger would know: oh, it's only Oscar, he again threatens a girlfriend with a gun until he shoots - no terror caused by B&E.

 

[Colin de France]

I've shown you. Please don't ask again.

....you don't have any evidence one way or the other, your scream test, if it exists, is based on your opinion. i would suggest to you the following ; firstly the bathroom window has been accepted as being open so why not the toilet, that by it's very nature a toilet window would be open, the fact that the screams were heard from far away, all this would indicate that the window was open....a shame that a real test was not made by the police.... the photo from the trial reported by the Daily Mail already several hour's after the event does not constitute evidence of any kind .....

 

[Trotterly]

bbm
The witness hadn't an additional story thought up but was just trying to put this extraordinary unique screaming in words, I think - and then combined as we all would have done in that situation.

She thought it was a home invasion up until she heard that at the bail hearing OP said it was only him. At that point her version changed to murder. What she heard had not changed but her version did and without any evidence.

She was influenced by the media and was so keen to push her murder agenda that she would not even concede to things that could have happened whilst she was asleep. Clearly a ludicrous answer.

 

[Trotterly]

....you don't have any evidence one way or the other, your scream test, if it exists, is based on your opinion. i would suggest to you the following ; firstly the bathroom window has been accepted as being open so why not the toilet, that by it's very nature a toilet window would be open, the fact that the screams were heard from far away, all this would indicate that the window was open....a shame that a real test was not made by the police.... the photo from the trial reported by the Daily Mail already several hour's after the event does not constitute evidence of any kind .....

It was accepted into evidence in court. I watched it happen live.

It is as valid as any other photograph taken by the police that day. You presumably also disregard all the other photographic evidence as well then?

 

[Colin de France]

It was accepted into evidence in court. I watched it happen live.

It is as valid as any other photograph taken by the police that day. You presumably also disregard all the other photographic evidence as well then?

....the point you are unable to see is that the photo is dated, it was not taken at the time of the screams, so is completely useless as evidence in connection with the window at the time of the murder.....in other words it doesn't prove anything ....

 

[Trotterly]

....the point you are unable to see is that the photo is dated, it was not taken at the time of the screams, so is completely useless as evidence in connection with the window at the time of the murder.....in other words it doesn't prove anything ....

Of course anything could have happened in the intervening period but this applies to all the photo evidence. Which brings me back to my question Do you think OP closed the toilet window?

 

[Colin de France]

Of course anything could have happened in the intervening period but this applies to all the photo evidence. Which brings me back to my question Do you think OP closed the toilet window?

At last ....so the toilet window could have been open, that put's your scream test into perspective...as for your question, how would i know, i can't see what that's got to do with our converstion about whether the window was open or not at the time of the murder unless of course you know something i don't....(...maybe the window closes by gravity !)

 

[Trotterly]

At last ....so the toilet window could have been open, that put's your scream test into perspective...as for your question, how would i know, i can't see what that's got to do with our converstion about whether the window was open or not at the time of the murder unless of course you know something i don't....

I don't know why the "at last" comment. It was you that introduced the subject of proof. I only talked about evidence. The photo is evidence of a closed toilet window. Since there is no evidence that anyone closed the toilet window then it is perfectly reasonable for it to have been closed when Reeva was in the toilet under which conditions I think it would have been impossible for Reeva's screams to have been heard and interpreted as Burger testified at 177m distance.

 

[aftermath]

I don't know why the "at last" comment. It was you that introduced the subject of proof. I only talked about evidence. The photo is evidence of a closed toilet window. Since there is no evidence that anyone closed the toilet window then it is perfectly reasonable for it to have been closed when Reeva was in the toilet under which conditions I think it would have been impossible for Reeva's screams to have been heard and interpreted as Burger testified at 177m distance.

Didn't the Stipps testify that the toilet window was closed?

 

[Trotterly]

Didn't the Stipps testify that the toilet window was closed?

Mrs Stipp did say that the toilet window was not open.

I don't recall Dr Stipp testifying that it was closed/not open.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I can't participate on the conversation. I don't know, if or not the window was open. But: if Reeva was caged in a little cubicle and wanted help from whomever, then she would have been more than stupid not to open the toilet window - and she wasn't stupid. Perhaps/certainly she wanted help from partly invisible Frankie and I'm sure sometime the window was open and her screams were far enough audible. OP told us in great detail, everything he has done in the toilet. But he certainly forgot to tell how he faked some things. He was 5 minutes very "sad", recovered short of his own shrieks and pondered zealously, what to do next. He knew Reeva had screamed for her life, probably out of the window. Logically he had to shut that window then. He is also not stupid, unfortunately.
As I said, I don't know, who has witnessed what and I don't know the summary of Nel. Because of the many hair-raising lies from OP and the haggling of Roux I can't remember the many details. You all are more fit.

 

[Trotterly]

I can't participate on the conversation. I don't know, if or not the window was open. But: if Reeva was caged in a little cubicle and wanted help from whomever, then she would have been more than stupid not to open the toilet window - and she wasn't stupid. Perhaps/certainly she wanted help from partly invisible Frankie and I'm sure sometime the window was open and her screams were far enough audible. OP told us in great detail, everything he has done in the toilet. But he certainly forgot to tell how he faked some things. He was 5 minutes very "sad", recovered short of his own shrieks and pondered zealously, what to do next. He knew Reeva had screamed for her life, probably out of the window. Logically he had to shut that window then. He is also not stupid, unfortunately.
As I said, I don't know, who has witnessed what and I don't know the summary of Nel. Because of the many hair-raising lies from OP and the haggling of Roux I can't remember the many details. You all are more fit.

All the evidence points to it being closed so one might reasonably conclude that it was closed that night.

Mrs Stipp says that it was closed at the time of the screams.

There is no evidence at all that the toilet window was open.

It seems far fetched to me that OP would have had the presence of mind in the circumstances to work out that his future defence would depend on the window being closed.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Thanks to Mr Fossil and his excel table! I refreshed my memory a little bit.

IF Frankie and Menelaou had to give testimony, I think it wouldn't be important whether some window open or closed. Both of the men unfortunately have a blessed sleep - amazing and impossible: one man lives/sleeps a few metres away and the other one is the very best friend of the murderer ("thunderklaps" near his best friend's home although CM definitely knows this gun and definitely the sound of it???).
I could jump in the hexagon!

 

[Marfa Lights]

She thought it was a home invasion up until she heard that at the bail hearing OP said it was only him. At that point her version changed to murder. What she heard had not changed but her version did and without any evidence.

She was influenced by the media and was so keen to push her murder agenda that she would not even concede to things that could have happened whilst she was asleep. Clearly a ludicrous answer.

Odd interpretation IMO. It would only seem logical that if a neighbor heard a woman's screams and a commotion from a nearby residence that they might initially think it was a home invasion taking place. When the witnesses later learned it was not a home invasion, what else could they conclude but the screaming woman who later turned up dead was murdered by the man who admitted killing her.

 

[soozieqtips]

She thought it was a home invasion up until she heard that at the bail hearing OP said it was only him. At that point her version changed to murder. What she heard had not changed but her version did and without any evidence.

She was influenced by the media and was so keen to push her murder agenda that she would not even concede to things that could have happened whilst she was asleep. Clearly a ludicrous answer.

BIB - Wow. Keen to push her murder agenda??? That's a vicious thing to say about a witness who didn't kill anyone. I notice you don't use anything like the same language for the actual convicted killer, who was (by Masipa's own admission) a poor and unreliable witness?

Strange, that.

 

[GR_Turner]

BIB - Wow. Keen to push her murder agenda??? That's a vicious thing to say about a witness who didn't kill anyone. I notice you don't use anything like the same language for the actual convicted killer, who was (by Masipa's own admission) a poor and unreliable witness?

Strange, that.

She did have an agenda though. At the time Burger and her husband thought the male cries for help were genuine as is clear from their evidence but when asked in court whether this was inconsistent with the state's case, a simple enough question to which the answer is 'yes', she refused to say it. When pressed she said it must have been a mockery, in direct contradiction with what she thought at the time. So clearly she was allowing her personal views about what she heard and formed after the event to influence the way in which she gave her evidence. This is why she wasn't a very good witness in the end.

 

[soozieqtips]

She did have an agenda though. At the time Burger and her husband thought the male cries for help were genuine as is clear from their evidence but when asked in court whether this was inconsistent with the state's case, a simple enough question to which the answer is 'yes', she refused to say it. When pressed she said it must have been a mockery, in direct contradiction with what she thought at the time. So clearly she was allowing her personal views about what she heard and formed after the event to influence the way in which she gave her evidence. This is why she wasn't a very good witness in the end.

The following was my point: I notice you don't use anything like the same language for the actual convicted killer, who was (by Masipa's own admission) a poor and unreliable witness?

 

[Trotterly]

Odd interpretation IMO. It would only seem logical that if a neighbor heard a woman's screams and a commotion from a nearby residence that they might initially think it was a home invasion taking place. When the witnesses later learned it was not a home invasion, what else could they conclude but the screaming woman who later turned up dead was murdered by the man who admitted killing her.

Before I reply can I ask if you carefully followed the cross examination of Mrs Burger?

The reason I ask is because it is necessary to see how Burger's conclusions were made.

Based only on what she heard Burger was convinced it was a home invasion and she said that she hoped that the woman had not had to witness the man being murdered.

She had no fresh information until she was on the phone that morning with her husband - she said:

"He had told me that at the office he'd just heard that OP is on the news and he thought that there was an intruder and he shot his girlfriend"

Based only on this extra information she said to him:

"It cannot be because it's not what we heard"

But the only extra information was that OP had shot Reeva. It is not possible at all to say from what she knew at this point that OP murdered Reeva. She did not know there was not an intruder at this point. No one had said it, not even OP at that point.

It is just as likely from only the facts she had at the time that an intruder had broken in, threatened them both causing Reeva to scream and them both to cry for help, then for OP to have accidentally shot Reeva in a struggle with the intruder or because she was being attacked and he shot her instead of the intruder. In fact any number of possible scenarios.

Yet at that stage Burger decided that it cannot be.

From that point on she had clearly already made up her mind and went to extraordinary lengths to maintain that view. What she did consequently was driven by that view and not by what she had actually heard.

I don't doubt her sincerity or her truthfulness only her interpretation

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - Wow. Keen to push her murder agenda??? That's a vicious thing to say about a witness who didn't kill anyone. I notice you don't use anything like the same language for the actual convicted killer, who was (by Masipa's own admission) a poor and unreliable witness?

Strange, that.

Burger was evasive and argumentative on the stand. So much so that the judge had to give her a stiff talking to about answering the questions else she would be in the witness box for days at a time.

You say it is "vicious" to say that she had an agenda. So how would you explain how she was able to stand in a court of law and say something could not have happened whilst she was asleep?

 

[GR_Turner]

The following was my point: I notice you don't use anything like the same language for the actual convicted killer, who was (by Masipa's own admission) a poor and unreliable witness?

I don't think anything the poster said about Burger is untrue, let alone expressed in a 'vicious' way. I can't see how you can see it that way tbh. I don't blame Burger for thinking that she heard Reeva - I would have in her shoes too. She clearly believed in giving evidence that she was helping Reeva and her family but the problem was that that wasn't her role and as it turned out she might have been wrong to believe she heard female screaming. Her testimony was clearly biased by this belief.

Masipa didn't say OP's evidence was unreliable btw.