Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

...are you including the bullets ?

Are you saying pistorius only had his 'tantrum ' after steenkamp screamed?

 

[GR_Turner]

...the thing is i live 250m away from a sports field in between there are one storey buildings, in the evening with the window open i can hear shouts and screams easily, if this was to happen during the night in complete peace it would easily wake me up, i don't need no subjective self pretending sound expert to give me advice, because i already know, i have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Reeva Steenkamp screamed that night before being murdered by a little spoilt boy having his temper tantrum.......that's all.

...and I've lived opposite a public park for years and have heard what sounds like frightened female screaming on a number of occasions. On closer inspection it has always become clear that it was (generally male) teenagers having fun, or wild animals. It has never actually been what it sounds like. So I don't think that it is obvious that the sound of female screaming in the night must actually be female screaming or that a male crying out can't sound like a woman. Sometimes leaning out of the window will make sounds clearer and other times you have to actually go out of the house and walk a bit closer to be sure of what you are hearing. So I think your certainty is misplaced.

 

[lithgow1]

...and I've lived opposite a public park for years and have heard what sounds like frightened female screaming on a number of occasions. On closer inspection it has always become clear that it was (generally male) teenagers having fun, or wild animals. It has never actually been what it sounds like. So I don't think that it is obvious that the sound of female screaming in the night must actually be female screaming or that a male crying out can't sound like a woman. Sometimes leaning out of the window will make sounds clearer and other times you have to actually go out of the house and walk a bit closer to be sure of what you are hearing. So I think your certainty is misplaced.

You live near a public park where wild animals make noises in the night that sound like a woman screaming? Is your house in the Serengeti?

Anyways Colin de France I completely agree with you. A number of people were woken by what sounded like a woman screaming followed by gunshots and lo and behold a woman had just been shot dead. IMO Pistorius is a murderer and a snivelling one to boot and I very much hope the upcoming appeal will see him get his just desserts for his crime. If not, maybe karma or just his own hot-headed stupidity will catch up with him.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Others may have known but Burger did not. She only knew that "he thought there was an intruder and then he shot his girlfriend". That's the actual evidence that was not disputed.

That is why I asked if you had followed Burger's cross examination carefully.

Sorry, Trotterly, but I can't follow your logic. How could others have known but not Burger? She learned of Oscar's version of the story the next morning just like everyone else.

Why would Burger continue to believe there had been an actual intruder AFTER this news broke?

She and everyone else knew by the following morning that "he thought there was an intruder and then he shot his girlfriend." (I am not sure if I am supposed to read anything into your wording here.)

For obvious reasons this does not fit with what she and her husband heard the night before and they felt obligated to step forward to make a statement to the police. Their only agenda was to truthfully report their experiences that night.

And yes, I followed her testimony and cross examination very carefully. Just because it contradicts Oscar's version of events does mean she contrived any part of her testimony.

 

[aftermath]

You live near a public park where wild animals make noises in the night that sound like a woman screaming? Is your house in the Serengeti?

Anyways Colin de France I completely agree with you. A number of people were woken by what sounded like a woman screaming followed by gunshots and lo and behold a woman had just been shot dead. IMO Pistorius is a murderer and a snivelling one to boot and I very much hope the upcoming appeal will see him get his just desserts for his crime. If not, maybe karma or just his own hot-headed stupidity will catch up with him.

Is a " 'snivelling ' murderer" an especially bad kind?

Not sure I want to understand what you are getting at in your final sentence.

At least two people awoke to gunshots followed by screams followed by gunshots. Ear witnesses clearly made mistakes somewhere that night. ..

 

[GR_Turner]

You live near a public park where wild animals make noises in the night that sound like a woman screaming? Is your house in the Serengeti?

Anyways Colin de France I completely agree with you. A number of people were woken by what sounded like a woman screaming followed by gunshots and lo and behold a woman had just been shot dead. IMO Pistorius is a murderer and a snivelling one to boot and I very much hope the upcoming appeal will see him get his just desserts for his crime. If not, maybe karma or just his own hot-headed stupidity will catch up with him.

lol. My point was just that sounds can be deceptive and what sounds like a woman screaming often isn't. I wouldn't bother to go outside to investigate if I thought there was nothing wrong and its surprising how sounds change when you do that.

 

[Trotterly]

Sorry, Trotterly, but I can't follow your logic. How could others have known but not Burger? She learned of Oscar's version of the story the next morning just like everyone else.

Why would Burger continue to believe there had been an actual intruder AFTER this news broke?

She and everyone else knew by the following morning that "he thought there was an intruder and then he shot his girlfriend." (I am not sure if I am supposed to read anything into your wording here.)

For obvious reasons this does not fit with what she and her husband heard the night before and they felt obligated to step forward to make a statement to the police. Their only agenda was to truthfully report their experiences that night.

And yes, I followed her testimony and cross examination very carefully. Just because it contradicts Oscar's version of events does mean she contrived any part of her testimony.

I have answered this twice already but lets try again.

Apart from what she heard at the incident all that Burger knew before she decided that his version could not be true was what her husband had told her. This was before she saw any media or got any further information. It is her conclusion ONLY AT THAT POINT that is important. Clear now?

 

[lithgow1]

Is a " 'snivelling ' murderer" an especially bad kind?

Not sure I want to understand what you are getting at in your final sentence.

At least two people awoke to gunshots followed by screams followed by gunshots. Ear witnesses clearly made mistakes somewhere that night. ..

In a way yes, a killer who sobs and cries and pretends that the person he killed was the love of his life when he couldn`t even recall her birthday correctly is more repugnant to me than someone who owns up to what they did and faces the consequences. Because of your stance on this I don`t expect you to agree but I think he is guilty as, so his behaviour in court, including using his supposed emotions when the questioning got tough or tricky and his professed Christianity while lying under oath make him more odious IMO. Also, I thought his public apology from the witness stand when her parents had no way to respond was horribly self-serving whether he had tried to make contact before or not.

If by your second comment you think I mean I want him to die, then you are mistaken though I realise it could be read that way. What I mean is that, again because I believe he is guilty, if he doesn`t pay for his crime via a prison sentence then I hope he does via public ostracising or in an OJ Simpson kind of way where another crime leads to a prison sentence. Unless 10 months in prison has changed him, and it may well have done, then it seems he was an arrogant hot head and that will do him no favours in the future if he is still the same. That probably sounds harsh to you but you have to remember that IMO he is a murderer who lied and bought his way out of paying for his crime and that should not go unpunished. As things stand a ten month sentence for killing someone in, at the very least, an incredibly reckless manner seems a slap on the wrist and a slap in the face to the family and friends of the victim.

Re the evidence, I believe there was enough other evidence (expert testimony on ballistics and pathology, crime scene photos, OP`s own lies and inconsistencies in his bail affidavit and on the stand) along with such ludicrous defence moves as the wives and girlfriends party at the shooting range during the oh so scientific sound tests, the use of a shorter person in the photo evidence of what the Stipps could see to make it look like OP was on his stumps etc etc to convince me that his story, which was far fetched even before being scrutinised, was a crock.

 

[aftermath]

In a way yes, a killer who sobs and cries and pretends that the person he killed was the love of his life when he couldn`t even recall her birthday correctly is more repugnant to me than someone who owns up to what they did and faces the consequences. Because of your stance on this I don`t expect you to agree but I think he is guilty as, so his behaviour in court, including using his supposed emotions when the questioning got tough or tricky and his professed Christianity while lying under oath make him more odious IMO. Also, I thought his public apology from the witness stand when her parents had no way to respond was horribly self-serving whether he had tried to make contact before or not.

If by your second comment you think I mean I want him to die, then you are mistaken though I realise it could be read that way. What I mean is that, again because I believe he is guilty, if he doesn`t pay for his crime via a prison sentence then I hope he does via public ostracising or in an OJ Simpson kind of way where another crime leads to a prison sentence. Unless 10 months in prison has changed him, and it may well have done, then it seems he was an arrogant hot head and that will do him no favours in the future if he is still the same. That probably sounds harsh to you but you have to remember that IMO he is a murderer who lied and bought his way out of paying for his crime and that should not go unpunished. As things stand a ten month sentence for killing someone in, at the very least, an incredibly reckless manner seems a slap on the wrist and a slap in the face to the family and friends of the victim.

Re the evidence, I believe there was enough other evidence (expert testimony on ballistics and pathology, crime scene photos, OP`s own lies and inconsistencies in his bail affidavit and on the stand) along with such ludicrous defence moves as the wives and girlfriends party at the shooting range during the oh so scientific sound tests, the use of a shorter person in the photo evidence of what the Stipps could see to make it look like OP was on his stumps etc etc to convince me that his story, which was far fetched even before being scrutinised, was a crock.

Re your first point- I agree that if someone is pretending to be distraught when in fact they meant to kill another person, that makes them pretty odious. You're also right that I don't agree that this is the case on this trial. Not getting the birthday right is hardly a sign of a murderer. I am under no illusions that Pistorius is some kind of saintly figure. I am deeply sceptical about religion and whilst I have no reason to doubt his Christianity, I would also not be surprised if even under oath the priority was self protection first and foremost
But that doesn't make him a murderer either. I have no reason to doubt his emotional state during the trial. People better qualified than me found he was deeply affected by what had happened. No-one in court suggested he was faking.

Re your second point - given your standpoint- I understand where you are coming from. I just think your stand point is wrong.

Re the evidence, what did the prosecution bring in terms of photos of what dr Stipp could see/ sound tests to prove bat couldn't be mistaken for gun/ proof that crime scene photos were credible and uncompromised/ etc?

 

[lithgow1]

Re your first point- I agree that if someone is pretending to be distraught when in fact they meant to kill another person, that makes them pretty odious. You're also right that I don't agree that this is the case on this trial. Not getting the birthday right is hardly a sign of a murderer. I am under no illusions that Pistorius is some kind of saintly figure. I am deeply sceptical about religion and whilst I have no reason to doubt his Christianity, I would also not be surprised if even under oath the priority was self protection first and foremost
But that doesn't make him a murderer either. I have no reason to doubt his emotional state during the trial. People better qualified than me found he was deeply affected by what had happened. No-one in court suggested he was faking.

Re your second point - given your standpoint- I understand where you are coming from. I just think your stand point is wrong.

Re the evidence, what did the prosecution bring in terms of photos of what dr Stipp could see/ sound tests to prove bat couldn't be mistaken for gun/ proof that crime scene photos were credible and uncompromised/ etc?

Not knowing her birthday does not make him a murderer as you say, but it does cast doubt on his oft-repeated claim that she was the love of his life and if he was lying about that, why? Self interest I would say to make the argument that it was all a terrible error seem stronger. I don`t doubt that he was genuinely distraught throughout much of the trial though I do doubt how much of it was for her and how much for his own ruined life. He kind of had it all before, and there he was with precious little left. What made me suspicious was not him getting upset over graphic evidence but rather getting upset when Nel pinned him on inconsistencies in his version, such as the photos of the positions of the fans, duvet etc. It is one thing to break down when recalling your shooting of someone, quite another when you are being asked to explain things that don`t make sense according to your version but which are in no way graphic. IMO he was upset because he felt he was cornered.

Re the last point, I really don`t know but perhaps the prosecution did not anticipate the judge discounting virtually all of their witnesses testimony, be it laypeople or experts. IIRC she barely addressed the expert testimony in her summing up even though many of them were damning to the defence. Also IIRC the evidence that the crime scene photos were credible was strong and though the defence said they would refute they, they did not. If the judge chose to disregard them, mistakenly IMO as they proved OP was lying, then there is little the state can do about that.

So now it is my turn to ask a question. What do you make of the defence`s decision not to call Reggie Perumel (sp?), one of SA`s leading pathologists, to testify? Seems strange to me unless his evidence would have backed the prosecution`s version of the shooting, and then it doesn`t seem at all odd.

 

[aftermath]

Not knowing her birthday does not make him a murderer as you say, but it does cast doubt on his oft-repeated claim that she was the love of his life and if he was lying about that, why? Self interest I would say to make the argument that it was all a terrible error seem stronger. I don`t doubt that he was genuinely distraught throughout much of the trial though I do doubt how much of it was for her and how much for his own ruined life. He kind of had it all before, and there he was with precious little left. What made me suspicious was not him getting upset over graphic evidence but rather getting upset when Nel pinned him on inconsistencies in his version, such as the photos of the positions of the fans, duvet etc. It is one thing to break down when recalling your shooting of someone, quite another when you are being asked to explain things that don`t make sense according to your version but which are in no way graphic. IMO he was upset because he felt he was cornered.

Re the last point, I really don`t know but perhaps the prosecution did not anticipate the judge discounting virtually all of their witnesses testimony, be it laypeople or experts. IIRC she barely addressed the expert testimony in her summing up even though many of them were damning to the defence. Also IIRC the evidence that the crime scene photos were credible was strong and though the defence said they would refute they, they did not. If the judge chose to disregard them, mistakenly IMO as they proved OP was lying, then there is little the state can do about that.

So now it is my turn to ask a question. What do you make of the defence`s decision not to call Reggie Perumel (sp?), one of SA`s leading pathologists, to testify? Seems strange to me unless his evidence would have backed the prosecution`s version of the shooting, and then it doesn`t seem at all odd.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say it may well have been to do with the stomach contents. I don't think there was any great disagreement over the rest of the pathology report. If his experience with stomach contents led Perumal to agree with the prosecution pathologist, fair enough- but if other pathologists (and an anaesthetist) believe interpreting stomach contents is more flexible, then fair enough that the defence asked them to testify instead.

 

[soozieqtips]

What made me suspicious was not him getting upset over graphic evidence but rather getting upset when Nel pinned him on inconsistencies in his version, such as the photos of the positions of the fans, duvet etc.

~snipped~

Absolutely. He frequently became emotional when asked to explain the many many inconsistencies in his many many versions. Nel used to ask "Why are you getting emotional now"? when OP was asked to clarify some of the details of the fan positions, duvet, lighting, etc. There was no reason to weep and wail over general questions, but it did result in quite a few convenient adjournments for OP.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I have answered this twice already but lets try again.

Apart from what she heard at the incident all that Burger knew before she decided that his version could not be true was what her husband had told her. This was before she saw any media or got any further information. It is her conclusion ONLY AT THAT POINT that is important. Clear now?

Why is there any reason to question the information she received from her husband-- especially when it accurately represented OP's version of the events? This is the same information everyone received, regardless of source.

 

[GR_Turner]

~snipped~

Absolutely. He frequently became emotional when asked to explain the many many inconsistencies in his many many versions. Nel used to ask "Why are you getting emotional now"? when OP was asked to clarify some of the details of the fan positions, duvet, lighting, etc. There was no reason to weep and wail over general questions, but it did result in quite a few convenient adjournments for OP.

This is all rather unfair and is rather jumping to Nel's tune imo. When you think about something that upsets you do you always know why something in particular upsets you and is it always the same? Nel commentated on OP's evidence throughout the cross in a way clearly intended to influence the judge to reject OP's evidence (his only hope of a conviction really) so of course Nel would make the accusation - it was his job. The other alternative is that OP was just upset.

 

[Trotterly]

Just

Why is there any reason to question the information she received from her husband-- especially when it accurately represented OP's version of the events? This is the same information everyone received, regardless of source.

I'm not questioning the information. I am questioning why Burger chose to conclude that OP was untruthful based on the only news she had at the time which was:

1.He thought there was an intruder
2.He shot his girl friend

Why did she choose to believe there was never an intruder? She thought it was a home invasion but as soon as she is told that OP shot Reeva she doesn't ask herself how or why she just thinks it must be murder.

It's an easy mistake to make if you just jump to conclusions.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I'm not questioning the information. I am questioning why Burger chose to conclude that OP was untruthful based on the only news she had at the time which was:

1.He thought there was an intruder
2.He shot his girl friend

Why did she choose to believe there was never an intruder? She thought it was a home invasion but as soon as she is told that OP shot Reeva she doesn't ask herself how or why she just thinks it must be murder.

It's an easy mistake to make if you just jump to conclusions.

1. Oscar claimed he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder and shot her by mistake.
2. However Michelle Burger and her husband now know what they heard was his girlfriend screaming bloody murder followed by four shots from Oscar's gun.
3. Logic dictates Oscar also would have heard his girlfriend screaming (and should have recognized her voice) and not fired four bullets in the direction of his girlfriend's screams.
4. No need to jump to conclusions.

By 9:00 the next morning it was already being reported that there was no intruder and Oscar was being charged with murder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ar-Pistorius-shoots-girlfriend-dead-live.html

:banghead:

 

[lithgow1]

This is all rather unfair and is rather jumping to Nel's tune imo. When you think about something that upsets you do you always know why something in particular upsets you and is it always the same? Nel commentated on OP's evidence throughout the cross in a way clearly intended to influence the judge to reject OP's evidence (his only hope of a conviction really) so of course Nel would make the accusation - it was his job. The other alternative is that OP was just upset.

I don`t think it is unfair at all and IMO you are avoiding the issue. At times Pistorius answered questions regarding the shooting calmly (those from Roux), defiantly even (from Nel), so why start crying when you are shown a photo of fans and a duvet that puts your version in dispute? How can those photos be upsetting unless they create a problem for you? He was more upset about them than he got when being questioned on his reaction when he broke down the door and saw her lying in a pool of blood.

You can justify why OP would cry when being asked difficult questions re his version on the grounds of it just upset him but I will stick to MO that it was because he felt he was in very real danger of his whole fabrication falling apart.

 

[aftermath]

I don`t think it is unfair at all and IMO you are avoiding the issue. At times Pistorius answered questions regarding the shooting calmly (those from Roux), defiantly even (from Nel), so why start crying when you are shown a photo of fans and a duvet that puts your version in dispute? How can those photos be upsetting unless they create a problem for you? He was more upset about them than he got when being questioned on his reaction when he broke down the door and saw her lying in a pool of blood.

You can justify why OP would cry when being asked difficult questions re his version on the grounds of it just upset him but I will stick to MO that it was because he felt he was in very real danger of his whole fabrication falling apart.

There are probably a number of factors that could have led Pistorius to cry during his testimony. Eg Genuine distress at having to speak about what he had done; shame and guilt; disgust at the graphic consequences of his actions; effects of ptsd; humiliation at the public/worldwide scrutiny of his actions and behaviour; frustration at having his version questioned and undermined; fear of saying something wrong that Nel could use/twist against him etc (having already been ambushed by Nel at the start of cross)

Re getting upset about the fans and duvet photos. ..I would be surprised if he could remember every detail of that night, yet at times he spoke in minute detail. Perhaps he did remember, but perhaps, in knowing the importance of remembering and having a year to pore over crime scene photos/expert reports, part of his memory was unintentionally constructed from the photos/reports? The natural need to understand what happened encourages us/him/witnesses etc to construct a meaningful narrative where 'I don't know' might feel inadequate. If this is the case, then pistorius may also have cried in panic/confusion as his understanding of what was where in the bedroom was called into question, and potentially made it look as though he was lying.

It would be interesting to know what his account of events was like before he ever saw the photos/reports.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I'm not questioning the information. I am questioning why Burger chose to conclude that OP was untruthful based on the only news she had at the time which was:

1.He thought there was an intruder
2.He shot his girl friend

Why did she choose to believe there was never an intruder? She thought it was a home invasion but as soon as she is told that OP shot Reeva she doesn't ask herself how or why she just thinks it must be murder.

It's an easy mistake to make if you just jump to conclusions.

I think it's totally clear and easy: Nobody who is fit in one's brain can imagine, that a neighbour is chasing his girlfriend through the home for 1h, threatens her verbally while probably handling several weapons (cricket/baseball bat, air rifle, gun), makes his girlfriend scream for her life, cries himself out of rage and anger and shoots minimum 4 bullets inside a luxury home. First I would think of home invasion because any other thought initially prohibits, if I have no insider knowledge about the neighbour's usually bad behavior and his character.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

1. Oscar claimed he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder and shot her by mistake.
2. However Michelle Burger and her husband now know what they heard was his girlfriend screaming bloody murder followed by four shots from Oscar's gun.
3. Logic dictates Oscar also would have heard his girlfriend screaming (and should have recognized her voice) and not fired four bullets in the direction of his girlfriend's screams.
4. No need to jump to conclusions.

By 9:00 the next morning it was already being reported that there was no intruder and Oscar was being charged with murder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ar-Pistorius-shoots-girlfriend-dead-live.html

:banghead:

http://fox59.com/2013/02/14/woman-found-shot-to-death-in-home-of-south-african-blade-runner/

Early in the morning 14.2.:

There did not appear to be signs of forced entry at the home, Beukes said.

She also said there had been “previous incidents” at the home — “allegations of a domestic nature.”

Several South African media outlets reported that the woman was mistaken for an intruder.

Beukes said she was aware of those reports, but they did not come from the police force.

Beukes said that police were alerted to the shooting by neighbors and that residents “heard things earlier.”

However, Beukes said, “This is a very quiet area and this is a secure estate.”