Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Marfa Lights]

<Snipped>

No. The evidence was that OP "thought there was an intruder" and "shot his girlfriend". Not that he made a mistake or that there was not an intruder. Burger was given many chances to say that this was not what she was told but never once disputed it. It's easy to make the leap to believing that it was a mistake and that there was no intruder if you don't think about it logically and that's the point - she fell into an easy trap. I'm not saying it's wrong, I did it too when she first gave her evidence.

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.

Correct. But remember I'm talking only about Burger knowing the extra information I quoted in 1. You say "now know" but she already knew she heard a woman screaming and four shots which she had already attributed to a home invasion.

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.

He would have heard Reeva screaming but remember Johnson did not tell Burger there was not actually an intruder. It does not matter if there was/wasn't or it had been reported or not or who other than Burger knew what. The point is that at that time Burger knew only that OP thought there was an intruder. If she had believed OP at that point then the circumstances under which OP "shot his girlfriend" could much different to those of murder. Not just OP's version but any number of others once there is a real intruder in there with them. For example an intruder could have advanced on Reeva with gun raised ready to kill her when OP grabbed his gun and shot at the intruder but missed the intruder and killed Reeva. That would also fit the bloody murder screaming and shots.

Really now! If someone tells me they "thought" there was an intruder in their home last night and then accidentally shot their cat while investigating the noise, I would feel safe in assuming there was probably not an actual intruder. According to you, I should think the poor cat was just unlucky and in the wrong place at the wrong time and the intruder probably escaped unharmed.

Burger said she was surprised and shocked to learn that it was not a home invasion when her husband called with the news that it was Oscar Pistorius who reportedly "thought" there was an intruder and then shot his girlfriend. Before she even had time to fully process this new version of events she would have immediately learned more details from the early morning news reports. And as she testified in court, NO ONE (including Oscar) was saying there actually had been an intruder at Oscar's house.

Roux repeatedly refused to accept Burger's answer to his question about how she knew there was not an actual intruder at OP's. As she tried to explain, the minute she learned OP shot Reeva, Burger naturally understood that the woman she heard screaming in mortal fear of her life was not screaming like that because there was a suspected intruder in their house-- that woman was screaming like that because she faced someone about to murder her or her loved ones.

Then, as she and her husband discover the next morning, it was not a home invasion and Reeva was never threatened by an intruder. The only person she could have been in mortal fear of would had to have been Oscar Pistorius. And when he later files a bail affidavit stating that Reeva never uttered a sound during the events of that night, Burger and Johnson are forced to conclude he is lying, and decide to give their statements to the police.

You have apparently fallen for Roux's totally specious line of questioning about when Michelle Burger came to know there was not an intruder at Oscar's house and his protracted badgering of this extremely important witness. Why does it matter what she knew precisely at the moment of her husband's call? Is that any different than what she was thinking 2 minutes later after getting additional information from the tv or radio news reports? They did not decide he was lying until they heard his bail affidavit.

To disregard Michelle Burger's testimony, you must also be willing to accept Roux's theory that Oscar can pitch his voice and scream like a woman and also yell help alternately both like a woman and a man. You must also accept that while Burger was awakened by blood-curdling screams, she somehow failed to hear the initial gunshots-- instead she only heard Oscar screaming in mortal fear, sounding just like woman, as he bashed down the toilet stall door... Bang (interval) Bang, Bang, Bang.

Far from worrying about whether or not this witness was prejudiced against the defendant, I am simply astounded that anyone would fall for that fuzz dazzle of a cross examination by Roux. But I do believe Masipa did just that.

 

[lithgow1]

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.

Again, I don`t doubt he was seriously genuinely upset at times over the whole scenario, including shooting her, but I also am convinced that he was emotional at times because his fabricated story was being shown to be full of holes. As for what he remembered, again I must repeat what I said many posts ago - with the duvet he insisted, and indeed argued with Nel about this, claiming that it was on the bed when the blood trail shows it can`t have been. If he wasn`t sure he should have said so rather than lie about it.

 

[Colin de France]

No- I'm not saying a senior member of the police has lied. Where has it been stated that the 'i will survive' quote was reported by a senior police officer?

He did do something seriously wrong- whether you believe it was DD, DE or CH. So yes- if it was said at all, it certainly sounds like someone in trouble- which he was.

What was his emotional state when he allegedly said it? Who was in the room? How long had he been at the police station by this point? What was he saying it in response to? Without any context it is pretty meaningless- it certainly doesn't give any indication of whether or not he loved reeva steenkamp, or whether what he had done was a mistake or intentional.

Well if i was in the police and i heard "i always survive" that would clearly stand out......

 

[aftermath]

Again, I don`t doubt he was seriously genuinely upset at times over the whole scenario, including shooting her, but I also am convinced that he was emotional at times because his fabricated story was being shown to be full of holes. As for what he remembered, again I must repeat what I said many posts ago - with the duvet he insisted, and indeed argued with Nel about this, claiming that it was on the bed when the blood trail shows it can`t have been. If he wasn`t sure he should have said so rather than lie about it.

But what if in his own mind/memory it was on the bed? That he did not recall it being on the floor? Memory isn't foolproof, as the witnesses proved.

 

[aftermath]

Well if i was in the police and i heard "i always survive" that would clearly stand out......

Who actually reported it?
Why wouldn't the context of any such utterance influence how it could/should be considered?

 

[lithgow1]

He would have been aware of the stupid thing he had done and how it looked. You might behave differently. You might think "no worries the court will believe it was an unlikely accident, my concern is just for Reeva" That would make you a better person than OP.

Re BIB and word choices, those seem a somewhat lame way to sum up the gravity of the situation that had just occurred. A person was dead at his hands, having been blasted to death in his bathroom. Yes, I guess if his story is true you could say it was stupid, really stupid in fact, but to me it goes way beyond just having done a `stupid thing`. A criminally reckless and negligent homicide might be getting closer.

 

[Colin de France]

Who actually reported it?
Why wouldn't the context of any such utterance influence how it could/should be considered?

The conversation appears in a BBC documentary Oscar Pistorius: What really happened?”

Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”




Family denies Oscar said he’ll win case
March 14 2013 at 09:30am
By Kamcilla Pillay
Comment on this story




IOL pic feb21 oscar pistorius track
Reuters

Murder accused Oscar Pistorius. File photo: Reuters


Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius’ family have raced to his defence to rubbish claims that he boasted to cops he would beat the murder rap he faces.

Pistorius has been charged with murder for shooting his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. He maintains that the shooting was an accident.

The latest revelation comes in a BBC documentary called “Oscar Pistorius – What Really Happened?”, which attempts to piece together what happened that fateful night.

According to the documentary, Pistorius, 26, when told by an officer after he was arrested that he could go to jail for a “very long time,” responded by saying: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

However, the athlete’s uncle Arnold Pistorius, speaking through his assistant, said: “We categorically deny that Oscar ever said that.

“We had family members and legal representatives on the scene who can confirm this.”

The family have contacted producers of the programme for an explanation but had not received a response by Wednesday afternoon.

The programme attracted more than one million viewers and has now been uploaded on to YouTube.

Mike Azzie, Pistorius’ friend and business partner who had also been quoted in the documentary saying that the star was depressed and selling his belongings for legal fees, would not comment on the documentary.

“I will not be talking about Oscar anymore. This matter must now run its course in the courts,” he told the Daily Voice.

Meanwhile, despite attempts to relax his bail conditions, the embattled Olympian has no plans to travel or resume participation in international events any time soon, according to his camp.

Arnold says the application to relax the conditions does not state the Paralympic 400m gold medallist intends travelling.

“It’s merely challenging certain conditions related to him having his passport,” he said.

Pistorius was not determined a flight risk during his bail hearing but was still forced to surrender his passport to the court.

The application instead proposes that, if Pistorious wishes to travel, he will seek the consent of the investigating officer and will furnish police with his return ticket as well as an itinerary.

Arnold was responding to claims made in overseas papers that the athlete planned to holiday overseas before his trial.

Daily Voice

 

[aftermath]

The conversation appears in a BBC documentary Oscar Pistorius: What really happened?”

Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”




Family denies Oscar said he’ll win case
March 14 2013 at 09:30am
By Kamcilla Pillay
Comment on this story




IOL pic feb21 oscar pistorius track
Reuters

Murder accused Oscar Pistorius. File photo: Reuters


Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius’ family have raced to his defence to rubbish claims that he boasted to cops he would beat the murder rap he faces.

Pistorius has been charged with murder for shooting his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. He maintains that the shooting was an accident.

The latest revelation comes in a BBC documentary called “Oscar Pistorius – What Really Happened?”, which attempts to piece together what happened that fateful night.

According to the documentary, Pistorius, 26, when told by an officer after he was arrested that he could go to jail for a “very long time,” responded by saying: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

However, the athlete’s uncle Arnold Pistorius, speaking through his assistant, said: “We categorically deny that Oscar ever said that.

“We had family members and legal representatives on the scene who can confirm this.”

The family have contacted producers of the programme for an explanation but had not received a response by Wednesday afternoon.

The programme attracted more than one million viewers and has now been uploaded on to YouTube.

Mike Azzie, Pistorius’ friend and business partner who had also been quoted in the documentary saying that the star was depressed and selling his belongings for legal fees, would not comment on the documentary.

“I will not be talking about Oscar anymore. This matter must now run its course in the courts,” he told the Daily Voice.

Meanwhile, despite attempts to relax his bail conditions, the embattled Olympian has no plans to travel or resume participation in international events any time soon, according to his camp.

Arnold says the application to relax the conditions does not state the Paralympic 400m gold medallist intends travelling.

“It’s merely challenging certain conditions related to him having his passport,” he said.

Pistorius was not determined a flight risk during his bail hearing but was still forced to surrender his passport to the court.

The application instead proposes that, if Pistorious wishes to travel, he will seek the consent of the investigating officer and will furnish police with his return ticket as well as an itinerary.

Arnold was responding to claims made in overseas papers that the athlete planned to holiday overseas before his trial.

Daily Voice

Right... so who actually reported it to the makers of the bbc documentary? And again, why wouldn't the context within which such an utterance may have occurred be relevant to understanding how to interpret it?

 

[Colin de France]

Right... so who actually reported it to the makers of the bbc documentary? And again, why wouldn't the context within which such an utterance may have occurred be relevant to understanding how to interpret it?

......why would the police make this up ??

 

[aftermath]

......why would the police make this up ??

Who said the police reported it to the bbc? If it happened, wouldn't it have been recorded, and therefore verifiable and therefore useful to Nel?

As for why might someone in the police make it up... if they did, that is...money might be a good incentive?

 

[GR_Turner]

......why would the police make this up ??

Because it makes a good story and also makes OP look guilty, something the police might be keen to see happen given how foolish they were made to look at the bail hearing? The police leaked stories related to the case from the beginning probably because there was money to be made. Even the crime scene photos were sold to the media and that must have been someone from the police surely. I'm not inclined to regard any such stories about OP as being true unless introduced in court. If a senior policeman heard him say that then they could have had that policeman on the stand to say so.

 

[Colin de France]

Who said the police reported it to the bbc? If it happened, wouldn't it have been recorded, and therefore verifiable and therefore useful to Nel?

As for why might someone in the police make it up... if they did, that is...money might be a good incentive?

...so you're saying someone paid the police to make this up, is that it ?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Right... so who actually reported it to the makers of the bbc documentary? And again, why wouldn't the context within which such an utterance may have occurred be relevant to understanding how to interpret it?

Context:

&#8220;I thought it was a burglar,&#8221; said Pistorius.
* Botha's thoughts - see below.
Botha: You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.
Oscar: As I said: Intruder, self-protection, protection of R, mistake, clearly not my fault. - I&#8217;ll survive. I always win.

I for my part do understand how to interpret these words. (Uncle A. denied? He did very often, that's it.)

At four A.M. on February 14, Detective Hilton Botha, a 24-year veteran of the South African Police Service, was awakened by a phone call from his colonel. &#8220;Oscar&#8217;s shot his girlfriend,&#8221; Botha told his wife, Audrey, after hanging up.

* &#8220;It can&#8217;t be. It&#8217;s impossible,&#8221; Botha remembered thinking after hearing Oscar&#8217;s burglary story. Because of his certainty and his pursuit of evidence to prove it, the detective now feels, blame shifted from Pistorius to him. Botha was soon removed from the case, and shortly after that he resigned from the police force. His professional standing and reputation came under fire, he said, because he had not been able even to consider that Pistorius had thought Steenkamp was a burglar before shooting her down in cold blood.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder

 

[Colin de France]

Because it makes a good story and also makes OP look guilty, something the police might be keen to see happen given how foolish they were made to look at the bail hearing? The police leaked stories related to the case from the beginning probably because there was money to be made. Even the crime scene photos were sold to the media and that must have been someone from the police surely. I'm not inclined to regard any such stories about OP as being true unless introduced in court. If a senior policeman heard him say that then they could have had that policeman on the stand to say so.

..... That's a very serious accusation/s you've just made against the police.......instead of looking for blame and fault elsewhere why don't you just accept the criminal here is Pistorius ........

 

[GR_Turner]

...
To disregard Michelle Burger's testimony, you must also be willing to accept Roux's theory that Oscar can pitch his voice and scream like a woman and also yell help alternately both like a woman and a man. You must also accept that while Burger was awakened by blood-curdling screams, she somehow failed to hear the initial gunshots-- instead she only heard Oscar screaming in mortal fear, sounding just like woman, as he bashed down the toilet stall door... Bang (interval) Bang, Bang, Bang.

Far from worrying about whether or not this witness was prejudiced against the defendant, I am simply astounded that anyone would fall for that fuzz dazzle of a cross examination by Roux. But I do believe Masipa did just that.

Burger was woken by her husband getting out of bed, not the screams. Why is it odd that she didn't hear the first bangs given that much closer neighbours didn't hear them either. I don't have problem with high pitched cries being heard as female screams - Mrs Stipp's housekeeping heard the same sounds and thought they were female crying and Mrs VdM heard female crying while her husband was hearing OP crying. So we know for sure that he can in fact pitch his voice and sound like a woman. A witness hearing a man crying out in a high pitch might hear both high and low tones and just think he was hearing 2 people.

Mrs Burger was the only one to hear 'bang - 3 bangs' - everyone else heard something else including Mrs VdM who heard 4 in a row with no pause. Basically you overlook all these things and Masipa didn't.

Roux's cross worked because it showed that Burger was so biased against OP that she couldn't answer a simple question in the affirmative because it might support his version. That was spectacular. Moreover the defence's sound expert showed it was very unlikely that she could have heard Reeva screaming from the toilet. Burger also said that the screaming continued a few seconds after the last bang and then said instead that they faded away after the last bang once she realised Reeva couldn't have screamed after the last shot. So she was altering her evidence to help the state's version. I really can't see why you think she was a good witness given all the above.

 

[aftermath]

...so you're saying someone paid the police to make this up, is that it ?

No. Not necessarily. The media is very creative. It's a possibility though.Apparently- according to media reports- the police also told the Steenkamps that their daughter's skull had been crushed by the cricket bat.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...end-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shot-her.html
This was clearly not true. ..

 

[Colin de France]

No. Not necessarily. The media is very creative. It's a possibility though.Apparently- according to media reports- the police also told the Steenkamps that their daughter's skull had been crushed by the cricket bat.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...end-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shot-her.html
This was clearly not true. ..

......but paying the police to lie....i think you've gone over the top there, the same applies to your partner Turner...

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Because it makes a good story and also makes OP look guilty, something the police might be keen to see happen given how foolish they were made to look at the bail hearing? The police leaked stories related to the case from the beginning probably because there was money to be made. Even the crime scene photos were sold to the media and that must have been someone from the police surely. I'm not inclined to regard any such stories about OP as being true unless introduced in court. If a senior policeman heard him say that then they could have had that policeman on the stand to say so.

Obviously they could NOT. (Instruction from the very top, speak: Hero-Golden-Boy-Central???) IMO

 

[aftermath]

Context:

&#8220;I thought it was a burglar,&#8221; said Pistorius.
* Botha's thoughts - see below.
Botha: You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.
Oscar: As I said: Intruder, self-protection, protection of R, mistake, clearly not my fault. - I&#8217;ll survive. I always win.

I for my part do understand how to interpret these words. (Uncle A. denied? He did very often, that's it.)

At four A.M. on February 14, Detective Hilton Botha, a 24-year veteran of the South African Police Service, was awakened by a phone call from his colonel. &#8220;Oscar&#8217;s shot his girlfriend,&#8221; Botha told his wife, Audrey, after hanging up.

* &#8220;It can&#8217;t be. It&#8217;s impossible,&#8221; Botha remembered thinking after hearing Oscar&#8217;s burglary story. Because of his certainty and his pursuit of evidence to prove it, the detective now feels, blame shifted from Pistorius to him. Botha was soon removed from the case, and shortly after that he resigned from the police force. His professional standing and reputation came under fire, he said, because he had not been able even to consider that Pistorius had thought Steenkamp was a burglar before shooting her down in cold blood.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder

Working with the assumption that those words were spoken by pistorius- where is the recording that Nel could have used against him? Why wasn't it referred to in court? Also-who was present in the interview room? How long by this time had Pistorius been in custody? What mental/emotional state was he in? What was the nature and content of the questions that led to the utterance?

We don't know the answers to these questions so cannot reliably base a judgement of guilt/ callousness etc on what was reportedly said.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

How long by this time had Pistorius been in custody? What mental/emotional state was he in?

Before custody, in his home/at the crime scene, immediately after the murder, his emotional state: not as "desperate" as later (trial) and also not particularly sad, I would say.