Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

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.

BIB This was the whole point of all those questions by Roux !

I still don't think you get it. I have in fairness tried several times so sorry I'm not going to try explaining again.

 

[GR_Turner]

I think, Reeva would be extremely disappointed if nobody - no prosecutor, no judge, no lawyer - would help to clear the case 100% and to work for the justice and against Domestic Violence and murder.

I think Nel put his all into this but he seemed to be too emotional and this stopped him from seeing the evidence for what it was imo. I doubt Reeva would want Oscar convicted of something he didn't do. Domestic violence has nothing to do with it if he meant to shoot an intruder.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I

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.

Well, let's see. For starters, yes, Michelle Burger was awakened by a woman's screams shortly after 3 a.m. In Day1, Part 1 of her testimony she describes how she bolted upright in bed at the sound of a woman's screams, as did her husband, who then went to the balcony to better hear. So factually speaking, we are not off on good footing here, are we?

I don't think it is odd at all that she did not hear the first set of "bangs." I presume those were the initial bat strikes against the toilet door and it does not surprise me that it took the blood-curdling screams of another woman to wake Michelle Burger out of a deep sleep at 3:00 in the morning.

Various witnesses all testified to hearing everything from "blood-curdling" screams to crying and whimpering at various times during the events that unfolded that night. I have to take each individuals's testimony for what it is, given the varieties of wakefulness, distance and orientation vis-a-vis building mass and acoustical dynamics at that time of night. Most of the "crying" descriptions, however, appear to follow the final "bangs" and seem to be mostly heard by neighbors closer to Pistorius' house.

The timing of these reported vocalizations is more important IMO-- did they precede or follow the shots? Were they audible from certain directions only? What distance were they heard? Did they likely originate from upstairs or downstairs? What was the emotional content of the screams, cries, yells, shouts or voices people described? I tend to believe people who heard a lengthy set of focalizations and are certain they could distinguish two separate voices-- both a male and a female.

It was not very clear to me that Mr. And Mrs. VdM were discussing the same voices they individually heard. I think it may be possible, given their physical locations in their own house, that she heard Reeva and he may have indeed heard Oscar "crying" after the final gunshots. And let's not forget Stander's daughter wondering out loud on the stand "what happened to the lady?"

Everyone heard their own version of the bangs and/or shots fired. Even Michelle Burger's husband testified that he heard 4-5-6 possible shots fired when she was very certain she heard only four shots: Bang (interval) Bang, Bang, Bang. This could be explained by the fact that he was out on their bedroom balcony when he heard those shots and there easily could have been echo retorts bouncing off the houses. I don't overlook these different reports at all-- I accept them on a case-by-case basis, whereas it appears Masipa dismissed all reports of a woman screaming before, during and yes, immediately after the fatal head shot. (Please... I am not an acoustics expert but I can appreciate that different sounds have different wave lengths and may travel at different speeds. It is not hard to understand how the shots and screams may have taken longer to travel the 177 meters between Oscar's house and the Burger/Johnson residence and Burger may have legitimately heard Reeva's final scream right after the last shot was heard.)

Roux's cross examination may have impressed you and Masipa, but all it proved to me that the more valuable a witness is for the prosecution the more Roux will badger, distort and ignore their testimony. Burger answered him several times and he glossed right over it with his charade of pretending she would not answer affirmatively or negatively. I can't understand why Masipa and Nel put up with that. She told him she learned there was not an intruder from the media reports and that NO ONE (including Oscar, I might add) was saying there actually had been an intruder and she repeatedly tried to explain to him why she quickly understood that if that woman was not screaming in mortal fear facing down an intruder, then obviously if it was Oscar who shot her, then she was screaming bloody murder as he turned his gun on her. Burger KNEW she heard a woman's screams-- and those blood-curdling screams did not arise out of the mere possibility of an as-yet unseen intruder in the house. Burger explained over and over again that those kind of screams occur in the face of imminent harm or if facing death. You don't scream like that unless you actually see an intruder or someone about to harm you or a loved one. When the news broke that Oscar shot Reeva-- what else could she think but Reeva was screaming in fear of Oscar-- not the imaginary intruder. Roux absolutely had to defeat this witness by whatever means possible.

I personally believe Oscar bashed in the toilet door first-- allowing sound to travel out through the broken panels and allowing Reeva to see her killer aiming at her from the safety of his position at the corner of the passageway.

She was an incredible witness and only those pre-disposed to Oscar's version of events would dismiss her honest and determined testimony.

 

[L2L]

Was the damage to the metal plate on the bath ever used or explained? Could OP have used the cricket bat there first to frighten Reeva out of the toilet cubicle and when that didn't work, he went for his gun? Wondering why that particular damage seemed to be of no significance to either side.

 

[lithgow1]

Good grief. It doesn't matter as it wasn't entered into evidence in the court. That's the bottom line.

So the only things that matter in this case are those that were introduced into the courtroom? Nothing else? I think you are wrong as these `extras' give an indication of the type of person Pistorius is and thus clues as to his behaviour. But whatever.

Since it is only courtroom evidence you think matters, may I ask you and the other two Pistorius supporters here a question: re the sunroof shooting incident, do you believe the two people who said Pistorius fired two shots in anger after being stopped by the police or his denial that the incident ever occurred? Actually I will make that two questions if I may: do you also believe that 10 months imprisonment is a suitable punishment for what he did that night?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I think Nel put his all into this but he seemed to be too emotional and this stopped him from seeing the evidence for what it was imo. I doubt Reeva would want Oscar convicted of something he didn't do. Domestic violence has nothing to do with it if he meant to shoot an intruder.

An intruder perhaps has climbed into my home although rather impossible; I shoot the person with 4 bullets to death while the person is in my toilet cubicle. I didn't know it was indeed my girlfriend. Girlfriend dead, I am sorry. Police arrives. - This would be the intruder story.
There are missing: minimum for 1 hour voices male, voices female, war sounds, crashs, bangs, screams, cries, mockering, 2 x "help" calls with a pause between, shots, last not least a half-destroyed house with smashed tiles and perforated bedroom doors and perforated toilet doors and cracked panels and dented metal plates - what do I have forgotten. - With all that in addition it becomes a DV history and not only an intruder story. Not to speak about the countless phone calls from home owner/"burglary victim" to father, brother, friend A/B/C, manager, lawyer, security, blablabla. Not to speak also about faking things, laying it around in a special way (phones, guns), making bullets and clocks and bags and bloodied t-shirts and safe contents including ammunition disappear - what do I have forgotten now. Also not to speak about deleted phone contents and deaf and dumb Sleeping Beauties in the same home which depend on the home owner/"burglary victim".

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It seems to me the supporters of OP are mostly like employees of Roux and have to carry out a job . They haven't to believe OP's innocence (hardly anyone can) but have to splitting hairs until we non-supporters are mad.

 

[aftermath]

It seems to me the supporters of OP are mostly like employees of Roux and have to carry out a job . They haven't to believe OP's innocence (hardly anyone can) but have to splitting hairs until we non-supporters are mad.

It's not about supporting (or not supporting) Pistorius though. It's about exploring what can be proved, what can be disproved, carefully considering whether the state proved DE (and DD) beyond reasonable doubt and what conclusions can be based from what comes out of all the questions and investigating and scrutinising.

The posters you call 'OP supporters' might be better described as posters who do not believe that on balance the state proved its case

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/relative-violence-power-and-place-women

I conclude by referencing another court case in South Africa. In 2013, former Constable Steven Shabangu from Mpumalanga was jailed for three years for accepting a R500 bribe. He may apply for parole after serving one year. During arguments in mitigation of sentence, Shabangu’s lawyer submitted that the loss of his position as a policeman was punishment enough[xiii]. What does it say of a woman’s value in our society when the man sentenced for killing a woman might walk free two months before a man who was sentenced for accepting a R500 bribe? As we tackle the required generational swing of values, our short-term measures must scream fiercely that irrespective of her ethnic origin, age or economic status, a woman’s wellbeing and life in South Africa is worth more than R500.

 

[Colin de France]

It seems to me the supporters of OP are mostly like employees of Roux and have to carry out a job . They haven't to believe OP's innocence (hardly anyone can) but have to splitting hairs until we non-supporters are mad.

....no worry about that.....i have my doubts that there are three supporters on here, two of them have exactly the same style, say the same thing at the same time and the third has expressed doubt.....!...apart from calling the police liars they haven't brought anything new to the discussion and they seem to avoid awnsering questions such as above about the damage to the appartment....

 

[Colin de France]

It's not about supporting (or not supporting) Pistorius though. It's about exploring what can be proved, what can be disproved, carefully considering whether the state proved DE (and DD) beyond reasonable doubt and what conclusions can be based from what comes out of all the questions and investigating and scrutinising.

The posters you call 'OP supporters' might be better described as posters who do not believe that on balance the state proved its case

...didn't Turner say that ?.......slight crossover there whoops !

 

[aftermath]

....no worry about that.....i have my doubts that there are three supporters on here, two of them have exactly the same style and the third has expressed doubt.....!...apart from calling the police liars they haven't brought anything new to the discussion and they seem to avoid awnsering questions such as above about the damage to the appartment....

Implying that GR Turner and I are the same person is unnecessary and rude. It also deflects away from the focus of the thread. You have also oversimplified the discussion about the 'I will survive ' quote to the point of being misleading about what those you disagree with have written. I have asked a number of questions that posters like yourself have chosen not to answer (as you are perfectly entitled to do)

So in the spirit of goodwill... the dented panel could have been done that night but could just as easily not have been, so wasn't used in court. What did the housekeeper say when the state/police asked him about it and the damage on the bedroom door?

 

[aftermath]

...didn't Turner say that ?.......slight crossover there whoops !

Crossover? Or perhaps simply two people who agree on something? There is no need for the persistent insinuations. It's not productive or in the spirit of discussion.

 

[Colin de France]

What did the housekeeper say when the state/police asked him about it and the damage on the bedroom door?

...why ask the question why not find out for yourself first ?.......do your own homework .....

 

[aftermath]

...why ask the question why not find out for yourself first ?.......do your own homework .....

Sorry... I will rephrase the questions: 'what do you think the housekeeper said about whether the damage to the bath panel/ bedroom door was already there, when the police/state interviewed him? Or don't you think they asked him?'

 

[aftermath]

So the only things that matter in this case are those that were introduced into the courtroom? Nothing else? I think you are wrong as these `extras' give an indication of the type of person Pistorius is and thus clues as to his behaviour. But whatever.

Since it is only courtroom evidence you think matters, may I ask you and the other two Pistorius supporters here a question: re the sunroof shooting incident, do you believe the two people who said Pistorius fired two shots in anger after being stopped by the police or his denial that the incident ever occurred? Actually I will make that two questions if I may: do you also believe that 10 months imprisonment is a suitable punishment for what he did that night?

Re: sunroof shooting. .. I think that in all probability pistorius did fire his gun out of the sunroof on at least one occasion. However, Fresco and Taylor's accounts didn't match up and as there was no other evidence it couldn't be proved. There was no agreed date or place and even the circumstances described were different. Taylor's version had Fresco as more complicit and the whole thing came across as a bit of a laugh between two immature men, rather than Fresco's version, which kept his own halo in place and played up the 'Oscar was angry at the police and fired his gun in rage' angle. Fresco undermined his own credibility. However it would always have been difficult to prove anyway, IMO

As for the sentence, given what he was found guilty of, and given that others who have been found to have killed a loved one by mistake have had charges dropped (visagie), or wholly suspended sentences (mdunge, boshoff? ), then yes, his 5 yr sentence- with the possibility of serving some or all of the remainder of his sentence under house arrest after serving the required amount of time in prison- seems in-keeping with the decision on his level of guilt/culpability, IMO.

 

[GR_Turner]

So the only things that matter in this case are those that were introduced into the courtroom? Nothing else? I think you are wrong as these `extras' give an indication of the type of person Pistorius is and thus clues as to his behaviour. But whatever.

Since it is only courtroom evidence you think matters, may I ask you and the other two Pistorius supporters here a question: re the sunroof shooting incident, do you believe the two people who said Pistorius fired two shots in anger after being stopped by the police or his denial that the incident ever occurred? Actually I will make that two questions if I may: do you also believe that 10 months imprisonment is a suitable punishment for what he did that night?

Using 'evidence' from outside the courtroom involves assuming it is correct and not biased and that you have taken equal account of all kinds of 'evidence' and not just those bits that make OP look bad. Moreover, even if the above were true, you assume you can judge someone's guilt on the basis that they might be 'the kind of person who would do that'. None of this is true imo.

I think he probably did fire out of the window or sunroof at various times but that the judge was right to say that it was unproven because their evidence was quite different about what happened.

It was 5 years, not 10 months. And yes, if he didn't mean to shoot her, in the SA context it doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[GR_Turner]

http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/relative-violence-power-and-place-women

I conclude by referencing another court case in South Africa. In 2013, former Constable Steven Shabangu from Mpumalanga was jailed for three years for accepting a R500 bribe. He may apply for parole after serving one year. During arguments in mitigation of sentence, Shabangu’s lawyer submitted that the loss of his position as a policeman was punishment enough[xiii]. What does it say of a woman’s value in our society when the man sentenced for killing a woman might walk free two months before a man who was sentenced for accepting a R500 bribe? As we tackle the required generational swing of values, our short-term measures must scream fiercely that irrespective of her ethnic origin, age or economic status, a woman’s wellbeing and life in South Africa is worth more than R500.

BIB He was convicted of shooting her by mistake so it says nothing at all about society's view of the 'value' of a woman's life.

 

[Colin de France]

Using 'evidence' from outside the courtroom involves assuming it is correct and not biased and that you have taken equal account of all kinds of 'evidence' and not just those bits that make OP look bad. Moreover, even if the above were true, you assume you can judge someone's guilt on the basis that they might be 'the kind of person who would do that'. None of this is true imo.

....wrong again....... courts constantly take previous history into account plus family and social background, shooting out of car windows, or shooting dogs is a good indicator of the type of person we are dealing with and as i have said before a good jury would of made the right decision....no doubt this will be corrected at the appeal.....

 

[Colin de France]

BIB He was convicted of shooting her by mistake so it says nothing at all about society's view of the 'value' of a woman's life.

......what it does say though is that there was poor policing, poor detective work, poor prosecution and a poor judge.........and all the world knows...