Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

[zwiebel]

Zwiebel:

I like your additions to this--adding things we may be missing, thanks.

During the break now, I asked yesterday if you liked "them onions"?

Ha! I loved it when me and the cheese would end up on the same thread - cheese n' onion.

 

[canny]

The most high profile trial in the history of South Africa but the State has screwed up big time with something as minor as arranging for competent interpreters.I hope questions will not be asked when the forensic, electronic and ballistic evidence is put to the test in the court.

 

[Interested Bystander]

So this witness said that the sound of Oscar crying out loud after the shots - she thought it sounded like a woman, and her husband told her it was Oscar. This is why I said Burger should concede that it is possible that the screams she heard were a distressed male instead of a female.

I see no reason why she should concede something she obviously does not believe. Had she done so, Roux would have gone on to accuse her of changing her testimony and used it to throw doubt into the arena. This lady is strong and we need a few more like her who will not be bamboozled by a rude, argumentative lawyer who has the audacity to acuse her of lying.

 

[minor4th]

I see no reason why she should concede something she obviously does not believe. Had she done so, Roux would have gone on to accuse her of changing her testimony and used it to throw doubt into the arena. This lady is strong and we need a few more like her who will not be bamboozled by a rude, argumentative lawyer who has the audacity to acuse her of lying.

Because it makes her look like she has an agenda when she states as fact that she heard a woman scream after the shots when there is evidence to suggest that it was Oscar. She looks unreasonable for not even allowing the possibility of scenarios other than what she believes.

I don't think Roux would have accused her of lying if she acknowledged that there are other possibilities, especially when he tells her there are witness statements that directly contradict her.

I'm just looking at the overall effect of her testimony and how the judge may view it. I think Roux scored points by getting her to dig in on her testimony and refusing to even consider any other possibilities.

 

[Trooper]

Because it makes her look like she has an agenda when she states as fact that she heard a woman scream after the shots when there is evidence to suggest that it was Oscar. She looks unreasonable for not even allowing the possibility of scenarios other than what she believes.

I don't think Roux would have accused her of lying if she acknowledged that there are other possibilities, especially when he tells her there are witness statements that directly contradict her.

I'm just looking at the overall effect of her testimony and how the judge may view it. I think Roux scored points by getting her to dig in on her testimony and refusing to even consider any other possibilities.

she heard what she heard and has testified to what she heard.... that's her job as a witness, and its Roux's job to cast negatives against it... its called a trial.

 

[kittychi]

Talk about beating a dead horse. This is ridiculous.

Barry Roux:

:deadhorse:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Because it makes her look like she has an agenda when she states as fact that she heard a woman scream after the shots when there is evidence to suggest that it was Oscar. She looks unreasonable for not even allowing the possibility of scenarios other than what she believes.

I don't think Roux would have accused her of lying if she acknowledged that there are other possibilities, especially when he tells her there are witness statements that directly contradict her.

I'm just looking at the overall effect of her testimony and how the judge may view it. I think Roux scored points by getting her to dig in on her testimony and refusing to even consider any other possibilities.

We will have to agree to disagree. If one has a lawyer accusing you of lying the most likely outcome will be that the witness will not change her views. If she allows herself to be bamboozled, Roux would go through her testimony trying to do the same on every point. I am listening to WhoopWhoop and the very erudite discusssion there thought she did the right thing by not buckling to Roux.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Barry Roux:

:deadhorse:

:floorlaugh:

 

[Carol70]

The most high profile trial in the history of South Africa but the State has screwed up big time with something as minor as arranging for competent interpreters.I hope questions will not be asked when the forensic, electronic and ballistic evidence is put to the test in the court.

Yep, cant quite believe it myself after the initial balls up in the beginning with Botha and yesterdays efforts. The way an interpreter translates Afrikaans has to be absolutely correct else the entire meaning of the sentence can change.

 

[Really?]

But did they perform this test at 3 a.m. ??????...

 

[Really?]

FYI....I do believe Reeva's Mother will be televised live on the Today show

 

[Carol70]

But did they perform this test at 3 a.m. ??????...

Voices woke her up so she was asleep. I would imagine they would get the timing right, also, roughly same time of year so weather conditions would also be similar.

 

[Cherwell]

So this witness said that the sound of Oscar crying out loud after the shots - she thought it sounded like a woman, and her husband told her it was Oscar. This is why I said Burger should concede that it is possible that the screams she heard were a distressed male instead of a female.

That might be reasonable if Mrs Burger had only heard one voice. But she heard two distinct voices and was able to distinguish them.

 

[SallyLu]

So who thought he wasn't coming back?

 

[shane13]

We will have to agree to disagree. If one has a lawyer accusing you of lying the most likely outcome will be that the witness will not change her views. If she allows herself to be bamboozled, Roux would go through her testimony trying to do the same on every point. I am listening to WhoopWhoop and the very erudite discusssion there thought she did the right thing by not buckling to Roux.

Agree with you 100% IB.

If atty for either side is allowed to badger "indefinitely" a witness, many witnesses will, at some point simply lie and give in to stop the stess. This witness did not. Nel and judge should have objected long before they did. Nel I believe at one point said it was the 7th or 8th time that a certain question was asked. Outrageous that his badgering was allowed for so long.

Then there is the issue with Roux that he is often outright lying. Tried to claim that the fatal head shot was the first of 4, instead of the last. Said the bathroom window was closed when his own client's Bail Affidavit said it was open and was the very reason he claimed he had to shoot!

This first witness has a PhD in a science-related field and maybe knows the physics of gunshots etc. No way should she have knuckled under to Roux.

The sad thing is that the following witnesses may not be so intelligent and resolute, and may give in to Roux' badgering and to avoid the allowed great stress, may negate their own testimonies--just to get out of there.

This to me makes a mockery of the trial. It should be to get to the truth, not to see how well an atty can get away with stressing the witness until s/he lies and falsely changes their testimony just to flee the scene, so to speak.

 

[canny]

Because it makes her look like she has an agenda when she states as fact that she heard a woman scream after the shots when there is evidence to suggest that it was Oscar. She looks unreasonable for not even allowing the possibility of scenarios other than what she believes.

I don't think Roux would have accused her of lying if she acknowledged that there are other possibilities, especially when he tells her there are witness statements that directly contradict her.

I'm just looking at the overall effect of her testimony and how the judge may view it. I think Roux scored points by getting her to dig in on her testimony and refusing to even consider any other possibilities.

She doesn't have to consider any other possibilities.Dr Burger happens to be the prosecution witness and is sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, she has to adhere to her sworn testimony and not try to spoon fed and bail out a man who's been accused and charged with premeditated murder.

Gerrie Nel the prosecutor summed it up beautifully when he asked Dr Burger in his final submission whether it was possible that the loud three bangs she heard in quick succession could have been the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door by Oscar rather than three bullets fired by him one after the another. Anyone trying to hit and break open a similar door with a cricket bat thrice in two seconds will be met with guaranteed failure because the vibrations generated and the puncher holes created in the door will prevent the hitter from swinging the bat thrice quickly in a span of two seconds period. Once again Roux’s groundless argument met a befitting burial forever. In my opinion Dr Burger has passed the credibility test with flying colors. I rest my case.

 

[shane13]

Voices woke her up so she was asleep. I would imagine they would get the timing right, also, roughly same time of year so weather conditions would also be similar.

If you're talking about sound testing now.This intelligent witness already said they have built houses in between--which can alter everything.

 

[minor4th]

We will have to agree to disagree. If one has a lawyer accusing you of lying the most likely outcome will be that the witness will not change her views. If she allows herself to be bamboozled, Roux would go through her testimony trying to do the same on every point. I am listening to WhoopWhoop and the very erudite discusssion there thought she did the right thing by not buckling to Roux.

He wasn't accusing her of lying - he was asking if she could even consider an alternate possibility if the evidence suggested such.

I heard experts on WW say she was uncooperative and was not answering the questions, but instead giving lengthy explanations of her position when a "yes" or "no" or "I don't remember" was called for.

When I am preparing a witness for trial, I always tell them to just answer honestly, do not argue with the other lawyer or get defensive or angry. You notice the last witness went much faster, and that's because she was reasonable and simply telling the truth as she remembers; when she didn't remember, she said so. She was not trying to frame her testimony in a manner that could only benefit the prosecution. IMO she was a much more believable witness and her account should be given consideration and weight.

 

[minor4th]

That might be reasonable if Mrs Burger had only heard one voice. But she heard two distinct voices and was able to distinguish them.

Well she was apparently mistaken about hearing the woman after the shots. If you want to take her testimony as absolute truth, that's fine. I think the point has been made that her testimony may not be so reliable.

I am not debating this from any position on Oscar's innocence or guilt. I have no idea what happened. I'm just giving my take on the witnesses. It is only my opinion - everyone has one. The only one that matters is the judge's.

 

[Carol70]

If you're talking about sound testing now.This intelligent witness already said they have built houses in between--which can alter everything.

But this was only heard by the witness across the road, Burger mentioned nothing about hearing screaming this year nor any disturbances, possibly being because of the newly built up houses.

Please note the interpreter made quite a few errors and was not very clear translating. One example I have seen so far:

Roux: You couldn't hear before could you?
Interpreter says: You couldn't hear after could you?
Witness answers No.

Afrikaans is a very peculiar language and simply one error with a word can change the entire meaning of the sentence. If translation is going to continue, its bloody imperative to both sides that they get a qualified and experienced person to do the job!