My responses in red.
Ok, here are some questions for those of you who do not believe that the the witnesses have contradicted each other and believe that these witnesses have successfully discredited Oscar's statements:
1. When did Oscar scream "help, help, help" - before the shots were fired or after?
Based on witness testimony, I believe he yelled out help before the gunshots, possibly mocking Reeva. It's interesting to me that Ms. Burger had considered that possibility, as there had been a few of us here on this forum, including myself, who had entertained the same notion (I believe it was whiterum who first posted about it prior to Ms. Burger stating so in court the following day).
The other neighbor, who is closer to Oscar's house testified that it was silent after the shots and she then heard Oscar screaming and crying out loudly - although she initially thought it was a woman screaming also. To believe Burger, you have to disbelieve neighbor #2. This is what I mean when I say the state has presented witness testimony that is contradictory, which means you have to discount one witness or discount them all.
Another reasonable explanation is that Burger was mistaken when she thought it was the woman screaming after shots - it was in fact Oscar, but he sounded like a woman. I think that is more believable and you don't have to come up with additional speculation about Oscar mocking Reeva by saying "help, help, help" in an unemotional manner that could be clearly heard 900 feet away.
2. Who screamed after the shots were fired, Oscar or Reeva?
At least two posters (IIRC, they were Shane and Interested Bystander) have posted information regarding bullets and the sound barrier. Apparently, the sound of a gunshot travels at a faster rate of speed than the human voice. I think it's entirely possible that what was described as the "fading" of Reeva's final scream following the 4th gunshot was due to this phenomenon.
See my answer above. In addition to having to discount neighbor #2's testimony, you are having to jump through hoops to come up with an explanation about ballistics -- not in evidence -- in order to believe Burger and Johnson. It is a much simpler explanation that Burger and Johnson mistook Oscar's cries for the cries of a woman.
3. On the night of the shooting, did the husband and wife hear a woman's screams that sounded fearful and like her life was in danger? Or did they hear a confrontation that made them believe a house intrusion was happening and the husband was shot in front of the wife?
I think both these possibilities crossed their minds as events unfolded that night. Since they could only hear (and not see) what was going on, their minds went to what were logical scenarios.
My point here is that during the initial event and afterward, they thought the husband was shot during a burglary because they heard the woman screaming after the shots ended - they were mistaken about that. It was only after reading media reports and discussing it with various people that they came up with a new improved version of the woman being in fear for her life and rising fear etc. It has the appearance of altering their account after they learned what really happened and forming a conclusion.
4. Was Burger awoken by a woman's screams or by her husband jumping out of bed when he heard screams or gunshots?
Ms. Burger testified that she was awakened by screaming. Mr. Johnson testified that he jumped out of bed when he heard the screams. I don't believe he could know with precise certainty when his wife woke up or what caused her to be startled awake as he does not reside in her mind or body. Only Ms. Burger can attest to that and she affirms it was the screams that awoke her.
I agree, this is not such an important discrepancy, and it is easily explained as you have stated it.
5. Did Burger and Johnson discuss their statements and testimony or did they not?
I believe over the course of this past year, they have talked to one another regarding what happened on that fateful night. I don't believe they collaborated to arrive at similar versions, as Roux would like the Judge to believe. I think it's perfectly natural for two people who live together & have been together for a number of years to share a similar vocabulary. I believe they are credible witnesses who testified as to what they each individually heard and pondered on the night of the shooting.
Yes, I think everyone believes that they discussed it between them, and I agree that the similar vocabulary could be attributed to them living together and talking the same way and having discussed their recollections using similar words. That is natural.
The problem is both Burger and Johnson adamantly denied that this happened. They both insisted that they had not discussed their statements with each other and had not compared notes. Burger would not give an inch on that - but Johnson later admitted that they had discussed their statements and perceptions many times, and even discussed it during the trial after Burger's first day of testimony.
Does that mean that everything they say is a lie? No, not at all. But it does suggest that they are willing to lie to give the false impression that their testimonies are completely independent and without influence from the other's testimony. And if they are willing to lie about that, then you have to wonder if they are also fudging or embellishing about their accounts, especially in the instances where they are giving information that was not included in their initial statements.
Who knows what their motivation is to lie, but for whatever it is they have been shown to be less than truthful in a way that benefits the prosecution and that brings their whole testimonies into question because there is no way to determine what's truth, what's misperception, and what's an embellishment to aid the prosecution.
