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

[zwiebel]

I thought I should just mention the possibility.....

If the witness is searching for his notes on an ipad, and they seem to have disappeared, there's a good possibility they are gone forever, unless he uploaded them to icloud or somewhere. There is a bug that Apple have chosen not to rectify, so far. This I know to my cost.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5369826?tstart=0

 

[Trooper]

Roux's approach is what a defence lawyer is paid to do. His clients problem is what woke these uninvolved strangers with no connection to either Reeva or Oscar in dark and silent hours of early morning?? so far.. from the witnesses testimony it was a woman screaming.. its perfectly admissible for Ms Burger, for example , to assign a quality, a descriptor, to the intensity and depth of that (more than one ) screaming.. it wasn't a squeak, it wasn't a howl of rage, she heard it as a scream of fear. and that's how she defined it. THEN gunshots .

Roux's client has to have this element negated as it doesn't fit his narrative.. Reeva silently , in the dark, dressed (?) , that is, not naked on a hot night on Valentines Eve in a very new and exciting relationship, making her way without comment to Oscar who is, as he says not in the bed either.. he is on the balcony bringing in one or two fans... they say nothing to each other.. she doesn't say, 'I heard the window in the bathroom opening, I'll just go and face this armed intruder, Oscar, while you faff about with the fans'... no.. nothing is said. Once she is through the bathroom and into the toilet, Oscar then screams at the 'intruder,' then swings at the toilet door with a cricket bat,( 4 times, and 4 times only,) lying conveniently to hand, and that thudding of the bat on the door is what woke people up...

Reeva sits silently thru this hammering on the door, and then the next sound that has to be is the gunfire, again, coincidentally, again , 4 bangs.
Don't think so.

 

[lisasalinger]

Roux's approach is what a defence lawyer is paid to do. His clients problem is what woke these uninvolved strangers with no connection to either Reeva or Oscar in dark and silent hours of early morning?? so far.. from the witnesses testimony it was a woman screaming.. its perfectly admissible for Ms Burger, for example , to assign a quality, a descriptor, to the intensity and depth of that (more than one ) screaming.. it wasn't a squeak, it wasn't a howl of rage, she heard it as a scream of fear. and that's how she defined it. THEN gunshots .

Roux's client has to have this element negated as it doesn't fit his narrative.. Reeva silently , in the dark, dressed (?) , that is, not naked on a hot night on Valentines Eve in a very new and exciting relationship, making her way without comment to Oscar who is, as he says not in the bed either.. he is on the balcony bringing in one or two fans... they say nothing to each other.. she doesn't say, 'I heard the window in the bathroom opening, I'll just go and face this armed intruder, Oscar, while you faff about with the fans'... no.. nothing is said. Once she is through the bathroom and into the toilet, Oscar then screams at the 'intruder,' then swings at the toilet door with a cricket bat,( 4 times, and 4 times only,) lying conveniently to hand, and that thudding of the bat on the door is what woke people up...

Reeva sits silently thru this hammering on the door, and then the next sound that has to be is the gunfire, again, coincidentally, again , 4 bangs.
Don't think so.

BBM

Bingo!

There is no dispute that Oscar killed Reeva. The only dispute is whether or not he meant to. A woman screaming PRIOR to the gunshots completely negates his story. Roux has no choice but to try to obliterate these witnesses. I would be highly disappointed if he didn't. Just like everybody else, I really want to know the truth of that night, whichever way it goes. So far for me, Burger and Johnson are credible.

 

[Trooper]

cricket bats are not unknown to break off at the handle... happens often in the highest level of the game, and doesn't actually require a fast ball to do it.. it all depends on the angle of the holder of the bat, and the momentum of his swing. Oscar, an unknown skill at batting, would have an amazing amount of luck to have 4 heavy swings at a solid and immovable object like a door, heavy and fast enough swings and contact , (because there is not enough time for Oscar to take a swing and miss... every swipe has to make contact to fit in with the timing of gunshot to have it mistaken for gunfire ) without demolishing the bat around the 3rd swing, I estimate..

To hit that door 4 times in succession he has to have his length from the weakest place on the door EXACTLY correct, for each swing, allowing no variable for momentum to knock him off course, he has to be able to withdraw the bat to its widest distance to get the momentum of the next swing to collide with the door at the exact same place, he has to do this at speed that denies the physics of a solid object propelled thru air, and he has to do this 4 times, while screaming at an intruder. And having the intruder scream back at him in a female's voice.

That would be a neat trick.

 

[sorrell skye]

I think Roux has managed to succeed in causing confusion with regards to the order of events he's peddled.

I have to remind myself repeatedly what it is that Roux hopes to establish. Sequence of events, according to Roux:

1. Gunshots occurred first, yet miraculously did not awaken Ms. Burger or her husband Charl Johnson.

2. Blood-curdling screams pierced the night, waking Burger & Johnson (who, according to Roux, had somehow both slept through the sound of 4 loud gunshots). Roux insists the screams emanated from Oscar after realizing he had shot Reeva and not an intruder.

3. The sounds of the cricket bat striking the toilet door (after Oscar had screamed) were mistaken by Burger & Johnson for the sounds of gunshots.

 

[shane13]

I think Roux has managed to succeed in causing confusion with regards to the order of events he's peddled.

I have to remind myself repeatedly what it is that Roux hopes to establish. Sequence of events, according to Roux:

1. Gunshots occurred first, yet miraculously did not awaken Ms. Burger or her husband Charl Johnson.

2. Blood-curdling screams pierced the night, waking Burger & Johnson (who, according to Roux, had somehow both slept through the sound of 4 loud gunshots). Roux insists the screams emanated from Oscar after realizing he had shot Reeva and not an intruder.

3. The sounds of the cricket bat striking the toilet door (after Oscar had screamed) were mistaken by Burger & Johnson for the sounds of gunshots.

I think at times we all forget that it is not the Defense's job to find out what really happened. Perhaps the opposite?!

I have found that Roux' questions were often absurd, unnecessary, illogical, contained much false info or asumptions, or had other problems.

And the best questions, he did not ask.
Precisely IMO because he does not want to get at what really happened.
But to some extent that is any DT's job. To create confusion and thus hopefully reasonable doubt.

So it is frustrating for some of us because he is allowed to repititously ask or badger with often terrible questions, and he does not ask the definitive questions.

I hope you liked my post above on the physics and medicine involved in the final shot and scream?? And that hopefully you and others found it definitive?

 

[Irisha]

I still can't see why this matters.

I'm way behind, but seems like according to "MiLady" :floorlaugh:nothing matters. I have searched the court, I haven't seen any laptops near or afar from the defense or pros. and someone is looking for laptop notes?:floorlaugh: Great trial, I think they watch Florida trials.:twocents:

 

[Irisha]

Ok I have a really stupid question, may have been assed before. Why do they have square toilets? Is that a rich thingy to do> Serious q?

 

[Irisha]

I have such an uneasy feeling about this trial. I personally believe OP did murder Reeva, in a rage because she wouldn't open the bathroom door and was going to expose he had threated her by calling police or - like she did before - her mom.

But all the witnesses so far - including Reeva's mom - have demonstrated that, if there is one person reckless and impulsive enough to fire a gun through a closed bathroom door, it is Oscar P.

Nobody, as far as I can see, has testified to anything that suggests this is a man capable of murder. Perhaps a former girlfriend or friend will have information that's more revealing of the anger issues I believe he has. If not, I fear reckless, accidental death will be easily proved, but deliberate murder will be a huge struggle.

I hope I'm wrong.


ETA: Reeva's mom hasn't testified, I know. I'm talking about her story of Reeva's panicked call from Oscar's car.

Reminds me of that nutcase Phil Spector case( without the wigs)

 

[shane13]

Reminds me of that nutcase Phil Spector case( without the wigs)

Did you like the movie (with Pacino)?

 

[minor4th]

I thought I should just mention the possibility.....

If the witness is searching for his notes on an ipad, and they seem to have disappeared, there's a good possibility they are gone forever, unless he uploaded them to icloud or somewhere. There is a bug that Apple have chosen not to rectify, so far. This I know to my cost.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5369826?tstart=0

He also said the original notes are on his laptop so surely he will be able to produce them. If he can't, that's a problem that reflects badly on his credibility. We'll find out tomorrow.

 

[Irisha]

I think he is very effective. This may come across as bumbling or bullying to those who are convinced OP is guilty of premeditated murder - but I assure you he is making his points and it will have an impact on the judge unless she is biased or incompetent.Roux has successfully gotten the prosecution witnesses to contradict each other and undermine their credibility. When the state's witnesses' accounts cannot be reconciled, then you have to choose to believe one and not the others or discount all of them.

biased or incompetent.


MiLADY, how do we prove she is isn't? lmao I can tell you are a defense attorney.

 

[minor4th]

I don't see that anybody is discussing this just yet, so I wanted to get your take on the exchange between Roux and Johnson today detailing the times of the phone calls.

Charl Johnson calls security from his wife's cell phone at 3:16am. The call lasts for 58 seconds.

After, he throws the phone down and goes back to the balcony (probably takes several seconds), he hears the screams again and then the gunshots. So lets just estimate that perhaps some time around 3:17:30am is when the shots take place.

Oscar's call to Stander (security) was placed at 3:19:50. (I believe I heard 50seconds but he could have said 15 seconds, correct me if I'm wrong).

So there was a very short time frame, about 2 minutes between when the shots went off and when Stander was called.

According to Oscar's bail affidavit, the following occurred after the shots:

• He ran to the bedroom & realized Reeva was not in bed (still on stumps).
• He returned to the bathroom but the toilet door was locked (still on stumps).
• He went back to the bedroom, opened the balcony door, exited and yelled for help (still on stumps).
• Now he put on his prosthetic legs.
• He ran back to the bathroom tried to kick the door open which didn't work.
• So he ran back to the bedroom to grab his cricket bat.
• Then he ran back to the bathroom and bashed the door in.
• He then found the bathroom key on the floor, unlocked the door and pulled Reeva out to the bathroom.
• HE THEN PHONED STANDER.

After that call is when he went downstairs to open the front door. Then he went back upstairs to get Reeva and carried her down the stairs. On his way down the stairs, Stander arrived as well as a doctor who lived in the neighborhood. Seems like they would have gotten there pretty darn quick.

Something is wrong here. There is no way in the world he could have done all of that in less than 2 minutes before calling Stander, especially since part of it was without his legs.

So it begs the question... at what point in the event did he actually call Stander? Was if pretty much right after the shots? Did he do all the running around and bashing in with the cricket bat after calling Stander?

I think this is a very crucial part in the story to figure out.

I just read this article that addresses some of it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-has-better-day-in-court-190647564.html

There's not so much to say about it until we hear the other evidence to determine what is possible within the time frame.

 

[Irisha]

wouldn't the notes be in discovery... dang this is really nuts..

Go buy some walnut for all the squirrels in your backyard, then maybe we won't seems so nuts. This case is hard to follow hrs away, plus our time zone here:banghead:

 

[minor4th]

biased or incompetent.


MiLADY, how do we prove she is isn't? lmao I can tell you are a defense attorney.

I'm not actually lol and I usually really dislike defense attorneys and defendants - usually they are clearly guilty. This case is not so clear.

 

[Chelly]

I'm not actually lol and I usually really dislike defense attorneys and defendants - usually they are clearly guilty. This case is not so clear.

BBM
You fooled me! LOL

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

IMO MB goes way beyond that. She has an idea IMPRINTED in her mind of what transpired, and she is trying to promote what she imagines with her testimony (and what she has got her husband to testify to).
"Blood curdling" "Woman in extreme distress and fear" etc are not part of what she heard, but rather part of what she imagines.

I think you may be going too far yourself. If she thought it a blood curdling scream, she can report it as such. Terms like "blood curdling" are part of the common vernacular. Nothing wrong with using it per se. She's the witness. She can use the descriptions that seem to her the best fit.

 

[Harmony 2]

Please do not personalize posts or discuss other members... thanks!

 

[Harmony 2]

[video=youtube;JEOtdzzBl8U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEOtdzzBl8U&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnN4ZxVAFoGrg-EhoRxhtTA[/video]

Oscar Pistorius Trial - Day 3 - Part 2 - YouTube

Oscar Pistorius Trial - Day 3 - Part 3 - YouTube

Oscar Pistorius Trial - Day 3 - Part 4 - YouTube

Oscar Pistorius Trial - Day 3 - Part 5 - YouTube

 

[Feynman]

exceprted quote:

IMO the point of discussing the collaboration is getting the witnesses to deny the collaboration when it is pretty obvious they did discuss it and came up with the same phraseology.

Pretty lousy collaboration. The husband woke the wife, oops, she was awakened by screams. Definitely four shots, or wait, was it four, five or six shots?