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

[lisasalinger]

If the theory that I've seen floated here at times is that Mrs Burger and the Mister collaborated.. indeed , embellished and created a testimony, one then has to ask, to what agenda??

I discount racialism.... Oscar and Reeva and Mrs Mr Burger/Johnson are all of Afrikaans heritage..well...you could ask, how do I know the first 2 witnesses are?? because their testimony was begun in Afrikaans.. this is the language of the Dutch settlers.. its not applicable to any other group , ethnically or racially, except as a chosen 2nd language..

Money??........ from whom?? Oscar is the one with the disposable income here.

Gender?? ....... Ms Burger would relate to Reeva , so why doesn't the husband relate to poor Oscar?

Religion??.......... Generally, and statistically, all four, Oscar, Reeva, the Mr and Mrs Burger would be of the same Dutch Reformed congregation.

Sex??.... no mention by Oscar of having Ms Burger put the hard word on him and him rejecting her, and her seeking revenge for it.

Clout??..... There is nothing to be gained by the Burgers for maliciously collaborating.. and one doesn't collaborate without malice..its inherent in the meaning of the word, so what Clout, political, social, financial, would they gain from it? Oscar's trouble is a great grief to many many South African people.. it cannot be claimed its a social improvement to be a prosecutors witness, on many levels in this case..

Excellent points!

 

[Trooper]

Ha!..Charl has found his old notes from his laptop

 

[sorrell skye]

Charl Johnson stated that the lady person's voice sounded distressed, while the male voice sounded monotone.

 

[Trooper]

Roux is stating that he knows how a man interprets his own notes.. the problem is that Charl will not and cannot redact what he heard, and stated from the get go. . It just didn't happen as Roux wants it to, which tells us that these 2 witnesses are real heartbreakers for Roux and Oscar. From the first moment, their testimony has drawn intense fury from Roux, and rightly so.. it goes to the guts of Oscar's explanation. And de guts it.

Roux has just got a reprimand from the judge.. .he isn't being clear, and the judge wants him to make his point without all the waffle.

 

[minor4th]

Charl Johnson stated that the lady person's voice sounded distressed, while the male voice sounded monotone.

He says that now, but he didn't say that in his notes

 

[minor4th]

Roux is now confusing both the witness and the judge

 

[Trooper]

the judge is pinning Roux down to specifics now.. Roux has to make himself perfectly clear or move on.

 

[Trooper]

Nels has had enough, he objects, Charl has answered the same question the same way 23 times at the last count..

Roux wants Charl to state an opinion on his WIFEs statement... !

 

[Trooper]

Roux wants this awkward business of the screaming before the shooting to just GO AWAY

 

[minor4th]

Charl needs to just answer the question and leave it at that. All the explaining and qualifying is not helping him. The discrepancies are not a big deal, but he's making it seem like a bigger deal by hedging and overly explaining.

 

[Trooper]

Charl is restating his belief that he estimated 5 or 6 shots, that's what he heard, he didn't count them.. his wife did.. but he didn't.. he heard what he heard.. Roux knows this is a very dangerous part of the trial.. very dangerous indeed for his client.

 

[sorrell skye]

Charl Johnson: Draft implies it will change.

 

[minor4th]

Charl is restating his belief that he estimated 5 or 6 shots, that's what he heard, he didn't count them.. his wife did.. but he didn't.. he heard what he heard.. Roux knows this is a very dangerous part of the trial.. very dangerous indeed for his client.

I don't follow. I'm just commenting on his over explanations that he doesn't need to be making. He sounds defensive

 

[Trooper]

Roux is going over and over and over old ground here, Charl is simply restating his position without losing it.. god knows how..

Rou has a bit of a problem suddenly.. .he cant remember what his last question was... difficult to believe as he has asked the same question.

 

[Trooper]

I don't follow. I'm just commenting on his over explanations that he doesn't need to be making. He sounds defensive

Roux is trying to put him on the defensive, but Charl isn't buying it.. calm, cool and simple in his answers.. its Roux who is getting reprimanded and is rattled.. he wants this witness to change his perception , and this witness wont do it.. he heard what he heard..

 

[Really?]

Question, how can two people live together......experience hearing screams and shots fired in the neighborhood.......and.....NOT discuss it? sheesh:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[sorrell skye]

Is Roux hung up the deletion of the word "about" between the 2 drafts?

Draft 1. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls about 4 or 5 shots.

Draft 2. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls 4 or 5 shots.

 

[Trooper]

it needs to be remembered by non south Africans, that Charl Johnson is obligated to answer to the Judge.. not Roux.. its what the judge expects of this witness that counts.. Roux asks the questions, but it is to the judge that the witness answers.. This judge is absorbed in Charls answers, she wants the detail.. Roux does not want the detail!!.. he wants mumble and maybe.. but Charl is outlining his entire answer, calmly, and letting Roux wait until the JUDGE wants an end to the answer.

 

[minor4th]

Roux is trying to put him on the defensive, but Charl isn't buying it.. calm, cool and simple in his answers.. its Roux who is getting reprimanded and is rattled.. he wants this witness to change his perception , and this witness wont do it.. he heard what he heard..

If Roux is trying to put him on the defensive it's working because he certainly sounds defensive

 

[Trooper]

from the beginning, Charl and the Mrs were very specific ..they wanted anonymity across the board, from both the press, and from anyone connected to Oscar.. what an interesting remark.