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

[minor4th]

I just watched the relevant portion of the trial video again to fact-check this.

When Mr. Roux asked Ms. Burger if she had heard gunshots in her current neighborhood (apart from the Feb.14 , 2013 shooting), she emphatically stated "No, we live in an extremely safe neighborhood."

1:28:44 on the Day 1/Part 2 video.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

Maybe this was one of the instances where the translator was messing up

 

[sorrell skye]

She definitely said she had heard gunshots in the neighborhood in the past. I had to rewind and listen again because I was surprised at what I thought I heard.

ETA:

Here's the portion of the transcript:

Roux: You are confidant to stay that those were gunshots?

Burger: I am convinced that they were gunshots. I've heard shots in the neighbourhood before. I have also fired a gun at a shooting range before.​

When I listened to that entire statement in context, it was clear to me that she was referring to a neighborhood in which she had lived in the past, not to her current neighborhood.

 

[sorrell skye]

Maybe this was one of the instances where the translator was messing up

There was no translator for that portion. Ms. Burger was testifying in English at that point.

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm familiar with parts of Oscar's statement but not the entire thing. Is there a place where I can find that?

For anybody who is familiar with his whole statement, I have some questions:

1. What prompted him in the early morning hours (3am or so) to get up out of bed in the pitch black and bring fans in from the balcony?

2. Why were there fans on the balcony? Seems like an odd place to have them.

3. Did the police recover these fans and where were they located?

4. I've read that in an initial statement he said that he had been speaking to Reeva in bed before he went to get the fans, and then in another later statement he said she was asleep at the time. Was that ever cleared up?

Thanks

Here is a link to the 2013 bail hearing affidavit:

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

 

[Estelle]

It's 177 meters, or 194 yards -- think two football fields. I think it would be hard to hear very much or very clearly at that distance.

We've got a lot of trial ahead of us, and there are other neighbors who lived much closer who will testify. We should not make conclusions from only one witness. Her credibility may be corroborated by the other witnesses, or it may be undermined.

I think one thing we are forgetting here is that OP fired gunshots into a toilet which had tiled/hard walls and IMO the bullets could have richocheted off one wall before they even hit RS or did one or two even go through her hitting the wall?

We really do not know enough about the gunshots yet but IMO the sound and echoing effect of bullets landing in a tiled toilet with the bathroom window open in the stillness of the night with little in between except thin poplar trees could have magnified the sound greatly.

I have been reading shooters' websites and the distance a gunshot can heard varies greatly. It depends on many factors such as the type of gun, time of day, wind, temperature, what's in between the shooter and the earwitness, etc. One claim was that in perfect conditions, a gunshot can be heard in a five mile radius.

So IMO a gunshot fired in the confined space of a tiled bathroom/toilet with a window open would echo in the middle of the night and sound louder than normal. Therefore, hearing a gunshot when your balcony door is open at the small distance of 177 metres is very credible. But we will wait to see what the experts have to say.
Also, as you said, what corroboration other witnesses give to her evidence as one lives only 98 metres away.

As for hearing "bloodcurdling" screams, I think the same applies but I think few of us would have had experience in hearing screams at this distance in the middle of the night. Again the echoing effect has to be taken into consideration as it would amplify the sound.

 

[Mountain Misst]

There have been two new articles printed in the MSM recently which have pointed to my current suspicions about OP:

OP appears to have neglected and ignored RS that night by being on the phone with his mates for at least a hour altogether between about 6.30pm and 9pm as well as accessing used car and p*rn websites since the time they arrived home! While soft could be said to be harmless in today's society, the above MSM printed that it was not soft OP was watching, it was X-rated or violent which is usually against women. This has often led to a person acting out their fantasies in real life. It is an addiction which escalates. For example, this occurred in the Joan Yeates case in the UK where it led to Vincent Tabak murdering his female neighbour. So IMO the combination of his fascination with guns and a violent fantasy could have been acted out that night if he was in a jealous rage and angry about something that RS had done or was about to do.

(snipped by me for space).

Thanks Estelle. We have to consider that rape could have been on the agenda. That's in line with my thoughts. The autopsy may reveal more.

 

[minor4th]

When I listened to that entire statement in context, it was clear to me that she was referring to a neighborhood in which she had lived in the past, not to her current neighborhood.

I just listened to it all again, including the part where she says her neighborhood is safe. But then she specifically says she has heard gun shots in the neighborhood and went to a firing range one time (although I think she said "driving range").

You could be right about the context -- she could have meant that from her neighborhood she heard gunshots from outside the neighborhood or that it was from a previous neighborhood. Probably not that important except to illustrate that there is a pervasive gun violence problem in SA.

I'm still scratching my head about her clearly hearing a woman and man screaming, and a man yelling for help and a woman screaming AFTER the last gunshot. Yet, not able to hear the cricket bat breaking down the door or the loud crying from Oscar that other witnesses heard. I'm suspicious of her statements because she did not give a statement to police for several weeks -- after she heard the bail hearing on the radio and after she talked with her husband about what happened. Plus she is not even willing to acknowledge the possibility that the sounds could have been something else or that she may not have heard a woman screaming after the sound of the gunshots. To me she seems a little too intent on presenting a particular version and will not even consider any other rational possibilities.

I could be totally wrong - hopefully it will be more clear when other witnesses testify. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

 

[Interested Bystander]

There's a second affidavit? I haven't watched the trial, just catching up here.

Jilly, I should have said Opening Statement. My mistake, sorry. Interestingly, he said he had been advised that this statement (or maybe he meant that some of its content) was not usual. It does sound as though he was advised not to go down the route he chose. IMO he did himself no good by contradicting what he said in his original addidavit.

 

[atthelake]

Good morning peeps!

Would it be too much to hope for that the translator has another coughing fit and we can again listen to testimony in English today?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I just listened to it all again, including the part where she says her neighborhood is safe. But then she specifically says she has heard gun shots in the neighborhood and went to a firing range one time (although I think she said "driving range").

You could be right about the context -- she could have meant that from her neighborhood she heard gunshots from outside the neighborhood or that it was from a previous neighborhood. Probably not that important except to illustrate that there is a pervasive gun violence problem in SA.

I'm still scratching my head about her clearly hearing a woman and man screaming, and a man yelling for help and a woman screaming AFTER the last gunshot. Yet, not able to hear the cricket bat breaking down the door or the loud crying from Oscar that other witnesses heard. I'm suspicious of her statements because she did not give a statement to police for several weeks -- after she heard the bail hearing on the radio and after she talked with her husband about what happened. Plus she is not even willing to acknowledge the possibility that the sounds could have been something else or that she may not have heard a woman screaming after the sound of the gunshots. To me she seems a little too intent on presenting a particular version and will not even consider any other rational possibilities.

I could be totally wrong - hopefully it will be more clear when other witnesses testify. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

She would hear shrill sounds and gunshot sounds much more clearly than wood on wood. Wood is relatively soft and the sound created would not be sharp enough to travel as well as a shot or scream. Think of banging two logs together. This would create a lower pitch noise than a crack from a gunshot.

 

[katydid23]

I used to live about 2 football fields away from an elementary school. During recess and lunch I could clearly hear kids screaming [playful] and laughing and shouting.

 

[Estelle]

(snipped by me for space).

Thanks Estelle. We have to consider that rape could have been on the agenda. That's in line with my thoughts. The autopsy may reveal more.

I have been suspecting that RS could have been a victim of violent rape for a long time and wanting to know what the autopsy would reveal. I was loathe to comment on WS as everyone believed that they were a loving couple until a few months ago.

Why do I suspect rape? This is all IMO

Stimulation earlier in the evening provided by watching X-rated which often depicts violent rape fantasies

Why did he lock the bedroom door so she could not get out? Was he holding her captive?

As soon as she could, she then grabbed the phones and ran into the bathroom to phone police to report it.

But before she dialed the full number, he came after her with his gun telling her to drop the phones or he would shoot her.

So she dropped the phones on the bathroom floor and ran into the toilet locking the door.

But in his irrational mind, he quickly thought up the intruder story and predicted that he had a better chance of getting away with murder than rape.

MOO

 

[Estelle]

Jilly, I should have said Opening Statement. My mistake, sorry. Interestingly, he said he had been advised that this statement (or maybe he meant that some of its content) was not usual. It does sound as though he was advised not to go down the route he chose. IMO he did himself no good by contradicting what he said in his original addidavit.

Can anyone guess why he has changed his version now?

IMO it seems to have made things worse for him not better.

 

[Estelle]

I just listened to it all again, including the part where she says her neighborhood is safe. But then she specifically says she has heard gun shots in the neighborhood and went to a firing range one time (although I think she said "driving range").

You could be right about the context -- she could have meant that from her neighborhood she heard gunshots from outside the neighborhood or that it was from a previous neighborhood. Probably not that important except to illustrate that there is a pervasive gun violence problem in SA.

I'm still scratching my head about her clearly hearing a woman and man screaming, and a man yelling for help and a woman screaming AFTER the last gunshot. Yet, not able to hear the cricket bat breaking down the door or the loud crying from Oscar that other witnesses heard. I'm suspicious of her statements because she did not give a statement to police for several weeks -- after she heard the bail hearing on the radio and after she talked with her husband about what happened. Plus she is not even willing to acknowledge the possibility that the sounds could have been something else or that she may not have heard a woman screaming after the sound of the gunshots. To me she seems a little too intent on presenting a particular version and will not even consider any other rational possibilities.

I could be totally wrong - hopefully it will be more clear when other witnesses testify. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

When you are a witness in a murder trial, it is very important to stick to what you believe and not sway from it all. Otherwise, the Judge would doubt her testimony.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Can anyone guess why he has changed his version now?

IMO it seems to have made things worse for him not better.

That's what I've been wondering.. Maybe DT is aware that some closer witnesses will testify that they heard arguments going on like fighting before the screams and shots so that's why DT changed the version.

If there are two fans physically existing in the bedroom by the time Botha and police arrived, why was it not put forth in the bail hearing ? Bringing one fan in was weird enough and now switches to two fans.. :facepalm:

 

[minor4th]

When you are a witness in a murder trial, it is very important to stick to what you believe and not sway from it all. Otherwise, the Judge would doubt her testimony.

Well, I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit. I do not know what happened, but I'm trying to view the testimony and evidence from both sides to see where holes can be poked and what can be supported. The prosecution has the burden of proving premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have not seen or heard anything yet that is conclusive and beyond question.

Viewing the testimony from this perspective, I see some potential problems with Burger's testimony, but ultimately her credibility will be determined by contradictory or corroborating evidence later in the trial.

I'm really anxious to see how this all plays out because there has been so little actual information disclosed, unlike trials in the US where we pretty much know all the evidence before it is presented in court.

 

[Estelle]

I am now watching from Australia. Good reception.

People are arriving at the court. I think it is supposed to start at 9.30am South African time.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-stream/

 

[minor4th]

I'm forcing myself to stay awake so I can catch some of the trial live streaming. I will pay for it tomorrow

 

[Estelle]

That's what I've been wondering.. Maybe DT is aware that some closer witnesses will testify that they heard arguments going on like fighting before the screams and shots so that's why DT changed the version.

If there are two fans physically existing in the bedroom by the time Botha and police arrived, why was it not put forth in the bail hearing ? Bringing one fan in was weird enough and now switches to two fans.. :facepalm:

OP must have been advised by DT to change his version for some reason.

I think this was his biding for time on the balcony while RS supposedly got up and went to the the toilet. Surely one fan would have been enough. Who keeps two fans on a balcony and brings both in every night?

 

[lisasalinger]

Here is a link to the 2013 bail hearing affidavit:

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Just read his official statement...

He gives no explanation as to why all of a sudden in the middle of the night he wakes up and brings a fan in from the balcony and closes the door & blinds behind him. Why would somebody keep a fan on an outside balcony? I suppose somebody could, but it just seems like a really convenient way to explain why he was awake at 3am, why he didn't notice that Reeva wasn't in bed, and why it became so dark in the room (because he closed the door/blinds/curtains).

Obviously he had enough light at the time he woke up to see his way from his bed to the balcony on his stumps to get the fan. Surely he would not have done that in pitch black or he could have tripped over something and hurt himself.

It would only become pitch black after he closed the door/blinds/curtains. How long does it take to do all that... seconds, maybe a minute? The bed is right next to the balcony. So in that moment that he retrieves the fan and brings it inside, there still would have been some ambient light. He would have been able to see her in bed or not. That would then have to mean that in that exact second that he turned around to close the door & blinds that Reeva got up? Wow, that's a pretty darn narrow timeframe (and explanation!)

Also, if he is so terrified of crime in his neighborhood, why the heck are they sleeping with their balcony wide open in the first place?

But yet, he states that he sees the bathroom window open and immediately thinks burglar. His balcony door was just wide open all night and no biggie but the smaller bathroom window is open and that is suddenly a problem.

And at the sound of just a random noise, instead of thinking that it's your bedmate, as any normal person would do, his first thought is: "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realized that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside." Um yea ok... when you are half asleep at 3am, this is your first thought? I don't think so.

He gets the gun from under the bed where Reeva is supposedly sleeping. I don't care how dark the room is, he would have felt the bed or tried to shake her or something. No way in hell he didn't know she wasn't in bed.

He supposedly yelled to her to call for help and is yelling at a supposed burglar to get out, and Reeva has no response at all? He didn't pause for one second to wonder why she didn't respond at all? But he has time to ponder that ladder outside that contractors left the other day?

That is one heck of a wild imagination and story.

It all rests on him to come up with a reasonable excuse as to why he acted the way he did and he doesn't even come close with this explanation. Not to mention that even in the absurd event that the judge believes him, it's still totally negligent that he blindly shot through that door without knowing who or what was behind it. He is toast.