Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[minor4th]

The 3.08 also fits with Burgers account
"Burger said she and her husband woke up just after 3am when they heard the noise, and her husband rushed to the balcony. "She called for help. She screamed terribly and shouted for help. Then I heard a man also call for help. He called for help three times."

Burger said she believed she was hearing the sounds of a robbery in progress and her husband called security guards and asked them to investigate. "Then I heard her screams again," said Burger. "It was like a climax. I heard her anxiety. She was very scared."

Burger then heard shots, with a longer pause between the first and second shot than the rest. "It was bang.....bang, bang, bang," she said.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201403032251.html

And the is the states case right there with the matching forensics and ballistics. Hard to refute the ears and the march ups. Although as I previously said Nel has some heavy cards up his leave to call an early conclusion with forth coming witness statements yet to be heard. Ie Netcare..and other neighbours to be possibly called. The neighbours other than Stipp are relatively distanced from home yet still heard the commotion.

Burgers woke up to screams - they only heard the second set of loud bangs

 

[MeeBee]

I don't have to consider Oscars story. he is on trial for murder, and anything, any single thing he says, from my biased position is to be met with the deepest skepticism. He has a motive to tell a particular story. Truth has nothing to do with it. The only and unavoidable truth is that a woman was shot 4 times, by a man who admits he pulled that trigger 4 times.

Anything Oscar says as to why he did that, is entitled to be thoroughly put to one side and the empirical evidence then assessed..

I am not obligated , in any shape of form to take Oscars story as the pinnacle of truth and therefore to be accepted as such. If I was, I'd be blithering away on the Pistorious Family site.


I am not neutral... If I was neutral I wouldn't be on a victim friendly site.

I'd be zipping along on a Murderer Friendly site.

no thanks.

No you're not obligated. But let's hope you never end up on a jury.

Victim friendly doesn't mean everyone accused of a crime is guilty. Statistically, that's impossible and to approach justice the way you do would be irresponsible.

 

[Trooper]

I just don't see how an article, in a magazine.. . ..

http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/

can be produced as evidence in a murder trial..


I am happy to be corrected . If Judge Masipa is a subscriber to the magazine, and Menalou has been excused from taking an oath and testifying before her as to this , because he gave his testimony to a magazine instead of her. well... I'll wear that, and move on, but, .. I dunno. sounds dodgy to me.

 

[Rumpole]

Truly, this man, on that day, had it all! Youth, success, health, a future, family, wealth, privilege, a beautiful home, beautiful cars, friends followers fans and national hero status; and yet he comes home to the open arms of a super model carrying a Valentines Day gift but minutes later goes onto the Internet to watch ??? I am seriously missing something, sorry folks...

It could have been Reeva watching ? Or Both? Was this a long visit to a site... or a click though?
There is and "" one man's (woman's) might be another mans "erotica".

 

[MeeBee]

It could have been Reeva watching ? Or Both? Was this a long visit to a site... or a click though?
There is and "" one man's (woman's) might be another mans "erotica".

It could have been a click through. It doesn't look like, based on what I saw on the screen, he stayed there very long.

 

[MeeBee]

I just don't see how an article, in a magazine.. . ..

http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/

can be produced as evidence in a murder trial..


I am happy to be corrected . If Judge Masipa is a subscriber to the magazine, and Menalou has been excused from taking an oath and testifying before her as to this , because he gave his testimony to a magazine instead of her. well... I'll wear that, and move on, but, .. I dunno. sounds dodgy to me.

Menelaou will be called to give testimony. I'm sure the magazine article will not be read out in court...

 

[TorisMom003]

Exactly - which is why I don't think it was a woman screaming.

So then Reeva never screamed at all? She gets shot in the hip that completely destroys her hip and she stays silent during that? I find that completely unreasonable. How also did one of the witnesses hear a male and female voice intermingled? Did OP go from his regular scream/yell to falsetto and then back again?

This seems like doing mental acrobats to make those fit, IMO. OP's story is just that, a story IMO. He is after all on trial and is trying to put forth a defense that will help him walk.

MOO

 

[Gavel Rash]

Burger woke up to sounds....then she heard woman cry for help then man then 4 bangs. What wre the sounds that alerted them. A woman screaming for help or a subconscious sound of bang bang bang cricket bat? Either way the last bangs and end of screaming heard is timed to fit precisley with gun shots bang...bang, bang, bang.

 

[Trooper]

No you're not obligated. But let's hope you never end up on a jury.

Victim friendly doesn't mean everyone accused of a crime is guilty. Statistically, that's impossible and to approach justice the way you do would be irresponsible.

the times Ive been on a jury, only twice, I certainly wasn't allowed to take into consideration a magazine article where a witness is supposed to have testified instead of me hearing him do so in court.

that's for sure.


and I don't think that would be allowed in any witness deliberation anywhere . Ever..

but who knows?? Maybe it happens in Texas, or someplace like that. All the jurors bring in their fave magazines and discard their jury notes and deliberate over House and Garden

 

[MeeBee]

the times Ive been on a jury, only twice, I certainly wasn't allowed to take into consideration a magazine article where a witness is supposed to have testified instead of me hearing him do so in court.

that's for sure.


and I don't think that would be allowed in any witness deliberation anywhere . Ever..

but who knows?? Maybe it happens in Texas, or someplace like that. All the jurors bring in their fave magazines and discard their jury notes and deliberate over House and Garden

Ok, what are you taking about? Who is saying you should take a magazine article into consideration of evidence? Obviously, Christo will be called to testify. Then you can take into consideration his testimony. The article is merely a forecast of what he might say on the stand.

<modsnip>

 

[minor4th]

Burger woke up to sounds....then she heard woman cry for help then man then 4 bangs. What wre the sounds that alerted them. A woman screaming for help or a subconscious sound of bang bang bang cricket bat? Either way the last bangs and end of screaming heard is timed to fit precisley with gun shots bang...bang, bang, bang.

She and her husband both testified unequivocally that they woke up to a screams

 

[Trooper]

Menelaou will be called to give testimony. I'm sure the magazine article will not be read out in court...

but posters here are stating that this magazine article is evidence already.

Huge amounts of typing is done on the basis of Mr Menalous reported remark re 3.08.. as if it is evidence already ! :floorlaugh:


weird, or what??

 

[sorrell skye]

Stipp testified it was about 10 minutes between the first loud bangs and the second loud bangs that he heard around 3:17. He did not give a precise time, however,

The 3:08 comes from the article about Cristo M. I was not the one who originally posted, and I had never heard of him or his account until I read that blurb that was posted.

ETA: The phone call to baba at 3:15:51 (lasting 16 seconds coincided with the SECOND set of bangs that Stipp heard.

BBM

Okay - thanks. I appreciate your answer.

I was just curious as to why you had posed the question of what Dr. Stipp heard at 3:08 a.m. since Dr. Stipp has never stated that he heard the sound of gunshots & a woman screaming at the specific time of 3:08 a.m.

So the 3:08 a.m. time comes from a media article (gosh - haven't those all been scrupulously accurate - NOT) about this Christo M. fellow.

Regarding the bolded bit: that's been my point all along. No precise times were stated as to when the witnesses heard what they heard.

Yet, throughout the discussion about when the various witnesses heard what they heard, it's been put forth that exact times have been reported, ergo the implication is that the earwitnesses must all be mistaken or lying or biased or what-have-you because Roux says so.

The fact of the matter is: the times that the earwitnesses heard what they heard falls within a range of about 10-15 minutes or so.

As far as I'm concerned, Roux has done a good job of muddying the waters.

The good thing is that My Lady will have access to all the official court transcripts and all the exhibits. She'll be able to go over them with a fine-toothed comb.

 

[TorisMom003]

Unless the purpose is to have the thread shut down, perhaps the personalizing of the posts should stop. Warnings have been given about this and yet it continues. These types of things make it harder on the mods, they have other threads to moderate as well as their normal everyday lives. Thank you.

 

[minor4th]

Ok, what are you taking about? Who is saying you should take a magazine article into consideration of evidence? Obviously, Christo will be called to testify. Then you can take into consideration his testimony. The article is merely a forecast of what he might say on the stand.

I have to believe at this point you are being willfully obtuse...

The Texas reference is directed at me I suspect. That poster has been taking shots like that at me since I started posting about this case. Cute comments about attorneys who must be idiots and how they do things in Texas etc ....

 

[MeeBee]

but posters here are stating that this magazine article is evidence already.

Huge amounts of typing is done on the basis of Mr Menalous reported remark re 3.08.. as if it is evidence already ! :floorlaugh:


weird, or what??

No posters here are not saying that. How did you come to that conclusion, trooper? Why would anyone say that?

It is not in evidence already. But it is his story as already reported. Unless he decides to change his mind then it stands to reason that this is what he will say on the stand because according to the interview this is what he hear.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Bowing out now...thanks for play

 

[Rumpole]

No you're not obligated. But let's hope you never end up on a jury.

Victim friendly doesn't mean everyone accused of a crime is guilty. Statistically, that's impossible and to approach justice the way you do would be irresponsible.

The jury system scares the bejeebers outta me.

The theory sounds good.... but sometimes I have my doubts. I am very interested in seeing how things work with a Judge deciding.

 

[minor4th]

We really need this case to get going again so we have something new to talk about ...

 

[MeeBee]

The jury system scares the bejeebers outta me.

The theory sounds good.... but sometimes I have my doubts. I am very interested in seeing how things work with a Judge deciding.

I think there are pros and cons to both systems. Having someone already knowledgable of the law and who doesn't need to be pandered to or have their opinions protected from prejudices does seem to have its advantages.