Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[soozieqtips]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

Hahahaha (and welcome!!).

 

[steveml]

Sorry, that does not work for me. Whilst I agree that the did not pursue finding the correct number (as far as we know). I think it perfectly feasible that if she searched for Security on her phone she may have picked the wrong one. There are some people in this world who do not wish to become embroiled in this type of problem. I think she also thought, given where they are situated, that there had to be witness closer to hand. I certainly don't think you can throw her testimony out because she did not make a call you thought she should have made.

On the other hand, OP seems already to have lied and I think anyone might doubt what he has said.

Burger came across as a good witness whose only fault IMO was to, on occasion, obstruct Roux a little who, in turn, was extremely aggressive and rude because he knew this witness would be 'dynamite'.

I think she was being absolutely honest about what she heard and all the fuss about she and her husband discussing the event got way out of hand. As they didn't offer to be witnesses until after the Bail Hearing of course they would have discussed it. I would defy anyone not to have done so. It would have been very odd not to have done so. Therefore their statements would have been very similar because they would have relived the event several times before the Bail Hearing and come to some sort of conclusion in both their minds as to what happened.

You say you are not convinced Ms Burger heard anything that night - what happened to her husband's testimony then? You are inferring both of them lied. I think not. Are you refusing to accept the fact that he called for help but did not ring the right number too?

It doesn't have to work for you, that's ok, reasonable doubt applies to both sides of the trial, and I expect it will be given some thought. I would have made sure I reported it correctly at the time. In fact if I heard blood curdling screams I would think it my duty to report it, certainly not leave it to someone else who may be closer.

If I'm being asked to stretch the boundaries of normal behaviour for the defense, then it's only fair that I apply those same rules to the accused. I think you may have misread my post in your haste to reply. I said I do think Ms Burger may have heard something that night.

 

[Really?]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

:wagon:

Sorry I don't have an answer to the specs....:dunno:

 

[steveml]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

Welcome. That has been noticeable. I think he may normally wear contact lenses, as early in the trial he was putting drops in his eyes. Perhaps all the tears have dried them out.

 

[Really?]

Apparently the Defence will argue that OP is not 'a reasonable person'. IMO this may well be a tactic of mitigation in the hope of a lesser sentence. It's going to be an interesting week!

BBM

That should give him an extra 20 yrs......moo

 

[soozieqtips]

It doesn't have to work for you, that's ok, reasonable doubt applies to both sides of the trial, and I expect it will be given some thought. I would have made sure I reported it correctly at the time. In fact if I heard blood curdling screams I would think it my duty to report it, certainly not leave it to someone else who may be closer.

If I'm being asked to stretch the boundaries of normal behaviour for the defense, then it's only fair that I apply those same rules to the accused. I think you may have misread my post in your haste to reply. I said I do think Ms Burger may have heard something that night.

If you're not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did hear anything that night, may I ask why? Is it that she might have heard something... but it wasn't related to the gunshots? And her husband too? Or is it that you think she made it all up? Not sure I've thoroughly read every single post in the last day or two, so you may have already addressed this. She said she and her husband were both private people, so I think it's safe to say they weren't courting publicity. I don't see why she would invent something out of thin air just for the sake of it.

 

[steveml]

Barry, is that you?

Cheeky :smile:

He does actually have a fake twitter account which is quite funny. It's ok for a little bit of light relief when not on here.

 

[Dmacky]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

Welcome Alex!

BBM

I don't really know, but it reminds me of "jodi Arias", who wore glasses only during her trial. :giggle:

 

[delilah]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

Hi there

Here's a photo of Pistorius in glasses, taken from a 2011 press article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...n-Commenee-looking-new-golden-generation.html

It is, however, in the Daily Mail, so I can't vouch for its authenticity : )

 

[LemonMousse]

Ok someone help me. Mangena said RS was sat on top of magazine rack on 3rd/4th shot. Her hands up in defensive stance. THEN Van Der Nest says the head shot must have been with her head somewhere in front and level with the toilet seat???? Confused.com.

According to Mangena, she was standing facing the door. The first shot hit her in the hip and she crumpled, falling backwards and ending up in a sitting position on the magazine rack. The 2nd shot missed her, and by the time of the third and fourth shots she had her hands up over her head in a defensive position.

She must have been sitting slanted towards the door rather than fully facing the toilet, because shots 3 & 4 hit her right arm and the right side of her head causing her to fall sideways with blood going into the toilet pan and her hair making a distinctive pattern on the seat.

Roux's case is that the first shot hit her head - all because he is desperate for her not to have had the ability to scream. He's already asserted that she must have been bending forwards for this to happen. It shall be interesting to see how he supports this because she must then have been in a straight enough position for a shot after that to go straight through the waistband of her shorts.

Personally, I can't see how a bullet straight into the brain cannot have a person fall immediately to the ground, but it's a confined space so it depends how she fell and what she fell onto.

Will be interesting testimony from his expert, no doubt.

 

[Viper]

Apparently the Defence will argue that OP is not 'a reasonable person'. IMO this may well be a tactic of mitigation in the hope of a lesser sentence. It's going to be an interesting week!

I left a potion of the message out, because I am somewhat of a lazy typer and because I thought it would be clear anyway. But if you want to discredit a witness by saying what s/he did or did not do does not make sense to you because that is not what you or most others would do, then you probably should not tell others to NOT apply the same logic and common sense to what OP did or did not do.

BTW. I have never hear of the "Im an unreasonable person" defense. :smile: But you are probably right about that. Probably a whole bunch of psychiatric stuff is coming from the DT.

 

[G.bng]

Burger came across as a good witness whose only fault IMO was to, on occasion, obstruct Roux a little who, in turn, was extremely aggressive and rude because he knew this witness would be 'dynamite'.

Yes, "dynamite", and roux had to get her to back down by whatever means... but he failed so some along with Roux will tar her as an arrogant witness while others that she is steadfast. And if she had backed down then Roux would have accused her of changing and contradicting her evidence and would have tarred her as a non credible and/or unreliable witness. With Roux it is a no win every time.

I know what you mean, but the forensic evidence suggests that there were arterial spurts as she was being carried down the stairs and these happen because the heart is still pumping blood..

Iirc the forensic expert explained that the drops of blood laying a trail down the stairs were from the pooled blood dripping from Reeva's wounds. The arterial spurting happened in the toilet.

 

[steveml]

If you're not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she did hear anything that night, may I ask why? Is it that she might have heard something... but it wasn't related to the gunshots? And her husband too? Or is it that you think she made it all up? Not sure I've thoroughly read every single post in the last day or two, so you may have already addressed this. She said she and her husband were both private people, so I think it's safe to say they weren't courting publicity. I don't see why she would invent something out of thin air just for the sake of it.

No worries. I think she probably heard the gunshots, but there's something that just doesn't sit quite right with the explanations of the screaming, and how they've become more intense each time she's explained them. You can hear gunshots from a distance, and not concern yourself to much, as it could be a car-jacking or something similar. It's just the human nature of a woman hearing another woman's blood-curdling screams, then going back to sleep and going to work the next day as normal. If I think she may be exaggerating hearing the screams, then I have to think carefully about the references to it being a woman's scream. I'm not saying she didn't, it just gives me pause for thought.

I do think OP is guilty by the way, so I don't need a great deal of convincing. I'm just throwing things out there for people to chew on, as this is exactly what defense will be doing soon. Moreover it wouldn't be much fun if this was just a pro-Reeva or pro-OP forum. We may as well just post a quick line on twitter proclaiming their guilt/innocence if that was the case.

 

[LemonMousse]

It doesn't have to work for you, that's ok, reasonable doubt applies to both sides of the trial, and I expect it will be given some thought. I would have made sure I reported it correctly at the time. In fact if I heard blood curdling screams I would think it my duty to report it, certainly not leave it to someone else who may be closer.

If I'm being asked to stretch the boundaries of normal behaviour for the defense, then it's only fair that I apply those same rules to the accused. I think you may have misread my post in your haste to reply. I said I do think Ms Burger may have heard something that night.

You actually said that there is reasonable doubt that she heard anything at all. No there isn't because there's phone evidence that her husband tried to call security. Whatever you personally think of their subsequent inaction, the evidence proves they heard something.

We then have to consider whether it's an astonishing coincidence that they report hearing almost exactly the same sounds as Stipp did and Mrs Berger's impression of the shots (bang......bang bang bang) is exactly how the ballistics expert says they must have happened.

Of course, it's not impossible that this university lecturer and her professional husband waited until the bail hearing then constructed a tale around the evidence they heard from that purely in order to play a part in putting a man they've never met in prison for the rest of his life.

Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

[G.bng]

Been following the fascinating discussion here for a while....haven't seen this mentioned before, sorry if it has been! (First post so please be kind!)

I'm intrigued as to OP starting to wear spectacles in court. If I remember correctly he never wore them during the first week or so, so why during the last few days? Is he going to try to claim poor eyesight, (night blindness....ho hum!), to explain why he didn't notice Reeva missing from the bed?

I'm a recent poster here too so others can welcome you better than I.

I wondered about the specs too. I think he may be using them to look more demure, more like a university professor than a sport's hot-head.

 

[MeeBee]

No worries. I think she probably heard the gunshots, but there's something that just doesn't sit quite right with the explanations of the screaming, and how they've become more intense each time she's explained them. You can hear gunshots from a distance, and not concern yourself to much, as it could be a car-jacking or something similar. It's just the human nature of a woman hearing another woman's blood-curdling screams, then going back to sleep and going to work the next day as normal. If I think she may be exaggerating hearing the screams, then I have to think carefully about the references to it being a woman's scream. I'm not saying she didn't, it just gives me pause for thought.

I do think OP is guilty by the way, so I don't need a great deal of convincing. I'm just throwing things out there for people to chew on, as this is exactly what defense will be doing soon. Moreover it wouldn't be much fun if this was just a pro-Reeva or pro-OP forum. We may as well just post a quick line on twitter proclaiming their guilt/innocence if that was the case.

I don't think she's lying about hearing anything, I think it's possible the media reports and stories of the incident have influenced her recounting of things, which calls into question her testimony. First, she said she heard two or three shots (wasn't sure) but now she is sure it was four. She couldn't even admit to the possibility that she was mistaken. She was sure. That is iffy. We typically don't go back and remember things like that with such certainty. It's just not how the human brain works. I don't believe she suddenly came to the epiphany that it was four shots she heard. This was probably something she came to learn and it influenced her memory. In her mind, what she heard were gunshots and if there were four then she must have heard four. At that point, she's not relating what she actually heard but what she thinks she must have heard. "I heard gunshots, there were four gunshots, so I must have heard four gunshots."

 

[lisasalinger]

Ok I'll go along with your time for the sake of the argument (Discussion).

After doing that OP was then confronted with the state of Reeva in the toilet...perhaps stunned for a short time? He dragged her body out to bathroom to try and assist. That may have used up several minutes? But lets say just 2 minutes.

So with the time you estimate plus the 2 minute that is a total of 6:15 minutes.

THAT contradicts the State timeline... absolutely

Phone call records put time that Burger and Stipp heard bangs at 3:17 (actually a little after) if you add the 6:15 it would have been 6:23+ before OP could possibly have made his first phone call. Yet he made that call at 3:19

The State contention that the shots were at 3:17 simply does leave time to do much of anything before 3:19 when OP made the call. IMO the shots HAD to be earlier than 3:17.

Working the calculation back from the phone call at 3:19..... take off the 6 minutes and 15 seconds and the shots would have been at 3:14:45.

I do not want to labor the point but that is nowhere near the State version of 3:17 and it is getting closer to what Stipp reported as the first set of bangs.

I am convinced in my mind that Stipp heard bangs that were shots first, and then at around 3:17 he heard bat on door. That is also what burger(s) heard... Bat on door.

BBM

In regards to your point that I bolded, it works if you don't believe that he had to do any of those other things. No need to run around and open doors and put legs on if he already knew who was behind that door.

That's why there are no foot prints in blood and that's why the most pronounced bat mark is at a level that's consistent with being on stumps.

It's very feasible it took only a few minutes to get her out and make the call to Stander.

I believe OP's affidavit was very carefully crafted in those 5 days before his bail hearing. We've all seen how good Roux (Mr Double Taps) is with making things "fit"

 

[LemonMousse]

By the way - last Christmas my next door neighbours got into a terrible fight and there was horrible screaming coming from her. I called the police, as did other neighbours, and subsequently saw her being taken off in an ambulance and him in a police car. I went back off to sleep perfectly well after that and I am not a cold uncaring person. I was also never contacted by the police after that to give evidence and didn't feel the need to contact anyone myself - and I went into work the next day.

I've also sat and watched the bodies of two neighbours being taken out of their home in a story that made the national news. Again, I slept with no difficulty afterwards.

I don't find Berger and Johnson's actions that odd, personally.

 

[Viper]

Hi there

Here's a photo of Pistorius in glasses, taken from a 2011 press article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...n-Commenee-looking-new-golden-generation.html

It is, however, in the Daily Mail, so I can't vouch for its authenticity : )

I'm a recent poster here too so others can welcome you better than I.

I wondered about the specs too. I think he may be using them to look more demure, more like a university professor than a sport's hot-head.

The glasses do appear to be a prop to put forth a weaker (softer, polite, gentle, non threatening) image, he put them on after he acted out against his competitor in the Olympics, that was the image shared in a previous post.

But honestly, does he really believe that his spectacles wearing image will affect the judges hearing and consideration of the testimony? How shallow and self absorbed is this man!

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes, "dynamite", and roux had to get her to back down by whatever means... but he failed so some along with Roux will tar her as an arrogant witness while others that she is steadfast. And if she had backed down then Roux would have accused her of changing and contradicting her evidence and would have tarred her as a non credible and/or unreliable witness. With Roux it is a no win every time.



Iirc the forensic expert explained that the drops of blood laying a trail down the stairs were from the pooled blood dripping from Reeva's wounds. The arterial spurting happened in the toilet.

Ah, OK....thanks.