Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

[G.bng]

I would never expect any witness testimony or statements to be identical as you tend to remember little details later when reflecting on events.

Glad you said that, I was thinking the same. And when a witness won't consider another possibility, or that they could have made a mistake, etc. the prosecutions sees them as not credible because they are so steadfast!

 

[zwiebel]

So AS said she saw a man walking in the bathroom, but that was actually what her husband saw. She admits this is true.

 

[MeeBee]

Oh boy...

 

[james83]

To be clear she gave the statement and later changed it, this isnt just being brought up now.

 

[zwiebel]

OW: Why did you do this....under oath?

AS said after she made the statement, she went back to Cpt V and said she had 'thought about the incident' and decided she did not see what she had told them she saw.

 

[G.bng]

Her testimony seems to have been influenced by her husband. Stipp is the one who saw the figure. This hurts her credibility.

On that point but she explained how she had re-visited the incident second by second and realised this was not her observation.

 

[lisasalinger]

I do get a kick out of the faces that Van Aardt makes during testimony.

 

[Viper]

Female voice screaming the whole time between first and second shots with screams of a male voice heard intermittently in that time, please someone offer an explanation?.

My guess:

OP fires the first shot from the bathroom entryway - "Bang!" and it hits Reeva so now she is really screaming bloody murder in racked pain and so OP moves in to the bathroom to silence her for good screaming "you made me do this!!!"

 

[zwiebel]

Nel objects. OW is saying it's the second time she has been untruthful. Nel says the first time was simply she could not recall a dog barking.

OW: I think I have touched a nerve. (I could swear he's sneering).

 

[MeeBee]

So she admits that she thought it through and didn't see the man herself. Methinks she rethought giving a statement about something she didn't actually see but her husband saw. Stipp is also the only one who heard the man's and the woman's voice intermingled. But he did not put this in his initial statement. Did his wife? We'll see...

 

[BritsKate]

Her testimony seems to have been influenced by her husband. Stipp is the one who saw the figure. This hurts her credibility.

But to be fair some were questioning her credibility at her very first answer. I don't see how it could be damaged when it wasn't there to begin with. IMO, the fact that her testimony corroborates four others bolsters said credibility.

 

[lisasalinger]

To be clear she gave the statement and later changed it, this isnt just being brought up now.

Yes, thank you. Didn't she say that she thought about it and realized it wasn't right so she had them correct it? That to me is not shady, it's being honest. If she was shady, she wouldn't have corrected it at all.

 

[Trooper]

our bedroom is situation on the road side.. it is situated facing these two houses.

did you make this statement PRIOr to or after???

prior to.


you say you can see these two homes from your bed. ....correct.


you say.. you looked at the bed clock. it says 3.02 and just after that, I heard three noises like gunshot. ..................... . correct..


you say.. you could see from the bed that lights were on in the two homes. and later on I established that one of the homes was Pistorius home. ...correct


so PRIOR yu hear a woman yelling. she says ,, screaming.. correct.

you thought it was a family homicide, due to the nature of the screaming.

youo then say, you joined your husband on the small balcony. no. I joined him on the bigger balcony. I followed him later. some time later??? moments later. .

you say,, the shouting sounded louder??? you say , you saw a man on the inside of the window.. that is correct..

you gave this version to capt Von Arndt.. he wrote it?? and this handwriting is Capt Van Arndt?? yes.

you read it and signed it. ?? correct.

in para 4. oldawage has found something peculiar..

adjacent to para 4. there is an initial dated.. is that your initial?? yes.

WHAT is scratched out there?? is that scratched out because it is an error??

from that, we must deduce, that therer was communication between uou and capt Von arendt..oh yes.

but that's not true. that's simply false. .

you are silent. I am trying to figure out what is false.

oh dear.. this isn't going well for oldwage..

here , we have something reduced to writing your statement that you saw a man walking.. this was the part initialed... ehe oldwage is working himself into a frenzy.. hahahahaha..

mrs stipp didn't see the man herself.. she initialed this.. ..

oldwage . full of inflated artificial fury attempts to remonstrate with mrs stipp.

I agree that this was not correct. which it why it is initialized.

nel objects. hehe. Nel is arguing that Oldy hasn't correctly accused the woman of a 2nd error. nel says. her recollection of the missing dog barking she wasn't in error. she did not register the dog barking, if in fact a dog was barking. hers wasn't barking.

nel says, you must say then. that if a dog is barking and you don't remember that is not a failure of memory

MASIPA.. are we talking about dogs barking??

 

[kaos]

Don't think it's ever a good idea to say to the judge "you will recall..." which suggests even the judge may not have a good memory.

 

[MeeBee]

I just don't see how you can be mistaken about such a thing. She lied.

 

[zwiebel]

OW: This is not the first time her memory has failed her.

Nel: You must say that dogs did indeed bark, or else it is not a faliure of memory.

Judge: Are we talking about dogs barking or what?

 

[sorrell skye]

See - even when a witness admits that they were mistaken and concedes a point, the witness is still damned.

If a witness says they can't remember, they're attacked as not being credible.

If a witness sticks to their guns, they're accused of being biased.

It's a no-win situation. No matter what a State's witness says, the Defense will accuse them of one thing or another.

I'm glad My Lady is challenging Oldwage.

 

[Really?]

Hahaha I think the judge is getting tired of OW

 

[zwiebel]

Judge: Mr Nel is quite correct. If it is the fact that dogs did indeed bark then you can proceed...

Now OW is taking on the judge.....

 

[Trooper]

ha.. oldwage just got a wigging from the judge . she explains that if the dogs are barking.. in fact. and she doesn't remember. .that is one thing. but if there is NO DOGS barking. then it isn't a failure of memory.

he is arguing fiercely ..

masipa. is it the defence position that dogs were barking??

Oldwage. i'll move on milady. right, says the judge.