Speaking of witness testimony... I really do see the State witnesses as supporting OP's version of events. People seem to be focused on the testimony of "a woman screaming", but really I think even that viewed in the context of the times we know is (IMO) shown to be OP screaming.
I do see Dr Stipps evidence as key. It is supported by his wife's testimony too. I don't think you can regard husband and wife as two completely independent witnesses, but certainly the two testimonies have more weight than just one person.
The Stipps leave NO DOUBT that there were TWO sets of loud bangs. Both sounded like "gunshots" and Dr Stipps opinion has the added credibility of his previous experience with the sound of gunshots.
It seems to me that the Prosecution (and certainly people posting about the trial) have failed to grasp exactly how critical (damaging to the State Case) "Two sets of bangs" is. The State have unequivocally pinned their case on the second bangs (3:17) being the gunshots. So far they have simply not accounted for the first bangs, but they will have to account for them eventually. They can not simply dismiss those bangs.. they were clear and heard by both Stipps (and van der Merwe) they sounded like gunshots. The notion that the cricket bat strikes before gunshots seems to me to have been disproved by expert testimony, but I guess Nel could go with the VERY contrived notion that bat strikes were the earlier noise, but door panel prised out later? or perhaps door slamming, or steel bath panel? But the State offered no evidence of any source of bangs besides the gun and the bat.

My point is that HOWEVER the State explain away the first set of bangs, they are in fact CONCEDING that something other than an actual gunshot can sound exactly like a gunshot to witnesses. That in itself adds weight to the defence version that the cricket bat was source of the second bangs. The State can not possibly deny that possibility if they concede that bat (or any old thing) can sound like a gunshot.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The state is going to have to argue that the cricket bat sounds were before the gunshots - and then they run into problems with their own experts saying the opposite

Yes... and "Proved beyond reasonable doubt" looks like a standard too high when there is doubt built into the State's Case

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Note also...

WHATEVER the Prosecution assert that the second set of bangs were.. they HAVE to concede that their own witnesses testified that they were convinced that the bangs were gunshots when they were not. What better evidence could their be to demonstrate that witnesses can be MISTAKEN in their perception of sounds. THAT is also circumstantial "evidence" that it is possible that the same witnesses (and all the others) could be mistaken about the screams being made by a woman.

It's kind of a "catch 22"
If the State assert that second bangs were the shots... then they concede that their own witnesses definitely misheard first bangs as shots... which in turn casts doubts on their witnesses testimony that the second bangs were gunshots

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I just don't see a way for the state to get around the sequence - and that pretty much does away with any possible motive for intentional murder (no Reeva screams = no evidence of argument/fight)

I still think culpable homicide is on the table and I think that might be appropriate because 1) OP was literally RIGHT NEXT to his bedroom door when he heard the sounds, and 2) he really had to go way out of his way to go from standing near the bedroom door vs. going to his bed, getting gun and unholstering it, around two corners, part of which was tile where his mobility was more limited, and 3) I think he had better and more reasonable alternatives that he could have and should have taken under the circumstances.

ATM I still believe he thought there was an intruder and that Reeva was in bed, but I'm not totally convinced that was a very reasonable belief considering how close Reeva was to him and the fact he knew she was awake and he only heard a noise in the bathroom.

I hate to evoke "natural justice" but my first reaction is that OP should face some sort of consequence for causing Reeva's death.
I can accept what you say "culpable homicide" is appropriate.

OP was reckless to say the least. Irresponsible as a gun owner there is no doubt.

However.... I think as we have seen, there is perhaps plenty than can be offered by way of explanation... OP's unique vulnerabilities, and the general reality of crime in SA. I really do wish that more of the trial had been about each side putting forward arguments in regard any justification (or lack of it) for OP's paranoia and his actions, given that he genuinely thought there was an intruder. I guess that debate will be aired as part of the Closing Statements by each side?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I was having another watch of the early witness testimonies last week and it refreshed my memory regarding the neighbours. The occupants of the two close houses mentioned apparently heard a man crying and no woman screaming.

I'm a little bemused as to why there was only slight mention of the close neighbours made by Roux. They appear on the states witness list but weren't called. They could still be called by the Roux, however if they don't appear, is it likely that their full statements will be read in court, or would they just be left for Judge Masipa to peruse in her own time? For something so important, it strikes me as rather odd that Nel didn't read out the full statements, at least to give them some impact.

The neighbours were :- Dr Bareng Job Kenneth Motshwane (Psychologist) and his wife Erica Motshwane.

Michael Raymond Nhlengethwa and his wife Hilary Nhlengethwa. Hilary heard a bang and told her husband to get up. Michael then made a call to security. Hilary heard a cry, however no exact time was given for this.

Interestingly, Dr Mothshwane's fields of interest as listed on MedPages are :-Anxiety, Depression and Forensic Psychology.

Quite a handy neighbour to have considering OP's current predicaments.

Very interesting Steve. We don't know that Roux wont call them, and other neighbours.

At the very least extra ear witnesses could add doubts to the details of the time line and so leave any version of events not proven beyond reasonable doubt, but I think Roux can do much better than that. I am being quite serious when I say I think the Stipps(s) are great witnesses for the defence. The two sets of bangs (sounding like gunshots) is critical evidence. Described clearly and unequivocally by Stipps. I have to repeat that the simple human "mistake" of mis-perception of screams as by a woman I have never seen as a problem for the Defence.

Wish list for Defence witnesses:

• Defence witnesses can help pin down the precise time of the first bangs (gunshots)
  
• Roux does some sort of demonstration that show how ludicrous (impossible) the State contention that shots were at 3:17 is.
• Roux makes it absolutely clear that both sides forensic experts are sure that bat blows were after gunshots. It is simply not true, for instance, (based on door evidence) that there were bat blows, then shots into damaged door. That is a MYTH started by forum posters and has no basis in reality. The fact that they have to invent mythical explanations to account for clear facts itself casts doubts (to say the least) on the State version.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I often see words to the effect "we only have OP's word for that"

Of course in many instances we have more than that. We have OP's testimony which is supported by the fact that State witness testimony fits comfortably with OP's version.

Funny that those who question with "we only have OP's word for that" are quite happy to accept baseless speculation "What if" and build on that with even more speculation, no matter how complicated and contrived things become.
The State "version" is based on......

• A mythical "last supper"... the medical evidence for that is questionable. And so what anyway? Reeva eating around midnight is not necessarily at odds with OP's version
• An "argument" evidenced solely by Mrs Van der Merwe hearing one voice only, intermittent after 2:00, and not for certain coming from OP's house.
• The testimony of "a woman screaming" before the shots. IMO that is totally busted, as I have outlined many times.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I agree with the Stipps evidence being very strong for the defence. I've just revisited Johan Stipp's testimony (again) and the value of it became very apparent, especially when viewed in retrospect to later evidence and testimonies. He was at least beginning to make concessions regarding the impossibility of Reeva screaming after the shots, due to his medical background, and ended the testimony by basically saying that although he thought the screams were that of a woman, it's not impossible that they could have come from OP.

I really believe that prior to the trial Johan Stipp was under the impression that either there were more than 4 bullets fired, or that the second volley of noises were the gunshots. It came as quite a shock to him when Roux explained that it was common cause that only 4 shots had been fired. There was a bit of a panic after this whereby Nel regularly objected to the questioning, and ultimately tried to fudge his way through by concealing the nature of the state's case. Nel would only indicate that Reeva screamed prior to shots as 3:17, and still wouldn't disclose how the first set of noises were created.

I haven't seen Nel prosecute before, but It seems to me that although he is good at his job, he wouldn't be able to perform anywhere near as effectively in some other countries. It seems quite strange that the state prosecutor and DT are able to progress so far into a trial, whilst still leaving their case so open-ended as to allow them to tailor their version to suit later testimonies. Rather ironically, the word tailoring was used quite regularly by Nel against OP to dismiss OP's version of events. It's almost like Nel's playing out a 'whodunnit' with everyone expecting a big reveal at the end. If it's anything like the damp squib regarding the phone/text messages, broken window, bedroom door, air rifle, baseball bat and everything that happened after OP brought Reeva down the stairs, I certainly won't be holding my breath.

Yes, The SA system is "different" to what I have seen before. I am not saying that is bad. It would be VERY bad if it was before a jury, but might be OK with decision by a judge. You only need look at what posters at True Gossip Forums are making of the trial and evidence as it proceeds, to see how badly (wrongly) it could be evaluated by a Jury.

The thing I find strangest is that Nel "rested" the State's case without actually making any sort of case. I would not have been surprised if a Judge in any other jurisdiction dismissed the charges at that point. I still find it quite hard to accept. The basics of any system should be that the State lays charges and outlines their evidence to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant then has the right of reply having seen the evidence against him. The SA system seems quite different, as you say Steve.
As we have seen when Roux CAN lock Nel into some part of the State's case... things look much harder for Nel. For example Nel is locked into the Gunshots being Stipp's second set of bangs at 3:17. It is hard to accept that the State is not "locked in" to more of their case before they "rest"?
I guess in other jurisdictions there is the fact that the State do get to present a rebuttal AFTER the defence have responded and the defence (usually) have no opportunity to answer that.
It seems that the closing arguments in SA are more extensive and will lay out details of the case presented by each side. I assume that the defence goes last?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

This has been severely lacking from the PT throughout most of the trial.

No attempt to provide evidence that a torso and head could be seen through OP's bathroom window.
No attempt to analyse the foot on the prosthesis, only the shin.
No attempt to provide evidence that a man could not possibly sound like a woman when screaming or shouting.
No questioning of OP regarding the air rifle.
No attempt to analyse the bedroom door (even though photographs were submitted, presumably to reinforce the states argument/fight theory prior to the shooting).
No attempt to question OP regarding the damaged bath panel (even though photographs were submitted, presumably to reinforce the states argument/fight theory prior to the shooting).
No attempt to provide evidence regarding the first 4 sounds (or 3 sounds, or 3,4 or 5 sounds, depending on which witness testimony you choose).
Attempting to introduce broken window photographic evidence when they should have been clearly aware that a replacement pane was already in the garage prior to the shooting. Again, presumably to reinforce the states argument/fight theory prior to the shooting.

It looks like the PT are heading the way of suggesting that OP was on his stumps for both the shooting and the hitting of the door. I can see a problem here regarding the foot mark on the door. If they are alleging that the piece of wood was trodden on, or damaged whilst in secure storage (hmm) then the question must be asked why they chose not to investigate the mark.

If they haven't even investigated the above issues which are encompassed within their theory, how can they seriously suggest that their theory that OP intentionally killed Reeva is the only reasonable possibility?

I agree Steve. It's more of the same State not having presented their case in detail at all. They only gave the bullet point outline after OP's testimony. That might have been an ok "skeleton" of a case if they had then presented evidence to support each point. I do "get it" that often a case might rely on "circumstantial evidence" ... blocks that they build up... but I don't see that they have done even that? And of course where possible they do have the resources to do tests that prove their contentions. For instance if they have a theory about what caused the bangs... they could present a demonstration audio.
The "State Case" is little more than the sort of speculation you see at True Gossip Forums, where somebody writes "I think this happened......". There are no actual facts as a basis, it is just speculation, and is easily refuted by known facts that don't fit. Continuing to twist and contort the facts requires yet more baseless speculation, and really is a futile exercise, because as the hypothesis requires more complexity in explanation it acquires "doubts" as to it being the only reasonable explanation. The "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" standard seem to be forgotten by those who rely on "What I think happened"

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Continuing on the different system we see in SA....
It is strange that even now people are speculating on what Nel will be able to present during cross examination of Defence witnesses?

I have to re-state how strange it is if THAT is what the State rely on to present a case. For a start it's got to be a guess and a gamble as to what witnesses the Defence calls. Nel may have some idea as far as "experts" go.. and he does have the State experts to consult. He may even have some idea of likely lay witness testimony in general, but he can not KNOW the details of testimony, and it seems strange that he would rely on what he guesses in order to present his own evidence?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hi steve

I listened to all of Johnson and Dr Stipps testimony again twice yesterday. Johnson was evasive like Burger and had trouble answering questions unless they were presented in exact chronological order. At one point Roux asked him how long before the "shots" did he hear the screams and he could NOT answer the question without going back to the beginning and repeating his whole narrative in chronological order.

Also interesting that he mentioned in his 3 versions of notes and his first statement that his wife heard 4 or 5 shots but by the time trial comes around they're both very certain it's 4 shots and they both describe a pause after the first shot.

Johnson also wrote in his initial notes that the screaming that woke them up was at 3:12

Dr Stipp was honest IMO and reported what he perceived and remembered. His testimony is very helpful to the defense when it comes to timing and sequence.

Rumpole, here is the state's response to the request for further particulars if you don't have this in your reference section already:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208363280/Pistorius-Documents

This is the "13 facts" that the media was reporting about just prior to the beginning of trial.

Thanks, minor I will put link in Reference thread,

I'll see if I can copy a version that is easier on the eye.

"Johnson also wrote in his initial notes that the screaming that woke them up was at 3:12"

Is an interesting point on the time line. I assume that the shots were just before that time. I would still like to hear a witness confirm that.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It sort of coincides with OP's estimation of the shooting taking place around 5 min before hitting the door with the cricket bat

Yes.

And I again I turn to the STAR witness for the defense, Dr Stipps.

His overall description of events... He heard the bangs (gunshots), then screams, and was convinced there was something serious happening nearby ("family murder").. he decided to try and help, hurried to get dressed and was on the phone also to report first bangs when he heard second bangs (3:17). I am SURE he was not shagging about for as long as 17 minutes. That makes no sense
5 -7 minutes does make sense.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light