There is much that could factor in to the Judge's deliberations, and final decision, but.....

As we often hear when Judges recite Jury instructions...
The Judicial process requires that outside pressures (political etc) are put to one side. That the evidence and testimony is viewed without reference to emotion and sympathy for the victim (or defendant). That the decision is NOT based on opinions, for example preferences for the attorneys on either side.
A Judge, even more so than jury members, should be able to maintain the position of "Innocent until proven guilty" A judge should know, and should hold the State to the heavy burden that the STATE alone has, to prove it's case "Beyond Reasonable doubt".
From what little I have heard from this Judge, she does seem to me to be smart and is paying attention to all the testimony and evidence. We can't ask for much more than that at this stage. I assume that she is well versed in SA law and will apply that. I just hope that she is above any outside "political" pressure, and I have faith that she will deliberate on the evidence within the confines of "Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

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

I wonder if Nel will present a detailed outine of the State's version of events?

He did not do so prior to resting the State's case, in fact we only got his vague outline of what the State's version" in a brief paragraph as Nel closed his cross examination of OP.
It seems to me me that if Nel gives details at all it will be during his closing Statement, and the Defence will not have any (much) opportunity to respond. That to me seems unfair on the Defence, but apparently that is the way things are done.

I do wonder how well the State version would stand up to the sort of scrutiny and cross examination that "OP's Version" has received. How well could the State explain every movement from the time of the alleged "Last Supper" and argument through to the arrival of Stander(s) on the scene. I would, for instance love to hear minute by minute details according to the State version, from the time of the shots (after 3:17) to the time of Stander arriving (3:22). Those 5 minutes at least should be tested, I think.

I would like to think that the State has to do FAR more than raise some doubts about a few details of OP's version. They have to present and PROVE a version of their own,,, Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

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

Rumpy wouldn't you agree that screaming as he is supposed to have done (sounding like a female) in the adverse and upsetting circumstances which were taking place at the time, is a far different scenario, for example, than being taken into a room or wherever this 'test' was done, then being asked to scream as if you mean it (one presumes) and that some horrific thing is taking place in order for you to scream as some kind of test as to how he sounds, is a bit ridiculous.

I do, because I'm bound to be thinking the circumstances now, are not at all, equivalent to the circumstances last year - surely, or am I wrong in this mindset?

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I live on a lake with waterfowl hunting on the opposite side from my back balcony. From probably a couple of hundred yards away, it is very easy to mistake shotguns for other noises and vice versa. I definitely would not believe a witness that swore they knew it wasn't the sound of a cricket bat on a door from 180 yards away,
Mike

Yes, Wroughead I agree totally... recording OP's best high pitched screams it is a "crap" test... but perhaps better than not presenting anything?

In the GZ case... we heard his desperate cries in the audio of 911 calls. His later recording shouting "Help" was not even close, but even that was some sort of comparison... inconclusive when the "experts" had a go at it.

I think, like the sound of cricket bat, it needs to be shown that OP's screams are at least in the same "ball park" of sounds. Just that a Demonstration only. NOT any sort of attempt to recreate the sounds on the night.

It WOULD be silly to present a recording of OP's screams to the State witnesses and ask "Is that who you heard" (I have seen it suggested that defence should have done that). It would be impossible to set up an unbiased "audio line up, ID parade" such as that.
As I have said... I think OP's vocalisations in court have already shown that he can have quite a "female" voice.. and it is reasonable to assume that was even more so with the extreme anguish on the night. I think if Roux does present a recording, it will be a "good" one for the defence, with OP's screams sounding quite like a woman.
Rumpole's Tip:
ALL the posters at True Daft Forums will say it sounds NOTHING LIKE A WOMAN.

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

The State clearly have not, (and never do) presented their "entire case" before any trial. As I stated, they have NOT even now told anybody what exactly their detailed version of events on the night is.

A civilized Judicial system IS weighted towards the defendant.. intentionally so, as I have noted many times. We, as a society, decided that it is so abhorrent to convict an innocent man, that we have weighted the "Pay off matrix" of Judicial decisions in favor of letting guilty defendants go free rather than (to lessen at least) the risk of convicting an innocent man. That is what civilized society decided, and it is what has evolved into the common Judicial process in many countries.
It is considered MUCH better than "Mob Justice" where people react to the plight of victims and simply convict and punish whoever the Mob hit upon as the guilty person.

In this case specifically, I do think the burden should be on the State to at least present a detailed version of events, and to prove that it happened that way. It seems that in SA they do not have to do that. So be it. I think that Nel has chosen to take advantage of that fact and has intentionally avoided stating his version in detail. That speaks volumes in itself. The Judge may well take note of that too.

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

There was an interview with a South African lawyer on one of the news programmes, I don't think it was Sky, but some other, this SA lawyer, said he actually thought that the recent defence witness i.e. Mr. Dixon did not do OP any favours, and I think I heard somewhere that Nel thought the same thing.

I'm sorry that we have to wait a while before returning to this trial, because of the trial of Dewani for the murder of his new wife, I seem to recall it starts mid May, and will conflict with the OP trial, but I still don't know if this other trial will be streamed, or if that has even been suggested.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I don't think Dixon was a "great witness"... but as I stated previously, his testimony did put stuff before the Judge and "reasonable doubt" is the name of the game for any defence. They DO NOT have to present clear proof of anything. So, my opinion is that Dixon did good. Again as I have stated SOMEBODY had to put a sound recording of a cricket bat on door before the court. Dixon did that. There really is no point arguing decibels and such, all that needed to be demonstrated was that a cricket bat CAN sound like a gunshot... and of course we all have heard that it can. We already have Stipps convinced that sounds other than gun firing (cricket bat) can sound sufficiently like a gunshot to a man with "military experience" I would say that for everybody (other than the chattering daft) it is now well established, and no longer an issue, that Stipps heard gunshots, then screams, then cricket bat.

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

I am going to stick my neck out here and suggest that the judge will return a not guilty on the murder charge, I think she has taken particular note (when I was watching her) of certain things throughout this trial, and questioned things, even to the point of frustration, which she may have done in any case, in another trial.

I just have the feeling that, she like us, has her doubts that the State has proved intent. I'd go for guilty of the lesser charge.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I think you are right, Wroughead. I certainly hope you are, because the evidence presented is weak, and much of it should have been inadmissible anyway given the botched job by the cops. It's not that I am "on OP's side"... I try and view cases with regard to the evidence and what is proven (beyond reasonable doubt). But who knows.... "political" pressure and all. It will be a disappointment to me if this Judge accepts this evidence.

As I have said that still leaves plenty of room for conviction on lesser charges.

I have to admit I now HOPE OP gets off lightly... just to stick it to the daft old dingbats who comprise the True Gossip Forum Lynch Mobs.

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

Well it's not like me to say so, at this point in any trial, but I do think if he is convicted of murder, that it will be an unsafe conviction, therefore ample room (IMO) for a successful appeal. I have found on several occasions while watching this trial rather uneasy about some of the so-called evidence, and the calibre of the witnesses for the State.

I would have to err on the side of caution where Oscar Pistorius' version is concerned, purely because of the strength or should I say, the lack of strength of the State's case. At the end of the day, he may well have planned to kill Reeva, and is lying through his teeth - to be honest, none of us can ever know, but I don't think he's lying, I think he is telling as best he can, what happened and what prompted him to fire his gun more than once.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Several things...

The female assessor assisting Judge Masipa took a shortcut right to demolishing the State's case. One of the only questions she asked Pistorius was did Reeva have access to the alarm remote. And why? Even the most demonic lynch-ready Pistorius hater should be able to figure that out--she wanted to know if Reeva could disable the alarm and go downstairs to have something to eat while Oscar was sleeping. And of course, that is very probably what she did.

BAM!! There goes the eating at 1 AM that Nel has to have to even vaguely suggest that there was some swat team deserving response to this lead-up-to-murder, phantom argument. Anyone with a thinking brain should be able to logically conclude that if Reeva was still up at 3 AM after Oscar nodded off at somewhere around 10 PM, that it is more than feasible that she did go down and get a vegetable snack. That was a five hour period since he went to sleep and EIGHT since they had eaten dinner.

The State did not even vaguely prove that she could not have done that. And that assessor went right to it like a laser. Poof, there goes the value of Sayman's testimony about the stomach contents.

In addition, there was an argument? An argument so massive that it led to Reeva being chased into the bathroom as she was being terrorized with a gun? Why was there not one single thing knocked over or disturbed in the bedroom? A lamp knocked over or stereo speaker turned askew--something. There were no signs of it because there never was any reason for things to be knocked over.

But the real back asswards logic that mystifies me with anybody taken in by this fairy tale that Nel and his gaggle of goop pedlars trying to turn an accidental shooting into a cold blooded murder should stand out like an Empire State building on the Mohave Desert.

Is anybody going to try to tell me--now you really have to think about this and picture it--Oscar was on his stumps when he shot at the door. There is NO disputing that, it's absolute fact. Even the prosecution now has conceded that he was. That means that he had to GET to the bathroom. He had to waddle his way into the bathroom from the bedroom on his stumps. And Reeva would be terrified of this? She could have kicked him in the nuts, kicked him in the head, ran circles around him, sprayed his eyes with hairspray or maybe she even had mace. She had a baseball bat standing by the bedroom door PLUS she had the cricket bat right there that she could have used on him. That would have ruined his day with one roundhouse whack to the head. She had an air rifle that she could have shot him with. Plus anything in the bedroom could have served as a weapon to hit him with.

This would be like an adult versus a little child and even a child would have more mobility than Pistorius had on his stumps. For Christ sake, his dog could knock him over. And Reeva had to run in the toilet like a terrified little baby deer? She practiced yoga and was about as athletic as you could get. Can you just picture Oscar waddling along yelling at her? Balancing himself against the walls? She could have been like Muhammed Ali on him and they would have been taking him to the hospital. It's so ludicrous, it boggles the mind that everybody can't see that. She could have run out on the balcony and screamed. Do you think Oscar is going to shoot her there? The bedroom door lock was so insecure that it had to be held shut by the cricket bat. It just goes on and on. There was no fight and there was no argument. Period.

Then the noises...are the Burgers going to tell me they ever heard a cricket bat hitting a door? How the hell would they know what it sounded like? It's not like they would wake up at 3 AM and say "boy, you know that sounded just like a cricket bat smacking a door." If they had said that, I would have doubted their IQ score being above 40. Nobody would relate that sound to a cricket bat. I doubt 1% of the world's population ever had the opportunity to hear a cricket bat hitting a door prior to this trial. The only thing remotely sounding like that would be firecrackers or a car backfiring in our normal mental association of things that could make that sound.

But yet it absolutely DOES sound like a gun. So much so, that the range master thought Dixon had fired the gun already without his go ahead when he struck the bottom of the door with a cricket bat for the first part of their test. If that doesn't validate that the two sounds compare, I don't know what does. He runs the shooting range for Christ sake. And how coincidental would it have to be that Pistorius would know that and incorporate it into his brilliant plan "cover up" moments after he had just murdered his girlfriend of 3 months? Pu-lease.

The sheer VOLUME of coincidences that would have to all fall perfectly into place for Pistorius, would be the same type of odds you would have to win the Mega-Millions lottery. I could fill a legal pad with coincidences. He gave a statement at his bail hearing prior to even knowing what the evidence would be, or who the witnesses would be, or what they would say. He didn't have to volunteer any information whatsoever. Most everybody forgets that. Even the bail hearing judge was impressed at how specific he was, and adamant, in giving such a detailed statement.

The case for premeditated murder of Reeva falls apart on so many levels, it's almost sophomoric. Plus the courtroom charade being perpetrated in the guise of a search for the truth is almost the equivalent of what you would have seen watching a snake oil salesman selling cure-all tonic from the back of a covered wagon.

I find Nel to be an arrogant all around POS. His mannerisms with his foot on the chair are more like an Andrew Dice Clay instead of a principled prosecutor representing the solemnity of a capital case in a South African Court. And the balls he has to say that Oscar is tailoring his evidence, brings bile to my mouth. There is corruption, incompetence and outright attempted evidence fixing by the PROSECUTION in this farce, not by Oscar Pistorius.

I would make a high wager bet if you:

Gave Pistorius a polygraph test, he would pass it.

Give him a voice stress analysis test, he would pass it.

Put him under hypnotic regression by the leading expert in the world. You would find he would rather have been behind that door himself, than Reeva.

But then maybe all we have to do is look at the damn testimony of all the witnesses, the directly conflicting accounts , the mind boggling handling of the crime scene, the perjury by a top police official and just a little common sense. And we shouldn't NEED anything else.

And by the way Nel--or should I say Mr. Wise Ass-- if you want to see somebody who makes mistakes, look back at the videos of YOU talking and see how many times you have to correct yourself.

Yes, indeed. Res ipsa loquitur.

It's all very well for us to postulate here and theorize - it happens I think we're on the right path, but what I'm wondering is, if there's something we're missing, because from all accounts in the SA press and also people who live in SA that I know or know of, with very few exceptions apart from his own family, most of the people in that country think he's guilty, why have they been so eager to believe that all along?

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Wroughhead... all I can say is that reality (the truth) is NOT decided by a vote... not even a unanimous vote

In reading True Gossip Forums over the past 6 years, I can not recall a single case where the majority (Mob) were not totally convinced that the defendant was guilty. It is what they do. Declare somebody a "victim" as a stepping stone to establishing somebody they can HATE with a passion... and HATE everybody associated with them. They do mentally block out facts on one side (downplay and even deny evidence), while at the same time accepting baseless speculation as fact, and using it to explain/reinforce their notions of guilt. It is loosely speaking, a human phenomena to resolve Cognitive Dissonance in this way, but not to the extent of denying the undeniable.
I am not sure people grasp what a high standard "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is. I think Juries can fail to fully grasp this even after Instructions, but as I say... I have high hopes that a Judge will "get it"

I believe OP's version of events, in general terms. He no doubt is spinning it in regards the odd detail... which is a shame... but kinda understandable. However even if I had grave doubts about his version, believed on balance that he chased after Reeva etc. I don't see how the Prosecution could come close to the "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof. And beyond that... the evidence is "tainted" clearly. The cops have admitted to walking the crime scene before any photos... but are still obfuscating on who walked the scene and exactly what they did... Van Staden, the photographer, claimed to have taken "virgin scene" photos only after that and so none of the photos are of a Virgin crime scene. When pressed HE himself was moving minor items from the outset, and so even his first album is not "virgin scene" It should be obvious that the crime scene is either a virgin or it's not! And in this case it is not.
We also have witnesses whose statements were "massaged" from the outset, aparently brought into line by police taking the statements. Details "evolved" over time. Witnesses also did see news reports etc and evolve their testimony. Main witnesses who live as married couples, and so can not be regarded as independent, despite what they claim. The Burger(s), rolled over and went to sleep after hearing what they heard on the night. Only after weeks of news reports did they come forward at all. It is a sign of desperation by the State to use their evidence at all. I could go on. The evidence is weak and open to questioning at the very least, an so leads to "Doubt" from the outset.

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

I have not been on here for a few days, nor following. Don't understand this one point...
IF I were shot, anywhere, hip, arm, etc. I think I would have screamed!! Wouldn't you? Didn't Reeva scream when she was first hit? But somehow - - more shots followed. What could be the reason for that?

All 4 shots were over in seconds, Joni.
Probably no time to react and scream between hip shot and head shot. Head shot splattered her brain. Experts agree no sound when that happened.

Even if there was say a scream after hip shot.. it would last a brief second? Probably more like a "squeak"... and the LOUD sound of 4 9mm gunshots in a small bathroom would mask that for sure.

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

I think the point of the defense demonstration of cricket bat on door noises, and the expected demonstration of OP screaming is not likely to show that either sound is "Exactly like" a gunshot or a "woman screaming"... I am sure that a cricket bat on door is NOT exactly the same as a gunshot, and I predict that any recording of OP will NOT sound exactly like a woman (Reeva) screaming.
However, that is NOT the point of such demonstrations. It is necessary to show that the test sounds are "in the same ball park"... and IMO cricket bat sound is clearly the same sort of noise as a gunshot. Not the same, not as loud, for sure, but sufficiently like to be MISTAKEN by a witness some distance away.
That is the point. It is about what witnesses PERCEIVE and not about the sounds in an absolute sense. For instance, measurements of exact sound frequencies, db levels etc are NOT what is required. Human perception is not like an electronic instrument that measures exact data. Human perception includes predispositions to see/hear whatever at that time, and in those circumstances, as well as reference to past experiences.
IMO it misses the point to to contemplate "can OP scream like a woman"... the answer is probably "No". The point is... can OP Scream in such a way that witnesses could mistake those screams for the sound of a woman screaming. My guess is that he can. I base that guess on the small samples we have heard when he gets upset in court, but more so on the fact that the State's own evidence, especially ear witnesses (taken as a whole), have provided very strong evidence (some of it circumstantial) that the screams were AFTER Reeva was dead, and so the only likely source of those screams was OP himself.

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

I think you're right about the cricket bat theory, and the Oscar sounding like a woman theory too.

I try to put myself in someone else's shoes. I know we all react differently, but in his trying his hardest to explain how things went that night, and his reasons for being scared - which he was, and I certainly know in circumstances where I thought someone was in my house, or trying to gain entry to it, I would have been terrified.

If you are in that kind of situation, and your are terrified, your recall later, even an hour later when all has calmed down, and you are aware of the consequences of your actions i.e. I've just shot and killed my girlfriend, then I think it highly unlikely that you would be able to explain yourself to anyone then or a year later in court - for this reason, and this reason only, am I thinking it is no wonder his story sometimes changes or gets confused.

If we could walk a mile in his shoes, I wonder how we would have reacted or even more so, how we would have given evidence. I just think about that for a little while and ponder.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

ALL the witnesses who heard "a woman scream" in this case is just two married couples.. and one of those couples DID only come forward and describe what they heard AFTER seeing news reports etc for weeks. (And they were 200M away, and so unlikely to hear the nuances that they have evolved and embellished their testimony with eg "Blood Curdling")

It is not hard for me to imagine that if I heard a high pitched, anguished "scream" in the night.. I would assume it was a woman. That is the way human perception works. We make some sort of sense out of ambiguous information, based on our experiences and expectations.
It would be more precise to say the witnesses heard screams that to them sounded like a woman. But in the realm of "Reasonable doubt".. OP being the source is at the very least a reasonable alternative explanation. Add to that the fact that it is reasonable to conclude from the State's own evidence that the screams were heard AFTER the shots and so in that case it is not possible it was Reeva. It is logical to infer that it was OP screaming.

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

I agree, Wroughead, that in the aftermath of an event that horrible a person's story could change. And i could see someone jump out of bed and just assume their partner is still lying there, and then panic and shoot before someone busts out shooting.

And a man could scream like a woman and just imagine if it was an accident then the horror that would follow. I still think reasonable doubt.

Thanks for keeping this case updated.