Oscar Pistorius murder trial: Witness heard argument before shots
Near neighbour Estelle van der Merwe tells Pretoria court the screaming she heard after shots were fired 'sounded like a woman'
By Johannesburg, Johanesburg
12:16PM GMT 04 Mar 2014

A witness has told the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius that she heard "loud voices" arguing followed by "shots or explosions" the night Reeva Steenkamp was killed.

Estelle van der Merwe, who lived just under 100 metres from Pistorius' Pretoria house, said she was woken just before 2am on St Valentine's Day by the row, which went on for around an hour before she heard shots fired.

She is the second witness to give evidence in the high-profile trial of the 27-year-old paralympic athlete on the second day of his trial for the murder of Miss Steenkamp, 29, an FHM model and law graduate.

Pistorius says he shot Miss Steenkamp through the locked lavatory door of his home by accident believing her to be an intruder. The state contends her shot the model deliberately after a row.

Earlier in the day, Pistorius broke down in tears as his prosecution told the first witness in the case, Michelle Burger, that she could not have heard a woman scream after shots were fired because Miss Steenkamp was shot in the head, a catastrophic injury that caused "serious brain damage" and rendered her unable to make a sound.

...more at link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... shots.html

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

I'm having a hard time with Burger's story and it is so hard to discern whether it's a man's or woman's voice when there is a crisis going on. I'm staying open too as either scenario could play. I do know that in a panic you freak and there is no logic to what you may do. This is a hard one.

Burger is a BS burger IMO

It makes ZERO sense that "a man" (Oscar) would be shouting "help, help, help" BEFORE he fired 4 shots. Yet that is the corner that Burger has painted herself into.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

I don't think she is a "Blatant liar" but she is certainly "fibbing" about not colluding with her husband over "getting their stories to agree". She is also a stubborn cow! She has decided what she THINKS happened and who was screaming etc.. and she aint gonna let anyone tell her different!!

She (and her husband) has also "dug her toes in" over screaming AFTER the last shot. Yet medical evidence about head injury suggests that is not possible.

The only conclusion you can draw from her testimony is that she heard OP and not Reeva.. and she heard cricket bat on door and not shots.

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

Rumpole, I agree in part with what you've said. You have the benefit over me right now, because I was unable to hear the testimony of the husband, and the last 20 minutes or so of her testimony, because I kept losing a link and looking around for another to stream live - tonight (my time) I'll be able to catch up on the days' events - I was so mad that I couldn't carry on watching and listening as I had done all day yesterday.

But, one thing I do agree with is that both of them subsequently added to their statements or perhaps embellished their accounts once hearing what the media had been saying. I also think it stands to reason that the two of them would have gone over their statements before appearing in court, it seems more likely than not to me they would do so.

I'll give another opinion once I've managed to get hold of what happened today.

_________________
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

Sorry you missed bits, Wroughead.

I do have the replays on YT posted....

viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1212

I assume its all there, but have not watched the YT's

I have messed about with different links... I keep coming back to The Telegraph... seems to keep on keeping on.

That link and several others are posted in the trial thread

viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1210&p=70883#p70883

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

Jeralyn Merritt (TalkLeft) has a great summary of Court proceedings to date...
I do hope she posts her take on things as the Trial procedes.

Oscar Pistorius Trial
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:54:00 AM EST





...more at link
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2014/3/4/ ... ius-Trial-

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

As I posted at TalkLeft.....

It is a relief to see comment by somebody who is watching the same trial as I am

The posting at "True Gossip Forums" is the predictable "Lynch Mob" stuff... even before much evidence has been presented. It is as as if they are watching a different trial, their comments are so far removed from what is transpiring. Comprehension and analysis is not their strong suit.

They declared OP to be "toast" as soon as Burger started testifying that she heard Reeva scream. They did not stop and think that her version made no sense, since she also heard OP cries (calls) for help BEFORE the shots were fired. Apart from inconsistencies and impossibilities in her testimony.. she is clearly lying about not colluding with her husband to get statements to match.

The lynch mob also dislike Roux (naturally they always "spread the hate around" to all those associated with a perp, especially his lawyer). Yet Roux is doing a great job of CROSS EXAMINATION of an extremely difficult and stubborn witness. It is his job on cross examination to challenge a Prosecution witness's testimony. Lynch Mobers see that as "Badgering"
And "badgering" State witnesses is only one step down from "Bashing victims"

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

my take away from the couples testimony is that there was screaming. If it was RS then OP is cooked. The only way it would help OP is if it was only him screaming after the fact, and I don't think that is the case.

H/T "minor4th"
(Verified Attorney)

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

I think it's pretty obvious given that they are husband and wife, these two most definitely discussed their upcoming visit to give evidence in court. I would be totally surprised and feel it was indeed very unique for a married couple giving evidence at a serious trial like this one, not to have discussed their evidence - they must be very unique, or think no one has noticed how obvious it is.

I haven't changed my mind that I think this trial will be longer than the 3 weeks anticipated at the outset, this thing is moving around from pillar to post like nobody's business. We have a boxer giving evidence about his pal and their night out at a restaurant where the gun went off, being asked to take the blame, discovering that someone else was willing to take the blame for Pistorius. Yet on the evening this happened, questions were asked, there was even a table close to them with a child sitting at it, yet no-one even the manager, thought to call the police because a loaded gun went off in a restaurant which had almost 200 people dining. I find that extraordinary, and very telling of life in South Africa.

At the moment, I don't think it's looking good for Pistorius, or his character, but as I said at the outset, I'll give it a few more days before I pass my own judgement on what we've heard by then. There is much evidence still to come, and has already been alluded to, in South Africa a verdict has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, so the coming days and weeks will be very interesting.

_________________
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 agree on the husband and wife thing. And you could not blame them from discussing it. Perhaps then the prosecution should NOT have called both of them and tried to claim they were "Independent" witnesses? The fact that they both adamantly deny it.. is a gift to the Defence in discrediting them and so likely giving the evidence less weight.

However my overall impression is the OPPOSITE to yours, Wroughead. I don't think it's looking good for the Prosecution.

Which itself is a GREAT illustration of how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is

We are both watching the same trial but see and report things differently.

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

Yes you make an interesting point about witnesses. I seem to recall some research being done into eye witness reports, and all the experts seems to agree that the best information is obtained within the first hour of an event being witnessed - it's natural to assume that this is less accurate with the passage of time. I'm pretty sure that if I was giving evidence a year later, things might not be totally as I first thought them to be. I started on Monday initially thinking that the Burger lady was turning out to be a good witness but quickly changed my mind.

I thought both her evidence and the Defence counsel were labouring on points that bored me - though I could see why he was doing it from the defense point of view - I think the Judge was getting pretty bored by the repetition too. Well you might be right Rumpole about things not looking good for the prosecution, but the next few days will be interesting.

Yes we are both watching the same trial, and our perceptions are different, but I think we may end up being united in our overall opinions - give it time, let's see what else has to be proved.

_________________
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

Oh I agree bits were boring.. went on and on, and I felt like telling Roux to move on. BUT..... it was the woman (and then her husband) who are the most frustrating aspect. Asking her same question over and over was needed because she is simply stubborn. She KNEW what answer Roux wanted and so dug her toes in to avoid it. Parroted a long repeat narrative. Reminded of a Gag/skit by NZ comedian "Fred Dagg" talking about answering exam questions... regardless of the question, the trick is to write your name at the top of the paper.. then launch into a description of "what I did in the holidays"

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

Just some thoughts.....

This case has at it's heart a simple choice... a YES/NO.

Pistorious's version is true or false. I honestly have no idea what the answer to that is.

IF no evidence at all were ever presented, then the "pay-off matrix" that we accept for our Judicial system would mean that we HAVE to accept his version of events. He is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously the State DO claim he is lying. That is what the trial is about in the first instance. They have decided that they have enough evidence to PROVE that he is lying. As I have said repeatedly, the BURDEN is on them to Prove it. NOT just by predominance of evidence, (51%) but Beyond reasonable doubt I see that as being a hard ask.. not impossible to pile up Circumstantial evidence, but very difficult.

IMO beyond the YES/NO is the question of penalty. IF the charge is simply murder... guilty or not guilty then it should end if the State does not discredit his version. I don't know if there are "lesser included" charges with the murder charge? It depends on SA law... if he can be found guilty of Manslaughter, or reckless use of a firearm etc? I wonder if they have "Self Defence" laws.... such that it could be found he WAS in fear of his life? And so justified in using deadly force. The death being an unfortunate accident?

I found this...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/ma ... al-begins/


To my mind....
If his version stands (not disproved beyond reasonable doubt)...then he walks (springs) away....acted in self defence( but wrong) Accident
If the Judges (beyond reasonable doubt) think his version is untrue..... it is probably premeditated murder. (25 years?)

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

When I first read about this case, my first thoughts were that it was similar to the Jody Arias case in that no one could do this without a lot of culpability.

I think that if he shot her genuinely believing her to be 'an intruder' then this to me would be not a case of murder, premeditated or otherwise, but a case of manslaughter or culpable homicide. There is no doubt he killed her, but a lot of doubt IMO that it was premeditated I think.

It is so hard to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes in a case like this where there was no-one else in the house other than the two of them, and she is not here to tell us her version of events, oh but we could ask her - wouldn't that be interesting?

_________________
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

IF we are to accept OP's version ultimately. Then he was in fear for his life. (even though totally mistaken) What is made of that depends heavily on what SA law is in regards self defence. There will not be any Judge's instructions to the jury.. laying out what the appropriate laws state I do hope that she never-the-less explains that in some sort of summary before announcing her verdict.

My GUESS is that in SA it is not unknown for people to shoot in defence of themselves, with attacks and home invasion being common at least in the recent past. I also GUESS that people are acquitted when it is a case of self defence? I do think if it is accepted that OP genuinely was in fear of his life and shot "In self defence" then he should be acquitted of all charges relating to the incident (No idea about the past firearms minor incidents)

Let me clarify though that at the moment I am still on the fence as to whether I believe OP. Close to 50/50 on that.
The witness testimony so far for me is pushing me towards BELIEVING OP!!
If you take their ASSUMPTIONS out and take just what they heard... it could well be seen as CONFIRMING OP's version. His distress and screams after he shot... his bashing the door with a cricket bat could be seen as being heard by Burger and husband just as OP said.

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

IMO Roux is managing to "turn" prosecution witnesses into defence witnesses... in the same sort of way O'Mara was able to in the GZ case. It is not so clear in the OP case... it is excruciatingly slow drawn out process... and Roux's style and manner only add to that
Dr Stipp is in a different league to Burger and Hubby. He is at least open to alternative explanations rather than stubborn and wilful and pushing an agenda. But all 3 witnesses could be seen as confirming OP's version. They are certainly NOT disproving it. They are providing lots of reasonable doubt.. once Roux cross-examines

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

I'd like to hear the sound of that bat hitting the door and then hear the sound of shots.

It seems that the Defence have DONE a lot of tests of sounds.

Dr Stipp has answered that question to some extent. He heard two sets of noises that that sounded the same (like gunshots)... one of those sets of noises (the second one) had to be the bat on door.
I don't think the two would sound the same.... but late at night... in SA where you might almost expect violence... you might ASSUME that any loud sharp bangs are gunshots. Perception is a funny old thing!!

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