I think the State may be barking up the wrong tree with the screams. I think it very likely that some (at least) of the cries attributed to "a woman" are in fact OP's anguished cries.
The State case seems to be that Reeva screamed in fear for her life.. that is critical to their assertions, so if that is proved false with at least some of the cries, the State case crumbles.
OP's version could still be false even if there were no screams from Reeva, but the State has bet on proving there were "Blood curdling" screams from Reeva in fear for her life.

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

I have been reading comments elsewhere, at True Gossip Forums etc

And...... as with the early days of the GZ trial, they are singing the praises of the prosecutor, and describing each witness testimony as damning for OP. They of course all HATE Roux.
They were very obviously delusional in their thoghts and comments on the GZ trial, where prosecution witnesses all obviously confirmed GZ's version (which was reality). They could not help but do that. Here for the OP trial things are NOT that clear cut. I for one still don't know if OP is lying or not (51/49), but as each witness testifies I CAN see that their testimony about actual events, things that they actually heard and saw are all consistent with the version proposed by OP and his lawyers. As with GZ, the Prosecution presentation is supporting the Defence case, but it's a bit more subtle for this case..
I think the confusion at True Gossip Forums comes from the fact that all of the State witnesses are TRYING to give testimony about what they THINK was happening and not just testimony about what they actually heard and saw. That is NOT EVIDENCE at all. As Roux has shown, to refute such imagined notions all that is needed is a single counter example. A different hypothesis that also explains the evidence. That does NOT need to be proved to be true, it just needs to be a reasonable hypothesis that also fits the facts. Then there is reasonable doubt (at the least) cast on the witness's (State's) hypothesis.

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

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

As I posted at CTH.....

Of note:
1. It smacks of “Investigative Journalism” so may be a shock
2. The people putting the doco together managed to get cell phone data in an instant. Including “deleted” texts, and tower ping data precise enough to map locations of people moving about within an apartment. Maybe LE in Sanford (and elsewhere), and Angie should contact the cell phone guy in the doco.. he could save them a year of shagging about for the next case involving a cell phone anywhere nearby to a crime incident.

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

I have been thinking about the sound a cricket bat may make as it hits violently against a door - would it wound like a bullet? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone would have an idea of what sound that would be unless they had ever heard the sound of a cricket bat being violently struck against a door - I say violently because we are being led to believe this was a frantic measure to try to get the toilet door open, therefore it must have been violent and frantic.

We heard today that on the night in question when the doctor arrived at the Pistorius house, that OP left and went upstairs - I wondered why he went upstairs, no reason was given or pushed for, perhaps further witness evidence might tell us.

What do our contributors here on Random this a possible answer to this is? I have no idea.

_________________
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 can think of a MILLION reasons to go upstairs... including no reason. Wandering about in a bit of a daze as shock sinking in. Not hard for me to imagine walking back up stairs and then thinking "Why TF did I come here?" But a million reasons he might have gone upstairs. To get an item? Clothes? Jewellery" Hankie? Needed to drop his pants and adjust his prosthesis? etc Anything. Thing is.... he does not have to explain his reason.... if the Prosecution think their is a sinister reason THEY have the burden to say what it is and prove if. But certainly at least say what it is.

My GUESS is that he used the cricket bat with a "jabbing motion" rather than holding the handle and drawing it back to then swing down. Maybe a swing first up, but then, jab, jab, jab... like a battering ram aimed close to the lock. Total guess... I await info (evidence)

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

Lets hope that LIMPapa, Cabbage Patch doll Trent, and the "True Gossip Forum" crowd see this video.

It puts their efforts in respect to the GZ case to shame. No dollies, nor mannequin dummies with patent drilled bullet hole. Some thought and research and effort went into making the video and the findings were presented in a non-hysterical fashion.... with No discordant crap music background

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

I have seen elsewhere people posting and questioning the details of OP's version and saying some things that it preports are "unlikely"

The points are not always well made, and ignore some details, but accepting them for the sake of the argument and this post... they are examples of "Doubts" one can raise about OP's version. Perhaps some are even "Reasonable Doubts" about OP's version. However that is NOT what this trial (any trial) is about. As I have said, in many cases the defence do not have to offer any version at all, (but in most cases they do). OP is in effect claiming "Self Defence" and so has presented a version of events in this case. The State has a FAR bigger burden than to just discredit the Defence version of events with some doubts. They have to present a version of their own and PROVE THAT (beyond reasonable doubt). In the first instance, though they have to DISPROVE OP's version and claim of self defence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, but simply proposing some doubts (even if perhaps on preponderance of evidence more than 50% disbelief of OP version) is not sufficient. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is an onerous task. It is the State's burden.

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

Pistorius told security guard everything was 'fine' after shooting girlfriend Steenkamp
By Press Association
PUBLISHED: 20:07 GMT, 7 March 2014 | UPDATED: 20:07 GMT, 7 March 2014



Oscar Pistorius told a concerned security guard on the phone that everything was 'fine' after neighbours reported gunshots coming from his house the night he shot dead his girlfriend, his murder trial has heard.

The security guard, Pieter Baba, said Pistorius phoned him back moments after the initial brief conversation, but then started crying, didn't say anything and the line went dead. It was minutes after the double-amputee Olympian shot dead Reeva Steenkamp, for which Pistorius is now on trial for murder.

'Not everything was in order as Mr Pistorius was telling me,' Baba recalled saying to a fellow guard as they were outside the runner's villa in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine's Day last year.

Baba's testimony followed a damaging description of Pistorius' character by a former girlfriend.

Samantha Taylor, who cried twice during her time in the witness box in the Pretoria court, said that Pistorius always carried a firearm when they dated, sometimes shouted angrily at her and her friends, once shot his gun out the sunroof of a car, and that their relationship ended when he cheated on her with Ms Steenkamp.

...more at link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... ?ico=sport^headlines

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

More observations having read around a few "True Gossip Forums".

I have to restate that the standard of "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is a big ask.... a considerable burden on the State.

It is not hard at all to convince a group (mob) of "True Gossip" posters

They mostly have huge prejudices, personal baggage, and will actively seek out the smallest point supporting their preconceived notions and latch onto it, and blow it out of proportion. They will simply exclude/deny/rationalise away any evidence that supports a contrary view, to the point where they truly do not see it. Hence, in the GZ case for instance, they genuinely thought that Bernie was doing a great job when in fact even during the prosecution presentation evidence mounted in GZ's favour. The verdict came as a shock to them because they never absorbed the reality of the evidence presented at trial.

The ONLY question to be answered in the OP trial is WHO did OP think was behind the locked toilet door when he fired four shots at it? Not complicated at all. He was either shooting at Reeva or an Intruder (in his mind)

Nobody except OP can ever know that for certain.

The trial is about evaluating his word on the matter. Is he lying?

A HUGE factor in determining that is OP himself. How he is perceived and how his testimony on the matter is perceived. I have read what he claims. I don't know. I am 50/50 as to whether I believe him. Seeing him in person explain it might well change my perception. But keep in mind that the burden is "Beyond reasonable doubt" certainty that he is lying. I can't stress enough that that is a difficult ask.


In addition to OP's testimony we have circumstantial evidence as to his demeanour on the night, his character generally etc. We also have to some extent evidence as to the events, time-line etc. Nothing "wrong" with circumstantial evidence, but again it has to be sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt.

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

Summary of Prosecution Ear Witness Testimony

Burger (and her Hubby)

• Heard a woman screaming and woken up by the sound
  
• They heard "help help help" -before the sounds they interpreted as gunshots
  
• Heard a number of "gunshots" at 3:17, (coinciding perfectly with the second set of bangs heard by Shipp and his wife). At the time they gave their written statements, neither of them could identify the number of "shots" as 4, contrary to Burger's court testimony
  
• They did not hear any other sets of bangs.

While they both claim at trial that the woman's screams were "blood-curdling" and the woman was "in fear for her life" that was not in either of their statements to police.
They did not come forward until after listening to the bail hearing. They did not give a statement to police until 6 weeks after the events. Their testimony is the most suspect because of the timing and the ability to be influenced by each other and by media accounts. There's also a problem with their testimony changing in important aspects compared to Johnson's written notes and statements.

Werwe

• She heard a woman's voice that sounded like one side of an argument around 2 a.m. It has not been established that this was coming from Oscar's house.
  
• She heard what sounded like gunshots, and then she heard loud crying and yelling from Oscar - she initially thought it was a woman screaming, but her husband identified the voice as Oscar Pistorius

Her testimony appears to be honest and factual. She did not try to interpret what anything meant, she simply reported what she heard.

Shipp

• He heard 3 "shots" and got up and went to balcony to see where it was coming from
  
• On balcony, he heard a woman "screaming or yelling" 2 or 3 times
  
• At 3:17 (verified by phone records) he heard "2 or 3" additional "shots"
  
• At 3:27, he called security again
  
• After his 3:27 call to security, he THEN heard Oscar yell "help, help, help"
  
• At 3:28 he phoned Stander from Oscar's house.

He is the closest of the witnesses and had a direct line to Oscar's house via his open balcony.
Although his testimony included the an additional claim to have heard a man's screams intermingled with a woman's screams between the first and second set of bangs, this is not in either of his statements to police given on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13
Shipp's testimony seems to be the most reliable because he is close by and would have had the best opportunity to hear what happened. He also gave a written statement on 2-15-13, before the bail hearing and before an opportunity to be influenced by media or other witness accounts, etc


Combining and summarising:

• Shipp was woken up by the actual gunshots some time before 3:17
• The noises at 3:17 were the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door (Shipp said they sounded the same, so it's no longer in dispute whether a cricket bat hitting the door can sound like a gunshot);
• The screaming and yelling between the initial gunshots and the banging at 3:17 was Oscar screaming and crying loudly.
• This was heard by all 4 witnesses, all of whom believed it to be a woman screaming
• Oscar yelled help, help, help after he broke the door with the cricket bat

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

Keep in mind that... as with all trials.... we are hearing and seeing the PROSECUTION case presented first.

The defence typically "tread water" during the initial case presentation by the prosecution... try and do "damage control" where they can with cross examination. Often the best they can do is apply "band-aids" to things that could be a serious "wound" to their case.
However they do get a chance to present their own case of course.. and it is possible to repair what looks like mortal wounds inflicted by the prosecution. I have not seen anything I regard as serious damage in this case anyway.

IMO Roux has already done much better than "tread water"... he has made progress against the tide and used the prosecution witness testimony to confirm OP's version of events... the time-line and sequence etc.

Witnesses have confirmed two sets of bangs which confirms OP narrative of shots and strikes with cricket bat. Both sets of noises "sounded like gunshots" even to the close ear witness, and one set of noises (the second) was clearly the sound of a cricket bat hitting a door. The phone records establish that the second set of noises was at 3:17 and phone records also confirm that Burger (and Hubby) awoke to the second set of noises at 3:17.
The "cries of a woman" heard by all witnesses came after the first set of noises... after Reeva was dead and so it's already clear that it was OP and his "girlie screams". This is all in total agreement with OP version.
None of this speaks to WHO OP thought was in the toilet when he shot the door... so I am still 50/50 on his story that he thought it was an intruder. As things stand he remains innocent, since nothing has been presented to prove him guilty at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

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

I am beginning to think this case was over charged? Perhaps?

The State could have conceded that OP thought he was shooting an intruder.... but then shown how UNREASONABLE that assumption was and how reckless his shooting was. In other words push for manslaughter.
I gather something like that is a lesser included charge, but the State is devoting all its resources into proving that OP character made him a violent kinda "wife beater" type with anger problems, and a "cavalier" attitude toward guns, who had an argument, and committed premeditated murder. All a HUGE stretch IMO
I think given the main charge of murder (not manslaughter) OP does have the defence of "Self Defence" A genuine belief (albeit a mistaken belief) that his life was in danger... and so in my mind he should be either guilty of Murder or acquitted.
I think the argument for manslaughter would have been quite different... negating "self defence"... (accepting it sort of) but then going on to show that to be reckless.
With a lesser included charge in this case it would be like FAIL by the State if it's not murder... the manslaughter could seen as a "Consolation" verdict.

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

It seems to me that the State has yet to make any inroads into addressing their Burden of proving that OP is lying, and that he knew Reeva was behind the door when he shot.
The basic sequence of events is not really in dispute. Their own witnesses have confirmed that events unfolded in pretty much the way that OP has described. It is important to establish where on the time-line the ear witnesses evidence fits, but that is not that hard to do with a little common sense, basic logic, and the few phone times we have.
I assume we have done with ear witnesses and general time-line testimony? I would have to say that the State has not scored any points on that matter.
IMO they need to up their game considerably and start addressing the key question.

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

I do think that at Forums, there could be TWO streams of discussion going on.

Perhaps a lot of the angst and "handbag fights" arises from these two distinct lines of discussion being intermingled.

On the one hand many people are posting what they think, guess, imagine. Bringing their own experiences and prejudices into it and overlaying that on the actual facts of the case. Often they have only scant knowledge of the facts, or even what are facts and what are just unsubstantiated rumours. In that context, we all tend to employ resolution of Cognitive Dissonance by mentally emphasising anything that supports our position, and down-playing facts that contradict. That is normal human nature, the way we lessen potential mental turmoil

On the other hand, we ARE posting about a trial, a legal process, where Jurors (for instance) are instructed to consider matters quite differently from the way they do in day-to-day life. They are instructed to view all the evidence presented, but EXCLUDE things not presented in Court. To NOT bring there own prejudices into their deliberations. To disregard personal feelings about the defendant, the lawyers on either side, and sympathy for victims and family etc. This "Legal Approach" is the other basic type of discussion seen at forums. It needs to be quite dispassionate, and that is what probably leads to the accusations of "victim bashing". You CAN NOT arbitrarily decree someone to be a "victim" from the outset and then suppress any negative facts about that person. Details of the so called victim can be an important part of the overall picture.

Obviously a lot of people posting online want to discuss cases in the first fashion hence "True Gossip Forums"

But IMO it is more interesting to discuss cases from a more legal/evidence based stand point "True Crime Forums"

Where you have Forums that profess to be "True Crime", but are in fact mostly "True Gossip" you can end up what is best described as a "True Daft Forum". And that is what you actually find (at least in part) at MOST Forums. It gets particularly funny when you have the odd poster who tries to introduce "True Crime" discussion into a "True Gossip" Forum.... it results in "True Handbag Fights"


I am HAPPY to do a bit of "Gossip" stuff.... but with a Trial underway I think the "Legal Approach" is the most interesting. It's not until the Trial is underway that we get to see the actual evidence in most jurisdictions. Florida is a bit of an exception with "Sunshine Law" and "Discovery" released publicly so open for some sort of Legal analysis well ahead of the trial. But even then, Discovery info may not be used at Trial, or even be admissible.

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

I must confess I have found the trial confusing, Perhaps it is the accent and that it is different than american trials. I agree that he may have been overcharged but that could be a principle of SA judicial system. i dunno! It still bothers me that RS was dressed, with a cell phone in a locked toilet room.and that he shot multiple times into a closed door. Did she not make one sound after the 1st shot? Where was the 1st shot ? He calls someone else but tells security all is fine? There are still too many unanswered questions in my mind, of course the trial is not over. He could have been scared but you hear the sound right by the bed and you don't check?
~whisper~ Honey, did you hear that?.....Or maybe that's a woman!

Hmmm... "dressed how? I have just today read she was wearing "t-shirt and yoga shorts"... that is hardly what I would call "dressed"

An example of something we need to see the TRUE answer on when it is described in evidence

I don't see taking cell phone to the toilet as unusual? Not that I have a cell phone,... but people take books, magazines etc

The 4 shots were a rapid volley... even if you accept split second between first and then last 3. No time to react for victim or shooter.

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

BTW

With US clocks changing tonight, by the time of Trial on Monday the relative time USA V SA will have changed:

9:00AM J/Burg ----> 3:00AM ET ----> 2:00AM CT ---->1:00AM MT ---->12:00AM PT
(Times amended to include US clocks moved one hour forward)

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

So much more has been disclosed this past few days, and as Rumpy points out, we are hearing the State's case first.

I remember many years ago serving on a jury (not the case here of course) but after the first day's evidence when we [the jury] were leaving the building, a fellow juror said to me quietly "well, it's obvious he did it, isn't it?"

To this day I cannot but get those words out of my mind. It was a rape trial which lasted six days, the same juror and I was to discover a few others besides, assumed the man in the dock was guilty when they'd heard little evidence, but the mere fact he was in the dock to their minds, meant they had the right man. It was on that day that I decided how lucky I was that it was not me in the dock with a jury like that. Now, I know I'm digressing, as this is not a jury trial, but there will be many individuals who will assume OP is guilty of the charge or murder, and not a lesser charge for very similar background reasons.

Yes, we have heard what he is supposedly like in his day-to-day private life, and his attitude. Circumstantial evidence can convict just as easily as concrete proven evidence.

I am looking forward to the Defense case to see what they've got up their sleeves. If OP is found guilty of the charge of Murder, apart from the other charges, he's looking at a very lengthy prison service as we know.

I find this trial quite annoying at times to listen to and watch, perhaps just because it is not taking a a format I am more used to.

Whilst I think there have been a couple of witnesses who were not bad, I don't think there have been any witnesses called by the State who have out and out impressed me - If I were OP I'd be worried.

I still have the flu and feel awful..I'm sure I've become more vulnerable since I quit smoking a year ago 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 about the flu, Wroughead... especially since you did the right thing and got a flu shot. Guess you just have to battle through it


I gotta ask... was the guy convicted of Rape? I assume Jury rules were that Jurors should NOT discuss the case before gathering for deliberations?

Stories like that, and the sort of posting I see for EVERY case at "True Gossip Forums", really give me great concern about the Jury System at all. In theory a "Jury of one's peers" performing the task as instructed sounds great, but if you populate such a Jury with the sort of people you see around ("average people"), then it's a scary prospect for an innocent defendant. Of course MOST defendants are guilty... so the failings in the Jury system don't show.
_______

I have looked back over the testimony as well as what people have to say about it in News reports and in posting. It is not all, but mostly, negative...... like Wrougheads fellow Juror... a collective "whisper" that OP is guilty already. However, that is NOT what I see looking at what transpired in court.
I have to say that in reaction to that prejudgement I inclined to support OP. I STILL am around 50/50 on whether he is telling the truth, BUT in that case there is FAR MORE than just reasonable doubt, and so the status quo remains ... INNOCENT... until proven guilty. I am still open to persuasion, but the Prosecution need to present me with a lot more to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Actually I am moving from 50/50 towards believing OP. Looking at the ear witness testimony, especially the few scraps of time points from phone logs, the general sequence of events is what OP described. Bear in mind that his "version" was written down BEFORE the Bond Hearing, before any witness testimony etc and so it's not true that he just taylored his account to match. I look forward to the Ballistics evidence. OP has said from the outset that he was on his stumps when he fired. The State for some time claimed that he had on his prosthetic legs. I assume that is a matter that can be resolved by ballistic evidence and which ever way that goes will be a big score for one side or the other. Rumour has it that ballistics will confirm OP's version, but rumour is just rumour.

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