Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

I thought that yesterday's witnesses were a little weird

I don't really understand why they were called. They didn't hear shots but only maybe heard a bang and then OP crying
I think that Roux must have much more up his sleeve and will end in a bang

I'm back to not having a clue about what I think (not that my opinion means anything!)

were they all medical professionals?

No, I understand it was medical professionals and laypeople. I should also clarify this is hearsay; it's been told to me. It was told to us as part of our First Aid training when we were all 'should we try to find the pulse?' and this area has been changed to 'don't bother looking; just go straight to CPR. Trying to find a pulse is a waste of very precious time.'

I'm not saying that a medical doctor won't sometimes (I've had mine taken a heap of times) but in a first aid situation, and when you're not a doctor, you may not find it when it's there, you may accidentally find your own, you may find something else entirely.

I think what I'm saying is, in that high-pressure, tense moment, I think that Oscar and Carice may have been very confused as to whether she was alive or not, and may even have changed their minds a couple of times throughout the situation.

And like Nerf says; their hope that she would live may alter their opinion of whether she was alive or not.

I felt a little sad yesterday with the glimpses into OP's and Reeva's lives before this happened ie that OP was the friendly neighbour who made the effort to welcome new people; and that Reeva hugged the neighbour when she was being introduced. It made me sad for everything that has been lost.

(and I know OP still has a life and that his own actions have led everyone to this place but it still made me sad)

I'm back to not having a clue about what I think

I've moved slightly from him not knowing it was her to 'I think he knew it was her.' But I'm going over Burger's evidence, and it's quite compelling (though some of he mannerisms are annoying me).

Perhaps I'll change my mind again tomorrow.

I think Bookabues response to yesterday's witnesses demonstrates one of the reasons for yesterday's witnesses; they were witnesses of Op's previously good character , that his relationship with Reeva was so good that he referred to her as his fiance & said he was moving to No'burg to be nearer to her.

It was all about casting doubt on the argument scenario imo

The evidence that the phone used that night was the one normally on charge in the kitchen supports the pathology finding about the gastric contents indicating RS was downstairs 2 hours prior to her death and OP was there too!

The stomach contents indicate RS was awake prior to her death, as was OP in order to be using his kitchen (business) phone when she was shot. He said he carried that phone downstairs and it was in his pocket as he carried RS on her final journey.

It could well have been, but why would he be using that one when his personal phone was found in the bathroom?

I can see what you're saying, but I think you've made a leap too far by suggesting the latter points proves that OP was in the kitchen when Reeva was eating.

OP testified that he used the phone upstairs in the bathroom. He does not say why he used his work phone rather than his personal phone. The phone records show it was his work phone (I'm assuming from your post that this is is the case - if it was in fact his personal phone, someone can correct me) All we know from this is that he used his workphone. We can't say where he used it.

He says he then carried it downstairs in his pocket, then, at some point, put this in to charge. Again, we don't know why; perhaps it started beeping at him and he panicked and plugged it in. All we can say is that he, or someone, plugged the phone in in the kitchen at some point that night.

Now we can say that his story sounds unlikely or unrealistic. We can suggest that if the phone was plugged in in the kitchen, it must have been there all night, so he must have gone downstairs to phone for help or at least to retrieve his phone. But this is an extrapolation, an inference based on our own belief that his story about having the phone upstairs is farfetched.

We could say that he must have, at some point, gone down to collect the phone from the kitchen, but I don't think we can possibly say when, least of all that it could only have happened when Reeva ate. It is a possibility, and we can state it as a possibility, but I don't think we can state it as a fact. He could have taken his work phone from the kitchen at any point, including before he went to bed.

Looking - also limbs may move, even when someone is brain dead, due to spinal reflex movements generated by the spinal cord. So would definitely agree that it can be easy in such a situation to not be sure.

Roadkill - I thought the first neighbour's displeasure with the police behaviour had a lot to do with race and class. I doubt the police officer would have approached a a white man to say "What happened bra?" and nor would they approach a white neighbour without making an appointment.

Put that all in the context of SA history and I can understand Mr Nhlengethwa's displeasure.

GoshAnne. Yes I agree about the neighbours attitude

It seems clear that SAPS are not trusted or well thought of by many.

No real surprise that so many alleged crimes go unreported

We only have OP's word that they are together early and from this it seems to be assumed that Reeva ate alone later. I think they both ate later together . Doesn't that seem more likely?

Ate not are

I think they both ate later together . Doesn't that seem more likely?

Possibly, but I'm not sure how the phone being in the kitchen shows that one way or another.

We only have OP's word about pretty much anything that happened prior to anyone else arriving.

I'm just saying, there's a danger in taking one fact 'the phone was in the kitchen, on charge, when other people arrived.' and using it to state a separate fact 'OP and Reeva were in the kitchen at the same time, in the middle of the night.'

Yes, looking you are absolutely right, the use of his downstairs business phone rather than his personal one which was upstairs is entirely circumstantial. I don't pretend otherwise.
It is also open to dispute though whether it had ever left it's position on charge in the kitchen. Carice confirmed it was there when OP and her used it later and this could increase the possibility that he joined RS in the kitchen while she was eating after midnight.
This could explain OP's strange assertion that he did not know if RS could use the alarm, and would give a reason for him to say he did not believe RS went downstairs, instead of saying he did not know because he was asleep.

As to taking the NDN's testimony at face value (which Masipa will not do), it seems improbable they heard crying and one bang without hearing the other three. Of course it could have (at a stretch) taken the first 3 bangs to stir them into hearing a fourth, but the defense admits now to 4 rapid shots, and not the two double taps they first claimed.

this could increase the possibility that he joined RS in the kitchen while she was eating after midnight.

You see, I'm just not getting this. I may be being thick, but how does his phone being on the charger in the kitchen at 4:00 increase the possibility that he joined RS in the kitchen at midnight?

The fact that it was in the kitchen at 4:00 when Carice saw it, doesn't indicate where it might have been at 3:00 or at midnight. It's designed to be easily moved around.

He may have slept with it next to him at night, but then, as he says, moved it downstairs when carrying her and stuck it on charger. I don't think it's unusual to keep a mobile next to you at night.

The disjoint in the story in my mind isn't that Carice saw it in the kitchen, but how likely it is that he went through the action of putting it on the charger after carrying Reeva downstairs. We know it was there, because it was there. He said he didn't remember doing it, but he must have. Even if we discount that it was after the event, and we say that he must only have used the phone from the kitchen, and it couldn't have been taken off the charger at all, I don't see how this places him in the kitchen at midnight. At 3, yes, but not at midnight.

I'm not saying he didn't eat with Reeva later than he says - I just don't see how the phone being on the charger at 4:00 effects the probability of this at all.

Michelle Burger was a prosecution witness I believe. I think she said "There was a scream and four shots and then I heard the female scream again". Impossible from forensics evidence.

I thought that she also said she heard three shouts of help before the gunshots. Hmm, I wonder why that could be.

So, presume the judge can't rely on much at all when there are so many inconsistencies in the ear witness accounts.

it made me sad for everything that has been lost. Me too book, it's tragic on many levels. On another note, I find people making jokes about anything to do with the trial (not on here thankfully) pretty sick under the circumstances (a link someone posted included the comment of using the crying impression as a ringtone. Oh ha ha ha how funny). Maybe it's just me but I just find it impossible to have a laugh about anything related to this trial.

Looking, it is a real stretch all the same and I entirely agree with you.
I admit I am guilty of tailoring the evidence there!

So, presume the judge can't rely on much at all when there are so many inconsistencies in the ear witness accounts actually should add - unless we make the assumption that bat and shot sounds were heard incorrectly by some and were in fact the other way round. In which case it starts to piece together nicely.

Bonniel, I agree this is no laughing matter, but it was rather nice to see the judge and June having a chuckle along with the rest of us at the demonstration.
In the midst of death we are in life, and all that!

You are right as well about inconsistencies in the 'ear' witness accounts but it is a legal point to give less weight to (or dismiss) the independent accounts against the friends and neighbours who's accounts could perpetuate the defendants lies (albeit subconsciously)

Sorry that should be the other way round

"There was a scream and four shots and then I heard the female scream again". Impossible from forensics evidence.

As luck would have it, I've just been typing up this bit of her evidence. Please excuse typos - it's my own typing and not court authorised or anything like that (and please excuse my misspelling of Burger throughout):

Berger - When the shots started, I again heard the woman scream, it was during the shots that I heard her, and just after the shots, her voice started fading.

Roux - (25:39) So let me understand it, let’s work on that part. So what you say you heard, the screaming simultaneous with the shots, with the boom boom boom boom, and then that screaming faded away.

Berger - I did not concentrate/note with which shots there were screams, but I can testify that I heard the shots and during the shots I heard the woman screaming.

Roux - (26:29) And then, after the shots?

Berger - And then just a moment after the shots, I heard the woman’s voice fading away.

Roux - Why I’m asking, and I’ll come back to this, in your evidence of chief, there was no mention of hearing screaming after the shots, so I’m trying to understand what you say, is it just quiet, did it fade away as part of the shots, or was there an independent screaming after the shots, an isolated screaming.

Berger - What I can say is that I heard her voice just after the shots and it was fading away.

Roux - Yes, but she did not scream after the shots, it was fading away after.

Berger - (27:27) it could be that she screamed, that just after the shots, that she screamed and it faded away, or with the last shot.

Roux - Is my understanding correct, it was not the scream after the shot, but as she was screaming during the shots, that scream faded away.

Berger - It could be that she screamed afterwards, I heard her voice just afterwards.

Roux - Yes but say ‘it can be’ we’ve started to speculate now. I want to know what you remember. It can be, a lot of things can be. What is it that you can remember as you stand there?

Berger - (28:48) My lady, there were shots, four shots, and I heard a voice, and just afterwards was the last time I heard her voice.

Roux Can you repeat it? If you say you heard a voice afterwards, what does that mean?

Berger It means that the same woman that woke me with her screams, I heard her voice.

Roux But what does it mean? Does it mean she carried on screaming during the shots is the first point, and after the shots she screamed again, or can’t you say that?

Berger She could have screamed with the last shot or just after, because I heard her voice just after, but not a long time afterwards.

Roux But would you say that you’re not sure? It could have been with the last shot, it could have been shortly after the last shot.

Berger I confirm that just after the last shot I heard her scream – her voice.

Roux I understand the voice, I’m talking about an independent scream; I scream, it’s quiet, I scream, it’s quiet – was it a continuous scream?

Berger I would like to make it clear to the court that the screaming, it went very fast, I did not expect that that evening.

Roux What is it that you say to me by mentioning that? What is it that you want the court to infer from that?

Berger My lady, I did not sit there with a stopwatch and take down the timing of each shot. I did not sit there and write down with each shot when she shouted. What I can portray to the court, is that there were four gunshots, and that some time during the gunshots and just after the gunshots was the last that I heard the same woman’s voice that woke me that evening.

Roux (31:30) You see, maam, you are not sure. And before you answer, I’m going to give you a fair chance, and I’m going to say it’s quite clear from you version you are not sure, and what you’re now doing, you’re adapting, you’re speculating, you’re trying to close all the gaps. I want you to bear in mind that what I’m going to put to you in due course is your statement, and I want to put to you that your statement contradicts what you say in court now. So let me ask you the question; what is it that you heard in relation to the shots, about the woman.

Berger Can you please verify what you mean by ‘in relation to the shots’?

Roux I mean the screaming. In time, was it before, during or after?

Berger (32:23) my lady, as I related to the court before, I was woken up by a woman’s petrified screams. I heard her screaming first, then I heard her call for help. Then I heard a man call for help three times. I then made a call. I gave the phone to my husband and he spoke to security. Afterwards I heard the woman’s petrified screams again. [broken recording] I heard her scream sometime during the shots. I cannot verify whether it was with shot one, two three or four, but I can say that I heard her voice during the shots. And shortly after the shots was the last time I heard that woman shout. As I stated to the court before, it can be that she shouted with the last gunshot, or she could have shouted just afterwards. I did not hear her a minute after the last shot; it was shortly after the shot, a moment or two after the shots was the last I heard her.

Roux (33:42) And so it could be the same voice echoing at the same time as the shots, or it could have been a new scream. That’s what you say.

Berger It could have been a new scream; I heard her voice.

Roux Or it could have been a scream echoing with the firing of the last shot at the time of the firing of the last shot.

Berger Yes.

Roux But one of the two.

Berger One of the two. I heard her voice moments, if it’s asked to me, when was the last you heard the woman shout, I will state that the last I heard the woman shout was shortly after the last shot. I did not hear her a minute afterwards, I did not hear her thirty seconds afterwards, it was very shortly after the shot was the last time I heard that woman’s voice.

Roux But we’ll also note that you don’t know whether that was an independent scream, or whether it was still part of the scream, echoing, coming from the same time as the firing of the shot. Could be either of them.

Berger What I would like to state to the court is I heard her voice during the shots, and the last time I heard her was shortly after that. I did not hear her a minute afterwards, it was shortly after the shots. That was the last time I heard her.

That's all I've got on the shots and screams for now - she may change or come back to it later in her testimony.

Sorry about the formatting in the latter part of that - I have to go and get my kids and didn't have time to separate the names from the start of their evidence. MN doesn't like tabs, apparently.

To me it doesn't matter how many people found it funny or who found it funny, I just find it distasteful. Actually i have never been comfortable with any of he smirks in the courtroom but leaving them asside, the ringtone comment takes it too far - I just don't see how people can make jokes about any of this, but there we are.

Blimey looking that must have taken you ages. That's the bit I was referring to. She seemed a very credible witness to me but either she is wrong about hearing a scream after the last shot, or she was hearing OP and not Reeva.

Bonniel and Looking this is interesting in relation to the screams. It is retired Judge Greenland entitled "On timewasteing and Oscar's emotional state"

Or perhaps as Roux said Mrs Burger was hearing the echo of Reevas dying scteams. I'm not sure what your point is really?

Bonniel, I take your point, but if I may offer you an anecdote that gives me and my brother a great deal of comfort?
About 2 hours before my dad died, he pointed at the wall above his bed and asked "what does this say"?
I started reading a sentimental poem from a picture I had bought my mum before she died, through sobs and tears. To my surprise he started to laugh! He was actually asking for the temperature from the digital clock next to it!