Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

She is discussing the things the witnesses heard. She says that some of the noises that were interpreted as the gunshots, but were actually the bat.

She says some of the others could have been asleep and missed some sounds.

She discusses Berger and Johnson was correctly criticised as unreliable, but were unfairly criticised as making nearly identical statements, as they didn't write these themselves; they just related them to Von Aard who has his own style. He was not called to say why he used the words he did, so we cannot use that against the witnesses. They were not dishonest, they had no interest. They didn't enjoy giving evidence. They were reluctant, but only came forward after the bail application. They were, however, mistaken in what they heard.

However, this does not mean that the entirety of their evidence should be discarded. Not every error effects his credibility (the witnesses). The court has to evaluate all the details and consider how many contradictions there are, and how relevant they are to the case.

She's coming back to the hearing a woman scream. They were certain of this.

The court will approach all the witnesses with caution, considering all of the relevant facts (basically, bias, distance, possibility of error etc.) She is making the point that they have considered all of these things when considering the witness statement.

She says it's particularly tricky when you're considering sound only, and not vision.

She says none of the people heard OP screaming, and not when he was anxious. This means they had no point of reference. Mr Lim cast doubt on whether the witnesses would be able to differentiate between a man or a woman if they were in the toilet with closed windows.

She's now discussing the fact that the screaming must have been one of them. There were only two people there.

She's going on to the postmortem.

She says that with the wounds, Reeva would not have been able to scream in the way that the witness says they heard.

She says that Dr Stipp was not found to be biased, but I had to nip to the loo, so I missed a bit.

She is discussing the chronology now, and is grateful for having technology to aid her with this as people are fallible.

Chronolgy of events

3.20 - security something

3.12-3.15 shots were heard.

3.14-3.15 Accused heard shouting

3.12-3.17 screams were heard.

(damn it, I've been distracted by work.)

She's using the timeline as a basis to assist the court to plot what the witnesses heard, and to see whether the State have proven whether OP had premeditated to kill Steenkamp.

Break - I'm going to rewind and see if I can get that chronology right.

No, it won't let me rewind. I'm sure it will be reported widely later.

During the break sound has come back on, on the telegraph screening. Did anyone else hear them talking? Was it OP defense? I hope Reeva's family did not hear them!

Interesting point on Van De Merwe; she heard the gunshots, then the woman screaming. This was actually OP, which casts doubts on whether the woman's screams were actually OP too.

I'm on the Guardian's, Bobble. I can't get sound on the Telegraph for some reason.

I'm disappointed that she has discounted the only witnesses as unreliable.

Whoever it was, was saying that the Judge was disregarding the evidence by the witnesses she had spoken about. (this is obviously not word for word) They said that she was disregarding the laymen? (think that was the word) evidence. Someone shouted 'wooop' really loudly. Somebody then said. 'That may not be so good if she disregards laymen evidence'.

She's made it clear, MsRisotto, that though some of their recollection was unreliable, that doesn't mean that the whole lot of their statement should be disgarded.

She does not want to speculate why Reeva had the phone.

The court also refrains from making inferences about their relationship through the WhatsApp messages one way or another.

It sounds like it's not going to be a conviction doesn't it?

From the Telegraph

"The prosecution case seems to be taking blow after blow as the judge dismisses the witnesses' accounts of events. Speaking to the Telegraph in Pretoria, legal expert Stephen Tuson agreed.

Tuson, a practising criminal barrister based at Wits University in Johannesburg, told Aislinn Laing: "It clearly looks like she is going to find him not guilty on premeditated murder. Screams were key for a conviction - that he knew who he was shooting at."

But he adds that "dolus eventualis" murder, the form of murder that finds the accused should have foreseen that his actions might kill even if that was not his intention, could still be possible "even if he thought it was an intruder". Tuson says: "You cannot shoot a person behind a locked door if they posed no threat."

But William Booth, a Cape Town-based criminal barrister, said the pendulum could still swing back in the state's favour. "It's still too early to draw too many conclusions," he said. "

It seems to me, although I can't seem to find a video that works on my phone so am relying on updates, that she's only really discounting the evidence which would suggest he knew it was Reeva - there's plenty of scope yet to say he intended to kill the 'intruder'. Legally, am I right in thinking it doesn't matter who he thought he was shooting at, the important thing is the intent to kill?

No I still think there will be a conviction fraggle. Although no one can prove whether he knew it was Reeva or not, he still shot 4 times into that tiny room with zero actual threat to his life. It is still reasonable to say that he intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.

From what I've read of the summing-up so far, it does look as if he will be found not guilty. It does seem strange. I know, of course, that the judge has listened to all the evidence and I haven't. But to discount in its entirety the evidence of the only witnesses? That seems, well, perverse.

She's now discussing OPs testimony. Making reference to his defence of it all being accidental, and that he was not intending to shoot at anyone.

But to discount in its entirety the evidence of the only witnesses? That seems, well, perverse.

She hasn't discounted anything in entirety. She has looked at it, tied it up with the timeline, worked out what they may or may not have heard, and realigned it.

signing back in as this has dropped off threads I'm on.

I'm calling Guilty of 2nd degree murder (forgotten what the SA term is). Don't see how he can't be found guilty of one form or murder or another, but doubt they have proved premeditation re Reeva.

Thinking of Reeva's family and loved ones right now.

I think he'll be convicted of Culpable Homicide which is what I've thought all along really

Pistorius told the court he did not think about pulling the trigger. He said he never thought of the possibility that he could kill somebody inside the toilet. If he had wanted to kill the perceived intruder, he would have fired higher, he told the court.

and

Alex Crawford #PistoriusTrial Judge says the low shots were inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking

I thought that I'd heard that. So she's possibly arguing that he shot while being aware of the consequences.