Roux has a difficult job because the holes that he is poking cannot just be looked at on their own, they have to be viewed in the context of all the other witnesses as well. When you consider it globally, and if you try to reconcile all of the witnesss' testimony with each other, it really does line up with Oscar's own statement.
There is nothing that suggests premeditation. Let me see if I can give you an example of what I mean:
First of all, the most reliable statements from the witnesses are going to be the statements they gave shortly after the event, while it was fresh in their minds and all they were reporting were facts of what they witnessed. Many of the witnesses have now come to court and have embellished and added "emotional" information that was not in their original statements. I think you have to discount those additions.
Shipp
He is the closest of the witnesses and had a direct line to Oscar's house via his open balcony.
1. He heard 3 "shots" and got up and went to balcony to see where it was coming from
2. On balcony, he heard a woman "screaming or yelling" 2 or 3 times
3. At 3:17 (verified by phone records) he heard "2 or 3" additional "shots"
4. At 3:27, he called security again
5. After his 3:27 call to security, he THEN heard Oscar yell "help, help, help"
6. At 3:28 he phoned Stander from Oscar's house.
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 no in either of his statements to police given on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13
I consider Shipp's testimony 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
Burger and Johnson
1. Heard a woman screaming and were woken up by the sound
2. They heard "help help help" -before the sounds they interpreted as gunshots
3. 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
4. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
I believe that she was being honest and factual in her testimony. She did not try to interpret what anything meant, she simply reported what she heard.
So you try to reconcile all of these accounts with each other and what you are left with is -
- 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
I do, however agree strongly with a point you made in another post, that they seem to skirt over some apparently important questions and go into other apparently trivial points in tedious drawn out detail...quite baffling at times, and certainly frustrating.
