Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by Coldpizza, Mar 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sorrell skye

    sorrell skye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off topic: my sleep schedule is going to be so jacked up if I watch this entire trial.
     
  2. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    50,739
    Likes Received:
    38,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am sure she reviewed it with the states atty. So how different is it going to be?

    I think if it were REALLY in conflict, then Roux would have had those three copies ready for court already. They would have been highlighted and passed around. LOL
     
  3. shane13

    shane13 New Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nevermind. I found it in my own post here months ago.

    Her doctorate is here: http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07232013-101616/unrestricted/BurgerM.pdf

    PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: THE NEED FOR
    INDUSTRY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
    By
    Michelle Burger
    Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
    PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR
    IN THE
    FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
    DEPARTMENT OF QUANTITY
    SURVEYING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT


    Obviously she can stand up to lengthy assignments...

    Roux may rue his aggressivenes against this witness.
     
  4. nursebeeme

    nursebeeme Registered User

    Messages:
    53,159
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. sorrell skye

    sorrell skye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If this is all the defense has to go on (i.e. grasping at the lack of adjectives in the original witness statement), then OP's goose is cooked, IMO.
     
  6. BritsKate

    BritsKate Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderf

    Messages:
    5,882
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Now the defense is telling the court what the witness should have said to investigators. ;)

    He's trying to diminish the severity of Reeva's screams...never mentioned anxious, blood-curdling fear as descriptors. She states she did but was told she would be able to testify about what she'd heard.

    Opinion: While the defence is trying to hammer out (supposed) inconsistencies, he keeps inadvertantantly allowing it to be repeated, over and over, that the screaming was before the shots.
     
  7. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    50,739
    Likes Received:
    38,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Roux is failing. He is trying to make it LOOK like she was mistaken. But he is nitpicking and twisting her words. She is staying calm and collected and he is acting like a drama queen.
     
  8. atthelake

    atthelake Former Member

    Messages:
    9,980
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good morning peeps! Catching up with you guys...

    :seeya:

    Does anyone know if thetawniidilly and/or croakerqueen will have what I've missed?

    Just the 5 minutes I've seen are very interesting to follow. Looks like attorneys badger for an answer all over the world :giggle: They are soooooo polite as they do it, my goodness.
     
  9. shane13

    shane13 New Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Finaly Pros objects.

    Note that there is NO inconsistency to her statements.

    At one point she says there was screaming before shots.

    This does not exclude the possiblility of screaming during or slightly after shots.

    There is no inconsistency. Merely talking about different aspects at different times.

    Judge should force Roux to move on.
     
  10. sorrell skye

    sorrell skye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is Roux allowed to talk to the witness about other witnesses???
     
  11. Peekaboo10

    Peekaboo10 Justice for Donna Jean Awcock!

    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can't listen to him any longer... I think I will just read about it from this point on lol
     
  12. shane13

    shane13 New Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now here is something that I strongly obect to.

    Roux is now talking as if he is a direct witness--talking about bashing the door with a cricket bat etc. This should come from a witness not from Roux.
     
  13. Coldpizza

    Coldpizza WS Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    19,763
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good morning :coffeecup:

    Is the witness addressing Roux as My Lady?
     
  14. sorrell skye

    sorrell skye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! In the US, that wouldn't be allowed, as counsel is not permitted to "testify".
     
  15. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    50,739
    Likes Received:
    38,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OMG.

    This is how the defense is going to try and get out of this witnesses damaging testimony:

    Roux is setting forth the theory that the 4 shots happened while Berger and her husband were still asleep. THEN they heard screams, which woke them up. THEN they heard 4 bangs, which were actually the cricket bat knocking down the bathroom door.
     
  16. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    50,739
    Likes Received:
    38,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO, she is addressing the woman judge as My Lady.
     
  17. BritsKate

    BritsKate Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderf

    Messages:
    5,882
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    To her credit, the witness told Roux that the investigator can testify as to what she said when she was interviewed too. Now Roux is arguing that she heard no screaming after the gunshots...as if that's the important part.

    Ugh. He wants her opinion on what other people heard (or did not) that night. Attempting to talk witness into gunshots being the bashing of the door. Witness states she heard woman screaming, then man screaming 'Help, help, help'. She states she only heard the shots and not the cricket bat.

    'After hearing what you call the shots'...Grrr.
     
  18. Tssiemer

    Tssiemer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,377
    Likes Received:
    2,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nooooo I can't watch it!!! Where can I read it??


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  19. sorrell skye

    sorrell skye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    3,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Witness: "I'm sure that gunshots would be louder than a cricket bat on a door."

    I love this witness.
     
  20. shane13

    shane13 New Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So we see Roux' goal of trying to get the witness to confuse or substitute Reeva's screaming that Oscar's screaming.

    Everything Roux is doing is or should be backfiring on Defense.
    And now trying to confuse gunshot with door bashing by a cricket bat.

    I hope they have a physicist if you recall my writing months ago:

    Someone should tell Roux that the bullet breaks the sound barrier, and thus sonic booms are part of a gunshot and will carry far further than the cricket bat matter unless extraordinary factors are involved.

    Pros. should win all this if they are intelligent and have proper witnesses etc.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice