WITNESS THREAD: Ear Witnesses - Part 1 - Burger, van der Merwe, Johnson

[liesbeth]

Not at all. Go and listen to the videos. You'll hear her say that when she said "seconds" Captain van Aardt asked her about it and she then said approximately 2 seconds because she couldn't give an exact time. The voice was fading.

Edit: Just read my post again. Didn't mean to be rude, Karmady. Apologies. I'll have a look in my notes. The time is there and I'll see if I can find it.

Oscar trial: Day 2 Part 2 23:15

Burger about giving her statement to Van Aardt . He asked me about the shots. I explained about the shots. He asked me when was the last time you heard her. And I said just afterwards. It was: Screaming. Shots. I still heard her. And the last one was moments after the last shot. And that is how it was taken down.

She says her statement was only a few pages but on the stand she has more time to explain the minute details to the court.

There are some more references to this at other times. I'll add those times as I find them.

 

[Karmady]

Just noticed that in your post above (the one with the long quote) I do say that I was talking about her testimony, not her affidavit or written statement.

Anyway. While I was looking for the time, I found another instance where Roux played with meaning. Day 1, Part 2, 20:24. His attempt to use the Afrikaans word "deurmekaar" and its English translation "confusing" to make it look as if Ms. Burger had said in her statement that she was confused about the events that night.

She explains what she really meant, that the events of that night was not normal, but he refuses to accept the explanation. Even the judge weighs in on this.

And to dot the i's and cross the t's. There was a satirical rap song made about Roux's word play by one of the local radio stations. Something about 'I'm Barry Roux and I put it to you, everything you say I will misconstrue.' I have a link...here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fcDOkUxcF0

To Barry Roux's credit he laughed when he heard it and said while it wasn't very flattering, it was very funny. One of the reasons I like Roux, btw.

bbm~

yes, you do. But what I was saying is that, b/w your notes and minor's, there appears to be a difference between her affidavit/statement (2 seconds) and the translation of her trial testimony (not that specific). It occurred to me that Roux was interpreting her Afrikaans testimony to be more specific because her affidavit/statement was, in fact, more specific. In other words, why wouldn't he think she meant specifically 2 seconds when that's what she said the first time. Minor point, but it makes Roux's actions wrt that testimony make more sense imo

 

[Mr Fossil]

It was at 3:16 and lasted 58 seconds.

Link

Day 3. 55:00

Interestingly, Roux goes on to emphasise another time to Johnson (@ 55:00 in the above link), even theatrically donning his glasses for an air of spurious accuracy but doesn't appear to read anything!

Roux: "Let me share with you something. I want to share a time with you ... and make a note of it ... 3:19 and 50 seconds, one and half minutes, approximately, later, the accused, Mr Pistorius, called Mr Stander for help."

I have that call at 3:19:03 (lasting 24 seconds).

I made a note of it.

 

[asanque]

It was at 3:16 and lasted 58 seconds.

Link

Thanks

Good to have confirmation that it is consistent with other witnesses.

I.e. screaming, gunshots around 3:16, then no more screaming.

 

[DebinGA]

Day 3. 55:00

Interestingly, Roux goes on to emphasise another time to Johnson (@ 55:00 in the above link), even theatrically donning his glasses for an air of spurious accuracy but doesn't appear to read anything!

Roux: "Let me share with you something. I want to share a time with you ... and make a note of it ... 3:19 and 50 seconds, one and half minutes, approximately, later, the accused, Mr Pistorius, called Mr Stander for help."

I have that call at 3:19:03 (lasting 24 seconds).

I made a note of it.

RBBM Nel will drive home OP's first call being to Stander in closing. No reasonable explanation for it imo.

 

[Really?]

I'll admit.....I only started to re-listen to that of the actual 'witnesses' and so far only listened to ms. Burger and Roux.

I'll say she was prepared for a badgering by Roux...if she wasn't clear on a "yes/no" it may be-that she was unsure of what Roux was putting to her.
She did say that her husband 'stood by' his hearing 4 shots as opposed to her only recalling 3.

She just didn't pick up what he was putting to her . Right?

 

[Karmady]

I'll admit.....I only started to re-listen to that of the actual 'witnesses' and so far only listened to ms. Burger and Roux.

I'll say she was prepared for a badgering by Roux...if she wasn't clear on a "yes/no" it may be-that she was unsure of what Roux was putting to her.
She did say that her husband 'stood by' his hearing 4 shots as opposed to her only recalling 3.

She just didn't pick up what he was putting to her . Right?

Wait? I thought Burger was the "shot...shotshotshot" person. One shot, a pause and three more. And she knows it to be true because she's been trained in rhythm from a young age and just hears the cadence automatically. No? I'm positive I've read that here in the past few days.

 

[redheadedgal]

research (with cites) re: identifying gender by voice

One of the most common ways society defines gender is through the voice. “The ability to recognize the sex of a speaker on the basis of verbal cues alone would seem to be good evidence that men’s and women’s voices do differ in essential ways. Indeed, there are numerous studies that have reported the ability of listeners to correctly identify the sex of speakers by using only verbal cues” (Eakins & Eakins, 1978).

http://gandt.blogs.brynmawr.edu/web-papers/final-papersprojects/gender-communication/

The physical distinction between men and women (Fitch & Giedd, 1999) indictates that men, on average, would have more masculine voices than women, and hence a speaker’s gender can be easily determined on the basis of voice (Coleman, 1976; P. Smith, 1979).

http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/gmw/2007/s.j.ko/Chapter2.pdf


*yes, i realize the quoted studies are outdated, but current research seems lacking on this topic

 

[liesbeth]

I'll admit.....I only started to re-listen to that of the actual 'witnesses' and so far only listened to ms. Burger and Roux.

I'll say she was prepared for a badgering by Roux...if she wasn't clear on a "yes/no" it may be-that she was unsure of what Roux was putting to her.
She did say that her husband 'stood by' his hearing 4 shots as opposed to her only recalling 3.

She just didn't pick up what he was putting to her . Right?

Burger and Johnson did not come forward right at the start. At the bail hearing Oscar said he was the only one screaming that night. When they heard what OP said they realized that they had heard a woman's fearful screams. So they approached an advocate friend of theirs who told them to take notes and who most probably told them what they were going to face on the stand.

About the four shots. She says that at first they did not know they were going to testify. So of course they talked to each other about that night. It was a highly traumatic experience. She knows that she had said 4 shots and her husband had said 5 to six and it wasn't a point of contention.

Roux was accusing her of colluding with her husband. She says no, her husband stuck to his guns. Her point is although they disagreed about the number of shots, they didn't change their testimony. She kept saying she heard four shots. Her husband stuck to 5 to 6.

 

[liesbeth]

bbm~

yes, you do. But what I was saying is that, b/w your notes and minor's, there appears to be a difference between her affidavit/statement (2 seconds) and the translation of her trial testimony (not that specific). It occurred to me that Roux was interpreting her Afrikaans testimony to be more specific because her affidavit/statement was, in fact, more specific. In other words, why wouldn't he think she meant specifically 2 seconds when that's what she said the first time. Minor point, but it makes Roux's actions wrt that testimony make more sense imo

Oh, believe me, Roux knows exactly what she means. He is Afrikaans too.

Burger said that her statement was brief. A few pages. It stated the general facts. And in court she had "many hours" to explain the specific details.

She said that she gave the time in her statement after Van Aardt had asked her how long after the shots did she hear screams. She said she wasn't sure but it was approximately two seconds. And that is what is written in her statement. Those exact words: "ongeveer twee sekondes" meaning "approximately two seconds."

 

[liesbeth]

RBBM Nel will drive home OP's first call being to Stander in closing. No reasonable explanation for it imo.

Carice Stander, Stander's daughter, is a lawyer. Could this be why he called Stander?