Pistorius neighbor 'heard screams, gunshots'

A neighbour of South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has told a court in Pretoria that she was awoken by a woman's "terrible screams" in the early hours of 14 February 2013.

Mr Pistorius has pleaded not guilty at the start of his trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

He shot dead the 29-year-old model and reality TV star at his home, saying he mistook her for an intruder.

The neighbour, Michelle Burger, said cries for help were followed by shots.

"She screamed terribly and she yelled for help. Then I also heard a man screaming for help. Three times he yelled for help," Ms Burger told the high court in the capital.

She said she called security and then heard four gunshots.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26418086

I remember watching a preview of this caseat my folks' when Pistorius was first charged. The defence consultant was already busily casting aspersions as to whether the neighbors would be capable of hearing screams from so far away.

I find his story less than convincing but I think he'll get off on some technicality.

lovedust wrote:
I remember watching a preview of this caseat my folks' when Pistorius was first charged. The defence consultant was already busily casting aspersions as to whether the neighbors would be capable of hearing screams from so far away.

I find his story less than convincing but I think he'll get off on some technicality.

Not guilty by virtue of fame?

I got a problem with him. Not just what LD has pointed out, but his fondness for guns. He reminds me of the typical gun nut that we find in the American south. He thinks he is in his house, and he can shoot away without regard for anyone else. That's a problem.

It's too much like the Trayvon Martin or Jordan Davis case...too calculated. I'm thinking she maybe was messing around on him, and he calculated he could shoot her with impunity if he was in his domicile. I'm thinkin' guilty.

I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

I haven't followed the trial very much, but I have to say that Mr Pistorius has his work cut out trying to convince a jury that it's normal to fire a gun through a closed door in case there's a burglar in the bathroom.

I was warching this on Sky. The defence barrister was really harrassing her, trying to get her to change her version of events. What a shifty character he is. He repeatedly asked her the same question about ten times but she stuck to her guns, although he was twisting the question and trying to confuse her. Strong lady stood her ground.

I must say though that the Judge seems to side with the defence; she said to the witness, "just answer yes or no, or I don't know". Well that's like answering the old question 'do you still beat your wife?' answering yes or no makes you guilty, and saying you don't know means your testimony won't count for much. Didn't watch the rest of it, had to go out, but I hope she held up. Wouldn't be allowed in an English court, the barrister would be stopped from badgering a witness endlessly.

Alright am I a bit thick or is it bloomin obvious that he murdered her.

Nobody wakes up and finds their partner not in bed, the bathroom door closed and then unloads several bullets through it. She was going to leave him or he discovered her on the phone to another bloke.

Croissant wrote:Alright am I a bit thick or is it bloomin obvious that he murdered her.

Nobody wakes up and finds their partner not in bed, the bathroom door closed and then unloads several bullets through it.  She was going to leave him or he discovered her on the phone to another bloke.  

its very OJ simpson to me, he clearly did it but see if he gets prosecuted..

Croissant wrote:I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

 ::dedhrs:: ::dedhrs:: ::dedhrs:: 

The defense just came in with something to refute the neighbor as a witness, as it would be impossible to hear screams after the gunshots, not a good start for the prosecution

didge,if he did shoot her on purpose, why would he do that?do you think he had a row and lost his temper?

PhilDidge wrote:The defense just came in with something to refute the neighbor as a witness, as it would be impossible to hear screams after the gunshots, not a good start for the prosecution

There's more than one witness though. Okay she couldn't scream after she'd been shot in the head, but she could have screamed after the previous shots.

nicko wrote:didge,if he did shoot her on purpose, why would he do that?do you think he had a row and lost his temper?

I have no idea to be honest, I think he is as guilty as charged, but one thing I do know is the defense as they have started out to already, will look to attack the credibility of the witnesses.

i thought she heard a scream before the gunshots..

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:The defense just came in with something to refute the neighbor as a witness, as it would be impossible to hear screams after the gunshots, not a good start for the prosecution

There's more than one witness though. Okay she couldn't scream after she'd been shot in the head, but she could have screamed after the previous shots.

The point is Tess they will look to expose the credibility of any witness, if as seen a claim is made to screaming after gunshots is proven to be false, then where does that leave the claim from the same person to before?

I am not backing the man's innocence, just showing they will seek to discredit many of the witnesses, can you see my point?

heavenly father wrote:i thought she heard a scream before the gunshots..

a blood curdling scream if i remember rightly..  

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:The defense just came in with something to refute the neighbor as a witness, as it would be impossible to hear screams after the gunshots, not a good start for the prosecution

There's more than one witness though. Okay she couldn't scream after she'd been shot in the head, but she could have screamed after the previous shots.

Well quite... did all the shots actually hit her?

heavenly father wrote:

heavenly father wrote:i thought she heard a scream before the gunshots..

a blood curdling scream if i remember rightly..  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-athlete-cries-as-he-hears-extent-of-brain-damage-inflicted-on-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-9167606.html

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

a blood curdling scream if i remember rightly..  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-athlete-cries-as-he-hears-extent-of-brain-damage-inflicted-on-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-9167606.html

i'm sure according to the news the witness said they heard a scream before the gunshots..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-athlete-cries-as-he-hears-extent-of-brain-damage-inflicted-on-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-9167606.html

i'm sure according to the news the witness said they heard a scream before the gunshots..

Why not actually read the link to save yourself asking daft questions, it may help

Again I am not defending him but showing that the defence will seek to discredit the witnesses, if you read the account then you would realise this

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't followed the trial very much, but I have to say that Mr Pistorius has his work cut out trying to convince a jury that it's normal to fire a gun through a closed door in case there's a burglar in the bathroom.

They don't have juries in South Africa. The case is being tried to a judge.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i'm sure according to the news the witness said they heard a scream before the gunshots..

Why not actually read the link to save yourself asking daft questions, it may help

Again I am not defending him but showing that the defence will seek to discredit the witnesses, if you read the account then you would realise this

that's always the job of the defence, they may say someone shot in the head would not scream but it said on the news they heard the scream then shots..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Why not actually read the link to save yourself asking daft questions, it may help

Again I am not defending him but showing that the defence will seek to discredit the witnesses, if you read the account then you would realise this

that's always the job of the defence, they may say someone shot in the head would not scream but it said on the news they heard the scream then shots..

Dear me, well done for finally grasping, again if you discredit the claim to screams after, then to the judge the claims to screams before then seem questionable.

nicko wrote:didge,if he did shoot her on purpose, why would he do that?do you think he had a row and lost his temper?

Steenkamp met a former boyfriend, Warren Lahoud, two days before the homicide.  Allegedly, Pistorius became over-jealous.  He was known to be a hothead.

Then there is the i-phone of hers which has been sent to Apple in the USA for analysis/data recovery. My guess, she was seeing someone else and his ego couldn't handle it.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

that's always the job of the defence, they may say someone shot in the head would not scream but it said on the news they heard the scream then shots..

Dear me, well done for finally grasping, again if you discredit the claim to screams after, then to the judge the claims to screams before then seem questionable.

not at all screams after being shot in the head could prove tricky, while screams before would not, it might prove a violent altercation prior to the shooting...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Dear me, well done for finally grasping, again if you discredit the claim to screams after, then to the judge the claims to screams before then seem questionable.

not at all screams after being shot in the head could prove tricky, while screams before would not, it might prove a violent altercation prior to the shooting...

Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

not at all screams after being shot in the head could prove tricky, while screams before would not, it might prove a violent altercation prior to the shooting...

Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

what!!! if she said she heard screams after the wife was shot in the head that would discredit the witness as she could not have screamed, if she heard the scream before the shots it is possible for the wife to scream and it may indicate a violent fight first...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

what!!! if she said she heard screams after the wife was shot in the head that would discredit the witness as she could not have screamed, if she heard the scream before the shots it is possible for the wife to scream and it may indicate a violent fight first...

DOH

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

Has this part sunk in yet?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

what!!! if she said she heard screams after the wife was shot in the head that would discredit the witness as she could not have screamed, if she heard the scream before the shots it is possible for the wife to scream and it may indicate a violent fight first...

DOH

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

Has this part sunk in yet?

why does the screaming after which would be impossible discredit the possible scream before which is more than possible...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



DOH

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

Has this part sunk in yet?

why does the screaming after which would be impossible discredit the possible scream before which is more than possible...  

Dear me, I really cannot stop laughing at the stupidity, try reading again what I said and I will highlight words for you:

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

why does the screaming after which would be impossible discredit the possible scream before which is more than possible...  

Dear me, I really cannot stop laughing at the stupidity, try reading again what I said and I will highlight words for you:

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

I can see your words but i do not see why it discredits that she heard a scream before the shots...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me, I really cannot stop laughing at the stupidity, try reading again what I said and I will highlight words for you:

If the claim to screams being heard is by one person and the claims are shown to be false to screaming after, that lessens the credibility of that witness, thus it will then be questionable if they heard screams at all.

I can see your words but i do not see why it discredits that she heard a scream before the shots...

Hilarious, I cannot help him, he is beyond any help, again I will leave you with these points, as you are two clueless to understand:


lessens the credibility of that witness

questionable if they heard screams at all.


It thus leaves Doubt in the credibility of the witness


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I can see your words but i do not see why it discredits that she heard a scream before the shots...

Hilarious, I cannot help him, he is beyond any help, again I will leave you with these points, as you are two clueless to understand:


lessens the credibility of that witness

questionable if they heard screams at all.

why does it make it less credible that she heard a scream before the shots...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious, I cannot help him, he is beyond any help, again I will leave you with these points, as you are two clueless to understand:


lessens the credibility of that witness

questionable if they heard screams at all.

why does it make it less credible that she heard a scream before the shots...

It thus leaves Doubt in the credibility of the witness


DOH

Didge wrote:Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

On cross-examination, you discredit a witness by challenging veracity (truthfulness), validity (logic), or go outside of the question and show bias (conflict of interest).

HF is making an argument upon logic: it is illogical to claim that a dead person will still be screaming. Ergo: all the screams were before the death.

I haven't followed the discussion fully.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

On cross-examination, you discredit a witness by challenging veracity (truthfulness), validity (logiv), or go outside of the question and show bias (conflict of interest).

Thank you.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Quill can you expand with your law terminology the meaning behind discrediting a witness to help him understand please?

On cross-examination, you discredit a witness by challenging veracity (truthfulness), validity (logiv), or go outside of the question and show bias (conflict of interest).

i think we all know that but what has that got to do with hearing the first scream before the gunshots..

Original Quill wrote:I got a problem with him.  Not just what LD has pointed out, but his fondness for guns.  He reminds me of the typical gun nut that we find in the American south.  He thinks he is in his house, and he can shoot away without regard for anyone else.  That's a problem.

It's too much like the Trayvon Martin or Jordan Davis case...too calculated.  I'm thinking she maybe was messing around on him, and he calculated he could shoot her with impunity if he was in his domicile.  I'm thinkin' guilty.

ever lived in S.A??

No, I've never even been there.  However, as a former Deputy Attorney General in a southern state (Arizona) I am aware of the peculiar problems associated with excessive gun ownership (Arizona is the highest gun ownership per capita of any state in the nation).  On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down in the very shopping center where I frequently went to shop.

I know you cannot mix gun possession with emotions, and particularly not alcohol.  Too much volatility.  Pistorius was much too explosive to have a gun.  Only controlled, well-trained people should have guns.

Original Quill wrote:No, I've never even been there.  However, as a former Deputy Attorney General in a southern state (Arizona) I am aware of the peculiar problems associated with excessive gun ownership (Arizona is the highest gun ownership per capita of any state in the nation).  On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down in the very shopping center where I frequently went to shop.

I know you cannot mix gun possession with emotions, and particularly not alcohol.  Too much volatility.  Pistorius was much too explosive to have a gun.  Only controlled, well-trained people should have guns.

well S.A isn't Arizona, in S.A you should count yourself lucky if the police respond to an emergency call within a few hours, which means many law abiding people are left on their own to survive.

so a person who has been robbed mugged and hijacked several times and somehow lived to tell the tale and decides enough is enough and gets a gun wouldn't be well trained or controlled, they would be emotional and desperate for some sense of safety.

as a figure of authority would you want to tell them they aren't entitled to a gun, what right would you (as a figure of authority) have to tell them that when as an authority you've failed to protect them in the first place

the US has a gun culture that off the charts but S.A isn't the same, the gun culture there is more about self defense that YEEE HAAAAA.

just out of curiosity, how many robberies are prevented by gun owners??

Self-defense? Didn't bode well for Steenkamp, did it?

It's the same anywhere. Give a madcap a gun, and they're will be hell to pay.

Original Quill wrote:Self-defense?  Didn't bode well for Steenkamp, did it?

It's the same anywhere.  Give a madcap a gun, and they're will be hell to pay.

well its a good thing he had a gun

otherwise he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife, imagine how messy that would have been

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Self-defense?  Didn't bode well for Steenkamp, did it?

It's the same anywhere.  Give a madcap a gun, and they're will be hell to pay.

well its a good thing he had a gun

otherwise he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife, imagine how messy that would have been

So you think he is telling the truth then?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

well its a good thing he had a gun

otherwise he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife, imagine how messy that would have been

So you think he is telling the truth then?

only he will ever know

but S.A is ultra violent and people with guns tend to shoot first and ask questions later when they think their home is being invaded

bearing in mind that a home invasion a couple of years ago resulted in the rape and murder of a mother and wife, the murder of the father and husband and the young son being drown in boiling hot water.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

would you take the risk or shoot first and ask questions later???

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

well its a good thing he had a gun

otherwise he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife, imagine how messy that would have been

So you think he is telling the truth then?

Smelly wants to believe that, he hates SA and he hates Britain, in fact Smelly's hatred is all that's holding him together, it defines him.

smelly_bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

So you think he is telling the truth then?

only he will ever know

but S.A is ultra violent and people with guns tend to shoot first and ask questions later when they think their home is being invaded

bearing in mind that a home invasion a couple of years ago resulted in the rape and murder of a mother and wife, the murder of the father and husband and the young son being drown in boiling hot water.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

would you take the risk or shoot first and ask questions later???

 

The first thing i would do is check the bed for my partner and if they are not there then i would assume they are in the bathroom.

scrat wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

So you think he is telling the truth then?

Smelly wants to believe that, he hates SA and he hates Britain, in fact Smelly's hatred is all that's holding him together, it defines him.

lol

good one scat

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

only he will ever know

but S.A is ultra violent and people with guns tend to shoot first and ask questions later when they think their home is being invaded

bearing in mind that a home invasion a couple of years ago resulted in the rape and murder of a mother and wife, the murder of the father and husband and the young son being drown in boiling hot water.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

would you take the risk or shoot first and ask questions later???

 

The first thing i would do is check the bed for my partner and if they are not there then i would assume they are in the bathroom.

if THEY were not there???

saucy minx

didnt think you Muslims like to get freaky naughty, thought you were all like - "i hate you bitch get your bhurka on"

and you're like - "oh yes my lord husband please beat me for being a woman"

consider me told