Pistorius neighbor 'heard screams, gunshots'

First topic message reminder :

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

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:+ three

+100

He really got caught out today - that prosecutor was good, but I think that silly woman Judge has been taken in by him.  Why they can't have a jury system I don't know.

Juries can get taken in as well.

Sassy wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
+100

He really got caught out today - that prosecutor was good, but I think that silly woman Judge has been taken in by him.  Why they can't have a jury system I don't know.

Juries can get taken in as well.

But you have to take in a dozen of them, not just one.

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Juries can get taken in as well.

But you have to take in a dozen of them, not just one.

True, but how do you know what information they are actually taking in and what they are discarding. With a judge they have had training and will go through every bit of information. I'm not saying it's better, but I'm not convinced that a jury system is so superior.

Why do you think the judge has been taken in Tess? I haven't been physically watching the trial, so can't claim to speak for her reactions.

lovedust wrote:
Why do you think the judge has been taken in Tess? I haven't been physically watching the trial, so can't claim to speak for her reactions.

Every time Pistorius starts crying and asks for an adjournment she grants it, which is ridiculous; and today she kept interrupting the prosecutor over trivial matters, but she didn't do that at all to the defence lawyer, although he should have been criticized the way he badgered the witnesses.

Tesstacious wrote:

lovedust wrote:
Why do you think the judge has been taken in Tess? I haven't been physically watching the trial, so can't claim to speak for her reactions.

Every time Pistorius starts crying and asks for an adjournment she grants it, which is ridiculous; and today she kept interrupting the prosecutor over trivial matters, but she didn't do that at all to the defence lawyer, although he should have been criticized the way he badgered the witnesses.

Just my opinion, but I would say she is making sure that she is seen as ultra fair to him, then they can't complain that she was against him from the beginning if she finds him guilty.

Interesting... I would imagine an experienced judge would be more likely to be covering her bases than the alternative, but as I say I haven't watched the court scenes.

lovedust wrote:
Interesting... I would imagine an experienced judge would be more likely to be covering her bases than the alternative, but as I say I haven't watched the court scenes.

Just an idea.

If she really is taken in by Pistorius it's a shame IMO.

lovedust wrote:
If she really is taken in by Pistorius it's a shame IMO.

Honestly I think it is really difficult. The wailing and screaming and being sick in a bucket all the time just seem OTT. But I think the only person who will ever know the truth is him, regardless of the verdict.

I think that's right, sadly. There's only one
person who knows the full truth of this matter, and I don't suppose he'll ever divulge it.

Sassy wrote:

lovedust wrote:
If she really is taken in by Pistorius it's a shame IMO.

Honestly I think it is really difficult.   The wailing and screaming and being sick in a bucket all the time just seem OTT.   But I think the only person who will ever know the truth is him, regardless of the verdict.

I am getting so f****ng sick and tired of Pistorius' whining.  Every once in a while the prosecutor shows these candid outtakes of him in real life, and he inevitably comes across as a vicious, callous person.  Much more like the person capable of killing in the manner described, particularly with the testimony of the neighbors.

Given the way he is in real life, he is overplaying his po lil' me routine.  I bet it's an act he learned to play when he was first disabled.  Sorry to say that, but disabled people are human too.  They can and do develop strategies that milk their disabilities in everyday life.  He seems to have developed strategies that are way OTT as manipulation.

I sure as hell don't buy it.  And in particular, given the personality that comes across, my sympathies are with that poor little girl he murdered.  I have no doubt he did it.  He should consider himself lucky he didn't come into my court (no, I'm not a judge; but I have been pro tempore judge).

Well said quill, I was thinking exactly the same.



Playing the poor me victim act is obvious, and he's doing the voice of a kid who's been told off by his mum.



We all know what happened. His story is complete bollocks.


How many people shoot and kill their girlfriends through a toilet door having mistaken them for an intruder?

Really?

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Honestly I think it is really difficult.   The wailing and screaming and being sick in a bucket all the time just seem OTT.   But I think the only person who will ever know the truth is him, regardless of the verdict.

I am getting so f****ng sick and tired of Pistorius' whining.  Every once in a while the prosecutor shows these candid outtakes of him in real life, and he seems a vicious, callous person.  Much more like the person capable of killing in the manner described.

Given the way he is in real like, he is overplaying his po lil' me routine.  Bet it's an act he learned to play when he was first disabled.  I sure as hell don't buy it.

The rest I agree, but that in bold is really neither pleasant nor accurate, he was born disabled, has never known any different, and he sure would not have been able to do what he did if he had a 'poor little me' attitude about his disablity.   I think it is more to do with what he actually said, a way of 'fighting for his life' and he thinks it will influence.

Fighting for his life against a woman who had locked herself in a toilet????

Sassy wrote:

lovedust wrote:
Interesting... I would imagine an experienced judge would be more likely to be covering her bases than the alternative, but as I say I haven't watched the court scenes.

Just an idea.

Well, you are both saying the same thing: cover your bases. And I believe you are right.

When a judge sits as both the legal arbiter and as trier-of-fact, the only people she has looking over her shoulder are the appellate judges. Very often when a judge in that situation really wants a verdict that sticks, she will bend way over backwards to create the appearance of propriety. Besides, look at the notoriety of this case. I don't think you can judge how she feels at this point.

Tommy Monk wrote:Fighting for his life against a woman who had locked herself in a toilet????

No, in the courtroom he said 'I am fighting for my life here'.

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I am getting so f****ng sick and tired of Pistorius' whining.  Every once in a while the prosecutor shows these candid outtakes of him in real life, and he seems a vicious, callous person.  Much more like the person capable of killing in the manner described.

Given the way he is in real like, he is overplaying his po lil' me routine.  Bet it's an act he learned to play when he was first disabled.  I sure as hell don't buy it.

The rest I agree, but that in bold is really neither pleasant nor accurate, he was born disabled, has never known any different, and he sure would not have been able to do what he did if he had a 'poor little me' attitude about his disablity.   I think it is more to do with what he actually said, a way of 'fighting for his life' and he thinks it will influence.

Pray tell, why not?  When you have seen both sides of cases like these, as I have, you get a bit jaundiced.  You begin to see people's strategies, not out front, but behind the scenes.  And don't tell me that disabled people don't learn how to play on their disabilities.  These guys are just people, like you and me.

Sure he's fighting for his life.  Would that he were just as concerned about others when he was not on trial.  But from everything that has been presented, he seems just a petty, jealous, violent punk.  On top of everything else, he appears to have substantial compensatory self-esteem issues. He sure as hell doesn't get any sympathy from me.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The rest I agree, but that in bold is really neither pleasant nor accurate, he was born disabled, has never known any different, and he sure would not have been able to do what he did if he had a 'poor little me' attitude about his disablity.   I think it is more to do with what he actually said, a way of 'fighting for his life' and he thinks it will influence.

Pray tell, why not?  When you have seen both sides of cases like these, as I have, you get a bit jaundiced.  You begin to see people's strategies, not out front, but behind the scenes.  And don't tell me that disabled people don't learn how to play on their disabilities.  These guys are just people, like you and me.

Sure he's fighting for his life.  Would that he were just as concerned about others when he was not on trial.  But from everything that has been presented, he sees a petty, jealous, violent punk.  He sure as hell doesn't get any sympathy from me.

No Quill, he doesn't get any sympathy from me either. However, most people would acknowledge that in order to get his gold medal in the Paralympics, he didn't play on his disablity, he ignored it and conquered it.

it seems his version of the story is being steadily picked apart ..

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Pray tell, why not?  When you have seen both sides of cases like these, as I have, you get a bit jaundiced.  You begin to see people's strategies, not out front, but behind the scenes.  And don't tell me that disabled people don't learn how to play on their disabilities.  These guys are just people, like you and me.

Sure he's fighting for his life.  Would that he were just as concerned about others when he was not on trial.  But from everything that has been presented, he sees a petty, jealous, violent punk.  He sure as hell doesn't get any sympathy from me.

No Quill, he doesn't get any sympathy from me either.   However, most people would acknowledge that in order to get his gold medal in the Paralympics, he didn't play on his disablity, he ignored it and conquered it.    

Utter bullshit.  Half of what he put up for that medal was his disability.  Blade runners run substantially faster, and he just did well on his day.  I don't see him sweating or breaking his back for his achievement.  I think floor gymnastics are a much greater challenge.

No, he was the first disabled person to run competitively, and for that he got overmuch attention.  In keeping with someone who is used to overmuch coddling, his behavior shows he thinks he's just a little too special.  Against that background, I am convinced he murdered that poor little girl, and he thinks he'll get away with it by playing the same game.

Good grief, you don't have a clue what he had to do for it do you? I think he did it, but be buggered if I'll get so nasty that I won't acknowledge the effort he had to put in to do that.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:it seems his version of the story is being steadily picked apart ..

I noticed. Damn good prosecutor. He'll wear him down, wait and see.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:it seems his version of the story is being steadily picked apart ..

I noticed.  Damn good prosecutor.  He'll wear him down, wait and see.

he seems very aggressive, his statement about how improbable the defendants version of where things had ended up in the flat was very blunt but very accurate..

Sassy wrote:Good grief, you don't have a clue what he had to do for it do you?   I think he did it, but be buggered if I'll get so nasty that I won't acknowledge the effort he had to put in to do that.

You don't have the professional experience that I have, sassy. People who get themselves into these situations are already broken. Once you see that they are broken, it's just a matter of how much and in what direction.

You can see in his personality how he got into the mess, and how he figures he will get himself out. I'm seeing too much permissiveness in his upbringing, and a way too overprotective mother somewhere in the mix.

Of course, he could always go for the affluence defense. Maybe the poor boy wasn't brought up to realize there are consequences.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I noticed.  Damn good prosecutor.  He'll wear him down, wait and see.

he seems very aggressive, his statement about how improbable the defendants version of where things had ended up in the flat was very blunt but very accurate..

Yes, that's why I say he's very good. You gotta have some tall boots to wade through all the bullshit, and then seize upon the details that matter. He seems to be taking his time, and doing just that.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

he seems very aggressive, his statement about how improbable the defendants version of where things had ended up in the flat was very blunt but very accurate..

Yes, that's why I say he's very good.  You gotta have some tall boots to wade through all the bullshit, and then seize upon the details that matter.  He seems to be taking his time, and doing just that.

i do like the way he is encouraging those listening to see just how the defence's story is unrealistic, he is painting a picture like an artist that they cannot help but see.
he's scared to reply in fear of dropping himself further in it, it is looking very desperate for the defence..

Gd observation. That's exactly how it's done. The prosecutor is putting on pressure, but its not all adjectives and anger. He's picking through the facts and carefully drawing it all together.

Apparently he is well thought of in legal circles.

Original Quill wrote:Gd observation.  That's exactly how it's done.  The prosecutor is putting on pressure, but its not all adjectives and anger.  He's picking through the facts and carefully drawing it all together.

Apparently he is well thought of in legal circles.

you can see why, he has a clear picture in his head of what to blow up for all to see and he's doing it very cleverly, he's bouncing around on subjects going back and forth to keep him from settling on his story and showing up any changes....

Can't believe he's trying to say she wasn't screaming now....!

Original Quill wrote:Gd observation.  That's exactly how it's done.  The prosecutor is putting on pressure, but its not all adjectives and anger.  He's picking through the facts and carefully drawing it all together.

Apparently he is well thought of in legal circles.

Got to say he was masterful today - had Pistorius going round in circles and panicking, messing up his story and eventually literally speechless - he just couldn't answer. Was great listening to him squirm. Trying to make people believe that he was a few feet from the toilet door and shouting at Reeva to ring the police because there were burglars, and then that she just didn't answer at all but just stood at the door waiting to be shot. Right...

Only a complete fool would believe his story.


He murdered her in a fit of rage.



There was evidence of steroid use and on the night, heavy drinking.

Tommy Monk wrote:Only a complete fool would believe his story.


He murdered her in a fit of rage.



There was evidence of steroid use and on the night, heavy drinking.

his story is crumbling around him and the truth will be left, not good news for him...

Like I always say; when someone is telling the truth, it's spoken and has no holes, no ifs, buts and maybes....one rarely gets tangled up in their story if it's the truth.
Lies, on the other hand, take a lot of memory, filling in blanks, and imagination. This is where one will trip up, stumble and fall down their hole in silence.

Been reading through some of today's testimony and there are certainly some inconsistencies, even the Judge asked him why he was making mistakes on the stand.

i think everyone has judged him and sentenced him already .

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, that's why I say he's very good.  You gotta have some tall boots to wade through all the bullshit, and then seize upon the details that matter.  He seems to be taking his time, and doing just that.

i do like the way he is encouraging those listening to see just how the defence's story is unrealistic, he is painting a picture like an artist that they cannot help but see.
he's scared to reply in fear of dropping himself further in it, it is looking very desperate for the defence..

anyone would be i don't think someone would stand with a smile on their face , and just because he cannot answer doesn't mean he is lying and scared of dropping himself in it  

VOD(original) wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

i do like the way he is encouraging those listening to see just how the defence's story is unrealistic, he is painting a picture like an artist that they cannot help but see.
he's scared to reply in fear of dropping himself further in it, it is looking very desperate for the defence..

anyone would be i don't think someone would stand with a smile on their face , and just because he cannot answer doesn't mean he is lying and scared of dropping himself in it  

I take it you don't think he's guilty vodders?

VOD(original) wrote:i think everyone has judged him and sentenced him already .

On the evidence supplied, albeit by the media yup !   guilty  as charged. (I was going to say "as guilty as hell"  but that's another thread)  

Stephenmarra wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:i think everyone has judged him and sentenced him already .

On the evidence supplied, albeit by the media yup !   guilty  as charged. (I was going to say "as guilty as hell"  but that's another thread)  

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Mon. am.

Now he claims he was screaming, "Get the fook outta my house," to the intruder. Formerly, he said he was trying to whisper to Re'eva.

Intruder my arse. He was screaming at Re'eva. This was the argument he has been denying.

Have a bit of alibi-creep, why don't ya?

Original Quill wrote:Mon. am.

Now he claims he was screaming, "Get the fook outta my house," to the intruder.  Formerly, he said he was trying to whisper to Re'eva.

Intruder my arse.  He was screaming at Re'eva.  This was the argument he has been denying.

Have a bit of alibi-creep, why don't ya?

His story's changing by the minute. That prosecutor's really running rings round him. As for the tears and heaving sobs, these only happen when he's been caught out and needs time to think about an answer - and for the first time the prosecutor more or less suggested this today.

I must say this trial's less boring than most. It's a strange system where the defence lawyer can't interrupt and cry "objection" every two minutes. Great stuff.

Yes, this would never take place in a US or UK court.  You would hear: Objection, counsel is badgering the witness.

As I've said earlier, there is a lot more leeway when the triar-of-fact is a judge.  Judges are better able to sort through things, and discount inadmissible things.

But badgering a witness can affect the testimony.  Here, you see the judge frequently asking Pistorius if he needs a break.  At one point she even said, "...because we don't want you to get so upset that it affects your testimony."  That is the sole concern of a judge who is trying the factual as well as the legal sides of the case.

But I agree, Tess.  It certainly makes for much more action.

BTW, I believe this is the worst day for Pistorius yet. His whole story of an intruder is being torn up like a rag. This is a guy who is so used to manipulating people, that he actually thinks he can skate.

If he does skate, this case will be the next OJ Simpson. But the judge is well aware that the world is looking in. Will the headlines be: black judge seeks vindication on white defendant for apartheid; or will it be: black judge bends over backwards to coddle white defendant? M'lady is in a tough position.

I think she is not having any of his bullshit and just giving him enough rope......!

Tommy Monk wrote:I think she is not having any of his bullshit and just giving him enough rope......!

I agree. But time will tell.

I care not what race/colour the judge is, or if man or woman, only care about quality and ability.


And surely she has plenty of that to have achieved her position and respected enough to be deemed responsible/good enough to head this trial.



To me she appears to be extremely competent and well aware of the attention this trial is bringing, while at the same time remaining highly professional and totally in charge of proceedings and not drawn in to or playing to the show/media circus that surrounds them.


She seems to be quite fair in allowing stories to be heard and letting the full extent to be heard, however ridiculous some of pestorious version seems to be at times, and in a way that is allowing the story to also be seen as being into the ridiculous for all, hence my comment about enough rope.



She seems like a very experienced judge with a firm but fair, no nonsense approach, not easily fooled, and a dislike for those who try to deceive her and treat her as a fool.



I'd swap our Diane abbot or doreen Lawrence for her in a heart beat.

I'd read the majority of your post and thought how sensible and true it was.   Then you just had to add a crack about Doreen Lawrence who has done more for her community and under privileged teenagers and given them the chance to be worth while citizen than you will ever have done.   And on top of that she has retained her dignity and fought for the truth about what happened to her son, most of it while it seems as large section of the police force were actively working against her and some where even in league with the criminals..   Frankly, you are not fit to lick her boots.

Sorry Sassy, slightly misunderstood, I mean in a position of power/authority.
I am not doubting her perseverance but nothing any other parent wouldn't do.
She has already made a fortune out of it, and in my opinion, she only seems to care about blacks so bit of a racist herself really, and no better than any of the white parents of victims of racist murders who don't ever get a mention. Why is she so special? Is it cos I is black? You bet it is!
I'm praising the judge because she is good and worthy of praise, not because she is black or a woman...!

Something you lefties cannot seem to grasp, you will bend over backwards to praise some for little else than BECAUSE they are black or female etc, while ignoring better performance of others because they are not, all in the name of 'equality' mind...... how very progressive.....!

She has not made a fortune, she set up a CHARITY that helps ANY teenager, regardles of colour or creed, if they want to go into the building or architectural field (which is what her son was studying to do) and who normally wouldn't get the chance to do it. The charity also helps her whole community. And she hasn't done just what any parent would, she has gone far beyond that.

http://www.stephenlawrence.org.uk/about-us/

What the charity has achieved is beyond amazing.

I know you were praising the judge regardless of her colour, but you rather spoilt it with the crack at the end.

(I added a bit earlier before your post, don't know if you read.)



All sounds very good and all that, but you might want to look into things a bit more, money, where it came from, govt/taxpayer funding her/charity, areas operating and demographic of those helped.....