Monday 19 May 2014

Pistorius Trial: Timeline Debate

Hello.

This post is an invitation to use the comments to continue a discussion that started on a different blog.

The debate concerns the question of whether it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew who was in the bathroom when he shot 4 times through the door.

If the weight of witness evidence appears to support the defence timeline and refute the prosecution timeline, then the answer to the above question will be "No".  Contrarily, if the weight of evidence supports the prosecution timeline, then the answer may well be "Yes", although as always, reasonable doubt remains a nebulous and subjective concept and no one can be sure what Judge Masipa will do.

The main observations from the debate so far can be summarized by the following points of view:

Thoughtful:
The entire state's case hinges on whether Pistorius' version of events is true or not. His version of events is so different from the state's that there is no leeway to reconcile them. It is one or the other.

In the briefest terms:

State's case is that there were unidentified bangs around 3am, Reeva screamed from then until 3:17am when she was killed by four gunshots.

Defense case is that the shots occurred several minutes before 3:17, along with the sounds of Pistorius screaming at the intruder, and after the shots he was crying and howling while he ran around looking for Reeva, putting his legs on and finally smashing down the door at 3:17am.

These scenarios are different enough that the judge will have to come down, based on witness testimony, for one or the other.


Mrjitty:
I think the media coverage has got everyone going around in circles over matters that are not at issue in the trial.

The only issue is whether he knew Reeva was in there.

If the Judge believes he knew, then the only reasonable inference is that he intentionally shot her.

The state does not need to prove that there was a fight. That he was in a rage. We don't need to wonder why. We don't need to speculate about whether he shot involuntarily because P does not claim it.

All of the little data points in this case are only relevant in so far as they indicate where he is lying.

So for me the logical evaluation of the evidence would be

1. Is pistorious credible as a witness? NO
2. Did he shoot Reeva? NOT DISPUTED
3. Did he knowingly shoot Reeva? YES
4. Was it intentional? YES

Point 4 is inferred from the fact that he is deceiving the Court at Point 1.


Mrjitty:
The only critical issue at trial is whether the Judge finds Pistorius to be a credible witness on a single point.

Did he know she was in there.

If the judge finds P lacks credibility on this single point, then inevitably the state must succeed.

To form a proper opinion on that - you really need to have sat through Pistorius evidence in chief and X

Because as always the issue comes down to whether the witness should be believed based on how they presented in Court - not newspaper summaries.

A critical evaluation of his performance in the stand will take into account corroborating & non corroborating evidence as well as all the red flags in his X

Take for example the various witnesses re the screams that everyone is going in circles.

In his X Pistorius claimed that despite all his whispering and shouting Reeva never said anything or screamed.

Was he credible/believable in this part of his evidence? No.

Did other witnesses hear her scream? Yes - 3.

Is there reason to disbelieve those witnesses? Not really.

Could they have been mistaken? Possibly.

The Court does not actually need to resolve the inconsistencies between witnesses (which can easily & honestly arise).

The point is that we have 3 corroborating data points which indicate he is lying to go with his poor quality testimony.


Thoughtful:
The testimony is conflicting, so it's just too simple to say "Three witnesses heard Reeva screaming". Because at the very moment they heard what they heard, nearer neighbors were hearing a man's voice crying and howling loudly.

For myself, having listened to the hours of testimony, I am now convinced that in the minutes preceding 3:17, the screaming that was heard was made by Pistorius, not Reeva.

Some of the most striking moments in the trial were hearing Pistorius' next-door neighbors imitate the crying they heard.


Mrjitty:
For me you are approaching the case upside down.
The critical question is whether he knew Reeva was in there.

Thoughtful:
I strongly disagree with this statement. From a legal point of view, i.e. for the court, I think the first priority is to establish what facts occurred, and only once this step has been taken and a scenario has been accepted by the court should they proceed to infer from that scenario what was taking place inside the defendant's head.

Starting from what he knew is starting from the end in my opinion. I think that's the upside down approach.

For that reason, I am concentrating on the issue of what facts can be gleaned from the witness testimony, and in particular which of those facts are uncontrovertible and which ones are conflicting. In the latter case it will be necessary for the judge to come to a decision one way or the other.


Mrjitty:
 In chief and under X he gave a frankly incoherent account of all the screaming he was doing and critically that Reeva never made any sound. 3 witnesses contradict him directly on that point. Others support that they heard him,which actually does not necessarily contradict the other 3 at all. The Court is not required to determine who is correct - but it is a major difficulty for his version.

Thoughtful:
I think you are really wrong about this.

The witnesses who heard Pistorius crying describe this as occurring for several minutes preceding certain events that are fixed in the timeline. One neighbor says it was for several minutes before the Mini Cooper arrived at the house, which we know to have been at about 3:21. The other says it was going on for several minutes before their call to security, which we know to have been at 3:16.

Both witnesses respond to an explicit question about hearing a woman screaming, by saying that if a woman had been screaming at the same time, there is no question but that they would have heard it, but there was no such thing.

In contrast, your "3 witnesses" which are really four (the Burger-Johnson couple and the Stipp couple) all described a sound of loud screaming, that they were sure came from a woman, in the several minutes preceding the four loud bangs which they, too, all four of them, have fixed as taking place at 3:17.

Therefore there is no way that you can say that these witnesses accounts do not contradict each other. They do, and the court will be obliged to come to a decision about what really happened if they want to give a reasoned verdict.


Mrjitty:
To me it seems likely that some of the witnesses were awoken by the gunshots and thus heard only the male voice as Reeva was dead by then.


Other witnesses crucially were awake for the entire sequence.

Can you really reach your conclusion based on a witness who on their own testimony was awakened obviously after Reeva was dead?


Thoughtful:
Four of the five couples were awake before 3:17, as proven by their testimonies. Of these four, the two geographically farther couples assert that the bangs at 3:17 were preceded by a woman's screaming, the two next-door couples by a man's.
 

Mrjitty:
Does the Court need to absolutely resolve this? No.

Thoughtful:
I would say yes, certainly. Just read the Massei and Nencini reports [judge's motivations in the Amanda Knox case]. They provide coherent scenarios in which every piece of evidence fits like a puzzle piece. I can't even imagine how you would proceed to a verdict without doing this.

Piktor:
Nearby neighbors favor the defense, far away neighbors favor the prosecution. It's a draw. There is no clear version of events from this testimony.

The judge will then move to the bedroom and bathroom evidence. Here, it seems the prosecution has an advantage. But is it enough to rule intentional murder?


Mrjitty:
Wow - I am miles away from you guys.
Mrs. Nhlengethwa was awakened by a very loud bang. It was so loud she thought it might actually have been in the house.
So she was awakened at the earliest by the gunshots, and at the latest by the cricket bat - seems to me Reeva is dead by then.

Everyone agrees on hearing P later - but this witness was not awake in the moments before the gunshots and therefore perhaps not even relevant to whether Reeva screamed before the shots.

To me the critical point is you have van der Merwe & Michelle Burger who hears a woman's screams before the shots

They are not contradicted in that critical time period because the others are not awake at that time.

What am I missing?


Thoughtful:
*Prosecution theory: Reeva screamed between 3am and 3:17 and then was killed.

*Defense version: Reeva never screamed, was killed around 3am and then Pistorius screamed, cried and ended up bashing down the door at 3:17am.

Both versions cannot be true. If the prosecution convinces the judge that their version is the true one, Pistorius will go to jail without passing go or collecting $200, for the intentional murder of Reeva. If the defense convinces the judge that their version is true, then he'll be convicted of a lesser crime.

Evidence favoring the prosecution's version will be bad for Pistorius. Evidence favoring the Pistorius version will be bad for the prosecution.

Right? We agree so far, don't we?

The next-door neighbors say that Pistorius was wailing and Reeva was not screaming in the minutes before 3:17am. Ergo their evidence supports the defense version and goes against the prosecution's.

Burger and Johnson and the Stipps say they heard a woman screaming during those exact same minutes. Ergo this supports the prosecution's version.

But you cannot assert that they heard the woman scream before the shots and Mrs. Nhlengethwa heard Pistorius screaming after the shots, when both are talking about the 10 minutes or so preceding 3:17am. One or the other is right, not both. And all of these timings are completely confirmed by independent events such as calls to security.

The point is not that "Mrs. Nhlengethwa was awakened at the earliest by the gunshot and at the latest by the cricket bat so at that point Reeva was already dead." The point is to know whether Reeva was already dead nearly a quarter of an hour before 3:17am as per the defense version, or whether she was screaming until 3:17am as per the prosecution version. Therefore, as piktor says, the Nhlengethwa's evidence goes directly against the prosecution.


Piktor:
Mrjitty, you're missing the 'legal truth' part.

What Nel presented in court is enough for intentional murder as specified by law?

Sidney Morning Herald sez:

However, Captain Mangena's testimony also conceded a big part of the prosecutor's original case, agreeing the trajectory of the bullets showed Pistorius was on his stumps, as he had claimed.

This does not help the case for murder, removing part of their earlier theory for premeditation.

Senior law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, Kelly Phelps, believes the state's case is not strong, with the most crucial witnesses unable to conclusively rule out Pistorius' version of events.

It also lacks any real evidence of motive, she said.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pisto ... 35orq.html

For example one of the far away neighbors lives 177 meters from the P home. The guard at the compound was below the balcony and contradicts there was a shouting match at the time the far away neighbor says it happened, etc.

The next door neighbors contradict the prosecution's narrative after the shooting.


Mrjitty:
For me the inquiry focusses on the key issues to be determined and radiates out from there.

First the judge must isolate the key issues to be determined

The first critical fact in issue is did Pistorius know Reeva was in the toilet?

If the judge finds yes, then all other variations are not required to be determined. If no - then findings of direct or culpable homicide can still arise - but I don't deal with that here.

This is the first branch of the tree.

So the Judge will then ask, what evidence helps us to resolve this question?

Now the only evidence that speaks against him knowing is the evidence of OP himself.

There is no other evidence on this point - its a critical aspect to be clear on.

So the entire inquiry in this branch is whether the judge finds OP to be a credible witness.

This has two aspects. To what extent was he corroborated and contradicted in his evidence. And to what extent was he deceptive or misleading. Again I will ignore the numerous times he was shown to be lying/deceptive to keep this post to reasonable length ;)

Now we can look at the evidence.

A key evidence point is that Reeva was unlikely to have made any noise after the first shot.

A second key point that seems to be proven is that the cricket bat noise comes after the shots.

So it is therefore proven that the only people who could have heard Reeva are the ones awake before the shots are fired.

Your Mrs. Nhlengethwa was awoken by a loud bang and heard no other bangs.

Therefore she clearly is not a witness to the key event and irrelevant on this point.

Ditto the other near neighbours.

On the other hand E. van der Merwe is awake @ 1.56am and hears fighting

Her evidence is not contradicted by any other witness and directly contradicts OPs testimony.

So frankly I see no need to iron out all the confusion between the neighbours - and a court is not required to do that.

My key findings would be:

1. OP's testimony was clearly misleading/deceptive/dishonest on key points (eg the highway shooting, eg the fans, eg the jeans/duvet, eg the search for reeva, eg going on the balcony. Therefore OP is not a credible witness.

2. The most obvious interpretation of the facts is that they had a fight and OP shoot Reeva - this is a reasonable inference especially given finding 1. As with Knox, we don't need to know exactly why he did it.

3. That fight was heard by E. van der Merwe who was awake over an hr before the gunshots. Michelle Burger lends support to what E. van der Merwe heard before the shots. Charl Johnson supports that what Burger heard was gun shots. A Stipp I think is also incredibly damaging but i have not been through that yet. But because she was also awake for the shots, and could see the bathroom light was on - OP is dead in the water at this point.

NB: if you have fired guns like CJ - I really doubt you get confused on what they sound like.

So for me - that's it. No need for more exact findings about the others though of course the Court will work through it. But the none of the near neighbours are awake for the shooting,

Another key point about this case is burden of proof.

There is at least some initial onus on OP to establish sufficient facts upon which his defence relies, before the prosecution must deal with it.

Otherwise the accused need only raise any old story (a la Knox) and the prosecution is expected to disprove it

Common sense has to prevail in this case just as with Knox

OP did not present anything close to a credible account of events.

To find otherwise is to start to set the bar for murder impossibly high IMO.

Anyway - lets see what happens.


Thoughtful:
Since the experts from both sides all agree that the gunshots came before the cricket bat smashed down the door, the prosecution's hands are tied. There is no way they can assert that the cricket bat blows came before the gunshots.

This leads to two problems for their scenario. Firstly, they need to explain what the earlier bangs were, since there were undoubtedly two sets of bangs and they claim that the second sets were the shots. They have made no pronouncement on this yet, but they will have to in their summary, otherwise their scenario will simply be too lacunary to explain what happened. I've heard there is a dented metal plate in the bathroom. Maybe they'll say that Pistorius hit that with the cricket bat in a rage? Who knows?

Secondly, they need to explain how he could fire four shots at 3:17, call Stander at 3:19 and then immediately make two other phone calls, put on his legs, batter down the door, get Reeva out and carry her downstairs all before Carice Stander entered the house before 3:25. It may be possible, but it seems awfully fast.

There's also the issue of when he shouted "help, help, help" from the balcony, a cry heard by about five people and placed by all of them except one very definitely before the 3:17 bangs (one witness placed that cry for help after the bangs). You have to wonder why he would have done that before going to the bathroom to intentionally shoot Reeva.

I have to hear the prosecution summary before I come to a final opinion, but right now I cannot see how the scenario they are sketching out is going to stand up to the evidence.
Mrjitty:
The prosecution does not need to prove a scenario - only the Mens Rea - that is what closing will focus on.

Nel will leverage each data point, inconsistency and evasion to show how OP lacks credibility.

If the judge finds OP is not a credible witness then there is no evidence to support the defence's version of events - and OP gets convicted of murder.


Thoughtful:
This makes no sense to me. If the judge is convinced that Pistorius is not credible, in the sense that he is known to have lied, then why do you go on to say that there is no evidence to support the defence's version? There is still plenty of evidence coming from other witnesses. And even if he is a person who is known to tell lies, you cannot conclude as a certainty that he is lying now, especially if there is witness testimony supports his version.

It seems to me that proving that he has told certain lies under other circumstances (for instance about firing the gun in the restaurant) cannot be used to prove that he is lying about the events that took place when he shot Reeva. That would be like convicting someone for a crime on the grounds that he has committed similar crimes in the past. You can't do that; you usually can't even bring evidence of similar past crimes to court. To prove that he is lying about the events of Reeva's murder, you need to study all of the witness evidence concerning those events.

Speaking purely legally, I cannot believe that you can be right about this.


Mrjitty:
I never made the arguments above. You are ignoring the critical aspect of how a Court assesses the credibility of the accused's testimony. If you are shown to be lying in the stand at multiple points during your testimony then the Court may well prefer other witnesses. The Court is entitled to make a general assessment of credibility and apply it.

Of course if the Court finds he lied about the restaurant incident (in Court as well don't forget!) - that is not proof he lied about the murder. But it is proof he is willing to lie to the Court. Nel will show multiple instances of lying to the Court. Not proof of murder but credibility shattered. The problem with shattered credibility is the OP is the only one bringing the evidence of the Reeva/Intruder mistake to Court.

Rather than go round in circles I will simply say this.

In order to explain away Reeva's screams and the sounds, OP had to bring the gunshots forward in time.

The dynamic of the prosecution strategy has been to nail down OP to a firm narrative - Nel could not know the exact content until Evidence in Chief and X was complete.

The time of death is what sinks OP.

Once you realise why Nel is correct about the later time for the shots - then it is clear the murder went down exactly as the witnesses heard it.

OP did not spend somewhere between 5-15mins searching for Reeva / breaking the door.

She came swiftly out of the toilet in order for him to see her breathing and to generate the blood spatter.

Of course he could be lying about the breathing - but that doesn't really help does it ;)


beans:
As I recall, there was blood on the end of the cricket bat and also damage and blood on the bedroom wall (I think above the headboard). A cricket bat hitting a person might very well make less noise than one hitting a door. Nothing much has been said about damage/blood (and a confession, I don't know if it was one or the other or both) to the wall above the bed in the bedroom. Which is a little surprising since that seems to be indicative of a fight of some kind unless Pistorius in his grief starting beating on the bedroom wall.

I don't recall where the 3:17 time figure came from. But who looks at a clock exactly when they hear gunshots or a man sounding like a woman screaming in the middle of the night. I wonder about the precision of the timing on anyone's part.


Thoughtful:
Only one witness actually looked at the clock (although I think I would in those circumstances. I always do when something wakes me up at night). But several people called security, and the times of their calls are on the phone logs. Therefore the statement "while I was on the phone I heard loud bangs" or "just as I finished the phone call and walked out onto my balcony I heard the bangs" places them very precisely.

beans:
There has been no discussion of how sound carries and how this might affect what various witnesses heard. I live in an area with woods and a small stream valley with fairly high hills on either side. In varying conditions, sounds may seem closer or farther away or may seem to come from entirely different directions than their origin (which can only be pinpointed if you walk around the yard). The people who live at a further distance, might, if the windows in Pistorius' house were opened and faced their direction might very well be able to hear more than the closely adjacent neighbors if P's windows didn't face windows in the adjacent neighbors houses or if their windows were closed. And the point that some neighbors were awake prior to the shooting and thus heard gunshots when the others don't appear to, seems to me to be a very important point. There were two noise events other than screaming that morning, gunshots and hits with the cricket bat. Why are the folks that heard only one more credible than those that heard both when the woman's screams would have come before the second event (the cricket bat)?

Thoughtful:
They are all credible, but it is obvious that some heard only the first set of bangs and others heard only the second. That is not unreasonable in fact.

Only two witnesses claim to have been awake before the first set of bangs [E van der Merwe and A Stipp]. Of these, one heard a woman's voice from 2am to 3am, the other did not.

Five people heard the first set of bangs (including one husband who did not testify) [the van der Merwes, the Stipps, Mrs Nhlengethwa]. Of these, one couple also heard the second set of bangs (open window but farther away) [the Stipps] and the other three people did not (even the one who had closed windows but much closer). The same couple [Stipps] says that the first set of bangs were followed by a woman's screaming and the other three say that the bangs were followed by a man crying. It is clear that all the witnesses are talking about the same bangs here, the ones that were close to 3am.

Two witnesses [Burger, Johnson] heard the second set of bangs and not the first set. They were awoken by the sound of what they heard as a woman screaming and then they went out onto their balcony and heard the bangs at 3:17.

Putting all this information together it seems to me that one conclusion that has to be drawn is that the gunshots were the earlier set of bangs. Otherwise it seems to me that it would be impossible for the next-door neighbors to be awoken by cricket bat blows through sleep and closed windows, but then not to hear gunshots, which are much louder, still through closed windows but now wide awake.

Actually, there was some discussion about how sound carries out there. Apparently it can carry extremely far, because they're on the very edge of the city. The cricket bat blows are quite loud, so if sound will travel far in that area, it is not surprising that people standing on their balconies outside listening intently and facing exactly in the direction of the bathroom would have heard them, but people facing in a different direction with closed windows could easily not hear them. But the gunshots would have been impossible for wide-awake people at 25 meters to miss, windows or no windows. I can't see any way not to draw this conclusion.


Anthony:
I agree that proving he lied about previous incidents cannot be used to determine guilt in this case.

Mrjitty:
It's not merely proof of him lying in the past - there are multiple proofs of him lying in his testimony.

A finding that OP is not a credible witness is not proof of murder.

However the problem for OP is that his defence hinges on his own testimony.

For OP to have any chance of success, the Judge must accept as a real possibility, that he did not know Reeva was in the toilet.

If there is insufficient reliable evidence to even establish it as a credible possibility - then OP is finished - even before we get started with the neighbours.

The prosecution doesn't have to disprove every fantasy the defence comes up with.

I would argue OP has not even established a credible evidential foundation for the belief of an intruder.
It's a neat trick to be shot through the head around 3am - stop breathing immediately - then be throwing off blood spatter in the bedroom and downstairs after 3.17 let alone be still trying to breathe so you can die in your boyfriends arms ;)

No wonder in his script OP changes the gunshots to more like 3.12 - at a time precisely no one heard them.

Whoops!


Profile

Saturday 17 May 2014

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines (Defense Scenario Interview)

In this post we're going to reproduce an interview with someone who believes that Pistorius is telling the truth, reacting in the first place to the contradictions with witness testimony, and in the second place to certain aspects of his story which may appear unlikely.

Q: Pistorius describes the shouts and screams between the two sets of bangs as all coming from him.  His description does not resemble the panicked, continuous and intensifying screaming of a woman described by witnesses.

A: Those screams were described by witnesses at quite some distance away.  The next-door neighbors, who were much nearer, describe a man's howling, crying voice during the same time period (minutes preceding 3:17) and no woman's voice during that time.  I believe that the nearer neighbors heard more accurately than the farther ones, so I believe that the farther neighbors took Pistorius' crying and wailing for a woman when it was really him.

Q: Pistorius describes the shots (first set of bangs) and subsequent activity as taking place in the darkness.  He does not say at what time he turned the lights on.  But Anette Stipp saw light in the bathroom at the time of the first set of bangs which she places before or at 3:02am and continuously through to the second set of bangs (3:17am).

A: Pistorius stated in his testimony that he does not remember turning the bathroom lights on, but at a certain point they were on.  However, he is sure that he shot in the dark.  I think that in fact he shot, and then hardly consciously flicked the lights on to see what he had done, then hurried back to his bedroom where it was still extremely dark.  I think that Anette Stipp heard the bangs, and that the lights came on during the moment it took her to sit up in bed and focus on the houses across the green so that she saw them at once.

Q: Pistorius states that he shouted from the balcony for help between the two sets of bangs.  This contradicts Johan Stipp's testimony of hearing the shouts after the second set of bangs.

A: But this matches the testimony of at least three other witnesses. Burger and Johnson heard the cry of "help, help, help"  before the set of bangs at 3:17am.  Mrs. Nhlengethwa heard the cry of "help, help, help" before her husband called security at 3:16.   I believe that Johan Stipp made a mistake and the cry of "help, help, help" occurred before 3:17.  In fact, I would say that this is established as a certainty by the testimony of Mrs. Nhlengethwa, who heard "help, help, help" before her husband made the phone call to security that was clocked at 3:16.

Q: Maybe she is the one making a mistake.

A: During her cross-examination, the prosecutor tried to make out that she had been woken up by the 3:17 shots and that she had heard "help, help, help" subsequently, so after 3:17.  But she responded that this was certainly not the case.  The bang that woke her occurred several minutes before her husband's 3:16 call to security.

Q: Pistorius says the first set of bangs was made by the gunshots, but there were four gunshots and Anette Stipp heard only three bangs in the first set. She was lying awake and was certain that she did not miss any previous bang in her sleep.

A: I think it is possible that she was dozing and missed the first one of the four shots.  It is not always easy to say whether you were awake or dozing.  Alternatively, she may have miscounted the shots in quick succession, which is also an easy mistake to make.  Indeed almost all the other witnesses had different memories about just how many shots there were.

Q: As for the bangs at 3:17, Michell Burger is certain that she heard four bangs and only three bat marks were found on the door, indicating only three blows.

A: There were other marks on the door that were not really investigated by the experts. 

Q: Several witnesses do not believe the sounds they heard at 3:17am were made by a cricket bat rather than by a gun because they were in such quick succession.

A: It's possible to hit a door with a bat very quickly if you don't fully swing it back between blows.  I myself would have used the bat like a battering ram, although that is not what Pistorius did.  Also, he is an athlete with a powerful upper body.  It's normal that ordinary people would not make the same movements with the same speed as he would.

Q: Why would Burger and Johnson have heard the cricket bat blows at 3:17 but not the earlier gunshots which would have been much louder?

A: They were sleeping, so the gunshots may have been what woke them up.  They were standing on the balcony listening attentively at 3:17 which explains why they heard better.  Mrs. Nhlengethwa was awoken by what she heard as one very loud bang several minutes before her husband's 3:16 call to security, and she did not hear any bangs at 3:17 at all.

Q: Why was the duvet found on the floor when Pistorius says it was on the bed? Do you believe police moved everything in the room?

A: It is a fact proven by the photographs that several objects were moved by the police. However, Pistorius may have also wrenched the duvet off the bed when feeling for Reeva and flung it on the floor in the pitch darkness and just not remember doing that.  If that was the moment when, as he claims, it hit him that it might have been Reeva in the toilet, he would be overwhelmed by horror and panic then.

Q: How do you explain that Reeva never made a sound or let Pistorius know where she was during the whole time that he was screaming to the intruder to get out and screaming to her to call the police?

A:  Pistorius' own explanation is that as she was in the bathroom opening the window for a bit of air, she heard him suddenly shout at an intruder.  She must have thought that in closing the balcony door, Pistorius had found an intruder on the balcony or in the bedroom.  So she locked herself into the toilet for safety.  As she heard him edge slowly down the hall towards her, still screaming, she would have thought that Pistorius was backing away from the intruder and maybe the intruder was advancing, and she would have kept very still so as not to alert the intruder to her presence.

Q: But why wouldn't she have called the police then?  She had her phone in the bathroom with her.  Also, why do you think she had her phone with her?

A: The toilet light was broken.  She probably took her phone with her to light her way to and in the bathroom.  She might not have called police because she didn't dare to make a noise, or because she wasn't sure that Pistorius was facing a real intruder (once before he had gone into combat mode because of a washing machine making noise), or because she was frozen.

TO BE CONTINUED

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 9 (Carice Stander)

Carice Stander

House at 212 Summerbrooke Close, 531 meters from Pistorius’ house.

Her bedroom balcony gave straight view onto the bathroom side of his house.

Woke up from her dog barking in her bedroom.  She heard other dogs in the neighborhood area also barking; her sliding door was open onto the balcony and her blinds were pulled all the way up, because it was hot.

She was lying in bed thinking that her dogs would run out onto the balcony and bother the neighbors, so she thought she had better get up and close the sliding doors.  Just as she was about to get up and do that, she heard somebody shouting  “help, help, help”.

She lay frozen in her bed, the dogs barked even more.  She thought “I need to get up”.  She got up to close her sliding door, scared that someone would climb up to her balcony and come into the bedroom.  She stood by the sliding door and let down the blinds, then listened at the partly open door. So she closed the sliding door and latched it and closed the blinds, then got into bed, very frightened.  Her dogs were still very restless.   She didn’t know what to do.  The dogs were very agitated.  She tried to calm them down.  She lay down and pulled the covers over herself but was very scared.  She didn’t know how to help the person who needed help.  She was thinking “Oh my gosh, how am I going to sleep now?  How does one fall back to sleep after hearing something like that?”  But she ended up settling back in.

Then she saw a commotion in her parents room and saw that the light went on and they were awake.  She went in and told them that she had heard the shouts for help. They told her that Oscar had phoned her father.

There is considerably more to her testimony as she was the first on the scene, but we’re stopping at this point since our interest is in the timeline.  There is one fixed point on this timeline, which is that the call from Pistorius to Stander was made at 3:19:50.





Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 8 (Rika Motshuane)

Rika Motshuane 

Her house is to the right of his house from them front (street) view.
So to the left of his house when looking straight at the famous bathroom window. 

She was woken by the sound of a man crying that sound like cries of pain.   
She woke up her husband. 
“Did you hear?”  “Yes I heard but I thought I was dreaming.” 
She told him the crying was real and panicking. 
She wondered if one of the security guards had been shot.   
There were dogs barking.  She felt panic.

The crying was very loud and very close. 
She even thought it might be inside their house. 
Asked to imitate the crying, she gave two enormous squealing howls. 

After that, she and her husband saw a Mini Cooper arrive (Carice Stander’s).
They then went back to bed.   
Then she heard another car arrive and looked out the window and it was the security bakkie.   
She again went back to bed.

She guesses that she heard the crying for the first time about 5-10 minutes, max 10 minutes before the arrival of the Mini.

She heard no bangs.

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 7 (Michael and Eontle Nhlengethwa)


Michael and Eontle Nhlengethwa: house to the left of Pistorius facing front door

His bedroom is located at about 25 meters from Pistorius’ bedroom balcony, facing out on the same side as Oscar’s bathroom window, to the back of the house over a green.  

The windows and blinds were closed.  The blinds are wooden blinds that close horizontally.
Mr. Nhlengethwa and his wife went to bed at around 22:00-23:00.  

Mrs. Nhlengethwa was awakened by a very loud bang.  It was so loud she thought it might actually have been in the house.
She woke up her husband.  

He went to his daughter’s and son's rooms and checked the doors to see if they were still locked.
They always locks the kids’ doors when they go to bed.
They always leave some faint lights on in the upstairs hall at night.
He then went to check other room and doors around the house.   
He found nothing.
He went back to the bedroom and said “There’s nothing in the house, so it means it’s outside”.
He tried to peer through the crack in the blinds, but saw nothing special.

Then they heard a man crying very loud. 
Mrs. Nhlengethwa imitated this crying with an extremely loud howl.
She described it as high-pitched but definitely a male voice.
"This was not normal crying but crying from being in danger, needing help."  
"The cry that we heard was a person desperate for help.  Probably in danger.

They "went into shock mode", knew something was very wrong. 
They thought it was something had happened to the security guard outside or to a neighbor.
At that moment they were not sure where the voice was coming from.

While peeking through the blinds, he did not turn the bedroom light on, because he did not like the idea that a criminal outside could notice it and think “there’s someone looking through the blinds at me”.

Mrs. Nhlengethwa stated were words in the crying, “please, no, please, no”. 
The crying continued on and on.
Mrs. Nhlengethwa also heard a man's voice shouting loudly "Help, help, help".
Mr. Nhlengethwa did not hear this.  (May have been checking out the house at that point.)

Mr. Nhlengethwa said to his wife “I should go out”.
She said “I don’t allow you to go out there’s no way”. 
So he said “if something’s happening to my neighbor I can’t just sit here and relax”.
So they agreed that he should phone security.

He called at 3:16:30 but it was engaged. 
He dialed again at 3:16:36 and made a call that lasted 44 seconds.

He said “I’m Michael, I’m at 287, there’s a man near here desperate for help, please come this way and quickly check the homes around me.”

He couldn't say whether there was crying during the phone call, but after the phone call there was still crying.   

He then checked through the windows and heard the sound of a car.   
He thought it must be security and checked through the blinds.
He saw the "bakkie" (van) from security parked across the green at the back of his house where the bedroom window looked out.
The security people were talking to another neighbor from the balcony (the Stipps).

He said to his wife, “There’s a problem in that house”. 
But after a minute the bakkie went out of the driveway and up the street to the left.
It was followed by the white car from that house (Stipp driving to Pistorius' house).

Mr. Nhlengethwa realized the problem was not at that house, but closer to his.
He went into a study that faces the street front of the house and kept watching.
He saw the cars park, and said “It’s in Oscar’s house or the one opposite him”.   
He decided that at this point it would be safe for him to go out.
He went up to the bedroom, told his wife that it was Oscar or the house opposite, and that he can’t just go back to sleep, now he has to go out.   
He got dressed and went over to Oscar’s house.

When he went out, he switched on the ground floor lights of his house. But there were already dim lights on upstairs.

He started walking to Oscar’s house. 
He saw the bakkie and the white car and heard the crying that was still going on, with a somewhat lower voice, but still crying.   
He saw Mr. Stander in the street there and talked to him. 
Asked “is Oscar okay”?   
Mr. Stander said “he’s okay but go check yourself”.   
He went to the front door and saw Oscar kneeling next to the lady who was lying on the floor, he was just crying. 
The gentleman (Stipp) was inside the house and Oscar was asking him to help, pleading with him.   
The situation was bad and Mr. Nhlengethwa could not even bear to step farther into the house or to see what he was seeing.   
He saw Oscar saying “please help, help me, help me”.   
The lady was still lying there.
Then paramedics arrived with a stretcher.   
Mr. Nhlengethwa helped them go in with the stretcher. 
He helped them open the second panel of the front door which was similar to his own.   
He stayed about 10 minutes longer.
There was nothing he could do so he went back home.


Tuesday 8 April 2014

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 6 (Pistorius)

Pistorius has now given his own testimony on the events of that night.

He does not give any specific times for the events, but here is their order as he describes them.  Here is a summary of his statements on this subject.

When he and Reeva went to bed, he locked the bedroom door and readied the cricket bat near the case of sunglasses and his gun near his bed.

He went to bed on the left-hand side, which was unusual for him but he had a shoulder injury.

He left the balcony door open and the fans running on it.  He did not mean to leave them in this position all night, but Reeva said she would bring in the fans and close and lock the door, and he fell asleep.  It was between 9 and 10pm.

At some point he woke up and saw that the balcony doors were still open and the fans still running.  Reeva asked him if he couldn't sleep.

He went to the balcony, got the fans, closed and locked the sliding door, probably drew the blinds (not sure) but did draw the curtains.  They are made of blackout material.  It was pitch dark with only the light from the LED amplifier visible.

Heard the sound of a window opening in the bathroom.  Was terrified of seeing people suddenly burst into the bedroom from the passage leading to the bathroom.

Hurried on his stumps in the pitch darkness, feeling his way to the bed, took his gun.

Whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police.

Then rushed down the passage to the bathroom on his stumps screaming at the intruders to get out, screaming to Reeva to get to safety.

Heard the toilet door slam.  Was now certain there were intruders.

Moved forward to bathroom entrance, shuffled along left-hand wall on the tiles, pointing gun in front of him.  No light, but saw that window was open. Wondered if they had entered using ladders.

Suddenly started screaming for Reeva to call police.  Felt terrified to see someone come out of toilet or through window and attack him.  Suddenly started shooting through door.

Walked back to bedroom holding gun, still shouting and shouting for Reeva.  Spoke to her in room.  Realized there was never any answer.  Felt for her in bed, then on the floor, then behind the curtains.  Always pointing gun towards corridor to bathroom.  "There was not much light but I could make out the passage".  There was a LED from the amplifier, it must have shed a tiny bit of light.

Only then began to realize that it might have been her in the toilet.  Went back to bathroom, tried to open toilet door, couldn't.  Went back to bedroom, opened curtains and doors, ran onto balcony and shouted for help.

Put on prosthetics.  Went back to bathroom, tried to kick door with them but didn't get anywhere.  Does not remember switching on light but remembers that at this point, light was on. Went back to bedroom and got cricket bat, hit door with it three times.  The first time it hit the frame.  He felt the shock of the bat in his hands.  The second time it made a little hole.  At that point he just wanted to see into the toilet to see if it was Reeva.  The third blow took down a whole panel.  He wrenched it out of the door and threw it back into the bathroom.  He leaned over the horizontal partition in the middle of the door and felt for the key.  It wasn't in the door.  He saw it on the floor, was able to lean through and grab it, unlocked the door and went in.  He stayed there crying over Reeva for "he doesn't know how long".  According to this testimony, the cricket bat blows would have occurred at 3:17am and the call to Stander at 3:19:03, so it would not have been more than a couple of minutes.  He placed the call to Netcare (for an ambulance) at 3:20:05.  At 3:21:33 he phoned security, a call lasting 9 seconds.  He does not recall this but sees it on the cell phone record.

He then opened 1/2 of the bedroom door (unlocked it), ran downstairs, opened the front door, ran back up and "ran into" the other 1/2 of the bedroom door to make a wider passage, it didn't give, he unlatched the bottom latch (there's also a top latch) but then the door opened.

CONTRADICTIONS WITH WITNESS TESTIMONY:
Pistorius describes the shouts and screams between the two sets of bangs as all coming from him.  His description does not resemble the panicked, continuous and intensifying screaming of a woman described by witnesses.

Pistorius describes the shots (first set of bangs) and subsequent activity as taking place in the darkness.  He does not say at what time he turned the lights on.  But Anette Stipp saw light in the bathroom at the time of the first set of bangs (3am) and continuously through to the second set of bangs (3:17am).

Pistorius states that he shouted from the balcony for help between the two sets of bangs.  This contradicts Johan Stipp's testimony of hearing the shouts after the second set of bangs, but matches Burger and Johnson's testimony; they both mention the cry of "help, help, help" shortly before the set of bangs at 3:17am.

Pistorius says the first set of bangs was made by the gunshots, but there were four gunshots and the Stipps heard only three bangs in the first set: in particular, Anette Stipp was lying awake and was certain that she did not miss any previous bang in her sleep.

Pistorius says that the second set of bangs was made by him hitting the door 3 times with the cricket bat, but Burger and van der Merwe heard four shots, Johnson "five or six".  The Stipps heard "three" and "two or three" but were talking to each other and into the phone at the time.  These witnesses also all agree that the shots were very close together, in rapid succession.  Michell Burger, the most precise of the witnesses in terms of description of the shots, describes one, then a tiny pause, then three extremely fast.  Charl Johnson as well as other witnesses stresses the impossibility of banging 3 times with a cricket bat so fast.


Saturday 5 April 2014

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines (Prosecution summary)

The prosecution has closed its case in the Oscar Pistorius trial.  No more witnesses will be called for the prosecution.

Curiously, they have not yet made a complete statement of their case. In the US, a full description of the way events occurred would probably have been given at the opening of the trial, followed by witness depositions confirming the various points.  However, in the Pistorius trial, it feels like prosecutor Gerrie Nel is holding his cards close to his chest, waiting for the closing arguments.

Pistorius defense lawyer Barry Roux made certain observations about the state's case to which Prosecutor Nel objected.  With seeming reluctance, he said that it was not the state's case that Pistorius had been wearing his prosthetic legs during the shooting, and that it was the state's case that Reeva Steenkamp was killed by a series of four shots fired at 3:17am.  He did not let slip any hint of the state's case concerning the location in time of the cricket bat blows against the door, or volunteer any information about his interpretation of the three bangs heard by some witnesses at 3:00 or 3:02am.  So at this point we don't know the state's contentions with respect to these events.

Another important missing piece of the puzzle is the testimony of several more of Pistorius' neighbors.  Estelle van der Merwe's husband has not testified. Of principal importance are the Nhlengethwas, a couple living to the house just to the left of Pistorius'.  This was the house in which neighbor Anette Stipp from across the green (facing the two houses) saw all the lights on in the top story at 3:02am.  Security guard Pieter Baba testified that he received a call from Mr. Nhlengethwa at 3:16am, just before the call from Mr. Stipp.  These witnesses were not called by the prosecution, nor was Pistorius' gardener, who lived on his property, nor his neighbors to the right, nor some other, farther neighbors who appear on the full witness list of 107 people.  At least some of them will probably appear for the defense.

Before that happens, let's make a comparative analysis of the timeline statements made by the five neighbors who testified for the prosecution.

1:56am: Estelle van der Merwe heard sounds of loud arguing.  Covered her head with a pillow. Sounds continued for an hour.  Mainly heard one voice, a woman's voice. 

3:02am (but could be about 3 minutes earlier if clock is really fast): Stipps (72 meters away) hear three loud bangs that they take for gunshots.

Moments later (shortly after 3:00am) loud and continuous sounds of a woman's terrified screaming are heard by the Stipps, by Michell Burger and Charl Johnson (177 meters away).
This continued for several minutes, and the Stipps and Burger and Johnson also heard a man's voice shouting.
Burger and Johnson describe screams as "increasingly terrified, reaching a climax".
Anette Stipp thought they were "coming closer".
All say they will never forget the terrible screams.
Burger and Johnson heard the man shout "help, help, help".

3:15:51: Stipp calls Silver Woods security, 16 second call, rings but is not answered.  Roux and Oldwage dispute this, saying "you did get through".  Stipp says no, he would not have called the other numbers if he had. Anette Stipp recalls her husband saying no one answered.  Stipp unsuccessfully calls 10111 (police).

3:16am: Johnson calls wrong security number, then runs back out to balcony.

3:16am: Mr. Nhlengethwa calls Silver Woods security (Pieter Baba).

3:16-3:17am: Stipp gets through to Silver Woods security (Pieter Baba). 

3:17am: Gunshots.
Van der Merwe heard "four shots in quick succession" but gave the time as around or after 3am.
Burger heard four shots with a short pause after the first one and three in quick succession.
Johnson heard "a volley of shots, five or six shots".
Anette Stipp (on the threshold between balcony and bedroom) heard three shots in quick succession.
Johan Stipp (on the phone) heard "two or three shots".

3:17am: The Stipps, Burger and Johnson all stated that the screaming stopped after the last shot or faded away with the last shot.
Johan Stipp heard the man's voice shout "help, help, help" after the shots.

3:19:50: Pistorius called Mr. Stander.

3:21:33: Pistorius called security guard Pieter Baba (only cried, didn't speak).


SUMMARY:  Every interpretation seems to contradict some pieces of the testimony, although the testimonies together do not contradict each other very much. One clear contradiction is that Burger and Johnson placed the man's cry of "help, help, help" before the shots and Johan Stipp placed the cries after the shots. Burger's memory of this seems very clear.  She connects this with her belief that a couple was being attacked, a man shot in front of his wife. Knowing later that it was Pistorius who killed Reeva, she wonders if the cries of "help" might have been made in mockery. 

The quarrel from 2am to 3am is testified to only by van der Merwe.
The first set of three bangs is testified to only by the Stipps.
The lights on/open window in the bathroom is testified to only by the Stipps.
The dimmer light in the toilet window is testified to only by Anette Stipp.

Van der Merwe identified four bangs, although she doesn't know the exact time. She stated that they were followed by silence, then crying (not screams). 

Four witnesses concur on several minutes of increasing screaming by a woman's voice with a man's voice also heard (the fifth, van der Merwe, heard sounds of arguing), followed by a volley of shots.

It is common cause (i.e. accepted by both sides) that there were exactly four shots made at a single time.

The defense appears to present the following timeline: The shots occurred at 3am; Pistorius' home was in pitch darkness at the time, the Stipps heard only three because they were awoken from sleep; all the sounds of screaming, shouting and crying were made by Pistorius in the minutes after the shooting as he called Reeva, couldn't find her, realized what had happened, put on his legs and got his cricket bat. The bangs at 3:17am were made by the cricket bat hitting the bathroom door as he beat it down.

Accepting this scenario would  require believing that swinging a cricket bat could make sounds in extremely quick succession (described as "bangbangbang").  This was explicitly contradicted by some witnesses, particularly Johnson who said "there would be no time to reload the bat". It would require believing that Pistorius screams like a woman, and that all witnesses who thought they heard simultaneous female and male voices are wrong. It would require belief that Burger and Johnson at 177 meters heard a cricket bat did not hear earlier gunshots.  It would contradict certain parts of the testimony of the Stipps, such as: that Anette Stipp was awake before the first set of bangs and there were definitely only three, that they heard simultaneous voices, that the bathroom window was lit.  It would contradict the testimony of the expert (Vermeulen) who examined the door and concluded that the shots and cricket bat blows were all made by Pistorius without his prosthetic legs.  However he only said that it was uncomfortable to hit the door with the bat exactly on the marks when standing upright, not that it was impossible.  It also requires accepting that Reeva remained silently in the toilet, holding her phone, but did not either identify herself to Pistorius or call police as he was repeatedly instructing her to. 

The prosecution might present the case that the 3am bangs were the cricket bat hitting the door.  Various blog commentators have assumed this. But it would contradict the expert's testimony that the cricket bat hit the door after the shots. If Reeva were locked in the toilet at 3am already it would contradict the clarity and loudness of the screams. It might also contradict the fact that Anette Stipp saw dim light through the toilet window, which could indicate that the door to the bathroom was open.  (It could also be Reeva's cell phone, but would such a faint light be visible from far away?) It would also suggest a contradiction with the fact that Reeva was standing in front of the door when she was shot.  She might have been, but if she were terrified it would be more likely that she would take cover on or behind the toilet bowl.  Also, one of the blows from the cricket bat knocked a hole in the door so that one could wrench out a panel and reach in and unlock it, which is what Pistorius at some point actually did. So if he hit the door with the bat at 3am it seems unlikely that he would have shot through it at 3:17am.  This scenario does not seem convincing.

The prosecution could also assert that the sounds at 3am were unidentified bangs. Is it possible that Pistorius fired his gun out of the open window to the balcony, and then reloaded it? This may have been during a quarrel (viz. sounds heard by van der Merwe). Reeva began screaming; Pistorius shouted back at her and they quarrelled for several minutes; she ran into the toilet and locked the door for self-protection, and at 3:17 he shot four times through the door and killed her. He then shouted for help out the window and telephoned; he banged down the door (sounds unheard by neighbors) while waiting for help to arrive, then put on his prosthetic legs and carried Reeva downstairs.

This would contradict less testiomony: it would agree with the testimony that the screams were loud and unmuffled, that some dimmer light could be seen through the toilet window through the screaming (i.e. light from the bathroom, if the toilet door was open; the light in the toilet was apparently not working), and the testimony from the forensic pathologist that she was standing in front of the door facing it at the first shot, if she were actually locking it.

Maybe the defense will call other neighbors as witnesses and some further facts will be established.


Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 5 (A. Stipp)

Anette Stipp (married to Johan Stipp, direct view from 72 meters to Pistorius home)


Was lying awake in bed with the flu and a cough.
Leaned over her husband to look at bedside clock.
Saw 3:02am but clock was 3-4 minutes fast.
Suddenly heard three loud bangs, sat up on the edge of the bed.
Asked husband what they were, he said “gunshots”.
She did not doubt it as she had already heard gunshots in the past. 
She was fully alert and asserted that she could not have been sleeping through a previous shot.
She can see Pistorius' bathroom and toilet windows from her bed.
She can also see Pistorius' neighbor's house.
She saw bright lights in Pistorius' bathroom window.
It seemed to her that the left-hand pane of the triple slider was open.
She also saw light, albeit less bright, in the toilet window.
(Lawyer asserts bathroom light did not function.)
She saw that the whole top story of the neighbor's house was lit.
These lights stayed on all through the subsequent activity.
Barely moments after the three bangs, the screaming started.
It was a female voice (100% sure) and continuous, not separate secreams.
She got up and went to the small balcony that she can see out onto from her bed,
to see if she could tell where the screams were coming from. 
She heard a female voice screaming and screaming but with no words.
The screaming sounds were not muffled, but loud and clear. 
(Lawyer hints that this indicate the screams were coming through bathroom open window, not in locked toilet.)
After a few moments on the smaller balcony with her husband, they went through the room to a larger balcony.  
The screaming seemed to be coming nearer.
She thought maybe the woman was coming down the street.
She said to her husband "It must be a family murder".
He replied that then he should go and help as there might be children involved.
He went in and began calling security on the phone while pulling on clothes.
His first call to security was not answered.
(Lawyer claims that this is an error: it was answered.  Contradiction?)
He tried 10111 police number.
Then he called security again. 
During this time, Anette was talking to him, telling him what numbers to try.
The screaming was going on continuously.
After some minutes, she turned to go back into the bedroom.
As she was standing on the threshold she saw the time on the clock: 3:17am.
At this point she heard a man also screaming: two voices together.
She said "There's also a man screaming now."
Then she heard three more bangs in rapid succession.
She could not tell the difference between these sounds and the previous
sounds, also three in rapid succession.  
She and her husband thought they were all gunshots.
She has heard gunshots before.
Her husband told her to get inside because they didn't know where the shots were coming from.
She knows that the first sounds were only three bangs in the silence.
But for the second sounds, she says that she may have missed the first bang
because she was calling to her husband about phone numbers.
Once the man’s voice started, she heard both voices at different pitches at the same time.   
The woman’s screaming was continuous.

On Feb. 21 she was awoken by sound tests of loud arguments at 3am.   
Could not distinguish man or woman's voices, but said there was no sound of screaming like what she heard on Feb. 14. 
She thought it was a sound test (she was correct).
On March 18, 2014, she was awoken by the sound of a man screaming.
She said it sounded like a man's voice screaming at a higher pitch and a lower pitch.
She thought it was another sound test (she was again correct).
She again says it did not resemble what she heard at all. 
Man's voice, and separate, not continuous screams.
Lawyer suggests (but does not state) that a man and a woman screamed in the sound tests.
Witness seems very unconvinced.  Actual facts not stated.

On the morning of Feb. 14 she still didn’t know who it was.
She did know from her husband that a man had killed his girlfriend.  
She wrote on her morning chat group that the thing she would never forget was the screaming.   
Then her maid came in.  
The maid slept on the ground floor at the back of the house.
The maid said that she had heard crying, first thought it was a baby, then a woman.

Friday 21 March 2014

Pistorius trial: Witness Timelines 4 (J. Stipp)


Johan Stipp:

Awakened by 3 loud bangs. 
Said to wife “I think it’s gunshots”.   
Went to balcony, looked out.   
Heard screaming. 
Sounded like a female, screamed 3 or 4 times. 
All happened in a few moments.
Believes (but not absolutely sure) that he heard a man’s voice shouting, but lower, at the same time as the woman’s voice.

Went back into room, took phone, called security.   
Ascertained that sounds were coming from a row of houses across from him.   
One house had almost all lights on.   
Pistorius house just to the left of this one had bathroom light on.   
Went inside, phoned Silverwoods security, rang but no answer.   
Called 10111 and got a strange signal.   
While was wondering what number to dial next, heard another 3 loud bangs.   
He says they were “right on top of each other, “bangbangbang”. 
Thought that shooter was shooting again and told wife to get away from the window. 

Then got through to house security at 3:15, told what happened. 
During that time was walking round room, went out on balcony again.   
Heard man’s voice shouting “help, help, help” (3 times).   
Went back inside, waiting for security guards.   
They came, he talked to them from the balcony. 
They went over to Pistorius’ house.
At that time Stipp saw a person moving across the bathroom window from right to left.

On cross :

Woke up that morning to sound of shots.
A few seconds passed while his wife said « What’s that ? »
He said « I think it’s gunshots ».
She said « don’t go out » but he was already getting out of bed and going to his patio.

Heard three or four screams of a lady.
 « Extremely fearful, in extreme emotional anguish, almost scared out of her mind ».  Looked at the house to the right, all the lights were on (house next to Pistorius). 
Then looked at the next house over (Pistorius) and saw bathroom light on.   
Could see top half and left third of bathroom window. 
Claims saw lights, heard screams at same time.

He heard a man’s voice intermingled with the woman’s, maybe once or twice.

He phoned security twice (first couldn’t get through, then spoke to them). 
He heard what he took to be two to three more shots (while on phone). 
Immediately before and during these did not hear screams (but was on phone).   
Then he « found himself back on the patio » and heard man’s voice « help help help ».   
Can’t say how long or exactly how much time elapsed.

Notes : Roux says that the records show that he did get through the first time (16 seconds), and then phoned again (or another number) with no answer.  Stipp responds : « that is not correct, if I spoke to them and they answered, I would not have phoned the other two numbers trying to get help, which I did. » He says he first did not get through, then spoke to them.   Roux says that the phone records show that first call he did speak to security, second call no answer.   Stipp says he phoned security guard, no answer, and then called 10111.  After that called another number or two numbers, couldn’t remember what emergency number was.  None worked out, seemed out of order. Then phoned security again and this time got through.

Stipp says heard « help help help » shortly after speaking to security. 
Previously Roux said that Stipp was on the phone with 10111 at 3 :17.
This was when he heard the « second round » of shots.  
Roux confirms that this « second round » are the same sounds heard at 3 :17 by Burger and Johnson.  
Thus all 3 witnesses agree that screaming was before those sounds of shots. 

Stipp notes that shots heard at 3 :17 and screaming before was just like other witnesses. The main different thing was the noise that woke Stipp up.

Then Stipp went to Pistorius house and he and Stander made calls at 13 :28.

Roux quotes from a previous statement by Stipp in which he says « the screams were extinguished at the time of the last shot ».  This contradicts the statement he just made in court (no screams during the second round of shots).  Roux compares this to Johnson and Burger testimony.  Stipp says that maybe this is because the shots occurred when he was on the phone with noises in his ear that drowned out the screams.

The right-hand pane of Pistorius’ frosted bathroom window was open. Stipp could see the top half and saw someone move inside there from right to left. The left-hand pane was the toilet, it was dark. It didn’t strike Stipp that the right-hand pane was open, he doesn’t remember noticing that, but photos taken after the scene show that in fact it was open.  Lights on in bathroom window (=right-hand pane, but not toilet=left-hand pane) during screams and second set of shots. This contradicts Pistorius statement of pitch darkness. After all the screaming (« after the security guard ? the security call ? ») Roux saw movement in the right-hand side of three vertical-pane window, bathroom window, going from right to left.  


Tuesday 11 March 2014

Pistorius Trial: Witness Timelines 3 (C. Johnson)


Charl Johnson: Michelle Burger’s husband

He was awoken by screams.
He jumped out of bed and ran onto balcony. 
He heard more screams, then a lady shouted “help”.
A male voice shouted “help, help, help”. 
His wife called him back to bedroom to telephone security.    
He told the story twice to security guards.
But it was the wrong number (an estate where used to live).
He doesn’t know if any screaming was going on while he was on the phone.
Phone records show that this call was made at 3:16 and lasted 58 seconds.
He then ran back out to balcony.  
The lady screamed again, with more intensity and fear in her voice.
It was clear that her life was in danger.   
Then there were shots, with a first one, then a short pause and a volley.   
He guesses about five or six shots. 
During the shots she screamed again. 
"The last scream faded moments after the last shot was fired.”

On cross, Roux challenged Johnson about the sounds he heard. (Cricket bat?)
Johnson insists that he heard gunshots.
He knows guns and owns a 9mm, the same as Pistorius.
 
Roux lines up three problems: 
(1) Why would Pistorius scream for help before shooting Reeva? 
(2) Knowing that he broke down the bathroom door with a cricket bat, when did he do it?
      He called Mr. Stander at 3:19:50 for help (says just after breaking down door)
(3) Why did Johnson hear only one set of sounds? (either shots or cricket bat)