03-03-2014, 10:05 AM
DAY 1
I think the neighbor, Ms. Burger -- who claims to have heard blood curdling screaming followed by gunshots -- was a very good witness for the prosecution.
She seemed more confident and composed with Roux than did prosecutor Nel (and way more so than officer Botha at Pistorius's early hearings). She didn't back down from her claims, didn't allow him to make her doubt her own memory or what she heard, refused to answer for what her husband and police officers did or didn't hear/do the night of the shooting...
Good way to end day 1 for the prosecution:
Roux ended the day by again questioning Ms. Burger intensively about whether what she heard was definitely gunshots and suggested that she may have heard Pistorius trying to bust the toilet door with a cricket bat instead.
Burger replied: "Most people in South Africa know the difference in sound between gun shots and a cricket bat. I am 100 per cent certain I heard gunshots that evening. I know what one sounds like".
Burger also repeated her previous assertion that she cannot understand how Pistorius could have not heard the screaming.
There is no doubt that gunshots were fired that night; uncontested by the defense. I think what Roux was trying to do was suggest that Ms. Burger is confused about the sequence of what she heard. He wants the court to believe that her perceptions and recollections are faulty.
IMO, Roux was attempting to plant the possibility that the screams she heard came after the banging noises (and that they were actually the screams of Pistorius when he realized it was Reeva in the toilet). Obviously, in Pistorius' version of events, Reeva wouldn't have screamed because there was no turmoil in the house and she didn't know her boyfriend would be "mistakenly" shooting her through the closed door. The screams before the gunshots are a huge problem for the defense.
I don't think Roux succeeded today. Ms. Burger was clear in her account: she heard terrible petrified screams, then gunshots, then a man screaming, "help!".
I think the neighbor, Ms. Burger -- who claims to have heard blood curdling screaming followed by gunshots -- was a very good witness for the prosecution.
She seemed more confident and composed with Roux than did prosecutor Nel (and way more so than officer Botha at Pistorius's early hearings). She didn't back down from her claims, didn't allow him to make her doubt her own memory or what she heard, refused to answer for what her husband and police officers did or didn't hear/do the night of the shooting...
Good way to end day 1 for the prosecution:
Roux ended the day by again questioning Ms. Burger intensively about whether what she heard was definitely gunshots and suggested that she may have heard Pistorius trying to bust the toilet door with a cricket bat instead.
Burger replied: "Most people in South Africa know the difference in sound between gun shots and a cricket bat. I am 100 per cent certain I heard gunshots that evening. I know what one sounds like".
Burger also repeated her previous assertion that she cannot understand how Pistorius could have not heard the screaming.
There is no doubt that gunshots were fired that night; uncontested by the defense. I think what Roux was trying to do was suggest that Ms. Burger is confused about the sequence of what she heard. He wants the court to believe that her perceptions and recollections are faulty.
IMO, Roux was attempting to plant the possibility that the screams she heard came after the banging noises (and that they were actually the screams of Pistorius when he realized it was Reeva in the toilet). Obviously, in Pistorius' version of events, Reeva wouldn't have screamed because there was no turmoil in the house and she didn't know her boyfriend would be "mistakenly" shooting her through the closed door. The screams before the gunshots are a huge problem for the defense.
I don't think Roux succeeded today. Ms. Burger was clear in her account: she heard terrible petrified screams, then gunshots, then a man screaming, "help!".