2:39 am MT: Judge is back and again discounting witnesses as being wrong (not dishonest)about hearing a woman scream and confusing the sound of shots and a cricket bat.
She finds Oscar's version consistent. Can Oscar's version reasonably and probably be true? She discounts the state's theory as to why Reeva took the cell phone into the toilet and says they are just speculation. She might have taken the phone into the bathroom for lighting. The testimony about their relationship being on the rocks and the testimony they were a loving couple are not proof of anything.
On the state's argument about food in her stomach: Not conclusive, experts disagree. Even if she did eat right before going to bathroom, there could be other reasons.
The witness who heard an argument was not persuasive. Another witness heard nothing untoward at the house at the time.
She is done with the state's case and now turns to the defense case, which she says she will go into in detail. (Interesting, considering that she said at the outset she didn't need to go into the state's case in detail. )
2:13 am MT: So far so good for Oscar. The judge says the neighbors' testimony of screams is not reliable. They weren't lying, just mistaken. She doesn't think they could differentiate between a man or woman screaming. They confused gunshots with the sounds of the cricket bat. The forensic testimony was that the decedent could not have screamed after she was shot, she was incapacitated. She discusses the media impact on the witnesses, the fact they discussed the case with other witnesses. They failed to separate what they heard personally from what they learned from other witnesses or from the media.
The judge says it would be unwise to rely on the testimony of the neighbor witnesses. Memory fades over time. The court has the benefit of technological evidence which is more reliable than human testimony. The phone records are significant. The defense, not the state, analyzed the timeline. The state failed to present evidence to dispute the timeline set out by the defense. In analyzing the phone calls, she can determine the sequence of events. At 3:19, after the cricket bat at 3:17, he was on the phone to Stander, and a minute later, to security.
She refers to the testimony of Dr. Stipp and says he was mistaken about some things but did not tailor his testimony. She credits his testimony that Oscar tried to revive Reeva and was distressed.
She recites the rest of the timeline to determine the two issues in the case, which she says are: Whether at the time of the shooting Oscar had the intent to kill and whether there was premeditation.
Court takes a two minute break. From the reading so far, it does not sound like the judge will find premeditation. I was glad to hear her cite the fallibility of eye and ear witness testimony, and mention the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She also seemed to be holding the state to its burden, in pointing out it failed to present an alternative timeline.
12:30 am MT: The media is seated in the courtroom, eagerly awaiting the reading of the Oscar Pistorius verdict. The prosecutor has arrived. The judge arrived two hours ago with a police escort and blaring sirens. One journalist says she's never seen such division among journalists about which way the verdict will go.
The Judge will begin her reading of the verdict with a summary of the facts. This part alone could take all day or go into a second day.
I'm going to watch for a while to see if I can discern which way the Judge is leaning from her summary of the facts.
I hope her summary will include not just the direct testimony of the state's witnesses, but the refutation of their testimony as brought out during cross-examination. If it's a one sided presentation, that will obviously be a poor omen for Oscar. If she includes the conflicting evidence, I think there's a chance she'll conclude the state's evidence doesn't amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not a test of who she believes more, but whether the the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
My view (if you haven't read my other posts on the trial) is that the state failed to prove murder. It claimed Oscar was lying and it presented its theory of what happened, but never proved it was anything other than a theory. It never proved Oscar lied -- at most he was mistaken on some details, which can easily be explained by the trauma of the events.
It's disheartening to see the "guilt sells" principle is as prevalent in South Africa as it is in the United States. There's a lot of guilt-mongering, particularly by people who made up their mind before the evidence was presented or solely on media reports. Considering South Africa, like the U.S., recognizes the presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's shameful.
My recommendations for following on Twitter: Barry Bateman, Andrew Harding, Mandy Weiner.
Updates to follow at the top.
