"It would be unwise to rely on any evidence by those witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard that morning. Human beings are fallible and rely on memory, which fades over time."
'UNWISE' TO RELY ON WHAT WITNESSES HEARD
Judge Thokozile Masipa would not rely on what witnesses to Reeva Steenkamp's killing claimed they heard, she said in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.
"It would be unwise to rely on any evidence by those witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard that morning. Human beings are fallible and rely on memory, which fades over time."
As Masipa read her judgment, four police tactical response team officers, without rifles, watched over the court, hands behind their backs.
Masipa said fortunately phone records allowed for the chronology of events to be recreated.
She read the timeline between 3.12am on February 14 last year, when the first shots were heard, and 3.55am, when police arrived on the scene.
"It gives a feel of where witnesses corroborate or contradict one another," she added.
She took a sip of water, whispered to one of her assessors, and called a two-minute break.
MASIPA DISMISSES FIRST WITNESSES' EVIDENCE
Judge Thokozile Masipa rejected the evidence given by two of Oscar Pistorius's neighbours in his murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.
She said the evidence given by Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson, who live in Silver Stream estate, next to Pistorius's Silver Woods Country Estate, on the morning Reeva Steenkamp was shot was dismissed.
"I do not think Mr Johnson and Ms Burger were dishonest," she said.
"I am rejecting the entirety of their evidence."
She said because of the time the shooting took place there was a possibility that any of the witnesses who are neighbours missed some of the sounds.
Masipa said there could be a number of reasons why the witnesses missed some of the sounds.
She said Burger and Johnson did not know Pistorius or Steenkamp.
"I do however think that they were unfairly criticised for making virtually identical statements," she said.
She said they related what they thought they heard to the investigating officer who had his own way of writing statements.
The defence said during the trial that they made identical statements.
Masipa said it was easy to see why they were mistaken about the events of the morning. She said the distance from their houses was at their disadvantage.
Several factors played an important role in witness evidence including how long they know the accused, she said.
She said in Pistorius's murder trial they had to deal with "more tricky" factors including sound.
"None of the witnesses had ever heard the accused scream or cry, let alone when he was anxious," she said.
State witness and Pistorius's former girlfriend Samantha Taylor conceded she never heard Pistorius scream when he was faced with a life endangering situation.
During the trial the witnesses said they heard a woman scream.
"At the time of the incident -- no one else in the house. Could only be one of them," said Masipa.
She said that according to the post mortem Steenkamp suffered "horrendous injuries".
Four gun shot wounds. Head, right upper arm, upper groin, and right hand to two fingers.
As Masipa spoke, Barry Steenkamp, Reeva's father, sat forward to lean on the bench in front of him. His wife June sat straight up listening.
Pistorius sat head down as Masipa read out Steenkamp's wounds. He was clenching his jaw as she spoke.
"The shots were fired in quick succession, in my view the deceased would have been unable to scream," she said.
"The only other person that screamed is the accused. The question is, why was he screaming."
The fact that the case attracted much media attraction and became a topic of discussion in many houses did not help, she said.
Masipa said that witnesses conceded that they discussed the case before they took the stand.
She said this meant that some witnesses knew what happened in court before taking the stand.
"I am of the view that there is a probability that some witnesses failed to differentiate what they knew personally to what they heard," said Masipa.
Masipa laid out chronology of events based on guard track system and phone records
During the trial Pistorius has said he thought an intruder was behind the door of the toilet in his Pretoria home when he shot through it. He fired four times, killing Steenkamp on February 14, 2013.
The State says the murder was premeditated.
When the trial started on March 3, Pistorius pleaded not guilty to the murder charge, and to three firearm-related charges.
Pistorius is also charged with three contraventions of the Firearms Control Act -- one of illegal possession of ammunition and two of discharging a firearm in public.
Oscar trial: In the battle between human memory and technology, humans lose in this case
"It would be unwise to rely on any evidence by those witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard that morning. Human beings are fallible and rely on memory, which fades over time."
'UNWISE' TO RELY ON WHAT WITNESSES HEARD
Judge Thokozile Masipa would not rely on what witnesses to Reeva Steenkamp's killing claimed they heard, she said in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.
"It would be unwise to rely on any evidence by those witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard that morning. Human beings are fallible and rely on memory, which fades over time."
As Masipa read her judgment, four police tactical response team officers, without rifles, watched over the court, hands behind their backs.
Masipa said fortunately phone records allowed for the chronology of events to be recreated.
She read the timeline between 3.12am on February 14 last year, when the first shots were heard, and 3.55am, when police arrived on the scene.
"It gives a feel of where witnesses corroborate or contradict one another," she added.
She took a sip of water, whispered to one of her assessors, and called a two-minute break.
MASIPA DISMISSES FIRST WITNESSES' EVIDENCE
Judge Thokozile Masipa rejected the evidence given by two of Oscar Pistorius's neighbours in his murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.
She said the evidence given by Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson, who live in Silver Stream estate, next to Pistorius's Silver Woods Country Estate, on the morning Reeva Steenkamp was shot was dismissed.
"I do not think Mr Johnson and Ms Burger were dishonest," she said.
"I am rejecting the entirety of their evidence."
She said because of the time the shooting took place there was a possibility that any of the witnesses who are neighbours missed some of the sounds.
Masipa said there could be a number of reasons why the witnesses missed some of the sounds.
She said Burger and Johnson did not know Pistorius or Steenkamp.
"I do however think that they were unfairly criticised for making virtually identical statements," she said.
She said they related what they thought they heard to the investigating officer who had his own way of writing statements.
The defence said during the trial that they made identical statements.
Masipa said it was easy to see why they were mistaken about the events of the morning. She said the distance from their houses was at their disadvantage.
Several factors played an important role in witness evidence including how long they know the accused, she said.
She said in Pistorius's murder trial they had to deal with "more tricky" factors including sound.
"None of the witnesses had ever heard the accused scream or cry, let alone when he was anxious," she said.
State witness and Pistorius's former girlfriend Samantha Taylor conceded she never heard Pistorius scream when he was faced with a life endangering situation.
During the trial the witnesses said they heard a woman scream.
"At the time of the incident -- no one else in the house. Could only be one of them," said Masipa.
She said that according to the post mortem Steenkamp suffered "horrendous injuries".
Four gun shot wounds. Head, right upper arm, upper groin, and right hand to two fingers.
As Masipa spoke, Barry Steenkamp, Reeva's father, sat forward to lean on the bench in front of him. His wife June sat straight up listening.
Pistorius sat head down as Masipa read out Steenkamp's wounds. He was clenching his jaw as she spoke.
"The shots were fired in quick succession, in my view the deceased would have been unable to scream," she said.
"The only other person that screamed is the accused. The question is, why was he screaming."
The fact that the case attracted much media attraction and became a topic of discussion in many houses did not help, she said.
Masipa said that witnesses conceded that they discussed the case before they took the stand.
She said this meant that some witnesses knew what happened in court before taking the stand.
"I am of the view that there is a probability that some witnesses failed to differentiate what they knew personally to what they heard," said Masipa.
Masipa laid out chronology of events based on guard track system and phone records
During the trial Pistorius has said he thought an intruder was behind the door of the toilet in his Pretoria home when he shot through it. He fired four times, killing Steenkamp on February 14, 2013.
The State says the murder was premeditated.
When the trial started on March 3, Pistorius pleaded not guilty to the murder charge, and to three firearm-related charges.
Pistorius is also charged with three contraventions of the Firearms Control Act -- one of illegal possession of ammunition and two of discharging a firearm in public.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos