Oscar Pistorius trial: Why the 'screams' are relevant to the case

The first witness in the Oscar Pistorius murder returned to the witness stand on Day 2 of the trial, and broke down in tears as she testified about the screams she heard. Why are the screams so critical to the case?

The first witness in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial broke down in tears Tuesday, saying she still remembers what she describes as the screams of a woman on the night the double-amputee athlete killed his girlfriend by shooting four times through a toilet door.

Michelle Burger, who lives near Pistorius' home and who had been composed through two days of grueling cross-examination, wept as she finished her testimony by speaking about how she had reflected on the early hours of Valentine's Day last year.

"When I'm in the shower, I relive her shouts," Burger said of hearing the woman screaming before the sound of gunshots in the pre-dawn hours of that night. Burger lives about 177 meters (193 yards) from Pistorius' house.

The timing of the screams – and the source – may be critical to the narrative of both the defense and the prosecution. If Pistorius was pursuing what he thought was an intruder, once he heard the screams of his girl friend, he wouldn't have fired. But if he knew it was Reeva Steenkamp in the bathroom, and he fired even after hearing her screams, then that supports the case for premeditated murder. If Pistorius was the source of the screams,  then that supports his defense.

Earlier, the trial was interrupted and the judge ordered an investigation into allegations that a South African television channel was broadcasting a photograph of Burger during her testimony — against a court order guaranteeing privacy to witnesses who request it.

Toward the end of Burger's testimony, Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor, asked her about her emotions at the time when she made her statement to police regarding what she heard that night.

"It was quite raw," Burger said, her voice breaking. Nel asked her how she was coping.

"I'm coping fine," Burger insisted. "It's been a year."

Burger's testimony about events on the night of Feb. 14, 2013, contradicts the Olympian's story. Pistorius says he shot four times through the toilet cubicle door, hitting Steenkamp three times in the head, arm and hip or side area after thinking she was a dangerous intruder. He pleaded not guilty to the murder charge lodged by prosecutors, who say the world-famous athlete intentionally killed Steenkamp after a loud argument.

Burger's husband, Charl Johnson, and another Pistorius neighbor, Estelle van der Merwe, also gave testimony on Tuesday.

During cross-examination of Burger, defense lawyer Barry Roux insisted the university lecturer was mistaken in saying that she heard a woman screaming and that she actually had heard Pistorius screaming for help in a high voice after accidentally shooting Steenkamp.

Giving sometimes grisly details of the 29-year-old model Steenkamp's killing, Roux said Steenkamp had been shot in the head, so she wouldn't have been able to scream just after the last bullet struck, as Burger testified.

Roux said that an expert would later testify in the trial that "with the head shot, she (Steenkamp) would have dropped down immediately."

Burger disagreed. "I heard her voice just after the last shot," she said. "It faded away."

Pistorius took notes during testimony and huddled with lawyers during adjournments. His collected demeanor contrasted with his sometimes distraught behavior during a bail hearing last year, when he sobbed in court. At one point on Tuesday he covered his ears, but it wasn't clear why.

The only time Pistorius looked anxious was when he prepared to leave the courthouse after the day's proceedings were adjourned. Surrounded by police officers and private bodyguards, Pistorius ducked his head and walked out as one of the officers said: "Let's go, guys."

Outside, television cameras, photographers and others swarmed around him.

Pistorius faces a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole if convicted of murder with premeditation.

Judge Thokozile Masipa earlier warned the media to respect a ruling that images of witnesses who request privacy should not be shown. TV station eNCA broadcast a live audio feed of Burger's testimony with a photograph of her, Nel said in court. He said the photo was captioned: "On the stand: Michelle Burger, Pistorius neighbor."

"I am warning the media, if you do not behave, you are not going to be treated with soft gloves by this court," Masipa said.

Another judge ruled last week that parts of Pistorius' blockbuster trial could be broadcast on live TV — in South Africa and around the world — but witnesses who request privacy, like Burger, would not be shown. An audio only feed of their testimony would be broadcast.

___

Gerald Imray is on Twitter at www.twitter.com/GeraldImrayAP

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Oscar Pistorius trial: Why the 'screams' are relevant to the case
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0304/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Why-the-screams-are-relevant-to-the-case
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe