Pistorius Gags as Trial Turns Graphic
Plus: Neighbor maintains screams he heard were from a woman
By Arden Dier, Newser Staff
Posted Mar 6, 2014 6:23 AM CST
Updated Mar 6, 2014 7:39 AM CST
Oscar Pistorius, puts his hands to his head while listening to evidence from a witness speaking about the morning of the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, Thursday, March 6, 2014.   (AP Photo/Marco Longari, Pool)

(Newser) – Oscar Pistorius' murder trial continued today and up for discussion again were those "bloodcurdling screams" neighbor Michelle Burger said she heard the morning of Reeva Steenkamp's death. Her husband, Charl Johnson, took the stand to dispute what Pistorius' lawyer had said were perhaps screams from the athlete himself, noting the woman's screams were filled with fear, while the man's voice sounded monotone, NBC News reports via a correspondent's tweets. When he heard a man call for help, it sounded "embarrassed," said Johnson, who read from notes. The most dramatic testimony, however, came from another neighbor and doctor, Johan Stipp, who was first on the scene following the shooting.

"I was awakened by three loud bangs," heard a female's screams, three more bangs, then a man shout "help, help, help," Stipp said, via a second correspondent, noting he also saw the bathroom light on from his balcony; that contradicts Pistorius' claim that the lights were off. When he arrived at the house, Pistorius told him he had mistaken Steenkamp for a burglar and shot her. "He was praying, saying he would dedicate his life to God if she did not die. I saw that I could not do anything for her," Stipp said. The doctor also gave "graphic testimony" about Steenkamp's wounds, including that her "brain tissue" was matted with hair. During that testimony, Pistorius appeared to cover his ears and later "started dry heaving," the Telegraph reports.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Pistorius Gags as Trial Turns Graphic is...
8%
3%
67%
5%
5%
12%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 37 comments
People_Suck
Mar 6, 2014 5:08 PM CST
Well, if he goes to prison he won't be able to run from his bunkmate on date night.
NSA-CIApuppet
Mar 6, 2014 3:17 PM CST
As I said a while ago, if Anthony Graves had been quickly executed and denied all avenues of appeal you would all now feel safe and an innocent man would be dead as stone. A jury heard ALL the evidence against HIM and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. http://www.newser.com/story/183349/wrongfully-imprisoned-man-goes-after-prosecutor.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_topnews It has not slowed the armchair jurisprudence and bloodlust on this blog.
NSA-CIApuppet
Mar 6, 2014 2:49 PM CST
What did I say: trickle trickle, splass splash. Incremental reports. I think the defense has a tough case. But no witness is immune to cross examination: after all, this doctor failed to save the woman's life and HE is the one saying it was too late. Surely you cannot imagine him saying "unfortunately I had no clue what to do for her". Gigantically embarrassing and bad for business. So jump all over me if you just want this guy convicted in a big hurry. In an imaginary voir dire room an attorney tells the jurors about a man suing for injuries after riding a horse when cops came screeching around the turn and the horse threw him to the ground. The defense attorney asks the horseman on cross "didn't the cops approach and you told them you were perfectly fine?" The plaintiff answers "yes". His attorney, on redirect, says explain why you said that. "Well, the horse was on the ground. The cop shot the horse in the head and turned to my with gun in hand. I told the cop: no, no, I am fine!" The attorneys point?: Ya gotsta waits till ya hears ALL the evidence before you form conclusions and here in the states every judge tells you that before the trial begins.