Great! Now where would a scrap of evidence for that be?
I mentioned it in my larger first post, which I was hoping you would address? ie, the fan position, among other things etc.
Great! Now where would a scrap of evidence for that be?
Great! Now where would a scrap of evidence for that be?
That's right, and he also said he would need to check through the rest. I wonder if he was ever given the opportunity to do so and to add his comments. In fairness he should have been, since he had only just heard it for the first time.
I mentioned it in my larger first post, which I was hoping you would address? ie, the fan position etc.
bbm
tragic absolutely.
i am sorry, and it may have started with a momentary misperception [sliding window at the blue lamp], but further misperceptions then piled up one after the other:
thinking a window opening was an intruder... and not his girlfriend - who he knew was awake, and who had also had just the right amount of time - since they last spoke - to have walked to the bathroom and open said window.
thinking reeva was still in bed
by the bed - thinking a silent reeva had heard him
in the corridor - again believing a non-responsive reeva had heard his shouts to phone police.
at the entrance to the bathroom - believing the toilet door slamming is equivalent to an intruder 'hiding'.
at the door - hearing wood move on a tiled floor and believing the door is opening.
with the shots - shooting four times and thinking the person behind the door would not be killed.
I posted quite a while back regarding the compound probability of all these coincidences and misperceptions. It's all extremely improbable.
Perhaps Pistorius was just spectacularly unfortunate, or more likely, just guilty as charged.
He was given an entire case to provide an explanation for the first sounds and a non-selective timeline. He couldn't, and he didn't. The defense could, and they did.
I find a degree of irony in the fact that it is the people who are so certain about what they can't truly be certain about who are most dismissive of Oscar's misplaced certainty that night.
This unfolded over a very short time comparatively and standing up near the door is completely consistent with trying to listen outside to try to comprehend what was going on and to put yourself in a position to exit quickly if necessary. She could hear Oscar but she does't know where the potential danger is relative to him - why would she form an immediate response of calling out?
It was an uncontradicted fact as far as the court was concerned. It was put forth by the defense and supported with objective physical evidence by both experts. This is so pivotal. If you can't appreciate the significance of this you will never appreciate why this is the correct verdict legally as far as targeting Reeva and almost certainly the truth in fact.
There was physical evidence on the door that supported three bat strikes as per the state. The defence claimed the possibility of a fourth one higher up on the cross of Vermulen, while Oscar himself testified to recalling three. So it's not a great example of trying to game the evidence.
It was an uncontradicted fact as far as the court was concerned. It was put forth by the defense and supported with objective physical evidence by both experts. This is so pivotal. If you can't appreciate the significance of this you will never appreciate why this is the correct verdict legally as far as targeting Reeva and almost certainly the truth in fact.
Masipa: "In any event, the evidence of Mr Lin, an acoustic engineer, cast serious doubt on whether witnesses who were 80 metres and 177 metres away respectively from the accused’s house would be able to differentiate between a man and a woman’s screams, if the screams were from the toilet with closed windows."
I just checked Lin's real evidence. Even his own modelling using 110dB for the scream (he says typical scream is 110dB to 120dB) allows for:
80m, listener on the balcony = definitely audible + definitely intelligible
80m, listener in the bedroom = definitely audible + definitely intelligible
177m, listener on the balcony = definitely audible + possibly intelligible
177m, listener in the bedroom = extremely unlikely to be audible
Surely Masipa's statement is simply false?
Pierre de Vos @pierredevos · Sep 17
Was problem with Oscar judgment not perhaps that Judge required state to prove guilt beyond ANY doubt instead of beyond reasonable doubt?
(Deputy Dean, University of Cape Town Law Faculty )
~snipped~
Masipa very cleverly twisted that to make it that Reeva couldn't have screamed after all of her wounds .. well, we know that .. but a number of experts have said that she could've, and would've, screamed immediately upon being hit in the hip. Once again, Masipa chose to ignore this, and manipulate it so that it fitted in with the verdict she wanted to give.
Home
Dr. Saayman, the Medical Examiner, is back on the stand.
The Judge starts the day by announcing that live tweets are now allowed. They are still going to black out the video and audio testimony, but journalists inside the court can live tweet.
Roux is setting up a defense that Oscar shot Reeva in quick succession rendering her unable to scream out before the head shot left her incapacitated. This would explain why according to Oscar’s version of the story, Reeva never made any noise at all that night.
However Saayman does not think this is possible. The following are points from his testimony that have been compiled from various reporters in the courtroom:
In the immediate seconds after being shot, mental incapacitation would be minimal, that comes later. The shot to the brain however would cause immediate incapacitation.
Screaming is still possible even after cognitive dysfunction, it would be normal.
By cognitive dysfunction, I refer to higher mental capacity. Screaming is not higher mental capacity.
If someone knows their life is in danger, the stress response, or fight or flight, starts to kick in. In a scenario like this, before somebody is about to sustain a gunshot wound, adrenaline and other kinds of hormones would kick in.
Saayman: “I think it would be abnormal if one did not scream after sustaining an injury of this nature.”
BBM
Yes and, arguably, her incorrect statement is also evidence of a lack of impartiality.
Whilst the Courts are, for obvious reasons, reluctant to entertain complaints of judicial bias, they will consider and uphold genuine complaints:
'And the Supreme Court of Appeal was so disturbed by Northern Cape Judge President Frans Kgomo's hostility towards the man he found guilty of stabbing 13-year-old Biron Phetlo to death with a sword that it quashed his conviction and 24-year sentence.
Five of the appeal court's judges, led by Judge Nathan Ponnan, on Thursday ruled unanimously that Judge Kgomo's approach to Joseph le Grange's murder trial was "certainly suggestive of one who has certain preconceived biases and allows those biases to affect his judgment".'
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/judge-allowed-bias-to-cloud-judgment-1.417069#.VB3SgvnA7hB
Apart from the fact that Masipa J misrepresented Lin's evidence, we have the following evidence of bias:
the inexplicable dismissal of the illegal possession of ammunition charge
the finding that OP intentionally fired four black talon bullets into a confined space without intention to kill
the acceptance of the fear of intruder story as reasonably possibly true, albeit 'peculiar'
the undue weight placed upon OP's post-event remorse
the dismissal of the State's earwitness evidence of female screams as unreliable
the weight given to the Defence's earwitnesses in relation to the pre-shots screams, even though those witnesses didn't actually hear the shots
the weight given to the hearsay evidence of Mr Van der Merwe that OP cries like a woman
the dismissal of Prof Saayman's evidence confirming that Reeva would have screamed after the first shot
the dismissal of Capt Mangena's evidence that the killing was intentional
the dismissal of Sean Ren's testimony that OP knew that his conduct was unlawful
the undue weight accorded to Dr Vorster's GAD diagnosis, despite Weskoppies' finding that OP didn't have GAD
I feel that a reasonable person would be very suspicious indeed that Masipa J possessed preconceived ideas which she allowed to affect her judgement. And the above list is just for starters...