Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[AJ_DS]

I was trying to say the following

There have been several incidents in OP's life, where he probably was very drunk, it had always been covered up (because of his status as a Hero, Medalist and sponsored Sport Star). If he had called beeing severely drunk as an apology or explanation for a murderous "overreaction", would one not subsequently call into question all other critical incidents and his alleged "soberness"? Had there not been possibly a wave of demands for clarification of old accidents? Had it not possibly hurt his image much more? Would he have to repay a lot of sponsor money? - Therefore I think, he could not use that excuse. Only my thoughts.

I never suggested OP would have used alcohol intoxication as an "apology or explanation for a murderous overreaction"... but as a additional factor in the self-defence mistaken identity version which rested solely on OP's perceptions, i.e. if those perceptions were impaired by alcohol it stands to reason the Defence would have used that fact to their advantage, just as they attempted to use OP's disability and GAD diagnosis to explain his actions.

e.g.

- I did not notice Reeva getting out of bed because I was drunk
- I have limited mobility on my stumps when sober, so very limited mobility on my stumps when I'm drunk
- My anxiety and startle response was aggravated by the fact I was drunk
- I don't remember XYZ clearly because I was drunk

As for his reputation, I maintain my belief that Reeva's death and the murder charge trumps all past drunken behaviours.

As for repayment of sponsor money... I not familiar with sponsorship contract... so I cannot comment.

 

[AJ_DS]

I agree about the speculation but the facts are that no screaming was heard by Mrs Stipp until after the first bangs. This does not fit in with OP trying to silence Reeva's screams since she was not screaming until she was supposedly already locked in the toilet.

Apologies in advance... I do not wish to appear confrontational towards you or your POV

... but I believe your arguments are specious/fallacious : if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound ?

Just because something is not witnessed does not mean it did not occur.

The fact that Mrs Stipp did not hear screaming prior to the first set of bangs does NOT indicate that no one was screaming inside OP's house prior to the first set of bangs.

- We do not know when and where in OP's house the screaming began, we only know when and where it ended.

- We do not know if screaming in the bedroom or elsewhere in OP's house could have been heard by Mrs Stipp.

- We do not know the intensity of the screaming throughout the episode... common sense and Burger/Johnson testimony indicates that the intensity of the screaming was increasing which means it was of lower intensity prior to the first set of bangs.

- We do not know when precisely Mrs Stipp was sufficiently awake to hear and pay attention to the noises outside her house.

As you can recall, OP testified he shouted "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" when in the passageway proceeding towards the bathroom... in OP's own version this occurred moments before the first set of bangs BUT Mrs Stipp did not hear that, did she ?

... What is interesting is that OP shouting "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" could have been directed at Reeva, would be consistent with OP embarrassment/exasperation at Reeva's screaming and his desire for her to stop and leave.

 

[Trotterly]

Apologies in advance... I do not wish to appear confrontational towards you or your POV

... but I believe your arguments are specious/fallacious : if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound ?

Just because something is not witnessed does not mean it did not occur.

The fact that Mrs Stipp did not hear screaming prior to the first set of bangs does NOT indicate that no one was screaming inside OP's house prior to the first set of bangs.

- We do not know when and where in OP's house the screaming began, we only know when and where it ended.

- We do not know if screaming in the bedroom or elsewhere in OP's house could have been heard by Mrs Stipp.

- We do not know the intensity of the screaming throughout the episode... common sense and Burger/Johnson testimony indicates that the intensity of the screaming was increasing which means it was of lower intensity prior to the first set of bangs.

- We do not know when precisely Mrs Stipp was sufficiently awake to hear and pay attention to the noises outside her house.

As you can recall, OP testified he shouted "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" when in the passageway proceeding towards the bathroom... in OP's own version this occurred moments before the first set of bangs BUT Mrs Stipp did not hear that, did she ?

... What is interesting is that OP shouting "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house" could have been directed at Reeva, would be consistent with OP embarrassment/exasperation at Reeva's screaming and his desire for her to stop and leave.

Of course anything is possible but it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet. There is no evidence for it. Mrs Stipp claimed she was fully alert when she woke up and did not hear it. Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?

I do not think that it is common sense that the loudness of the screaming should increase in an argument, thereby making the "quiet" screaming earlier on inaudible. The loudness will be unpredictable.

Screaming is louder than shouting so it's not surprising that OP was not heard at this point.

I do not think that OP shouting "get the..." fits in any way with trying to deal with Reeva screaming. If he wanted to minimise the fall out from being overheard he would have simply backed off and relied on his family's supposed PR machine to cover up any embarrassment.

 

[AJ_DS]

Of course anything is possible but it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet. There is no evidence for it. Mrs Stipp claimed she was fully alert when she woke up and did not hear it. Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?

I do not think that it is common sense that the loudness of the screaming should increase in an argument, thereby making the "quiet" screaming earlier on inaudible. The loudness will be unpredictable.

Screaming is louder than shouting so it's not surprising that OP was not heard at this point.

I do not think that OP shouting "get the..." fits in any way with trying to deal with Reeva screaming. If he wanted to minimise the fall out from being overheard he would have simply backed off and relied on his family's supposed PR machine to cover up any embarrassment.

"his family's supposed PR machine"... nothing supposed about it !

"he would have simply backed off"... OP is notoriously infamous for not backing off as well as aggressive and intimidating behaviour... why would OP have acted any differently in private in his own house ?

"I do not think that it is common sense that the loudness of the screaming should increase in an argument"... actually I believe it is in the vast majority of arguments... especially those who terminate with one participant shooting and killing the other !!!

"it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet"... Reeva took refuge in the toilet cubicle because she was scared of OP... hence it makes sense she would have screamed before getting there.

"Screaming is louder than shouting so it's not surprising that OP was not heard at this point."... According to OP himself, he was panicked and terrified wanting to scare off the intruders... this suggests that the shouting was quite loud... furthermore shouting and screaming are synonyms that do not imply a difference in sound intensity or power.

"Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?"... I already provided you with 4 possible/probable explanations in my earlier post.

 

[Trotterly]

"his family's supposed PR machine"... nothing supposed about it !

"he would have simply backed off"... OP is notoriously infamous for not backing off as well as aggressive and intimidating behaviour... why would OP have acted any differently in private in his own house ?

"I do not think that it is common sense that the loudness of the screaming should increase in an argument"... actually I believe it is in the vast majority of arguments... especially those who terminate with one participant shooting and killing the other !!!

"it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet"... Reeva took refuge in the toilet cubicle because she was scared of OP... hence it makes sense she would have screamed before getting there.

"Screaming is louder than shouting so it's not surprising that OP was not heard at this point."... According to OP himself, he was panicked and terrified wanting to scare off the intruders... this suggests that the shouting was quite loud... furthermore shouting and screaming are synonyms that do not imply a difference in sound intensity or power.

"Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?"... I already provided you with 4 possible/probable explanations in my earlier post.

You are still talking about screaming before the shots that no one says they heard. It's not in evidence, it's speculation.

A woman's screams by the way, heard by the distant neighbours at the same time close neighbours heard only a man.

 

[AJ_DS]

You are still talking about screaming before the shots that no one says they heard. It's not in evidence, it's speculation.

A woman's screams by the way, heard by the distant neighbours at the same time close neighbours heard only a man.

I imagine the "close neighbours" you are referring to are Mike and his wife :

- they did not hear screaming nor shouting... they say they heard a man crying, praying, blubbering, etc...

- they were only 9 meters away from OP's open bathroom window

- they heard this after a single bang that woke them up... which can ONLY be the last bang of the second set of bangs (since they heard no other bangs)

- OP's crying, praying, blubbering, etc... was only heard by Mike and his wife... no other witnesses heard that

... which means that Mike and his wife are very sound sleepers, they were not awakened by the screaming, nor the first set of bangs, nor the first 3 bangs of the second set of bangs... they awoke after Reeva had been shot and killed... hence, it makes sense they would only hear a man.

Whereas, the Stipps were listening before the first set of bangs and Burger/Johnson were listening before the second set of bangs... that's 4 individuals who say they heard a woman at a time we know a woman was still alive.

Therefore the facts on which you rest your arguments are incorrect.

 

[Colin de France]

No, i think Reeva went to the toilet to look at OP's telephone, thinking that he was asleep.......

 

[Trotterly]

I imagine the "close neighbours" you are referring to are Mike and his wife :

- they did not hear screaming nor shouting... they say they heard a man crying, praying, blubbering, etc...

- they were only 9 meters away from OP's open bathroom window

- they heard this after a single bang that woke them up... which can ONLY be the last bang of the second set of bangs (since they heard no other bangs)

- OP's crying, praying, blubbering, etc... was only heard by Mike and his wife... no other witnesses heard that

... which means that Mike and his wife are very sound sleepers, they were not awakened by the screaming, nor the first set of bangs, nor the first 3 bangs of the second set of bangs... they awoke after Reeva had been shot and killed... hence, it makes sense they would only hear a man.

Whereas, the Stipps were listening before the first set of bangs and Burger/Johnson were listening before the second set of bangs... that's 4 individuals who say they heard a woman at a time we know a woman was still alive.

Therefore the facts on which you rest your arguments are incorrect.

But I thought you said in an earlier post that just because someone didn't hear a sound that doesn't prove that sound did not happen?

Mike made his calls at 3.16.13 and 3.16.36 which had to be between the bangs so his wife must have heard the last of the first bangs. Their air conditioning was on and using your sound logic it is not surprising that the louder first bangs woke them up. Hence they were listening when the more distant witnesses said that they heard screaming.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

To AJ_DS:

As for his reputation, I maintain my belief that Reeva's death and the murder charge trumps all past drunken behaviours.

I agree.

 

[AJ_DS]

But I thought you said in an earlier post that just because someone didn't hear a sound that doesn't prove that sound did not happen?

Mike made his calls at 3.16.13 and 3.16.36 which had to be between the bangs so his wife must have heard the last of the first bangs. Their air conditioning was on and using your sound logic it is not surprising that the louder first bangs woke them up. Hence they were listening when the more distant witnesses said that they heard screaming.

BiB... Nice try

... but the argument does not apply, sorry !... it's more of your specious reasoning :

- My earlier point was that just because something was not witnessed it does not mean it did not happen

- Your current point is that just because something happened it does not mean it had to be witnessed

By OP's own testimony, he attributed to himself the mad screaming between set of bangs, the second set of bangs and the crying and blubbering after the second set of bangs... the screaming and second set of bangs did in fact occur and was witnessed by 4 individuals...

Mike and his wife were also listening and hearing ONLY OP crying and blubbering when supposedly, according to your skewed interpretation of the timeline and OP's testimony they should have heard OP screaming his head off AND another set of very loud bangs... but they never did.

They were only 9 meters away from OP's open bathroom window... they were so close that they were the only ones capable of hearing OP crying.

The basic timeline is as follows : Bang1-1, Bang1-2, Bang1-3, Bang1-4, (Screaming...), Bang2-1, Bang2-2, Bang2-3, Bang2-4, (Crying...)

Consequently, as Mike and his wife :

A) heard (Crying...) which occurred AFTER Bang2-4
B) never heard (Screaming...) which occurred AFTER Bang1-4
C) never heard a second set of Bangs which occurred AFTER Bang1-4

... this conclusively indicates that they were woken up by Bang2-4 and NOT Bang1-4

Based on Mike and wife testimony, you can NEVER place the calls (3.16.13 and 3.16.36) between the set of bangs... The ONLY way to place those calls between set of bangs is to :

1) factor in Stipp testimony
2) decide Stipp is totally unreliable/mistaken
3) decide Mike and wife are also totally unreliable/mistaken

... basically you put all the evidence in one big pot and remove all the bits that don't fit with OP's version of events !!!

If as you say Mike and his wife were woken up by the first set of bangs, how do you explain the fact that Mike and his wife NEVER heard OP's mad screaming between set of bangs NOR the second set of bangs ?

 

[Trotterly]

BiB... Nice try

... but the argument does not apply, sorry !... it's more of your specious reasoning :

- My earlier point was that just because something was not witnessed it does not mean it did not happen

- Your current point is that just because something happened it does not mean it had to be witnessed

By OP's own testimony, he attributed to himself the mad screaming between set of bangs, the second set of bangs and the crying and blubbering after the second set of bangs... the screaming and second set of bangs did in fact occur and was witnessed by 4 individuals...

Mike and his wife were also listening and hearing ONLY OP crying and blubbering when supposedly, according to your skewed interpretation of the timeline and OP's testimony they should have heard OP screaming his head off AND another set of very loud bangs... but they never did.

They were only 9 meters away from OP's open bathroom window... they were so close that they were the only ones capable of hearing OP crying.

The basic timeline is as follows : Bang1-1, Bang1-2, Bang1-3, Bang1-4, (Screaming...), Bang2-1, Bang2-2, Bang2-3, Bang2-4, (Crying...)

Consequently, as Mike and his wife :

A) heard (Crying...) which occurred AFTER Bang2-4
B) never heard (Screaming...) which occurred AFTER Bang1-4
C) never heard a second set of Bangs which occurred AFTER Bang1-4

... this conclusively indicates that they were woken up by Bang2-4 and NOT Bang1-4

Based on Mike and wife testimony, you can NEVER place the calls (3.16.13 and 3.16.36) between the set of bangs... The ONLY way to place those calls between set of bangs is to :

1) factor in Stipp testimony
2) decide Stipp is totally unreliable/mistaken
3) decide Mike and wife are also totally unreliable/mistaken

... basically you put all the evidence in one big pot and remove all the bits that don't fit with OP's version of events !!!

If as you say Mike and his wife were woken up by the first set of bangs, how do you explain the fact that Mike and his wife NEVER heard OP's mad screaming between set of bangs NOR the second set of bangs ?

Lets keep focused on my point which was that, between the sets of bangs, the nearby neighbours heard only a man during the same time period that neighbours further away heard a woman and a man screaming.

I do not think my interpretation of the timeline is skewed. It is very straightforward to prove the above as we have the phone calls by Stipp and by Mike.

Mike made his first call at 3.16.13 after his wife heard a bang. Therefore the bang must have occurred before this time. Since he says he checked the house and checked out of the window before making the call we can safely assume the bang was not later than 3.16.

So to prove that this bang was part of the first set of bangs we need a reliable timing for the second bangs.

The state and defence agreed on the second shots at 3.17 based on Stipps call to 10111. He said he heard the bangs "whilst I was still busy on the phone wondering what to do next" So lets play it safe and assume it happened straight after his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07. That's already 7 seconds after Mike had already started his call.

The reason that this evidence is so reliable is that Mike would not have made a timed call to report an incident before it had happened and Stipp's first timed call was to report only one set of bangs.

I noted that the state never engaged with the hard facts of this particular evidence and neither does anyone who considers OP guilty of premeditated murder. Neither will you. You will skew the argument around it but you cannot refute it.

 

[Giles]

Lets keep focused on my point which was that, between the sets of bangs, the nearby neighbours heard only a man during the same time period that neighbours further away heard a woman and a man screaming.

I do not think my interpretation of the timeline is skewed. It is very straightforward to prove the above as we have the phone calls by Stipp and by Mike.

Mike made his first call at 3.16.13 after his wife heard a bang. Therefore the bang must have occurred before this time. Since he says he checked the house and checked out of the window before making the call we can safely assume the bang was not later than 3.16.

So to prove that this bang was part of the first set of bangs we need a reliable timing for the second bangs.

The state and defence agreed on the second shots at 3.17 based on Stipps call to 10111. He said he heard the bangs "whilst I was still busy on the phone wondering what to do next" So lets play it safe and assume it happened straight after his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07. That's already 7 seconds after Mike had already started his call.

The reason that this evidence is so reliable is that Mike would not have made a timed call to report an incident before it had happened and Stipp's first timed call was to report only one set of bangs.

I noted that the state never engaged with the hard facts of this particular evidence and neither does anyone who considers OP guilty of premeditated murder. Neither will you. You will skew the argument around it but you cannot refute it.

Good Post.

 

[AJ_DS]

Lets keep focused on my point which was that, between the sets of bangs, the nearby neighbours heard only a man during the same time period that neighbours further away heard a woman and a man screaming.

I do not think my interpretation of the timeline is skewed. It is very straightforward to prove the above as we have the phone calls by Stipp and by Mike.

Mike made his first call at 3.16.13 after his wife heard a bang. Therefore the bang must have occurred before this time. Since he says he checked the house and checked out of the window before making the call we can safely assume the bang was not later than 3.16.

So to prove that this bang was part of the first set of bangs we need a reliable timing for the second bangs.

The state and defence agreed on the second shots at 3.17 based on Stipps call to 10111. He said he heard the bangs "whilst I was still busy on the phone wondering what to do next" So lets play it safe and assume it happened straight after his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07. That's already 7 seconds after Mike had already started his call.

The reason that this evidence is so reliable is that Mike would not have made a timed call to report an incident before it had happened and Stipp's first timed call was to report only one set of bangs.

I noted that the state never engaged with the hard facts of this particular evidence and neither does anyone who considers OP guilty of premeditated murder. Neither will you. You will skew the argument around it but you cannot refute it.

You desperately try to avoid the elephant in the forum

If as you say Mike and his wife were woken up by the first set of bangs, how do you explain the fact that Mike and his wife NEVER heard OP's mad screaming between set of bangs NOR the second set of bangs ?

The fact remains that if you solely look at the following evidence :

A. OP's testimony
B. Mike's testimony
C. Mike's wife testimony
D. Security telephone log of Mike's call

... then you MUST conclude that Mike and his wife woke up to the last bang of the second set of bangs and called security afterwards at 3.16.13

This is the ONLY way to explain why Mike and wife NEVER heard the screaming and a set of bangs... they were asleep when it occurred... unless you can provide an alternate explanation.

BiB... that's totally incorrect !!! (review the evidence)... or provide the evidence of Stipp's call to 10111.

Dr Stipp attempted to call security, 10111 and 082 AFTER the first set of bangs but BEFORE second set of bangs... these 3 calls did not go through or were not answered... this part of the evidence you desperately wish to ignore !... to be exact you only wish to partly ignore it so as to assign the 3:15:51 call at that point.

Dr Stipp attempted to call security a second time AFTER the second set of bangs... this call was answered by Baba at 3:15:51 and lasted 16 seconds

For your convoluted reasoning to be valid one must rule as unreliable or false:

1. Stipp's testimony about his first unsuccessful call to security
2. Stipp's testimony about his successful call to security being after the second set of bangs
3. Mike's testimony about not hearing screaming and not hearing the second set of bangs
4. Mike's wife testimony about not hearing screaming and not hearing the second set of bangs

... which is a LOT of unreliability or falsehoods to make your version fit...

Whereas my version is FAR more simple and straightforward with the added benefit of ruling all evidence reliable and true.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Quote excerpted for brevity

The state and defence agreed on the second shots at 3.17 based on Stipps call to 10111. He said he heard the bangs "whilst I was still busy on the phone wondering what to do next" So lets play it safe and assume it happened straight after his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07. That's already 7 seconds after Mike had already started his call.

BIB - Sorry, but I believe you have miscalculated :thinking:

If Mike made his first call at 3.16.13 after his wife heard a bang.....

and Stipp made his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07.....

.....that's already 7 seconds before Mike had already started his call.

But what are already seven seconds ? That doesn't matter.
.
.

 

[Trotterly]

You desperately try to avoid the elephant in the forum

If as you say Mike and his wife were woken up by the first set of bangs, how do you explain the fact that Mike and his wife NEVER heard OP's mad screaming between set of bangs NOR the second set of bangs ?

The fact remains that if you solely look at the following evidence :

A. OP's testimony
B. Mike's testimony
C. Mike's wife testimony
D. Security telephone log of Mike's call

... then you MUST conclude that Mike and his wife woke up to the last bang of the second set of bangs and called security afterwards at 3.16.13

This is the ONLY way to explain why Mike and wife NEVER heard the screaming and a set of bangs... they were asleep when it occurred... unless you can provide an alternate explanation.

BiB... that's totally incorrect !!! (review the evidence)... or provide the evidence of Stipp's call to 10111.

Dr Stipp attempted to call security, 10111 and 082 AFTER the first set of bangs but BEFORE second set of bangs... these 3 calls did not go through or were not answered... this part of the evidence you desperately wish to ignore !... to be exact you only wish to partly ignore it so as to assign the 3:15:51 call at that point.

Dr Stipp attempted to call security a second time AFTER the second set of bangs... this call was answered by Baba at 3:15:51 and lasted 16 seconds

For your convoluted reasoning to be valid one must rule as unreliable or false:

1. Stipp's testimony about his first unsuccessful call to security
2. Stipp's testimony about his successful call to security being after the second set of bangs
3. Mike's testimony about not hearing screaming and not hearing the second set of bangs
4. Mike's wife testimony about not hearing screaming and not hearing the second set of bangs

... which is a LOT of unreliability or falsehoods to make your version fit...

Whereas my version is FAR more simple and straightforward with the added benefit of ruling all evidence reliable and true.

You are demanding to know why Mike and his wife missed the screaming but for the second time I am referring you to your earlier statement

"The fact that Mrs Stipp did not hear screaming prior to the first set of bangs does NOT indicate that no one was screaming inside OP's house prior to the first set of bangs"

So its okay for Stipp not to hear something when it suits your argument but not for any other witness!

Why they did not hear is irrelevant anyway. What is important is that it could have occurred and is consistent with the evidence. Also Mike when questioned could not rule out that what he heard could not have been described by the Stipps as screaming.

 

[AJ_DS]

You are demanding to know why Mike and his wife missed the screaming but for the second time I am referring you to your earlier statement

"The fact that Mrs Stipp did not hear screaming prior to the first set of bangs does NOT indicate that no one was screaming inside OP's house prior to the first set of bangs"

So its okay for Stipp not to hear something when it suits your argument but not for any other witness!

Why they did not hear is irrelevant anyway. What is important is that it could have occurred and is consistent with the evidence. Also Mike when questioned could not rule out that what he heard could not have been described by the Stipps as screaming.

If you are unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between :

A. Someone not witnessing something that POSSIBLY MAY or MAY NOT have happened : Reeva's possible screaming prior to the 1st set of bangs not heard by anyone.

B. Someone failing to witness something that ABSOLUTELY DID happen : Mike and wife able to hear OP crying, blubbering, praying in the bathroom but unable to hear mad screaming and a set of loud bangs in same said bathroom.

... I don't see how I could help you understand... perhaps you do wish to understand... nothing as deaf as someone who does not wish to hear.

You argued and vigorously opposed my point about Mrs Stipp possibly not hearing hypothetical screaming prior to the 1st set of bangs :

"it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet. There is no evidence for it. Mrs Stipp claimed she was fully alert when she woke up and did not hear it. Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?"

Now, you attempt to use my own arguments to dodge answering my question about Mike and wife not hearing something that did in fact happen... really ??... that's the best you've got ?... weak, very weak IMO

Taking your POV and arguments : Mike and wife were awake and fully alert... there is solid testimonial evidence from 5 individuals about the screaming and the 2nd set of bangs... even physical material evidence to back it up... Why would Mike and his wife be able to hear crying but not the screaming and the 2nd set of bangs ????

I do understand why you are uncomfortable and reluctant to address how Mike and his wife could fail to hear the mad screaming and the second set of bangs in your version since it cannot be explained, it makes no sense whatsoever and completely destroys your elaborate and fallacious "evidentiary" construct.

Once you disregard evidence, reason and common sense, you can raise false doubt in any and all circumstances.

The fact you are so strongly opposed to even consider the logical and straightforward alternative that :

- Mike and wife were woken up by the last bang of the 2nd set of bangs, and
- Dr Stipp talked to Baba after the 2nd set of bangs

... is very telling IMO.

 

[AJ_DS]

Quote excerpted for brevity



BIB - Sorry, but I believe you have miscalculated :thinking:

If Mike made his first call at 3.16.13 after his wife heard a bang.....

and Stipp made his first call at 3.15.51 which lasted until 3.16.07.....

.....that's already 7 seconds before Mike had already started his call.

But what are already seven seconds ? That doesn't matter.
.
.

WOW... a lot of math errors... I just hope I will not make one myself

Dr Stipp calls security at 3.15.51 and call ends at 3.16.07

Mike calls security at 3.16.13

Duration between Dr Stipp's end-time and Mike's start-time = 6 seconds (not 7)

Which raises an interesting question and also provides some information...

The question : Why does Mike's call get a busy signal at 3.16.13 since the line of the security office was available for 6 whole seconds prior to Mike's call ?

The information : If Mike gets a busy signal, that means the line at the security office does not have call waiting nor voice mail.

Conclusions :

1. When calling the security office the caller gets 1 of only 3 possible outcomes : someone answers, busy signal, no one answers.

2. If we believe Dr Stipp when he testified he attempted to call the security office between the 2 sets of bangs, he said the phone rang but no one answered... which is consistent with the absence of voice mail at the security office.

3. Since "someone answers" and "busy signal" are recorded on the detailed billing whereas "no one answers" is not recorded on the detailed billing.

4. Dr Stipp's unanswered call is also consistent with the absence of a record on the detailed billing of the security office.

 

[Trotterly]

If you are unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between :

A. Someone not witnessing something that POSSIBLY MAY or MAY NOT have happened : Reeva's possible screaming prior to the 1st set of bangs not heard by anyone.

B. Someone failing to witness something that ABSOLUTELY DID happen : Mike and wife able to hear OP crying, blubbering, praying in the bathroom but unable to hear mad screaming and a set of loud bangs in same said bathroom.

... I don't see how I could help you understand... perhaps you do wish to understand... nothing as deaf as someone who does not wish to hear.

You argued and vigorously opposed my point about Mrs Stipp possibly not hearing hypothetical screaming prior to the 1st set of bangs :

"it's not realistic to suggest that there was screaming before Reeva was locked in the toilet. There is no evidence for it. Mrs Stipp claimed she was fully alert when she woke up and did not hear it. Why would she be able to hear several minutes of screaming after the first bangs but none before?"

Now, you attempt to use my own arguments to dodge answering my question about Mike and wife not hearing something that did in fact happen... really ??... that's the best you've got ?... weak, very weak IMO

Taking your POV and arguments : Mike and wife were awake and fully alert... there is solid testimonial evidence from 5 individuals about the screaming and the 2nd set of bangs... even physical material evidence to back it up... Why would Mike and his wife be able to hear crying but not the screaming and the 2nd set of bangs ????

I do understand why you are uncomfortable and reluctant to address how Mike and his wife could fail to hear the mad screaming and the second set of bangs in your version since it cannot be explained, it makes no sense whatsoever and completely destroys your elaborate and fallacious "evidentiary" construct.

Once you disregard evidence, reason and common sense, you can raise false doubt in any and all circumstances.

The fact you are so strongly opposed to even consider the logical and straightforward alternative that :

- Mike and wife were woken up by the last bang of the 2nd set of bangs, and
- Dr Stipp talked to Baba after the 2nd set of bangs

... is very telling IMO.

You are referring to something that "ABSOLUTELY DID" happen. But that is only on your version. If the loud crying that Mike and his wife heard was heard by witnesses much further away as screaming then it fits perfectly.

As a clue lets remember Mrs Stipp who described hearing a man scream as well as a woman.

Not forgetting EVDM, a prosecution witness, who recalled her husbands completely spontaneous remark about a woman's voice being OP's.

 

[AJ_DS]

You are referring to something that "ABSOLUTELY DID" happen. But that is only on your version. If the loud crying that Mike and his wife heard was heard by witnesses much further away as screaming then it fits perfectly.

As a clue lets remember Mrs Stipp who described hearing a man scream as well as a woman.

Not forgetting EVDM, a prosecution witness, who recalled her husbands completely spontaneous remark about a woman's voice being OP's.

BiB... Incorrect, those are the facts in evidence !

Screaming between the set of bangs :

- Dr Stipp and Mrs Stipp testified they heard a woman screaming for her life between sets of bangs

- Burger and Johnson testified they heard a woman screaming for her life up until last set of bangs

- OP testified that it was him that screamed (in a high pitch tone) between set of bangs

Two distinct set of bangs separated in time :

- Dr Stipp and Mrs Stipp testified they heard 2 sets of bangs

- OP testified he was the cause of the 2 sets of bangs

- Forensics confirm that 2 sets of bangs had to occurr

Crying, blubbering and praying :

- OP testified he screamed up until the last bang of the 2nd set of bangs

- OP testified he began crying, blubbering and praying when he saw Reeva's body

- Mike and his wife testified they heard a man crying, blubbering and praying

... in your version, all these witnesses are mistaken

For the screaming : you attempt to make the crying, blubbering and praying into the screaming... this flagrantly contradicts OP's own account of events... how rich is that !!... you are going against the testimony of the very man who claims he was the source of those sounds, who is standing on Trial and who you desperately wish to exonerate... LOL

For the 2nd set of bangs : your repeated and long-standing attempts at ignoring this embarrassing evidence are becoming quite farcical.

Finally on the "if the loud crying that Mike and his wife heard was heard by witnesses much further away as screaming then it fits perfectly"... thanks for the comedic relief... I literally burst into laughter !!!

A. You are suggesting that softer sounds (crying) heard up close (9 meters away) can be heard as much louder (screaming) form far away (70+ meters away)

... and of course the opposite phenomena must also be true in your version

B. You are suggesting that very loud sounds (bangs) heard far way (70+ meters) can he heard as silent (no sounds) from up close (9 meters away)

... indeed, "it fits perfectly".... Outstanding !

:hilarious:

 

[Trotterly]

BiB... Incorrect, those are the facts in evidence !

Screaming between the set of bangs :

- Dr Stipp and Mrs Stipp testified they heard a woman screaming for her life between sets of bangs

- Burger and Johnson testified they heard a woman screaming for her life up until last set of bangs

- OP testified that it was him that screamed (in a high pitch tone) between set of bangs

Two distinct set of bangs separated in time :

- Dr Stipp and Mrs Stipp testified they heard 2 sets of bangs

- OP testified he was the cause of the 2 sets of bangs

- Forensics confirm that 2 sets of bangs had to occurr

Crying, blubbering and praying :

- OP testified he screamed up until the last bang of the 2nd set of bangs

- OP testified he began crying, blubbering and praying when he saw Reeva's body

- Mike and his wife testified they heard a man crying, blubbering and praying

... in your version, all these witnesses are mistaken

For the screaming : you attempt to make the crying, blubbering and praying into the screaming... this flagrantly contradicts OP's own account of events... how rich is that !!... you are going against the testimony of the very man who claims he was the source of those sounds, who is standing on Trial and who you desperately wish to exonerate... LOL

For the 2nd set of bangs : your repeated and long-standing attempts at ignoring this embarrassing evidence are becoming quite farcical.

Finally on the "if the loud crying that Mike and his wife heard was heard by witnesses much further away as screaming then it fits perfectly"... thanks for the comedic relief... I literally burst into laughter !!!

A. You are suggesting that softer sounds (crying) heard up close (9 meters away) can be heard as much louder (screaming) form far away (70+ meters away)

... and of course the opposite phenomena must also be true in your version

B. You are suggesting that very loud sounds (bangs) heard far way (70+ meters) can he heard as silent (no sounds) from up close (9 meters away)

... indeed, "it fits perfectly".... Outstanding !

:hilarious:

Your version depends on the reliability of what witnesses, some many metres away, thought they heard in the early hours of the morning just after being woken up.

You have ignored important evidence from EVDM about her husband who identified OP's voice.

Witnesses make mistakes all the time and proper judgement takes account of this.

I would not place much reliance on what should or should not have been heard. Line of sight, atmospheric conditions, the media through which the sound passes, thickness/density of walls, reflections etc etc make it unpredictable.