AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
That's how witness testimonies are dealt with... witnesses are deemed credible and reliable unless one can demonstrate otherwise... you on the other hand specifically target various elements of evidence that contradict your desired version and deem them arbitrarily unreliable... transforming all witnesses into extremely reliable witnesses on some elements yet simultaneously extremely unreliable on other elements... that's just nonsense.
Taking your own arguments, Mike and wife were the closest witnesses by a factor of about 10... hence they should be the most reliable witnesses as per what they heard... yet in your version, you would deem them totally unreliable as they failed to hear the screaming and the second set of bangs... whereas in my version they are very reliable as there was no screaming nor bangs after they woke up...simple as that !
You have ignored important evidence from EVDM about her husband who identified OP's voice.
I have not ignored it at all...
Mike and wife heard crying, wailing, blubbering, praying, etc... AFTER the 2nd set of bangs
EVDM and husband also heard crying, wailing, blubbering, praying, etc... AFTER the 2nd set of bangs
It's all perfectly consistent and logical in my version.
In your version, EVDM and husband also missed the screaming AND the 2nd set of bangs... that's now 2 more witnesses you would deem unreliable to fit your version !!!
Witnesses make mistakes all the time and proper judgement takes account of this.
Is anyone left that you deem reliable in your version ??... because in my version, every witness is deemed reliable, they corroborate each other on multiple levels and construct a simple and straightforward version of events.
In your version, all witnesses are unreliable, they contradict each other on multiple levels and construct a version which is complicated and convoluted but also is inexplicably missing key elements.
"We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses." (Aristotle)
"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." (Ptolemy)
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Isaac Newton)
"Plurality must never be posited without necessity" (William of Ockham)
Ref. Wikipedia
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.
LOL... Enumerating various factors that can influence perception is not evidence that said factors may have played a role much less that they would ever begin explain the gaping holes in your version.
Many animals have the ability to fly... the pig is an animal... ergo, it's possible that in the right circumstances pigs can fly
Interestingly your version relies heavily on what some witnesses heard and did not hear, could hear and could not hear, interpreted correctly and misinterpreted... all without even a hint of the unpredictability you allege exists in all manner of things heard... you are spinning a web of self-contradiction in attempts to make your version plausible... but, as one would expect, it's an epic fail
e.g. the bat strikes were so powerful that they could easily be mistaken for gunshots by witnesses 70+ meters away yet simultaneously be so discreet and muted that witnesses a mere 9 meters away would not be expected to hear them even though they are capable of hearing OP sobbing over Reeva's corpse... ludicrous.
If that is truly your approach to evidence and witness testimony than it is pointless to debate further because in your opinion anything is possible even the impossible... worse you can deem the impossible probable in specific circumstances that serve your version yet deem the very same probable impossible in other circumstances that refute your version !!
Reply in bold.
Cheers.