Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[AJ_DS]

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.

 

[Trotterly]

Reply in bold.

Cheers.

You do not seem to regard the evidence of Mr VDM as significant at all.

How can you rely on a witness who claims to have heard a woman when someone who knows OP's voice is dismissed?

That does not introduce doubt into your mind?

 

[AJ_DS]

You do not seem to regard the evidence of Mr VDM as significant at all.

How can you rely on a witness who claims to have heard a woman when someone who knows OP's voice is dismissed?

That does not introduce doubt into your mind?

1. It's not 1 witness, it's 4 corroborating witnesses who heard a woman screaming BEFORE the 2nd set of bangs

2. What EVDM and husband heard happened AFTER the 2nd set of bangs (same as for Mike and wife)

... so there is a BIG difference in the time of those 2 events

3. EVDM did not know OP's voice... her husband did

... I honestly do understand what you are going on about...

... seriously, it seems to me you are just interested in spinning your obviously flawed version without any sincere or otherwise interest in explaining said flaws or exploring an alternate version.

I'm done with this nonsense... got better things to do.

 

[Trotterly]

1. It's not 1 witness, it's 4 corroborating witnesses who heard a woman screaming BEFORE the 2nd set of bangs

2. What EVDM and husband heard happened AFTER the 2nd set of bangs (same as for Mike and wife)

... so there is a BIG difference in the time of those 2 events

3. EVDM did not know OP's voice... her husband did

... I honestly do understand what you are going on about...

... seriously, it seems to me you are just interested in spinning your obviously flawed version without any sincere or otherwise interest in explaining said flaws or exploring an alternate version.

I'm done with this nonsense... got better things to do.

But your approach just will not work if the only voice heard was OP's.

I don't think you have properly considered the possibility that everyone listening that morning thought they heard a woman screaming except the only person that knew OP's voice.

 

[GR_Turner]

But your approach just will not work if the only voice heard was OP's.

I don't think you have properly considered the possibility that everyone listening that morning thought they heard a woman screaming except the only person that knew OP's voice.

Consider also that the 3.17 timing for the second bangs comes from Johnson's 3.16 phone call as well as Dr Stipp's 3.17 10111 call. If AJ is right, the state could easily have put its version beyond all doubt by producing Johnson's and Dr Stipp's phone records. But they didn't, so the evidence supports the defence version. Given the phones evidence, it no longer matters why the close neighbours didn't hear the bats any more than it would matter what the state claimed the first shot sounds were if the phones evidence had supported them.

 

[Trotterly]

Do you know where the evidence for Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call comes from?

In his court testimony Stipp said that he tried 10111 before he got through to security at 3.15.51. AFAIK he said nothing about another call to 10111 after the 3.15.51 call.

 

[GR_Turner]

Do you know where the evidence for Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call comes from?

In his court testimony Stipp said that he tried 10111 before he got through to security at 3.15.51. AFAIK he said nothing about another call to 10111 after the 3.15.51 call.

Roux said it was at 3.17. I assume they must have had the 10111 call records and it wasn't contradicted by the state.

Yes, that's the problem with Stipp's testimony. The phone times don't match up with what he said. That's why it's better to go with Johnson's phone times. But in each case, the only phones evidence apparently submitted to the court was the security phones times which is why some prefer to use those and ignore the other times. The state put their shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's call so they must be sure it's right.

 

[Trotterly]

Roux said it was at 3.17. I assume they must have had the 10111 call records and it wasn't contradicted by the state.

Yes, that's the problem with Stipp's testimony. The phone times don't match up with what he said. That's why it's better to go with Johnson's phone times. But in each case, the only phones evidence apparently submitted to the court was the security phones times which is why some prefer to use those and ignore the other times. The state put their shots at 3.17 based on Johnson's call so they must be sure it's right.

Ok thanks, I assume it was in one of the Annexures, which have not been made public.

Realistically I think Mike would not have made his call for at least a couple of minutes after his wife heard the bang putting it well before 3.17 and as part of the first set of noises.

 

[GR_Turner]

Ok thanks, I assume it was in one of the Annexures, which have not been made public.

Realistically I think Mike would not have made his call for at least a couple of minutes after his wife heard the bang putting it well before 3.17 and as part of the first set of noises.

I guess so.

Yes, that's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 58m58 minutes ago
#OscarPistorius the Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed the state’s appeal against Pistorius murder acquittal will be heard in November.

#OscarPistorius an exact date has not been set, but the court has undertaken to hear the matter in November. BB

#OscarPistorius the state has until 17 August to file its papers, and the defence until 17 September. BB

#OscarPistorius DCS head Zach Modise says it has recommended to the parole board that Pistorius be considered for probation on 21 August. BB

 

[WilliamMunter]

#OscarPistorius DCS head Zach Modise says it has recommended to the parole board that Pistorius be considered for probation on 21 August. BB

I am utterly appalled.

 

[Lyra500]

I am utterly appalled.

As am I.

Outrageous - although not unexpected given the special treatment this person has received all the way through.

 

[JudgeJudi]

And just so everyone is clear what house arrest is ...

“House arrest refers to that portion of the day/night when the probationer does not work and is compelled to be at home. The period of house arrest of individual probationers may differ.

The possible risk posed to the community is taken into account when determining the probationer's placement under house arrest. When the condition of house arrest is being set, the offender's working hours are taken into account in order to avoid conflict between such hours and the period of house arrest. Flexibility is also built into the condition of house arrest to allow probationers to participate in organized sport activities, to attend church services, to do the necessary shopping, etc”

http://www.dcs.gov.za/Services/CommunityCorrections.aspx

So one imagines OP will be right back into training in a big way to get out of the house ... oh, wait, it's a mansion. And we all know how he loves going to church. That's two ticks to get him started. Shopping ... who doesn't love doing that, especially after being locked up for 10 months.

 

[JudgeJudi]

"In August, a judge would determine the exact November date.

Before then, the record of Pistorius’s trial and the State and defence’s heads of argument needed to be filed, court registrar Paul Myburgh said on Monday".

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...orius-appeal-to-be-heard-in-November-20150608

 

[JudgeJudi]

Karyn Maughan @Karynmaughan 3h
State has not filed petition to appeal #OscarPistorius sentence. It'll only challenge his murder acquittal.

Five judges will hear the state's #OscarPistorius appeal. Normally it's three in criminal appeals.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks for those updates. We all knew this was coming but it doesn't make it any less disappointing does it.
Awful to hear that house arrest actually gives him so many options to leave the house! He will be *advertiser censored*-a-hoop today regardless of the upcoming Appeal.
I hope he is hounded by the press every time he walks out of the door and the ANC Womens' League sets up an encampment opposite.

Judge Judi - do you know why it's 5 judges not 3? ( I can't remember a lot of details prior to his holiday camp sojourn.)

BTW is anybody else noticing WS pages are taking an age to load? ( Maybe it's just issues my end)

 

[GR_Turner]

Thanks for those updates. We all knew this was coming but it doesn't make it any less disappointing does it.
Awful to hear that house arrest actually gives him so many options to leave the house! He will be *advertiser censored*-a-hoop today regardless of the upcoming Appeal.
I hope he is hounded by the press every time he walks out of the door and the ANC Womens' League sets up an encampment opposite.

Judge Judi - do you know why it's 5 judges not 3? ( I can't remember a lot of details prior to his holiday camp sojourn.)

BTW is anybody else noticing WS pages are taking an age to load? ( Maybe it's just issues my end)

It's not disappointing. It's what the law says given what he was convicted of. I very much hope the media and ANCWL leave him alone though I doubt it. If they truly cared about women's rights they would be spending their time publicising genuine cases of domestic violence rather than choosing cases like this one and the Dewani case where the evidence is unclear. All they do is make themselves look foolish imo.

 

[Colin de France]

One thing this decision does show though and that is just how short his sentence was ...kinds of puts it into perspective ...

 

[Colin de France]

If they truly cared about women's rights they would be spending their time publicising genuine cases of domestic violence rather than choosing cases like this one and the Dewani case where the evidence is unclear.

...... it was pretty clear for Reeva Steenkamp......

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...arole-in-august-authorities-confirm-1.2241611

South African athlete Oscar Pistorius will be released on parole on August 21st after serving 10 months of a five-year sentence for culpable homicide of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, authorities said.
The Olympic and Paralympic track star is behind bars in the capital, Pretoria, after being convicted in October after a seven-month trial.
The release of Pistorius, whose lower legs were amputated when he was a baby, had been largely expected under South African sentencing guidelines that say non-dangerous prisoners should spend only one-sixth of a custodial sentence behind bars.