Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[Interested Bystander]

[/QUOTE]Yes Bystander, the farmer just looked at me strangely and walked away.[/QUOTE]

LOL - did a man in a white coat turn up?

There is an article on acoustics which summed up most information for me, partly because it was explained simply and with diagrams (LOL). Interestingly it also explains why people very nearby may not hear the sound in question at all. Apologies if this is the link I posted earlier.

I also learned how much acoustics knowledge is used at events such as Glastonbury where it is important that everyone hears the music. Lots to do with wind speed, terrain, temperature at ground level as well as, in the evening, the fact that the sound can take a different path due to inversion, ie it becomes cooler at ground level and warmer at height and this has to be taken into consideration with the sound levels of the music. This is the phenomenon that causes sound to travel over long distances and probably why wild animals could be heard on Silverwoods at night even though the animal enclosures in the nearby reserve are even further than the Burgers' home.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/refract/refract.html

 

[Colin de France]

Who said 'look after'? I doubt that would be a community service option!!

....."help" kids then..........talk about hair splitting ...........

 

[Trotterly]

I just think of the following situation: Maybe Reeva and OP were at this time at different locations in the house and argued via phone??? Then it's possible the witness heard only the female voice if nearby and didn't hear the male voice because OP was in another room?? On the phone you (Reeva) can very well loudly shout and argue without a pause, if you (Reeva) have main things to say. Even if OP had answered a few sentences, the witness wouldn't have heard something. Maybe the allegations and accusations from Reeva to OP via phone had triggered the whole violent and deadly end. May also be, this call had been deleted by a nice and savvy brother.

This is from the documentary "OP The Key Questions" where the argument was simulated in a gated community similar to Silverwoods.

An acoustics engineer used sound mapping software to simulate the conditions of the night of the shooting. A recording of an argument was played in a room and the patio door left open. It seems that the argument could not be heard until the witnesses were (line of sight) 50m away

Starts at 10.20

[video=youtube;noVdB2WP2DE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVdB2WP2DE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVdB2WP2DE[/video]

 

[aftermath]

....."help" kids then..........talk about hair splitting ...........

Haha - hair-splitting? If you say so!
I think there's a world of difference. So if he were to go into my kids' school for a few hours each week to help coach sports, for example, with the benefit of everything I have read/watched, I wouldn't have an issue, no. He has not been found guilty of deliberately killing his girlfriend...

 

[cottonweaver]

I genuinely find that fascinating IB. The specifics on Glastonbury and all the factors.

( I was joking about asking the farmer - but I know you got that, just in case anyone else thinks ah she is making that up, yes I was.)

OT - sorry to other posters,
Anyway , that inversion stuff helps explain it to me, what I hear in my valley and why other times I don't. And yes it's also time of day now you mention it and we get mists that roll up from lower ground ( cooler?) and it differs again. occasionally we play about with echoes - other times you can't get those effects.

I never hear my nearest neighbours, although they are only 3/4 mile away and they have a yapping dog.
Yet, I hear the farmers who is 2 miles away. ( If you imagine a letter T, My valley is the long upright, his valley and farm is at the short horizontal. )

so thank you for the link.

If you haven't seen this - An accoustic eng based in UK - "Banging rocks together" LOL
Here's the link although it's not quite as in - depth as yours.
http://www.dbxacoustics.com/acoustic-questions-pistorius-case/

 

[cottonweaver]

......would you let a convicted woman killer waiting on an appeal look after your kids...............flop

I got your point, I can think of a few answers to that but instead ...

What about a zoo as part of his CS?!

seriously.... Check this

the infamous SA house arrestee Barbie (aka Visser) , the female paedophile, who was recently released half way through a 7 year sentence for soliciting a 13 yr old, indecent assaults with same underage girls and fraud:

In this excerpt, her DA, ( Sonnekus) is in court explaining terms of her house arrest:

"Coupled with the two hours' community service a week at the zoo, Sonnekus felt it was quite a tough sentence for the 11 mostly sexual charges on which she was convicted.

Sonnekus said he thought the zoo to be the appropriate place for Visser to do her community service, as not only did she like animals, but she had become shy of people following her long trial. At the zoo she would not have to interact with people."

:laughing:

However there is a serious side to this example, but I'll put that aside in this post, for the sake of levity.

 

[Colin de France]

Haha - hair-splitting? If you say so!
I think there's a world of difference. So if he were to go into my kids' school for a few hours each week to help coach sports, for example, with the benefit of everything I have read/watched, I wouldn't have an issue, no. He has not been found guilty of deliberately killing his girlfriend...

..............he killed a woman and he's waiting on an appeal by the prosecution, he's got a lot of prison to do yet....not only that but he fancies himself as a bit of a cowboy, he's clinically depressed, he's not the type of person i would want having anything to do with my kids or anyone else's or in a school etc....each to his/her own i suppose...............

 

[JudgeJudi]

posts aren't appearing - trying again with Part 3

“The simple explanation from the accused is that shooting the deceased dead was a genuine mistake, as he thought he was shooting at an intruder behind the toilet door. The timelines as set out in the chronology of events tip the scales in favour of the accused’s version in general.
“Viewed in its totality the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation. I am here talking about direct intention. The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. There are just not enough facts to support such a finding”

Pre-med – as in I identified the victim as RS and I went to get my gun.
And this is where d. eventualis comes in. Her doubts in that respect are entirely unreasonable.

Although I haven't been posting, I've been following everything here for some time and my head hurts from it all. You may have read this, but in case you haven't, Prof James Grant explains how Masipa got it wrong and the basis of the forthcoming appeal.

“… Also, no matter what form of intention you have, if you have any form, and if you unlawfully kill another human being, you are guilty of murder.

It is also notable that the defence never argued (as some commentators are now suggesting) that the accused had not intended to kill – but only, perhaps, at most, intended to injure. This would have been a valid defence against murder, but it was not a defence claimed, and certainly not one – from the wording of her judgement – relied on by Masipa as a basis on which to acquit the accused of murder.

If you have intention to unlawfully kill a human body, and you succeed in unlawfully killing that human body, you have committed murder in SA law.

This is in line with our settled law, that takes no account of the reason why A makes his/her mistake. If (nominal/name) identity is irrelevant, the reason for any error as to identity cannot be relevant. The identity of the actual victim is irrelevant as is, necessarily, any reason for a mistake as to identity.”

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/28...ustify-judge-masipas-errors-revised-expanded/

It's an excellent article and well worth reading all of it.

Just a reminder that the appeal will not be a retrial.

 

[aftermath]

..............he killed a woman and he's waiting on an appeal by the prosecution, he's got a lot of prison to do yet....not only that but he fancies himself as a bit of a cowboy, he's not the type of person i would want having anything to do with my kids or anyone else's or in a school etc....each to his/her own i suppose...............

Absolutely- each to their own. I wouldn't have an issue with Boshoff, Mdunge or Visagie working in a school with kids either. They are all believed to have shot a loved one in error. Hardly the same as killing in cold blood.

As for being a bit of a cowboy- what does that even mean - especially in the context of where he should or shouldn't do his community service?

From a legal perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if it was policy that someone with an appeal hanging over them wouldn't be allowed to work with children as part of community service until the appeal had been resolved. However, with the access to information that we have all been privileged to in this particular case, I wouldn't feel that my children were any less safe than usual.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks JJ

Nice to see you pop in, glad that you have been browsing, totally appreciate the rest. Yes, no change here since thread 61 or goodness knows when.

Thanks for the Grant references and link, i quoted him in part 5 - ie 2 posts down.

 

[GR_Turner]

Although I haven't been posting, I've been following everything here for some time and my head hurts from it all. You may have read this, but in case you haven't, Prof James Grant explains how Masipa got it wrong and the basis of the forthcoming appeal.

“… Also, no matter what form of intention you have, if you have any form, and if you unlawfully kill another human being, you are guilty of murder.

It is also notable that the defence never argued (as some commentators are now suggesting) that the accused had not intended to kill – but only, perhaps, at most, intended to injure. This would have been a valid defence against murder, but it was not a defence claimed, and certainly not one – from the wording of her judgement – relied on by Masipa as a basis on which to acquit the accused of murder.

If you have intention to unlawfully kill a human body, and you succeed in unlawfully killing that human body, you have committed murder in SA law.

This is in line with our settled law, that takes no account of the reason why A makes his/her mistake. If (nominal/name) identity is irrelevant, the reason for any error as to identity cannot be relevant. The identity of the actual victim is irrelevant as is, necessarily, any reason for a mistake as to identity.”

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/28...ustify-judge-masipas-errors-revised-expanded/

It's an excellent article and well worth reading all of it.

Just a reminder that the appeal will not be a retrial.

But grant seems to be suggesting that error in objecto and ppd existing at the same time is still murder. Now whether this can be ppd or not is surely the question but if it is then there is no dolus and so no murder of any kind. Do you understand his logic?

 

[Colin de France]

This is from the documentary "OP The Key Questions" where the argument was simulated in a gated community similar to Silverwoods.

An acoustics engineer used sound mapping software to simulate the conditions of the night of the shooting. A recording of an argument was played in a room and the patio door left open. It seems that the argument could not be heard until the witnesses were (line of sight) 50m away

Starts at 10.20

[video=youtube;noVdB2WP2DE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVdB2WP2DE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVdB2WP2DE[/video]

....this is a perfect example of a loaded documentary in other words it wasn't objective........there are two area's which principally spring to mind which i find disturbing in this film, the first regarding the sound test which are.... (a) the low loudspeaker sound volume...... (b) the loudspeaker directed towards the ceiling..... (c) the fact that during the whole test it was raining outside...........the next area is Pistorius's walk down the corridor in complete darkness to face an unknown threat, what disturbs me here is that in such darkness how could Reeva of found the toilet and secondly knowing that Pistorius had already got up to supposedly bring in the fans and close the blinds why she didn't switch on at least the bathroom area light to find the WC door...............to be totally clear..if it was pitch black for Pistorius it would have been pitch black not only for Reeva but also for the intruder.....not forgetting that whoever was in the WC had to find it first and lock the door behind them, all this in complete darkness, was there any need to lock the door in the middle of the night in pitch black .....so what happened to the light from the open bathroom window..........no, i'm afraid there's a lot wrong here ...............it ask's more questions than it awnser's........a waste of pixels ...!

 

[lithgow1]

So his punishment should include things he'd like to do, things that suit him, things that aren't "beneath" him? He's a killer. There are plenty of other people who can coach children... rather than a convicted killer.

Totally agree. It is part of his punishment so it should be what is best for the community as a whole rather than what a killer wants. Do you recall in the trial when the hopeless prison expert woman suggested community service rather than incarceration as a punishment and cleaning was one of the things she mentioned and the first time Roux was back on his feet he was coming up with alternatives to cleaning! he he. I am sure that doing anything `menial` is the last thing Pistorius wants so the nasty part of me hopes it is first on the list.

Maybe cleaning along the side of the highway he claims to have been shot at on and that might jog his memory as to who came and got him and who took him back the next day. He is quite dumb really. He could have just said he was shaken by the incident, pulled over for a while till he calmed down and then drove home and no one could have disproved it. Instead he embellishes it to the point where (just about) anyone can see it was completely made up in order to try and bolster his claims about his fearful nature.

 

[Trotterly]

....this is a perfect example of a loaded documentary in other words it wasn't objective........there are two area's which principally spring to mind which i find disturbing in this film, the first regarding the sound test which are.... (a) the low loudspeaker sound volume...... (b) the loudspeaker directed towards the ceiling..... (c) the fact that during the whole test it was raining outside...........the next area is Pistorius's walk down the corridor in complete darkness to face an unknown threat, what disturbs me here is that in such darkness how could Reeva of found the toilet and secondly knowing that Pistorius had already got up to supposedly bring in the fans and close the blinds why she didn't switch on at least the bathroom area light to find the WC door...............to be totally clear..if it was pitch black for Pistorius it would have been pitch black not only for Reeva but also for the intruder.....not forgetting that whoever was in the WC had to find it firs and lock the door behind them, all this in the dark, was there any need to lock the door in the middle of the night in pitch black .....no, i'm afraid there's a lot wrong here ...............it ask's more questions than it awnser's..............

The weather on the morning of the 14th was dry but your comments about the loudspeaker should not have been relevant as if test was being fair the engineer should have adjusted the sound source until the appropriate dB reading was obtained at the door.

I did not regard it as "loaded" as it presented evidence from the PT and DT side. The sound test was not perfect but it remains the best attempt I have seen, have you seen any other?

As the transmission of sound depends on so many variables that cannot be accurately reproduced I don't think any result is going to satisfy everyone.

 

[Colin de France]

The weather on the morning of the 14th was dry but your comments about the loudspeaker should not have been relevant as if test was being fair the engineer should have adjusted the sound source until the appropriate dB reading was obtained at the door.

I did not regard it as "loaded" as it presented evidence from the PT and DT side. The sound test was not perfect but it remains the best attempt I have seen, have you seen any other?

As the transmission of sound depends on so many variables that cannot be accurately reproduced I don't think any result is going to satisfy everyone.

.....to be quite honest as sound test's go that one was a complete waste of time.......there was no mention of light from the bathroom window......loaded it certainly was and the guy with the mouth comes across as a right gangster ....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....how about if he was lying in/on the bed and she was up walking around (leaving/packing her bag ?) ........?

Do you think he would have stayed in/on bed if Reeva had been shouting to him? I can't imagine this scenario. This aggressively and opinionated man, in addition with the fear she might perhaps leave him now??
On the other side: I asked my son's girlfriend "Can you imagine to argue via phone if being in the same (large) home with your boyfriend?" She (unfortunately) answered "No,never!"

 

[Trotterly]

.....to be quite honest as sound test's go that one was a complete waste of time.......there was no mention of light from the bathroom window......loaded it certainly was and the guy with the mouth comes across as a right gangster ....

Oh, I thought it just wasn't objective because it was raining now it's a complete waste of time. No redeeming features at all?

Maybe there's not much point, as someone heard a cow from 2 miles once, so that kind of trumps everything.

 

[Colin de France]

Oh, I thought it just wasn't objective because it was raining now it's a complete waste of time. No redeeming features at all?

Maybe there's not much point, as someone heard a cow from 2 miles once, so that kind of trumps everything.

....no.......except for the tattoo guy ..........

 

[Trotterly]

Do you think he would have stayed in/on bed if Reeva had been shouting to him? I can't imagine this scenario. This aggressively and opinionated man, in addition with the fear she might perhaps leave him now??
On the other side: I asked my son's girlfriend "Can you imagine to argue via phone if being in the same (large) home with your boyfriend?" She (unfortunately) answered "No,never!"

I agree that OP would not have remained on the bed, or seated or in any way immobile during a heated argument. The problem is I can't imagine him waddling around on his stumps either. He would surely have hoisted himself up on his prostheses to assert himself during a row. We now have the unlikely scenario of him dismounting in order to fire the shots.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Totally agree. It is part of his punishment so it should be what is best for the community as a whole rather than what a killer wants. Do you recall in the trial when the hopeless prison expert woman suggested community service rather than incarceration as a punishment and cleaning was one of the things she mentioned and the first time Roux was back on his feet he was coming up with alternatives to cleaning! he he. I am sure that doing anything `menial` is the last thing Pistorius wants so the nasty part of me hopes it is first on the list.

Maybe cleaning along the side of the highway he claims to have been shot at on and that might jog his memory as to who came and got him and who took him back the next day. He is quite dumb really. He could have just said he was shaken by the incident, pulled over for a while till he calmed down and then drove home and no one could have disproved it. Instead he embellishes it to the point where (just about) anyone can see it was completely made up in order to try and bolster his claims about his fearful nature.

"Driving Bring Service For Cars Abandoned When Presumption Of Robbery"
DBSFCAWPOR
New Community Service
Attention: Only available for 4 years and 4 months!