Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Well if Dixon`s `my eyes` were good enough, why not Dr Stipps? Funny that you imply a criticism of the State but seem fine with Dixon's attempt to mislead the court or his incompetence. Has to be one or the other.

I haven't got a problem with Dr Stipp's eyes. Or Dixon's for that matter! What were the state's findings re visibility and how light it was in the bedroom with/without curtains closed and with /without an outside light on?

 

[lithgow1]

I haven't got a problem with Dr Stipp's eyes. Or Dixon's for that matter! What were the state's findings re visibility and how light it was in the bedroom with/without curtains closed and with /without an outside light on?

So therefore you are fine with Stipp`s evidence as to what he saw and when. Now, about his ears ....

 

[aftermath]

So therefore you are fine with Stipp`s evidence as to what he saw and when. Now, about his ears ....

Now I didn't day anything about when....

 

[soozieqtips]

I haven't got a problem with Dr Stipp's eyes. Or Dixon's for that matter! What were the state's findings re visibility and how light it was in the bedroom with/without curtains closed and with /without an outside light on?

What were the defence's findings re: OP screaming like a woman? When did they present their 'findings' in court... of OP screaming like a woman?

 

[cottonweaver]

So therefore you are fine with Stipp`s evidence as to what he saw and when. Now, about his ears ....

Stipp's Ears :laughing:

Plus I can't help laugh when every time I see those photos Bystander posted of the miniature face at the window.

As for Dixon. Masipa should not have allowed to him to make such a fool of himself. ie. He could not be an expert in every field but was delivering expert testimony. Ms.Masipa should have stopped him on the stand - declared some of it inadmissable there and then. ( Disallowed in a UK court. )

 

[soozieqtips]

It doesn't require an obligatory criticism of the state, no. And yet Vermeulen- the state 'expert' - crouched/knelt in order to check the bat swing. A criticism might not be required, but it still makes a fair comparison. You don't think..?

I was asking how the response was relevant to the post. And it wasn't relevant as it didn't address 'expert' Dixon using his eyes for a tape measure while using a much shorter model to discredit Stipp's evidence.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Sadly I cant post copies of the State's photographic investigation into what Dr Stipp could see in the bathroom because they didn't bother producing any...

That is a total cop out on your part.

 

[Viper]

Sir, yes Sir! Link to defense HOA:

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/oscar-trial-defense-heads-of-argument/

It is indeed the defense team's position that the gunshots came first before the bat, but the interval they suggest is closer to five minutes rather than the twenty you suggest.

From YOUR link:

At about 03:00 she heard four gunshots (Record 159, lines 19- 20), which were confirmed by her husband to be gunshots (Record 161, lines 9-10). The shots were shortly one after the other (Record 161, lines 1-3).

And <snipped>

Mrs Stipp’s evidence she was awakeat about 02:59 (her clock, which was approximately 3 minutes early, showed 03:02 –Record 1102, lines 8-10 and 1104, lines 6-7). She was in the process of getting up, when she heard 3 sounds, which sounded like gunshots (Record 1102, lines 12-13)

So 3:00 the shooting, or more likely the tormenting, and then how much time passed until the second set of sounds?

 

[aftermath]

I was asking how the response was relevant to the post. And it wasn't relevant as it didn't address 'expert' Dixon using his eyes for a tape measure while using a much shorter model to discredit Stipp's evidence.

What's all this ' eyes as a tape measure' stuff? Eyes as a light metre maybe? it is relevant because when investigating something involving whether Pistorius was on his prosthetic legs or not, neither expert, (Dixon and Vermeulen), used anything other than a man on his knees. If the first is going to be ridiculed for an unscientific approach, why not the latter? What's good for the goose and all that...

 

[aftermath]

That is a total cop out on your part.

I don't see how...

 

[Trotterly]

And it struck me today, that whenever I have stayed at other people's houses in S.A. no-one has ever said words to the effect "please don't move around at night/go to loo/visit the kitchen as I might mistake you for a burglar/I am liable to arm myself and go commando on you".

And this regardless of the householder type, whether just wary or extremely fearful of crime, more vulnerable single female, families with young kids, young males etc. ( None of these instances involved safe, gated developments.)

In the light of many mistaken shootings of family members in SA, several of which have been mentioned here, I think that this would be good advice in any gun-owning home.

Or better still outlaw gun ownership altogether.

 

[aftermath]

From YOUR link:

At about 03:00 she heard four gunshots (Record 159, lines 19- 20), which were confirmed by her husband to be gunshots (Record 161, lines 9-10). The shots were shortly one after the other (Record 161, lines 1-3).

And <snipped>

Mrs Stipp&#8217;s evidence she was awakeat about 02:59 (her clock, which was approximately 3 minutes early, showed 03:02 &#8211;Record 1102, lines 8-10 and 1104, lines 6-7). She was in the process of getting up, when she heard 3 sounds, which sounded like gunshots (Record 1102, lines 12-13)

So 3:00 the shooting, or more likely the tormenting, and then how much time passed until the second set of sounds?

Also from my link :
212.5 It is clear from the evidence of Dr Stipp, Mrs Stipp and Mr and Mrs Nhlengethwa that the screaming occurred relatively soon after the first sounds.
212.6 On the evidence of Mrs Burger, in the context of the evidence of Mr Johnson and his notes and the evidence of Dr and Mrs Stipp
and Mrs Nhlengethwa, having regard to her evidence from the time she woke up to the second sounds, the first sounds would have occurred anything between 03:12 to 03:14.

My bold

 

[Interested Bystander]

Sir, yes Sir! Link to defense HOA:

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/oscar-trial-defense-heads-of-argument/

It is indeed the defense team's position that the gunshots came first before the bat, but the interval they suggest is closer to five minutes rather than the twenty you suggest.

The Defence regularly "adjusted" timings to suit their story.

[video=youtube;9AzYslyjzmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY&index=39&list=PLPWoQvCMB4gIIt8dDH4mZ82NU-PD80VlW[/video]

Mrs Stipps was awake feeling fluish. She looked over at the clock which registered 03.02. She stated the clock was 3 to 4 minutes fast (real time 02.58-02.59) and then decided she would get a drink. As she was getting upto do so she heard 3 &#8220;shots&#8221;.

On hearing the second set of &#8220;shots&#8221;she registered 03.17 on the clock (real time 03.13-03.14). That gives an estimated gap of between 15 and16 minutes.
OP rings for the ambulance at 03.20.

If I remember correctly you feel that the first sounds were the shots. Apologies if I am wrong here but if I am correct in my assumption it indicates that, on your timing, OP took around 20 minutes to call the ambulance. What sort of person would wait 20 minutes before calling for help?

 

[lithgow1]

What's all this ' eyes as a tape measure' stuff? Eyes as a light metre maybe? it is relevant because when investigating something involving whether Pistorius was on his prosthetic legs or not, neither expert, (Dixon and Vermeulen), used anything other than a man on his knees. If the first is going to be ridiculed for an unscientific approach, why not the latter? What's good for the goose and all that...

But did Vermeulen try to mislead the court like it seems Dixon did? Choosing and using someone 20 cm shorter points to either incompetence or deliberate deception.

 

[cottonweaver]

Aftermath : "Eyes as a light metre maybe?" sic

Another comedic moment in a serious trial.

You have to find that funny aftermath?
It has to be near the top of the Top Ten Comedic moments in the trial.

-Vying with it has to be the example where the courthouse erupts in laughter when Oscar "I can't remember" re. who told him that STaylor and DFresco were colluding.
-The off camera agitation when the Oscar web *advertiser censored* data was to be admitted, despite strong opposition, was not exactly LOL but was amusing
- any of your crazy lady social worker moments
- Head of CS saying the disabled got a great deal in prison ( Sardonic)
- Number one spot, I reserve for Lady Masipa

 

[aftermath]

But did Vermeulen try to mislead the court like it seems Dixon did? Choosing and using someone 20 cm shorter points to either incompetence or deliberate deception.

Vermeulen left out a key photo of himself with the bat and a higher mark on the door, IIRC, so not sure if he tried to mislead.
He also chose to kneel to test the ' on stumps ' theory, not to find someone the right height to test it more accurately, or even to investigate the way a person without prosthetics might need to stand /swing a bat in order to break a door . Dixon chose to ask someone to kneel so he could take a photo...

 

[Viper]

Masipa also threw out expert testimony about Reeva having eaten at 1:00am, it was Professor Saymann versus a Nurse, Masipa went with the nurse. Incompetent.

 

[Trotterly]

Another comedic moment in a serious trial.

You have to find that funny aftermath?
It has to be near the top of the Top Ten Comedic moments in the trial.

-Vying with it has to be the example where the courthouse erupts in laughter when Oscar "I can't remember" re. who told him that STaylor and DFresco were colluding.
-The off camera agitation when the Oscar web *advertiser censored* data was to be admitted, despite strong opposition, was not exactly LOL but was amusing
- any of your crazy lady social worker moments
- Head of CS saying the disabled got a great deal in prison ( Sardonic)
- Number one spot, I reserve for Lady Masipa

I think you missing the joke is funnier : ) (sorry no offence meant)

 

[aftermath]

Masipa also threw out expert testimony about Reeva having eaten at 1:00am, it was Professor Saymann versus a Nurse, Masipa went with the nurse. Incompetent.

Nurse? Is that the anaesthetist, Professor Christina Lundgren?

 

[cottonweaver]

I think you missing the joke is funnier : ) (sorry no offence meant)

You'll have to elaborate there Trotters