Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
james83 said:
128dB Loudest human scream

133dB Gunshot
Click to expand...

james83 said:
Just a thought, but imagine if Mrs Stipp testifies this coming week and says she heard a third set of bangs after her husband set off to Oscar's house, Oscar would have a hard time explaining that one.
Click to expand...

Those were just the sounds of OP "rearranging" the bathroom plates and wall tiles, no worries. :floorlaugh:
 
Val1 said:
bbm - Part of the problem may be due to Roux doing exactly just that and then after the witness has reluctantly responded to a hypothetical, some have stated that as the witness' actual testimony.
Click to expand...

That's what he's supposed to do. He's a defense attorney. Any defense attorney worth his salt will do what Roux is doing.
 
MeeBee said:
This is in response to LemonMousse's posts that the bat could not be heard from far away because it's too quiet, measured at 114db compared to 140 db. If the screams were around the db of the bat then it defies logic to say one could be heard and not the other. Obviously we cannot measure Reeva's screams now but we can measure Oscar's. This has nothing to do with a YouTube video.
Click to expand...

Where is the db level from bat on door from though?.
 
Where has someone posted info about the db of a cricket bat hitting a door?
 
I am judging on the totality of his first sentence. It's grammatical nonsense. I know when a sentence either makes sense or it doesn't. If an English teacher asked me what could I construe from the sentence below, my only correct answer could be that the speaker was indecisive as to whether the person was male or female.

He remembers it's meant to be a woman at the start of his sentence, but trips up at the end...

"She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of his or her life,"

Why would you ever put his or her on the end of that sentence above, if you know 100% you're talking about a woman?

This is where he *advertiser censored* up, as he should be saying "She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of her life,"
 
minor4th said:
That's circular reasoning - you're accepting the conclusion that it was female screaming after the first bangs to come to the conclusion that the first bangs couldnt have been gunshots.

It's equally logical that the first shots were gunshots and the subsequent screaming was Oscar.
Click to expand...

But then there is the issue of stipp hearing a male and female voice together before 2nd set of sounds.
 
BritsKate said:
If memory serves, it was Roux who claimed the bang, bang, bang, bang to suggest double firing.

The ballistics expert countered that, stating there wouldn't have been time for her to have moved between shots, and all the bullets would have been in the same area.

On redirect, Nel specifically asked if bang pause bang bang bang was possible - consistent with Burger's testimony - and Mangena confirmed it was indeed possible.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/live-oscar-trial-reeva-defensive-position-when-shot


http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/
Click to expand...

That is my understanding too.
 
LemonMousse said:
Honestly, I'm not being argumentative, but microphones are designed to record sounds, not determine how loud they are in relation to each other. There are settings inside that balance out sounds and bring them into line.

You need very high-tech specialist equipment to record sounds and try to get a an approximation of "loudness". That's why microphones are not used for this purpose - decibel meters are.

A cricket bat in a door has been recorded at 114db....and that was really whacking it. A gun is at least 130 db, this is 10 times louder. Most guns are more like 140 db, this is about 24 times louder than a cricket bat on a door.

On the YT vid, did the gun sound 10 times louder? No, that's because the microphone balanced out the sounds as it's designed to.
Click to expand...

Here is where it was said. I made a mistake she said 130 and not 140. She does say it's a cricket bat on a door thought. I think an experiment was done somewhere and this may be where she got the number from I'll see if I can find it.
 
steveml said:
We haven't finished witness testimonies yet, and have heard none of the defense testimony. We're not even half way through the case.

Listing the points above makes the case look flimsier than I first thought. Four of the points are regarding ear-witness reports, that are not all consistent. Which ever way you juggle them, they don't all fall in line. I can juggle them to make them nearly fit, but why is Roux going to bother doing that?

I can't speak for things that haven't been proven in your list yet, and neither can you. OP has stated his actions and he does not agree with the charge of murder with premeditation. He is not legally bound to do so. I'm not in the habit of thinking that where there's any doubt at all it should automatically fall on the accused because...oh wait, what's that line that appears in the SA Bill of Rights again...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat It's a Latin term that translates as: 'The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies.'
This is commonly referred to as 'innocent till proven guilty'.
Click to expand...

No we haven't heard the testimonies yet - but we've read OP's claims and we've heard some testimonies.

Everything I have referred to comes directly from what we've heard in court. I am not making anything up.

OP says he shouted on the balcony before he broke down the door. Stipp says he heard these shouts after the last set of bangs. He describes where they came from and it fits exactly with Oscar's balcony.

This directly contradicts OP's affidavit.

The pathologist says it would have been unnatural for Reeva not to scream after being shot, she could even have done so briefly after the shot to her head.

Oscar says the were no screams - three credible witnesses say there were, and they are all adamant they were female.

Oscar says he smashed down the door with the cricket bat. The forensics show that the door was not smashed down with a cricket bat - the panels were prised out.

Oscar says he was on his prosthetics when he hit the door causing the minor gauges. The forensic opinion is that he was on his stumps.

Oscar says he was wearing his legs when he went into the blood soaked toilet and pulled out Reeva. There are no bloody foot prints anywhere in the house.

It's astonishing that anyone can truly be of the opinion that there's no evidence disputing his story....so far it all does.

Sorrel is spot on: If you believe OP then none of the evidence fits. If you acknowledge that he may not be telling the truth, then all of the evidence fits completely with the state's case.

State's case so far (that I can ascertain):

Oscar and Reeva were fighting - Van de Merwe
An altercation happened in the bathroom where OP did things that scared Reeva (cricket bat on door - a bang but not smash) Vermuelen/Stipp
Reeva screamed - Berger, Johnson, Stipp
OP argued back at her, calling help after she did in less distressed way - Berger, Johnson, Stipp (Stipp less certain, but DID mention possible man's voice in first police interview)
Rapid shots too quick to be a cricket bat - Berger, Johnson, Stipp
Bang...bang, bang, bang - Berger, Mangena
Reeva could have screamed during shots - Saayman
Female screams during shots - Berger, Johnston, Stipp
Man's voice calling "Help, help, help" from the direction of OP's balcony AFTER last shots

You think the state's case is weak?

Oscar's version

Oscar: Early dinner, early bedtime for both around 10pm
Saayman - Reeva was up and eating around 1am

Oscar: There was no argument
Van der Merwe - for the best part of an hour listened to one side of a loud argument, female voice, coming from the direction of Oscar's house. Later loud crying which she thought was a woman, but hubby says Oscar.

(It's amusing what OP supporters/believers try to do here - on the one hand, there's no evidence it was actually Oscar's house, but on the other the fact she apparently mistook Oscar's voice for a woman's is clutched at as evidence that he sounds like a woman when he screams!

A) Loud crying is not screaming. Does he cry like a woman too? Stipp said he certainly sounded like a man crying when he heard him.

B) If there's an acknowledgement that the cries were coming from Oscar's house, why dismiss that the argument came from there too? Merwe said they came from the same place. And even if she did hear Oscar, was he arguing by himself for an hour?

C) Irrelevant that security didn't hear this argument at 2.20. Merwe clearly heard someone arguing in the street - kept her awake for an hour and she got irritated by it. Whoever was arguing - OP/Reeva or another neighbour - they were quiet at that particular time. Unless Merwe is a bare faced liar or fantasist)

Oscar: I shot Reeva. I heard no screams and had no idea it was her till I went back into the bedroom
Saayman - she almost certainly would have screamed. It's an automatic reaction and she would probably have screamed at the headshot too
Berger, Stipp, Johnson - We all heard screams interspersed with a man's voice
We also heard screams that were pretty much ended by the shots
Oscar - that was me. I scream like a woman except when I shout for help like a man. I also cry like a woman, except when there's someone to actually witness me do it, and then I sound like a man.

Oscar - first thing I did after the accident was run to the balcony and shout for help. This was before I broke down the door with the cricket bat
Stipp - A few minutes after the last bangs, I was standing on my balcony pointing security in the direction of OP's house when I clearly heard a man shout for help from the direction of OP's balcony. There were no more bangs after that.

Seriously?

And that's just on the evidence we've had so far.
 
steveml said:
I am judging on the totality of his first sentence. It's grammatical nonsense. I know when a sentence either makes sense or it doesn't. If an English teacher asked me what could I construe from the sentence below, my only correct answer could be that the speaker was indecisive as to whether the person was male or female.

He remembers it's meant to be a woman at the start of his sentence, but trips up at the end...

"She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of his or her life,"

Why would you ever put his or her on the end of that sentence above, if you know 100% you're talking about a woman?

This is where he *advertiser censored* up, as he should be saying "She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of her life,"
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are getting at with this, he is clearly referring to a women, you are reading to much into it.
He has no reason to lie about whether he thought it was a woman or not.
 
BritsKate said:
I believe they were pretty blunt in their testimony that they didn't want to get involved initially. Unfortunately, this happens all the time in criminal cases. It may be morally repugnant to some but it alone doesn't discredit their testimony.

MOO
Click to expand...

Sure, but I was just trying to figure out if they contacted security after they heard "gunshots" following blood curdling screams. They didn't. I'm not saying that means anything or not.
 
steveml said:
I am judging on the totality of his first sentence. It's grammatical nonsense. I know when a sentence either makes sense or it doesn't. If an English teacher asked me what could I construe from the sentence below, my only correct answer could be that the speaker was indecisive as to whether the person was male or female.

He remembers it's meant to be a woman at the start of his sentence, but trips up at the end...

"She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of his or her life,"

Why would you ever put his or her on the end of that sentence above, if you know 100% you're talking about a woman?

This is where he *advertiser censored* up, as he should be saying "She sounded fearful. Of someone who was in fear of her life,"
Click to expand...
I don't believe he cocked up. I don't believe he remembered what his testimony was 'supposed' to be. Of four references to the 'someone', 3 of them specifically referenced a female.

If an English teacher asked me, I'd ask if the witness was a native English speaker because many foreign languages have a specific male/female article that could, in my opinion, account for the inclusion of both genders when he clearly indicated a female three other times. His or her life seems to belong to a generic 'someone'. Kinda like 'someone follows this trial and has his or her own opinion'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 125 more.
Total: 4,437 (members: 126, guests: 4,311)

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
4,311
Total visitors
4,437
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,850
Messages
18,147,661
Members
231,551
Latest member
Lucysmom20
Back
Top