Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Viper]

Difficult to talk about without a solid understanding of what the figures mean.

Do you know, for example, that 200 db is 100,000,000 times louder than 1 db.

And that 135 is twice as loud as 125?

I do advise people to read that wiki page before they make assessments based on db.

I thought that my post about this would be easily understood, I even suggested having a physics professor handy to help understand the subject, and I gave a link too! :facepalm:

 

[james83]

Exactly. I don't. And neither does anyone here.

And my point is if the Burgers could hear the screaming, then it's highly unlikely they couldn't hear a bat on the door.

I disagree, i think it's plausible they didn't hear it, we have no idea how hard the door was hit.
Why would they not mention it?, we are going into conspiracy territory.

 

[Rumpole]

No, the issue is whether the Burgers could hear a man or woman screaming but not a bat striking a door. If the average db of a woman screaming is right around the db of a bat striking a door, then either the Burgers could hear neither or they could possibly hear both. Can't have it both ways.

I can't see the Judge deciding based on db levels

The burgers heard screams and bangs. There is no question in my mind about that. I do not think they were lying. But their interpretation of what those sounds were caused by is wrong. Tainted by preconceived notions about ALL high pitched voices at night being from women, to the exclusion of a distressed man. Also loud bangs at night they assumed to be gun shots. A reasonable assumption, nobody would think "neighbors whacking door with cricket bat" even in a list of 10 guesses. Their notions about what they heard evolved and they admit having seen and heard news reports about the case.
The evidence as a whole confirms that the burgers were asleep at the time of the shots. All that they heard were noises after the shots... clearly that was not Reeva screaming since she was incapable of screaming by then. They heard Oscar "screaming" and then cricket bat on door. Logically there is no other possible interpretation of their testimony.

 

[minor4th]

Difficult to talk about without a solid understanding of what the figures mean.

Do you know, for example, that 200 db is 100,000,000 times louder than 1 db.

And that 135 is twice as loud as 125?

I do advise people to read that wiki page before they make assessments based on db.

I agree that we as laypersons really have no idea what it means. I'm not drawing any conclusions about it yet. Will wait for the audio experts to testify.

 

[BritsKate]

I agree that is an extremely important point in laying the foundation for premeditation, as well as many other points we have been laying out so vehemently on this forum. Don't get me wrong, I think he's guilty as sin, but we have to hear about motive before I can in good conscience say it has been proven to me.

Motive is essential in this case. You will very rarely ever hear those words out of my mouth, but the Judge and the public need to understand WHY he would do this. We know that he shot her. He doesn't dispute that. Now we just need to get inside his head and understand why. Otherwise, there would be too much doubt as to his true intentions.

This week will be huge. Nel is too smart of a Prosecutor (from all I have heard) to not understand that he has to nail the motivation piece of it. I think (and hope) it's coming.

Legally a motive isn't necessary for a determination of guilt. All that matters is proving he intended to kill whomever was beyond that locked door. His choice of ammunition, the amount of times he fired, that he did not retreat, and the screams go a very long way in proving intent to kill, in my opinion - assuming one believes the ear witnesses and corroborating forensics.

The question then is whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill another person. Intention must not be confused with motive. The person’s motive is the reason why he acted in the manner he did and is usually thought of as irrelevant for determining guilt. Motive can explain why an accused formed the intention to kill another person, but is separate from that intention.

The state can prove the direct intention by proving that the accused actually meant to kill the deceased. Evidence that the accused and the victim were involved in a stormy argument before the killing or that the accused had previously threatened the life of the victim could be important.

The state can also prove intention via the concept of dolus eventualis. This form of intention exists where the state can prove that while the accused might not have meant to kill the victim, he nevertheless foresaw the possibility and nevertheless proceeded with his actions.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

 

[MeeBee]

I thought that my post about this would be easily understood, I even suggested having a physics professor handy to help understand the subject, and I gave a link too! :facepalm:

And that's the point. With all due respect, I am not the person who first brought up db levels to make a point. I understand that none of us, as lay people, are physics experts or understand the complexities of such a thing. Saying "140 is 10 times blah blah blah" means nothing when comparing the bat sound measurement in comparison to the average woman's scream. It defies logic, to me, that they could hear screams but not the bat hitting the door. You can't deny one point while only acknowledging another when both points are logical. My overall point is you can't have it both ways. Either you acknowledge that the science is something we cannot understand or interpret, or acknowledge the possibility that what I am saying is right and the Burgers COULD, POSSIBLY hear the bat strikes.

 

[james83]

Been a pleasure debating with you all, i'm off to bed, can't wait for the week ahead, night all.

 

[LemonMousse]

So you don't think the Burgers would be able to hear Reeva screaming?

Yes, I think they heard her screaming. And the gunshots which were even louder.

The issue is whether they could hear bat on the door. The average cricket bat sound is 80db. Much, much, much, much quieter.

I think it's possible that they could hear a cricket bat smash a door (someone tried and got up to 114, which is very loud) but that was really smashing it and unfortunately the evidence from the door does not support the idea that this happened.

A cricket bat used with that ferocity a) would dent a door and b) could not produce three bangs on top of each other, as all the witnesses were adamant about.

To hit a door with any power you have to pull back before you whack and put all your energy into it. Doing this at a thin internal door with plywood panels would at least dent it, or smash a panel straight through. Oscar did this 4 times, and left two gauges on the veneer?

And, as I said, the evidence was that access through the door was made by prying out the panels, not smashing them in. If he'd smashed them in, how come some came out backwards and ended up in the bathroom? And how come most of the pieces are neat, unsplintered planks?

That Vermuelen said that the bat was used in the door after the shots meant that it was used to twist out a panel. He even showed how.

 

[kittychi]

Yes?

Despite what people might think of OP... his testimony is in evidence.. and it stands unless it is refuted.

People my consider that not much... but it's a heck of a lot more than pure speculation "I think such and such happened" with no evidence to support it at all.

Just MOO of course...Oscar's affidavit does not ring true. I hope he does testify so some things can be clarified. I have to think that Roux has been asking him, "now WHAT did you say happened???"

Because it doesn't ring true, speculation will continue about what the truth really is. That is one reason I come to Websleuths.

I am obviously biased against Oscar, but IMO if he had told the truth in the first place, the State would be saving a lot of time, money and resources. He was arrested on the spot for premeditated murder based on what LE saw at the scene that morning. The prosecution has not backed off from that charge at all. That tells me his affi doesn't ring true with them either.

I wonder what Roux really thinks, marching orders aside. :waitasec:

 

[LemonMousse]

And that's the point. With all due respect, I am not the person who first brought up db levels to make a point. I understand that none of us, as lay people, are physics experts or understand the complexities of such a thing. Saying "140 is 10 times blah blah blah" means nothing when comparing the bat sound measurement in comparison to the average woman's scream. It defies logic, to me, that they could hear screams but not the bat hitting the door. You can't deny one point while only acknowledging another when both points are logical. My overall point is you can't have it both ways. Either you acknowledge that the science is something we cannot understand or interpret, or acknowledge the possibility that what I am saying is right and the Burgers COULD, POSSIBLY hear the bat strikes.

Sorry, but I understand the science.

 

[Rumpole]

And that's the point. With all due respect, I am not the person who first brought up db levels to make a point. I understand that none of us, as lay people, are physics experts or understand the complexities of such a thing. Saying "140 is 10 times blah blah blah" means nothing when comparing the bat sound measurement in comparison to the average woman's scream. It defies logic, to me, that they could hear screams but not the bat hitting the door. You can't deny one point while only acknowledging another when both points are logical. My overall point is you can't have it both ways. Either you acknowledge that the science is something we cannot understand or interpret, or acknowledge the possibility that what I am saying is right and the Burgers COULD, POSSIBLY hear the bat strikes.

db levels are NOT going to be something the judge considers, unless somebody puts before M'Lady evidence about db levels. That has not happened yet.. I doubt it will. If it is introduced I am sure it will merely add confusion with "Dueling Experts" from either side... I can't wait :banghead:

 

[minor4th]

db levels are NOT going to be something the judge considers, unless somebody puts before M'Lady evidence about db levels. That has not happened yet.. I doubt it will. If it is introduced I am sure it will merely add confusion with "Dueling Experts" from either side... I can't wait :banghead:

Except I don't think the state has done any audio tests, so probably won't be dueling experts

 

[Rumpole]

Except I don't think the state has done any audio tests, so probably won't be dueling experts

If Roux introduces such evidence... the State may well go and find an expert to rebut?

 

[LemonMousse]

I thought that my post about this would be easily understood, I even suggested having a physics professor handy to help understand the subject, and I gave a link too! :facepalm:

Think there would be a different reaction if it supported OP. Pesky facts, eh?

 

[kittychi]

Except I don't think the state has done any audio tests, so probably won't be dueling experts

IMO - Audio test results would be challenged, useless and a colossal waste of everyone's time UNLESS they replicate the exact scene...same windows open on every witness's home, same windows open at Oscar's, same time of night, same type of weather, Oscar himself running out to the balcony to yell "Help."

It won't happen.

 

[steveml]

But we are talking about a man who heard shots and went to help, a man who had nothing but good things to say about Oscar is his testimony when he arrived at his house, it just doesn't fit to doubt his integrity, i understand somewhat the reservations people have about the other witness's but not stipp, of course i accept we all form our own judgements and you are entitled to yours.

Thank you. There is a very large misunderstanding regarding questioning witness statements. Almost everybody falls into the trap that if you dispute a witness statement you are doubting their integrity or suggesting that they are lying. This is simply incorrect.

Believing that cases are won by accepting witness statements (specifically recollections) on face value would win you very few cases.

If you ask a witness whether a policeman said 'shoot' or 'don't shoot' he may give you either answer. He may have sent that person down for life because of his answer, and he could be wrong. He doesn't think he's lying, and he's not. You're not suggesting he's lying, you're testing his statement and he's merely providing a recollection. Nobody's suggesting that there's some kind of conspiracy for them to lie. A persons integrity, wealth and status in the community does not have one iota of bearing regarding hearing, eyesight, memory and all the other things needed to provide a solid witness statement.

 

[Rumpole]

Been a pleasure debating with you all, i'm off to bed, can't wait for the week ahead, night all.

Night...

It all starts again in about 7 hours

And then with any luck only 6 more early tea breaks and Nel will announce that the State rests.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm gonna bet that Roux has carried out extensive audio tests and will be able to tell us how loud sounds are and how far they can be heard. I do not believe the state conducted any such experiments.

Roux has already admitted he did tests from OP house on 21st February 2014 but they were in fact heard by two of the witnesses. We do not know if the 3rd witness was at home. However, that aside, one has to have the same weather conditions, ie temperature, humidity, wind direction etc. as these factors weigh greatly on the distance that sound carries. For a gun or a bat test he would have had to have carried these out in OP's house (again with the same weather conditions) or they would be deemed irrelevant. Bat or gun tests away from the scene of the crime will tell us nothing but it is probably just the sort of thing Roux will try to do.

 

[Interested Bystander]

IMO - Audio test results would be challenged, useless and a colossal waste of everyone's time UNLESS they assimilate the exact scene...same windows open on every witness's home, same windows open at Oscar's, same time of night, same type of weather, Oscar himself running out to the balcony to yell "Help."

It won't happen.

LOL you must have posted whilst I was busy typing much the same argument.

 

[steveml]

I agree that we as laypersons really have no idea what it means. I'm not drawing any conclusions about it yet. Will wait for the audio experts to testify.

I'm a music producer and am very familiar with decibel levels. I can confirm that there is no real evidence that could be persuasive. So many factors are involved to replicate the conditions and then you would need to test the individual's hearing as older people have different pitch levels. If they brought a test into court it would certainly be for showmanship, there's no reliable evidence, and any data would be so easy to discredit.