Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[IfIMay]

No worries. All I can say is that it didn't deceive me as I presumed it was being used in conjunction with the standing man photo to show the proportional difference. I guess it's how you interpret it.

The most important thing is that nobody ended up deceived, and if you were for a few minutes, by the end of the session you should have grasped the idea that you wouldn't be able to see anyone in the top half of the window.

how do you know? they didn't PROVE that with their slight of hand test. It tells me that they couldn't do an actual reconstruction because it would have supported the Stipps. Sneaky and unethical.

 

[Mr Ron]

I do have my problems with the way the sound test was done.

The first problem I have is the open nature of the space in which they were testing. This is a personal observation but if you have ever been on a balloon flight you can notice sounds from a distance that you would be unable to hear on the ground. This is clearly because there is little to absorb the sound wave before it hits your ear.

In a similar manner I would deduce that a noise carries much further in an open range than it does in a built up area. Not only that, but the sound is less distorted than would be the case if the wave had to go through/bounce off structures. Sounds can appear very different in different contexts and it remains unclear to me that sounds that appear the same in an open setting would remain indistinguishable in an alternative environment. I'm happy to be guided to a different view on this matter.

The second problem I have with it relates to amplitude (more generally -loudness) and the apparent lack of accuracy with which this variable was tested. Dixon testified to having to use ear protection for using the gun but not the cricket bat. Admittedly this is probably because of health and safety procedures, but those health and safety procedures are there for a reason - Oscar's ears did not ring after the bat strikes for instance. I am of the (not solid) opinion that the sound of the cricket bat and that of gunshots differs in amplitude - an important characteristic of sound eminently differentiable using the human ear.

This is important because Dixon testified that they were trying to capture the two sounds for the 'reliable comparison' that we heard in court.

In the course of my employment I have had to work on innumerable occasions with sound recordists attempting to capture sound and I am in contact with more than one music producer. When a sound recordist is attempting to reliably capture the qualities of two sounds differing in loudness it is often necessary for him to dull or enhance the receptiveness of his equipment via the manipulation of levels. This is to avoid distortion on the equipment relating to the loudness of the sound it is subjected to. This is not a matter of deception but routinely undertaken in order to preserve the greater portion of a sounds quality (since the relative loudness of a sound can be restored electronically later). Since it seems that it is this greater portion of the sounds' quality that Dixon and team were hoping to capture, some such manipulation of levels would seem likely.

Given that Dixon testified that no electronic manipulation of the sound was carried out on the recorded sounds I am concerned that the former portion of correct practice may have been carried out by the music producer, but not the latter. This would mean that an important characteristic (distinguishable to the ear) of the original sounds was necessarily removed at the point of recording, but not replaced afterwards.

It is also true to say that without an accurate measurement of amplitude any replacement of loudness is likely to be unreliable.

I would therefore not accept a side by side comparison of the two noises without explanations as to exactly what steps were undertaken to record the sound, what other methods were used to measure it and what if any post production was carried out.

I am also concerned that given his rather unprofessional approach to taking photographs of windows that his other experiments suffer from a similar lack of rigour. I am led to understand though that this particular experiment was not overseen by him.

 

[minor4th]

Watched the videos below. This is what I found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8
All in the first 3 minutes of the video above.

Roux: Colonel, just before the adjournment you explained the basis why you testified that the shots were fired first and then it was the cricket bat hitting the door and you specifically referred to the crack that run down into the hole and then down into a different place.

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady, and I just quickly draw (sic) this diagram on this piece of paper here to show you what I'm referring to. If you look at the bullet hole on the furthest to the right, I hope it's visible from there, but there's a crack coming into the bullet hole, or a piece of wood that broke, and..uh..the breakage was into the bullet hole on the right hand side of the bullet hole and then the crack goes out on the left hand side of the bullet hole and that is why I said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken. Because if it was the other way around the crack would have been in a straight line. It happened like this (pointing to the diagram) because of the bullet hole that the crack going down initiated in a different position.

Roux talks about the defense which will present evidence that it was first the shooting then the hitting of the bat and the breaking of the door. He asks Vermeulen if that would be his evidence as well.

Vermeulen: (2:35 on video above)
For that specific crack? Yes, my lady, it was after the firing of the bullets took place, yes, my lady.

Then the next day Nel is back in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

Nel: Now, Colonel, I took a specific note of an answer you gave yesterday to Adv. Roux pertaining to what happened first the shots or the bat. You said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken?

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady.

Nel: (Looking at the bat marks on the door) Can you say scientifically, if we take the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: (Looks at the door for a few seconds.) My lady, scientifically I would not think that it would be possible to say whether that small mark..if I'm correct you're referring to that small mark there (points at door with laser to mark above door handle) on the side I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

You left out from your transcript that Nel was specifically referring to a "kick mark" and not a cricket bat mark

 

[sleuth-d-]

It does establish that cricket bat sounds are similar to gunshots and were apparently mistaken for gunshots by the Stipps

Since the state's own expert testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door, then the earlier sounds were gunshots - not cricket bat.

which state's witness are you talking about?

 

[wishIknewmore]

At what point in the trial does Ashton Kutcher come out and tell us we've been Punked?

I know, right? It isn't going to happen though. Unfortunately Ashton is in small town outside of New Orleans, LA. Must say I actually saw him and Mila at the MSY airport on Monday. They are supposedly trying to lay low for a few days.

This trial certainly has some unusual experts. Maybe its the twilight zone?

 

[Emz73]

It does establish that cricket bat sounds are similar to gunshots and were apparently mistaken for gunshots by the Stipps

Since the state's own expert testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door, then the earlier sounds were gunshots - not cricket bat.

BUT they didn't!!! Somebody put up the whole transcript. This is getting silly now.

 

[Britlaws]

Nor should it.

I agree, I was having a bit of a joke.... not that this matter is funny

 

[Viper]

It does establish that cricket bat sounds are similar to gunshots and were apparently mistaken for gunshots by the Stipps

Since the state's own expert testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door, then the earlier sounds were gunshots - not cricket bat.

BIB. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Please read the following information courtesy of Liesbeth

Watched the videos below. This is what I found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8
All in the first 3 minutes of the video above.

Roux: Colonel, just before the adjournment you explained the basis why you testified that the shots were fired first and then it was the cricket bat hitting the door and you specifically referred to the crack that run down into the hole and then down into a different place.

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady, and I just quickly draw (sic) this diagram on this piece of paper here to show you what I'm referring to. If you look at the bullet hole on the furthest to the right, I hope it's visible from there, but there's a crack coming into the bullet hole, or a piece of wood that broke, and..uh..the breakage was into the bullet hole on the right hand side of the bullet hole and then the crack goes out on the left hand side of the bullet hole and that is why I said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken. Because if it was the other way around the crack would have been in a straight line. It happened like this (pointing to the diagram) because of the bullet hole that the crack going down initiated in a different position.

Roux talks about the defense which will present evidence that it was first the shooting then the hitting of the bat and the breaking of the door. He asks Vermeulen if that would be his evidence as well.

Vermeulen: (2:35 on video above)
For that specific crack? Yes, my lady, it was after the firing of the bullets took place, yes, my lady.

Then the next day Nel is back in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L668jFUvGY
Time on video: 12:50 - 13:50.

Nel: Now, Colonel, I took a specific note of an answer you gave yesterday to Adv. Roux pertaining to what happened first the shots or the bat. You said the bullet hole was there before the panel was broken?

Vermeulen: That's correct, my lady.

Nel: (Looking at the bat marks on the door) Can you say scientifically, if we take the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?

Vermeulen: (Looks at the door for a few seconds.) My lady, scientifically I would not think that it would be possible to say whether that small mark..if I'm correct you're referring to that small mark there (points at door with laser to mark above door handle) on the side I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.

 

[Clutchbag]

and he was by all accounts a good husband, father and grandfather, but had a temper and suffered jealousy. So, for OP it looks like the attempt to trump with the valentines card wont make a jot of difference!

how did he trump with Reevas valentine card? he didnt get her one or a present by all accounts, just made up a story about the pair of them going to the jewellers together next day, pathetic, he was so deeply in love, yeah right, signs of being deeply in love is humiliating your partner, in private and public, getting insanely jealous over nothing, controlling them, dictating to them, not getting them a card flowers or present, getting their birthday wrong, and then pummelling their body with a round of lethal black talon bullets, searing Nd tearing through her flesh, and brain, charming, hope i never fall in love if thats the pattern

 

[Onlyamum]

So I've been thinking

Even if we were to believe Oscar that he thought there was an intruder (which I don't).

What on earth did he think would happen when he fired 4 shots into a tiny toilet? I still can't see him getting out of this. Although I do think he knew it was Reeva.

I wouldn't and have ever locked a toilet door with just myself and husband in the room.

She did, and in the dark, if we are to believe the toilet light was not working at that particular moment??!! Doesn't make sense.... The poor girl must have been petrified...

Does anyone know if the Judge believes he thought it was an intruder and not Reeva would the verdict be the same ie premed murder or does this only pertain to Reeva?

Also does anyone know what penalty or jail time comes with the other charges with the gun and ammunition?

However the appearance of the psychologist during the trial makes me think that no matter what the sentence outcome, he will not spend an hour in jail due to his 'mental state'. I think he's got all his bases covered? That worries me.....

 

[sleuth-d-]

Well, the defence would never say that their expert refused to testify and a respected expert would not usually admit to a refusal to testify and/or the reasons, so it's all speculation I guess.

either way it is not good news for op. to put it mildly.

 

[Hope4More]

The defense concedes neighbors heard some of what happened in that bathroom. Cricket bat hitting the door or gunshots, Reeva's screams or P's - or both- how is it the neighbors could hear all this and the defendant, a few feet away, could not hear her scream after she was shot?

Even being partially deafened by the first gunshot, there is IMO no doubt that she screamed (hip first). He redirected the final 2 shots. Random? Or because he heard her movement and scream after the first shot -- therefore not deafened- and aimed for that sound.

 

[Britlaws]

how did he trump with Reevas valentine card? he didnt get her one or a present by all accounts, just made up a story about the pair of them going to the jewellers together next day, pathetic, he was so deeply in love, yeah right, signs of being deeply in love is humiliating your partner, in private and public, getting insanely jealous over nothing, controlling them, dictating to them, not getting them a card flowers or present, getting their birthday wrong, and then pummelling their body with a round of lethal black talon bullets, searing Nd tearing through her flesh, and brain, charming, hope i never fall in love if thats the pattern

Sorry, I was having a it of a joke, OP's insistence on the 'loving relationship' and all that and his saving the valentines card until last. I totally agree with you and the other case sentenced today shows that even having an enduring marriage with children and grandchildren, you will still get life if you shoot and kill your partner in a temper. Well, we knew that anyway.

 

[minor4th]

I don't think that is quite right not that it changes much. Neither appears to have exactly the qualifications that were needed but Vermeulen has undertaken many courses in various aspects associated with his work. I imagine, in his time with the police, that Dixon probably did too.

Vermeulen has a BSc degree majoring in Chemistry and Zoology not Geology.

He also has an Hons Degree and MSc in Chemistry.

All obtained from North West University.

Vermeulen has obviously studied a great deal more than Dixon but in their jobs I think it is experience that matters. Vermeulen was expected to be able to comment on something he had no real training for. Just like poor old Dixon.

This is so funny to me because Vermuelen was a bumbling and dishonest witness - and Dixon was actually Vermuelen's commander in the materials department, the position Vermuelen now holds. Yet, somehow a conclusion is made that "obviously" Vermuelen has studied a great deal more than Dixon and has more job experience. :waitasec:

Both witnesses testified about things that are not within their field of expertise. Vermuelen was actually caught lying about the "tests" he performed with the cricket bat and he specifically told Van Staden to withhold photos from album that were beneficial to the defense.

Yet, it's Dixon who is being ridiculed and mocked and Vermuelen is not doubted at all.

Fact is Vermuelen helped the defense a whole lot by confirming that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hitting the door and by lying so blatantly as to undermine the investigation.

 

[james83]

You left out from your transcript that Nel was specifically referring to a "kick mark" and not a cricket bat mark

No he was referring to a bat mark and kick mark.

 

[steveml]

how do you know? they didn't PROVE that with their slight of hand test. It tells me that they couldn't do an actual reconstruction because it would have supported the Stipps. Sneaky and unethical.

Nothing scientific really. I imagined that if the person was raised in height by the length of my hand, I would still not be able to see the torso and head in the top window.

 

[IfIMay]

Nothing scientific really. I imagined that if the person was raised in height by the length of my hand, I would still not be able to see the torso and head in the top window.

how about if you were raised from the street to the balcony. what do you think then? try it. you see differently from the different vantage point. Or.. maybe you don't want to because it would shake the foundation of your belief in Oscar and his "version".

 

[aa9511]

Hi all,

Have not read the posts for today so have no idea what's going on.

But I wanted to bring this post over from last thread, from user Panda:

No, I didn't see that but it wouldn't surprise me.

I have noticed how his demeanour is totally different in the court room as opposed to when he's out of the confines of the court - I think he's been very carefully coached regarding how to behave when in court. Outside court he appears a very controlled person to me.

Haven't heard about what his teammates have said, but would be interesting.

Panda, you make a very good point. Notice how when he's shown outside of court, walking in or walking out, he has his back straight and head held up high. Now, if he was so emotionally "broken," wouldn't he be walking with shoulders a little slumped and with his head down. Like, leave me alone. I can't deal with this right now.

Nuh, uh. Not Oscar. Oh nooooo. He walks with back straight, oozing out confidence, and head held high. It is just sickening, really.

JMO.

 

[minor4th]

Very interesting .. from that link:

"In the evenings prosecutor Gerrie Nel teaches tots aged between three and six the finer points of the sport, said Sunday's Rapport"

Mentions Nel is "kneeling on the mat" so it sounds like he's teaching these "tots" actual wrestling moves. Awesome.

That's awesome! I like Nel more now

 

[TipDog]

I do have my problems with the way the sound test was done.

The first problem I have is the open nature of the space in which they were testing. This is a personal observation but if you have ever been on a balloon flight you can notice sounds from a distance that you would be unable to hear on the ground. This is clearly because there is little to absorb the sound wave before it hits your ear.

In a similar manner I would deduce that a noise carries much further in an open range than it does in a built up area. Not only that, but the sound is less distorted than would be the case if the wave had to go through/bounce off structures. Sounds can appear very different in different contexts and it remains unclear to me that sounds that appear the same in an open setting would remain indistinguishable in an alternative environment. I'm happy to be guided to a different view on this matter.

The second problem I have with it relates to amplitude (more generally -loudness) and the apparent lack of accuracy with which this variable was tested. Dixon testified to having to use ear protection for using the gun but not the cricket bat. Admittedly this is probably because of health and safety procedures, but those health and safety procedures are there for a reason - Oscar's ears did not ring after the bat strikes for instance. I am of the (not solid) opinion that the sound of the cricket bat and that of gunshots differs in amplitude - an important characteristic of sound eminently differentiable using the human ear.

This is important because Dixon testified that they were trying to capture the two sounds for the 'reliable comparison' that we heard in court.

In the course of my employment I have had to work on innumerable occasions with sound recordists attempting to capture sound and I am in contact with more than one music producer. When a sound recordist is attempting to reliably capture the qualities of two sounds differing in loudness it is often necessary for him to dull or enhance the receptiveness of his equipment via the manipulation of levels. This is to avoid distortion on the equipment relating to the loudness of the sound it is subjected to. This is not a matter of deception but routinely undertaken in order to preserve the greater portion of a sounds quality (since the relative loudness of a sound can be restored electronically later). Since it seems that it is this greater portion of the sounds' quality that Dixon and team were hoping to capture, some such manipulation of levels would seem likely.

Given that Dixon testified that no electronic manipulation of the sound was carried out on the recorded sounds I am concerned that the former portion of correct practice may have been carried out by the music producer, but not the latter. This would mean that an important characteristic (distinguishable to the ear) of the original sounds was necessarily removed at the point of recording, but not replaced afterwards.

It is also true to say that without an accurate measurement of amplitude any replacement of loudness is likely to be unreliable.

I would therefore not accept a side by side comparison of the two noises without explanations as to exactly what steps were undertaken to record the sound, what other methods were used to measure it and what if any post production was carried out.

I am also concerned that given his rather unprofessional approach to taking photographs of windows that his other experiments suffer from a similar lack of rigour. I am led to understand though that this particular experiment was not overseen by him.

:goodpost: