Would the screaming be heard in a locked toilet before the hole in the door was created?.
Unfortunately, I have no idea and probably, based on the apparent dearth of forensics, neither does anyone else!
Would the screaming be heard in a locked toilet before the hole in the door was created?.
Yes and they did.......................!!!!!!
Amazing that you could even imagine such a thing! If the judge does not take full acount of witness evidence her judgement will be liable to be overturned. I'm more interested in sleuthing the event than the trial but I'm prepared to predict that both counsel will be talking a lot about the witness evidence in what we have yet to hear. And rightly so.
On Thursday, Pistorius was questioned about his recollection of the night of Steenkamps death. He said he was lying on her stomach and fell asleep, then woke up in the middle of the night feeling hot.
Gee, maybe OP didn't see Reeva leave the bed, what with his head down and his hands rubbing his face and all. Ridiculous.I sat up in bed, Pistorius said. I put my head down, my hands on my head and rubbed my face. Reeva asked me if I couldnt sleep. I said I cant. He said he then got out of bed
What i find interesting is that it seems to fit with some personality traits that he has exhibited in the past and during this trial.
I think the "fight" to compete at London 2012 highlights this "war in OP psyche" you mentioned.
It fits with the fact that he was always shown to think like that , that the mind controls the body not viceversa.
It could be said that focusing on denial rather than acceptance (and the implications and ramifications denial of oneself limitations can carry going forward in life) of your limitations has proved detrimental to OP in other areas of OP persona. But i'm not such an expert to talk about that so you know...
Facial Micro/Macro/Mini/partial expressions are generated only at sub-conscious level , for they manifest themselves through no deliberate or voluntary thought process.
There are many books on the subject , which i have read many of , i've trained myself in seeing all this...as personal pleasure and interest , always promising myself to use it with utmost discretion as it can be very unhealthy![]()
I think there were many that felt that Nel was brutal in his cross examination of OP. Many were saying that such a cross examination would never be tolerated in the United States and even the judge asked him to tone it down in that he can't call OP a liar.
I understand why Nel did this, he was trying to break OP down and I also understand the crime that OP is charged with, but as a human being, I did feel sorry for OP
I know some will feel that as a killer, there is nothing that is to harsh for OP, but remember the old saying, and eye for an eye eventually leaves everyone blind.
True she did, but only on an occassion or two - on the whole she let him take the line and tone he did. I had no problem with it either. OP is tough - it's one of the few positive qualities I've credited him for - stolid, determined, strong - he largely withstood that cross like a champion. So if he handled it and his defence objected little and the judge allowed it then that's how it is there. No disrespect to our American friends on here but I get sick of commentary from a perspective of how it would be done in the States. Not that the differences aren't worth pointing out but once they've been acknowledged then deal with it. Same goes for Australia, UK, rest of Europe too if they're taking the same tack.I think there were many that felt that Nel was brutal in his cross examination of OP. Many were saying that such a cross examination would never be tolerated in the United States and even the judge asked him to tone it down in that he can't call OP a liar.
I understand why Nel did this, he was trying to break OP down and I also understand the crime that OP is charged with, but as a human being, I did feel sorry for OP
I know some will feel that as a killer, there is nothing that is to harsh for OP, but remember the old saying, and eye for an eye eventually leaves everyone blind.
But you do need to have 'reception' or else the phone will not connect to anyone. That's what i was trying to say.
Yes a judge is going to know the law inside and out and be less swayed than a jury by her emotions or ear witness testimony that came a week after the event, other ear witness testimony is contradictory. I believe the good judge will sort it out more efficiently than a jury. Nothing really earth shattering in my opinion.
I think there were many that felt that Nel was brutal in his cross examination of OP. Many were saying that such a cross examination would never be tolerated in the United States and even the judge asked him to tone it down in that he can't call OP a liar.
I understand why Nel did this, he was trying to break OP down and I also understand the crime that OP is charged with, but as a human being, I did feel sorry for OP
I know some will feel that as a killer, there is nothing that is to harsh for OP, but remember the old saying, and eye for an eye eventually leaves everyone blind.
A scenario (suspend your disbelief about specifics) and a question.
OP had a bad few days. Reeva comes over totally into VDay, OP not so much. Not a great night and at some point they fight. A lot. OP goes to sleep. Reeva can't. She goes downstairs and gets a snack, then comes back upstairs. OP wakes up and is angry all over again. They fight again, this time more intensely. Reeva considers leaving, but hasn't decided for sure. Both are tense. OP gets up to do whatever.. move fans, go on balcony, go downstairs... whatever. ( Yes, I know what he said he did, but since y'all think he lied about everything, why believe what he said he did here?)
Continuing. Reeve slips out of bed and goes to the loo. She may have decided to leave, or maybe she just had to pee. In either case she's quiet on purpose because she doesn't want the fight to escalate any further.
OP hears a noise in the bathroom. He is already enraged, has not let go of the fight. He doesn't check for Reeva. His first thought isn't protecting her, its that a SOB might be in his house.
He's angry - very - but he also is feeling vulnerable. Not afraid, but vulnerable because he is at a physical disadvantage. Just reality of the matter, and part of the reason he feels compelled to compensate for that disadvantage by always reaching for a gun.
The thought of pushing the panic button or running the other way never occurs to him. It doesn't because response to the panic button isn't instaneous, because if he turned his back to flee he might be overtaken, because he is OP, who isn't going to back down, and because his reasoning is already impaired by rage, increased exponentially by his perception that an intruder dared to threaten him.
He grabs his gun, runs down the hallway screaming get the f out. Reeva has no idea what's going on and stays silent. OP hears her move, perhaps she reaches for the door handle. He doesnt fire a warning shot because it never occurs to him to do so, not because he's afraid of a richocet.
He shoots once. The noise is deafening. Literally.
He doesn't hear her scream because of the deafening noise. He is also literally pumped on adrenaline, and furious. He pauses for a brief moment because the noise hurts his ears, and because the temporary loss of hearing increases his anger and his fear. He fires 3 more shots. He fires them knowing that he is firing them, and yes, hoping that the shots will eliminate the threat. He isn't trying to kill whoever is behind the door, but he knows enough even in that mental state that he is very likely to cause them serious injury.
Given that scenario ......(please don't argue about the details...its only a scenario) ....do you think he should be found guilty of murder?
But why do their actions and reactions undermine what they heard. Just because they didn't do this or that doesn't mean they didn't hear what they say they did. The Stander girl did much the same thing - in fact she was so terrified she made herself safe before ignoring it until she knew OP was involved. Do we give her testimony to what she heard, not what she did, a 'Hmmm' too? And if that's why we're handing them out then doesn't Dr Stipp deserve a big 'bravo!'? Let's talk about his earwitness evidence since he went above and beyond.
BTW, didn't both of the two sets of neighbours at least attempt to make calls to security? If so it's more than Carice Stander did.
Like butterflies 'hmmms' are free so we can all have as many as we want. I have oodles re this case. You know Carmelita you say 'let's discuss the evidence' but then downplay it because of certain factors which, while they may be relevant, are not enough to disregard it entirely so it has to be dealt with. Despite the inconsistencies and problems there can be with direct witness testimony they all heard what sounded to them like a woman screaming just before a woman was shot dead. That's evidence so let's dicuss it. If you discount it was RS then your only alternative is OP was the one screaming for nigh on 15 minutes right?Eyewitness testimony is precarious, I imagine ear witness testimony even more so. I think the delay in reporting what they heard makes their testimony even more precarious.
I find Stripp credible but I don't give anyone infallibility.
Thanks for the hmmms........
![]()
.....snipped......
I am a petite woman and I have stopped my car on a street and gotten out of it to break up a fight between 2 boys larger (by far) than myself.
......snipped........
.
The thing is, if this panel, and God help Oscar if it does, finds that he has an extremely debilitating mental defect, and/or illness, he will be kept as a State patient in the locked ward for as long as it is deemed necessary until he is either sane enough to conduct his instructions to his attorney, or so unwell he cannot be released in the foreseeable future outside the confines of the treating hospital. And that could mean 10 years, 15, even 20 years of mandatory treatment, whatever form it takes, .. regular evaluations, mandatory therapy, mandatory observation.. oh dear.
it makes prison look like a teddy bears picnic in comparison.
I'll try to explain. The article and your OP were supporting the idea that the bat came first. Presumably, the theory is that those bat strikes would have been directed at the door while she was cowering behind it. In that case, why would she scream AFTER the bat strikes but not during them. No one heard bangs and screams together like one of them heard a male and female voice together, for example. If I was cowering behind a door while my crazed lunatic boyfriend was trying to bash it down with a bat, I'd definitely be screaming!
Like butterflies 'hmmms' are free so we can all have as many as we want. I have oodles re this case. You know Carmelita you say 'let's discuss the evidence' but then downplay it because of certain factors which, while they may be relevant, are not enough to disregard it entirely so it has to be dealt with. Despite the inconsistencies and problems there can be with direct witness testimony they all heard what sounded to them like a woman screaming just before a woman was shot dead. That's evidence so let's dicuss it. If you discount it was RS then your only alternative is OP was the one screaming for nigh on 15 minutes right?
In fairness I say that there are other conclusions that may be drawn about the evidence.
I don;t agree that there is credible evidence that 5 people heard a woman screaming for 15 minutes that is the beginning and end of my view I know others disagree.
And I won't state it again because it has become a fruitless conversation at this point.