Trial Discussion Thread #44 - 14.07.1-2, Day 34-35

[BlueShoe]

I was thinking sarcasm, innuendo or ridicule but don't think there should be a comma after the 'I' if that was the case.

Oxford comma or not, now there's a REAL debate!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[kaos]

LOL, well it's proved Cherwell's point that it's distracting but as it's a sleuthing website, I wouldn't have expected anything different. I wouldn't like it's 'power' to be taken away though so I'll give up with the guesses.

E.T.A That's not intended to be sarcastic either as I have huge respect for what others believe in.

 

[K.T]

I didn't have time to follow trial except for WS, so I am now beyond surprised that the defense calls Pistorius manager Van Zyl as character witness.

Agents are talent-handlers whose job is to get deals and professionally lie (er, or, 'adjust' the truth for the most favourable light for their client) especially to the media.

They're paid to make money for their client and often shield information both from and too their client.

There is the opposite of an independent witness - the agent's career and livelihood obviously runs on the back of Pistorius' fate. Cripes what is the defense team doing?!

 

[alioop]

Finally found today's thread. Was feeling very lonely in yesterday's!

 

[jay-jay]

Any one in SA ever see OP in person? Perhaps helping an elderly person cross the road. If you did. Could you please contact the DT team .

:floorlaugh:

 

[alioop]

I didn't have time to follow trial except for WS, so I am now beyond surprised that the defense calls Pistorius manager Van Zyl as character witness.

Agents are talent-handlers whose job is to get deals and professionally lie (er, or, 'adjust' the truth for the most favourable light for their client) especially to the media.

They're paid to make money for their client and often shield information both from and too their client.

There is the opposite of an independent witness - the agent's career and livelihood runs on the back of Pistorius' fate. Cripes what is the defense team doing?!

Regardless of the outcome, I think OP's career as an athlete is over though he may need a book agent and ghost writer.

 

[Ncl1968]

Any one in SA ever see OP in person? Perhaps helping an elderly person cross the road. If you did. Could you please contact the DT team .

Does shooting a dog after running it over count

Maybe the dog owner is next.. Mylady I never actually spoke to op as he did not speak a word just ran over my dog got out of the car and shot my dog and drove off.....

 

[kaos]

Regardless of the outcome, I think OP's career as an athlete is over though he may need a book agent and ghost writer.

You've just made me realise that if OP is convicted, he probably wouldn't be allowed entry to the USA even if he's given a soft sentence and I believe entry to the UK could also be difficult given that there was an uproar about Mike Tyson after his rape conviction. Lots of doors may be closed to OP (hopefully a prison cell door too) like book deals etc.

 

[jay-jay]

Laughing in the dock like that, so disrepectful, as well as down right creepy.

For anyone that missed it ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ_hUzn5vaY

24 minutes and 37 seconds in ..


Disgusting.

 

[jay-jay]

I really hope the media pick up on that mocking laugh .. it's speaks volumes.

 

[Viper]

bng-go

Lets make sure that it is completely dead, its heart is not still beating and producing intermittent arterial spurts 9 minutes later and all of that, by adding Liesbeth's "ridicule" as a replacement for rebuttal, just in case. :jail:

 

[pandax81]

N: On this particular night, there was nothing normal - deceased screamed for her life - if someone screams in absolute fear, wldn't you put sound nearer to 120?

And Lin politely explains that's the equivalent of a jet taking off.

This is why (imo) Nel should avoid all technical challenges!

Hi there, I have a degree in Acoustical Engineering, I worked as a recording engineer for many years and now am a mastering engineer. I would say my expertise in the theory and practice of this field is easily a match for Mr Lin and although I can't promise to have all the answers, I am happy to answer and discuss anything websleuthers wish to ask.

I haven't caught up on today's testimony, but I heard yesterdays. Some obvious points struck me straight away:

• The level of a scream at ~1m was assumed by Mr Lin to be 110dB, without specific citation or independent testing. However, research shows young, healthy females can easily be capable of hitting over 120dB at 1m when replicating a loud scream. You need to add 10dB to all his calculations straight off the bat. Please see the research paper here: http://www.audioforensics.com/PDFs/AES122_Scream.pdf (This is very loud, but it is nowhere near the same level as a jet at 1 metre - if Mr Lin said that, or implied 120dB at 1m from screaming would not realistically be possible, then I question his expertise)

• The attenuation calculation in free air due to distance was fine
• The attenuation due to the toilet door and open window at Pistorius' house was not a measurement - it was a modelled approximation - and I think Lin put it at about 29/30 dB. The range could be wide, but this is certainly on the high side - for location recordings, I would always assume 10dB indoors with window open, 20dB with a tight double-glazed window closed, and a further 10dB for each internal room/door division - this was important when minimising recording noise and in practice these measurements usually held up very well. So I would say 20dB not 30dB attenuation would be a more typical figure.
• I can't remember off the top of my head the attenuation of Lin for a closed window at the receive location, but I remember thinking that too was an over-generous number - as above, I would model 20dB.
• *Lin used the following criterion for audibility and intelligibility: signal must be greater than 10dBA above background noise level in dBA. I absolutely dispute this, it is seriously flawed and an over-stringent requirement in this specific scenario, for several reasons. I'll keep it brief for now but basically: 1) an A-weighting does NOT properly account for audibility across the whole frequency spectrum and all sound levels. Background noise at night is very-low frequency and low intensity, it is not very audible at all - a voice at the same dBA SPL will sound much louder - the A-weighting correction helps but doesn't go far enough - it simply does not work as Lin want's it to work, he is applying it inappropriately and far too simply. 2) Sounds can be audible even with negative signal-to-noise levels, especially when they occupy different frequency spectra 3) the character of a sound influences audibility to a significant degree - a scream in particular is known to be one of the most sensitive sounds, possibly through evolution - the criterion ignores this factor completely also 4) the paper I link to earlier simply disproves Mr Lin's criterion - there screams with a signal to noise level in dBA of just 4 and 5 dB were "clearly audible" and identifiable.
• Mr Roux kept trying to do a cheap trick with the SPL meter and Mr Lin. He compared the SPL of the quiet courtroom (38dBA) - and said - see how quiet it sounds, this is what 38dBA sounds like. As I point out above, this is bogus - 38dBA of talking for example would still be quiet but it would be perceived as much louder than the background noise of a room.

*If I have time tonight, I will do a quick bit of research - at my home, I will measure the background noise level and see exactly what level of scream is needed to be audible and identifiable. This will serve as a far more accurate model of what SPL is typically needed (IMO) than Mr Lin's criterion.

pandax.

 

[Viper]

For anyone that missed it ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ_hUzn5vaY

24 minutes and 37 seconds in ..


Disgusting.

OP did that with Darren too, right? Today OP seemed humored when Nel was describing that OP thinks everything is centered around him and his feelings/needs/desires. I wonder if that was brought to his attention, and Nel's too, by the Evaluation Report. At least now OP knows more about himself, I'm sure he really likes himself even more than he loved himself a month ago. LOL!

I was surprised that he did this, again. I would have thought that he would have his courtroom "act" together by now. It's only 3.5-4 hours a day, weekdays, excluding tea breaks and long lunches, and vomiting/crying breaks as needed, :smile:

 

[jay-jay]

Thanks for your excellent post, pandax :loveyou: .. from what you have said there, it makes it all the more apparent to me that Mr Lin was trying to tailor his report and his expert witness testimony to that of the defence team .. yes, I know that he is a witness for the defence, but you still have to be truthful and your evidence should be for the court, not for any side in particular.

 

[kaos]

As I'm unfortunately watching Miss Shriekapova at the moment, I remembered her decibel level was tested and found this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/8849813/Tennis-worlds-top-10-grunters.html

She's at the top with an an eardrum shattering 101 decibels.

E.T.A taken from Wiki "Michelle Larcher de Brito, who had a reported decibel reading of 109" hwow:

 

[AJ_DS]

Peet van Zyl alleges that Oscar Pistorius performance in London had raised him to the level of an international sports icon and that his income from sponsors and product ambassadorships would multiply by a factor of 5 !!!

Let us examine the reality of Oscar's performance in 2012 :

London Paralympics 100 m : 4 th – 11.17 seconds

The star of this event was Jonnie Peacock, the 19-year old athlete who finished 1st with a new Paralympic record. The 20-year old Richard Browne finished in 2 nd place and the 27-year old South African Arnu Fourie finished in 3rd place… Oscar did not even make the podium.

Sponsors are well known for substantially increasing their financial backing of athletes who's performance decline and come in 4 th place.

London Paralympics 200 m : 2 nd – 21.52 seconds

Oscar Pistorius accused the the 19-year old Alan Oliveira of cheating… Peet van Zyl referred to this race as the "famous race"… infamous race would be a far more accurate way of describing this race.

Sponsors are well known for substantially increasing their financial backing of athletes who display poor sportsmanship and sore looser behavior on international media broadcasts.

London Paralympics 400 : 1 st – 46.68 seconds

Oscar Pistorius finished 3.46 seconds ahead of the second place athlete… the 400 m is far less prestigious than the 100 m and the 200 m… the high level athletes do not even compete in this event… so Oscar had no real competition in the 400 m (same as in Beijing, 4 years earlier)

Sponsors are well known for substantially increasing their financial backing of athletes who perform in non-prestigious events without any serious competition.

London Olympics 400 m : 16 th – 45.44 seconds

After lengthy and expensive proceedings to be allowed to compete against able-bodied athletes, Oscar Pistorius only managed a 16 th place. It was only hubris that led him down this futile and expensive judicial appeal because Oscar and his coach knew that his 400 m times were nowhere good enough to seriously compete against able-bodied athletes.

Sponsors are well known for substantially increasing their financial backing of athletes who engage in publicity stunts that ultimately backfire pathetically.

Oscar's future

It is a well documented and known fact, that on average athletes peak and reach their prime at around 25 years of age… Oscar was supposed to be in his prime at the London Paralympics in 2012 at age 26… but he failed to achieve any significant or noteworthy performance.

Peet van Zyl alleges that Oscar's retirement from competition was planned for 2017… this means that Oscar Pistorius would compete at the Rio Paralympics in 2016 at age 30… he would be far past his prime… I suspect he would struggle to even qualify for the 100 m and 200 m events.

Oscar Pistorius was clearly past his prime, on a downhill slope and his carbon fiber running blades were no longer a unique and novel technology that provided him with an significant edge over other athletes… the blades were now common place and being used by all of the other athletes… athletes who were far younger and faster than Oscar Pistorius.

Sponsors are well known for substantially increasing their financial backing of athletes who are loosing the favorable lime-light and are rapidly fading out of relevance.

 

[4MrsB]

Hi there, I have a degree in Acoustical Engineering, I worked as a recording engineer for many years and now am a mastering engineer. I would say my expertise in the theory and practice of this field is easily a match for Mr Lin and although I can't promise to have all the answers, I am happy to answer and discuss anything websleuthers wish to ask.

I haven't caught up on today's testimony, but I heard yesterdays. Some obvious points struck me straight away:. . . . . .

pandax.

(Respectfully snipped for space)

Thank you for this helpful information. And explained in much simpler, more easily understood terms. I look forward to your additional research & feedback (as mentioned), if you have the time.

After reading your post, I sure hope Nel brings in his own sound/acoustical Engineer to add clearer insight and another point of view to be shared with the court, aside from what Lin has stated. So the court can weigh both testimony's from two experts in this field. "Sounds" like the judge definitely needs to hear from a 2nd engineer.

Thanks for sharing...very interesting! :tyou:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Hi there, I have a degree in Acoustical Engineering, I worked as a recording engineer for many years and now am a mastering engineer. I would say my expertise in the theory and practice of this field is easily a match for Mr Lin and although I can't promise to have all the answers, I am happy to answer and discuss anything websleuthers wish to ask.

I haven't caught up on today's testimony, but I heard yesterdays. Some obvious points struck me straight away:

• The level of a scream at ~1m was assumed by Mr Lin to be 110dB, without specific citation or independent testing. However, research shows young, healthy females can easily be capable of hitting over 120dB at 1m when replicating a loud scream. You need to add 10dB to all his calculations straight off the bat. Please see the research paper here: http://www.audioforensics.com/PDFs/AES122_Scream.pdf (This is very loud, but it is nowhere near the same level as a jet at 1 metre - if Mr Lin said that, or implied 120dB at 1m from screaming would not realistically be possible, then I question his expertise)

• The attenuation calculation in free air due to distance was fine
• The attenuation due to the toilet door and open window at Pistorius' house was not a measurement - it was a modelled approximation - and I think Lin put it at about 29/30 dB. The range could be wide, but this is certainly on the high side - for location recordings, I would always assume 10dB indoors with window open, 20dB with a tight double-glazed window closed, and a further 10dB for each internal room/door division - this was important when minimising recording noise and in practice these measurements usually held up very well. So I would say 20dB not 30dB attenuation would be a more typical figure.
• I can't remember off the top of my head the attenuation of Lin for a closed window at the receive location, but I remember thinking that too was an over-generous number - as above, I would model 20dB.
• *Lin used the following criterion for audibility and intelligibility: signal must be greater than 10dBA above background noise level in dBA. I absolutely dispute this, it is seriously flawed and an over-stringent requirement in this specific scenario, for several reasons. I'll keep it brief for now but basically: 1) an A-weighting does NOT properly account for audibility across the whole frequency spectrum and all sound levels. Background noise at night is very-low frequency and low intensity, it is not very audible at all - a voice at the same dBA SPL will sound much louder - the A-weighting correction helps but doesn't go far enough - it simply does not work as Lin want's it to work, he is applying it inappropriately and far too simply. 2) Sounds can be audible even with negative signal-to-noise levels, especially when they occupy different frequency spectra 3) the character of a sound influences audibility to a significant degree - a scream in particular is known to be one of the most sensitive sounds, possibly through evolution - the criterion ignores this factor completely also 4) the paper I link to earlier simply disproves Mr Lin's criterion - there screams with a signal to noise level in dBA of just 4 and 5 dB were "clearly audible" and identifiable.
• Mr Roux kept trying to do a cheap trick with the SPL meter and Mr Lin. He compared the SPL of the quiet courtroom (38dBA) - and said - see how quiet it sounds, this is what 38dBA sounds like. As I point out above, this is bogus - 38dBA of talking for example would still be quiet but it would be perceived as much louder than the background noise of a room.

*If I have time tonight, I will do a quick bit of research - at my home, I will measure the background noise level and see exactly what level of scream is needed to be audible and identifiable. This will serve as a far more accurate model of what SPL is typically needed (IMO) than Mr Lin's criterion.

pandax.

Thank you. Mr Nel could have done with your help today. If the case is reopened you might like to offer him your services as you certainly make for much more understanding than Mr Lin.

 

[AJ_DS]

I can appreciate the whole scientific analysis about sound… but c'mon... what does this have to do with this Trial ?… how does it assist the Court ??

Ivan Lin's expert testimony and analysis is entirely based on :

- Subjectivity
- Assumptions
- Ranges
- Averages
- Allowances
- Corrections
- Etc

… all of which could be used in any and all Trials where a witness testifies about having heard something.

The fact remains that 4 corroborated, credible and reliable witnesses with nothing to gain testified has having heard :

- a woman screaming for her life
- gunshots
- no more screaming

Even if one would entertain that all these witnesses heard only Oscar and that Reeva remained perfectly silent (even when shot at)… the chronology of the events as related by the witnesses directly contradicts Oscar's version of events.

The fact that Lin's expertise was retained within the past 2 weeks whilst Oscar was being evaluated is another clear indication of the desperation of the Defence team.

Without the 2-week adjournment, Roux would not have been able to call upon 3 witnesses :

1- Ingrid van Schalkwyk, social worker
2- Dr Merryll Vorster, forensic psychiatrist
3- Dr. Gerhard Versvel, orthopedic surgeon

Without the 2-week adjournment and Oscar's referral, Roux would not have been able to call upon 4 witnesses :

1- Ingrid van Schalkwyk, social worker
2- Dr Merryll Vorster, forensic psychiatrist
3- Dr. Gerhard Versvel, orthopedic surgeon
4- Ivan Lin, acoustics expert

… and I suspect the list will grow before the Defence rests.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Thank you. Mr Nel could have done with your help today. If the case is reopened you might like to offer him your services as you certainly make for much more understanding than Mr Lin.

(Your Response Is To Pandax, Bystander)

I too thought the Acoustics detail was far better from our new Websleuther Pandax, than Mr Lin…. very easy to understand and a great deal more concise than the muddled up defence witness…..

However, I don't think Lin was a credible witness and the reason Nel went light on him was because the court will discount most of his forensic examination.

He did not:

Conduct his Acoustic testing in as near to the same atmospheric & weather conditions as Feb 14.

Have access to all premises of the witnesses, whilst conducting multi-level sound tests from OP's old house.

Make clear the impact of the now larger trees & new build properties on his tests

Gain independent confirmation of his 'Subjective Testing.

What he did do was:

Give his opinion wrapped up in an awful lot of technical bumf…..

That is why Nel did not need to challenge him too greatly, it is another too little too late witness for OP in my humble opinion.