Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[LemonMousse]

Why would OP say the jeans are Reeva's? Possibly because if he says they are his then he is definitely going to have to explain how Reeva's jeans, the only other pair of jeans 'in circulation', are on the ground outside the bathroom window.

I don't have a problem with them being inside out, particularly if he took them off in a hurry and, as Judi suggests, perhaps wearing prostheses makes this more likely? Recall that in his EIC OP says "I lay on my bed and took off my suit" so perhaps it isn't easy for him to take trouser off.

When Roux re-examines and shows him Photo 68 (of the jeans right-side out) OP says "One can see where
the belt leads across the top of the jeans, at the top right" but I don't see a belt (nor in Photo 67, the jeans inside out).

View attachment 77026

Playing a complete outsider: did OP wear the same jeans that day? He says he was in a suit but here is a pic of him that afternoon at the Firzt party (where he attended as a speaker, but seems to forget this in his EIC).
[modsnip]

Here is a blow-up of the 'trousers' he wore that afternoon:

View attachment 77025

Well, they are the right shade of denim so could be the same ones.

But surely it would be pretty easy for the police to spot if they were OP's. All they have to do is look at the sizes of all OP's and Reeva's jeans and see that this particular pair matched one set or the other.

Unless they didn't think about doing that.

Those jeans did look pretty big to be Reeva's though. And not big in the "boyfriend" style that women wear, just big.

 

[mrjitty]

Why would OP say the jeans are Reeva's? Possibly because if he says they are his then he is definitely going to have to explain how Reeva's jeans, the only other pair of jeans 'in circulation', are on the ground outside the bathroom window.

I don't have a problem with them being inside out, particularly if he took them off in a hurry and, as Judi suggests, perhaps wearing prostheses makes this more likely? Recall that in his EIC OP says "I lay on my bed and took off my suit" so perhaps it isn't easy for him to take trouser off.

When Roux re-examines and shows him Photo 68 (of the jeans right-side out) OP says "One can see where
the belt leads across the top of the jeans, at the top right" but I don't see a belt (nor in Photo 67, the jeans inside out).

View attachment 77026

Playing a complete outsider: did OP wear the same jeans that day? He says he was in a suit but here is a pic of him that afternoon at the Firzt party (where he attended as a speaker, but seems to forget this in his EIC).

[modsnip]

Here is a blow-up of the 'trousers' he wore that afternoon:

View attachment 77025

Oh Dear!

This seems like it could be significant?

 

[mrjitty]

Well, they are the right shade of denim so could be the same ones.

But surely it would be pretty easy for the police to spot if they were OP's. All they have to do is look at the sizes of all OP's and Reeva's jeans and see that this particular pair matched one set or the other.

Unless they didn't think about doing that.

Those jeans did look pretty big to be Reeva's though. And not big in the "boyfriend" style that women wear, just big.

SAPs investigation has so many holes in it - I can easily imagine them simply overlooking this.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Well, they are the right shade of denim so could be the same ones.

But surely it would be pretty easy for the police to spot if they were OP's. All they have to do is look at the sizes of all OP's and Reeva's jeans and see that this particular pair matched one set or the other.

Unless they didn't think about doing that.

Those jeans did look pretty big to be Reeva's though. And not big in the "boyfriend" style that women wear, just big.

I have always thought them to be Reeva's jeans but I'm happy to work the theory that they're his to see if it leads anywhere conclusive, either way.

 

[Trotterly]

This is why I am more interested in a statistical approach as opposed to Masipa's flawed logic.

Roux's timeline requires bending key parts of the evidence - for example changing what time it was on Stipp's clock by 10 mins.

Similarly reconciling Mr Fossils timeline also requires changing Johnson's evidence.

Nel was correct not to produce a timeline. Rather he called for reason.

i.e. the timeline cannot be reconciled exactly and only OP knows what really happened. The state cannot be expected to produce an exact timeline. And anyway it is not critical.

Rather Nel pointed out that overall, the witnesses did a great job of describing what happened - but necessarily there must be mistakes and we can't know exactly what the mistakes are.

Rather than trying to determine the exact marks in the sand - I believe we should examine the entire net.

What are the common, corroborated elements in the story?

Which things are more likely?

Mr Fossils spreadsheet (far more sophisticated than Masipa's approach) allows one to examine the various pieces and consider how they fit in the overall picture.

So for example, once you realise that the 4 nearest witnesses - Dr & Mrs Stipp & Mr & Mrs N - report no shots after 3:15:51, this is necessarily a devastating combination of data points. Furthermore none of these 4 witnesses hears Reeva after 3:15:51.

From this highly reliable centre point, once can work outwards in terms of what is more likely than not.

Nel realises Johnson cannot be exactly reconciled with this. Yet Johnson & his wife hear broadly the same things

Just because Johnson hears 5-6 shots - we don't say - oh well in that case all of Johnson's evidence is wrong - we realise that he has mistakes.

And if Johnson can hear the wrong number of shots, he can also be mistaken about sequence many months later. We can never know exactly.

However given that 2 other witnesses heard a woman screaming, and a woman was shot dead at that exact time - it is really likely that Johnson:

Really heard a man
Really heard one person not two people over many minutes
Really heard cricket bats not guns?

Or is the more likely inference that Johnson has a less vivid, supporting detail incorrect?

Then once can conduct the same analysis multiple times.

Given Mr & Mrs N hear no shots after 3:15:51, is it really likely Mr & Mrs Stipp miss the cricket bats at 3:17?

Given 4 people heard a woman and 2 people, it is likely what they actually heard was OP (a point not in evidence)

Given a woman was shot dead, is it likely she never screamed when 4 people said they heard her?

Given the immediate neighbours heard OP crying for help after 3:15:51 for some minutes - is it likely that they failed to notice him smashing down his toilet door with a cricket bat @ 3:17?

Given Mrs N was awoken by gunshots, it is likely she would then not notice cricket bats sounding like gunshots when awake only 2 minutes later?

Given Mrs Stipp heard a commotion and it said 3.02am on her clock - is it likely that what she actually heard was moments before 3:15:51?

Could Ms Burger, a talented musician, hear the “bangs” in the tempo matching the ballistics, yet actually this was the cricket bat?


it is the overall power of all of these inferences combined that is critical - not each of them individually.

I don't think that is safe to rely on not hearing a sound. There are many points at which neighbours should have heard shots/bangs/cries/screams in order to tell a consistent story but they did not. For various reasons distance away/walls/windows/line of sight/weather conditions/air conditioning on or off/recollection we might expect different reports.

If we are to rely on Mr and Mrs N not hearing things from inside their bedroom why can we not also rely on Mrs Stipp not hearing any sounds at all before the first bangs. It's the same logic, but it is flawed.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Yes, I do think Roux would make it up.

He manipulated the timeline and then asserted that xyz must have happened at such and such a time without relying on actual evidence.

You are missing/ignoring the point and that is that there was no phone record that demonstrated a 3.17 call to 10111.

If you think there is, then find the reference to it in the trial, please.

But before you do, perhaps you'd like to have a go at answering the question Dr Stipp himself asked on the stand....why would he be trying to call 10111 after he'd spoken to security? He only tried 10111 (and the other number) because he hadn't been able to reach security in the first place.

It went....

Tried security. Couldn't get through (engaged or unanswered)
Tried two more numbers, one of which was 10111, without success
Heard bangs while attempting these calls, called his wife back inside..she looked at the fast clock and it read 3.17
He tried security again, got through, spoke to them and then went back out on to the balcony to wait for them, heard a man yelling help

Roux is clever, but his timeline was an utter crock. I don't blame him for doing it - it's his job, but his timeline is still nonsensical and doesn't even manage to support Pistorius's own story.

I agree with everything you say but I do think Nel makes a mess of this, compounded by his written closing argument, where he still completely ignores both the fact that the Stipps' clock is fast and also the sound heard by Mrs Nhlengethwa.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't think that is safe to rely on not hearing a sound. There are many points at which neighbours should have heard shots/bangs/cries/screams in order to tell a consistent story but they did not. For various reasons distance away/walls/windows/line of sight/weather conditions/air conditioning on or off/recollection we might expect different reports.

If we are to rely on Mr and Mrs N not hearing things from inside their bedroom why can we not also rely on Mrs Stipp not hearing any sounds at all before the first bangs. It's the same logic, but it is flawed.

Why do you keep going on about Mrs Stipp not hearing anything before the first sounds? We know precisely nothing about what happened before the first bangs - we don't know if Reeva was crying, screaming, whispering, talking, where she was in the house, where OP was. We have no evidence that there was anything to hear, so can hardly make any kind of judgement about what Mrs Stipp should or shouldn't have heard.

We do, however, have evidence that there WAS something for people to hear around 3.15am so it's absolutely sensible to ask a) why didn't they hear it and b) what conclusions can we draw from them not hearing something that they should have done.

No one reports hearing any bangs after 3.15am. According to Roux, there were four gunshots, but nobody heard them. They all heard a bat on a door, a sound around 1000 quieter than gunshots.

[modsnip]

 

[Trotterly]

Why do you keep going on about Mrs Stipp not hearing anything before the first sounds? We know precisely nothing about what happened before the first bangs - we don't know if Reeva was crying, screaming, whispering, talking, where she was in the house, where OP was. We have no evidence that there was anything to hear, so can hardly make any kind of judgement about what Mrs Stipp should or shouldn't have heard.

We do, however, have evidence that there WAS something for people to hear around 3.15am so it's absolutely sensible to ask a) why didn't they hear it and b) what conclusions can we draw from them not hearing something that they should have done.

No one reports hearing any bangs after 3.15am. According to Roux, there were four gunshots, but nobody heard them. They all heard a bat on a door, a sound around 1000 quieter than gunshots.

[modsnip].

On your version there might not be something to hear. That's my point. You cannot say that just because your version predicts no sound at that time and no sound is heard does not mean that the sound did not occur.

For the "1000 quieter" comment you are confusing loudness with the measured energy of the sound they are not the same thing. Loudness is the perception of the sound energy.

 

[LemonMousse]

I agree with everything you say but I do think Nel makes a mess of this, compounded by his written closing argument, where he still completely ignores both the fact that the Stipps' clock is fast and also the sound heard by Mrs Nhlengethwa.

Absolutely agree. I do think Nel is a superb lawyer, but something went very, very wrong. Everything Roux asserted can be countered very effectively, so why didn't he?

I wonder if he assumed Masipa would see through Roux's shenanigans like we have. A dangerous assumption if so.

 

[LemonMousse]

On your version there might not be something to hear. That's my point. You cannot say that just because your version predicts no sound at that time and no sound is heard does not mean that the sound did not occur.

For the "1000 quieter" comment you are confusing loudness with the measured energy of the sound they are not the same thing. Loudness is the perception of the sound energy.

I don't have a "version".

I am looking at the evidence, nothing else.

Since there is absolutely no evidence informing us of what may or may not have gone on before the first bangs, what on earth leads you to expect to hear/not hear anything? You are working backwards and making assumptions....."If there was an argument, Mrs Stipp would have heard it. She didn't. Therefore no argument, therefore he's innocent". And this passes for logic with you?

First, demonstrate what happened before the bangs (you can't) then look at what evidence there should or shouldn't be to support you.

You cannot support any hypothesis without evidence. Science 101.

Science 102...."Loudness is the perception of sound energy"? Er yes. So?

Are you familiar with decibels (db?) It measures sound pressure. The greater the pressure/energy, the higher the number of decibels, the louder our physical perception.

DB's are logarithmic - they don't go up in singles, they go up in units of ten. A 10db increase is roughly double. Therefore 100db is double 90db.

A bat on a door has been measure at about 80db - roughly the loudness of a vacuum cleaner.
A gunshot is about 120/140db - roughly the loudness of a jet engine taking off.

A gunshot is somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 times louder than a bat on a door.

According to your "physics" human beings should not perceive a jet engine taking off as being any louder than a hoover!!!!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Sometimes jeans or pants end up inside out because of the way you have taken them off, in the same way a jumper or t-shirt can do the same, especially if you do it in a sloppy or fast manner.

IF it was his jeans maybe he had no time to pull off his prostetics and took off the jeans over the artificial legs / feet? In this case it would turn inside out, I think.

 

[Coldpizza]

Social Networks

Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)

Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It is just a theory. I think it's interesting that they're inside out too, but he obviously removed them at some point and even if he removed them and Reeva wasn't there, this still wouldn't provide an explanation. Is it feasible that he removed them with his prosthetics on and in so doing they came off inside out but this was easier or faster?

Yes! See my post #911 (sorry, was reading your post after posting).

 

[Jake18]

Absolutely agree. I do think Nel is a superb lawyer, but something went very, very wrong. Everything Roux asserted can be countered very effectively, so why didn't he?

I wonder if he assumed Masipa would see through Roux's shenanigans like we have. A dangerous assumption if so.

I think that's where Roux did very well. Nel seemed to do what he normally would in front of a judge - remained close to the heart of the case and left a lot of his points as logical inferences. Most of us "got it" but Masipa didn't. Roux performed as if to a jury with lots of faux protests of "that cannot be" and muddying of the waters that, as Mr Jitty points out, would have been dismissed by an experienced judge.

Either Roux is generally more intuitive or - and this brings out the cynic in me - he was well aware of Masipa's weaknesses prior to the trial and played to them. He seemed very mindful of the importance of remorse, OP certainly gave a good rendition of that!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Why would the jeans on the bedroom floor be Oscar's?

Here is my theory.

I believe there was an argument and have stated numerous times that I always believed he had his prosthetics on. I find it hard to imagine, with his personality, that he’d be having a torrid argument with a woman standing many inches taller than him. A woman who was and did speak up for herself. JMO

Oscar claims he was in bed asleep and was wearing the shorts he was photographed in.

Let's say he was awake and wearing those jeans, which means he was wearing his prosthetics.
They argued for at least an hour and at some point he goes on the attack.
He shoots Reeva. The intruder story is already forming in his mind.
He runs to the bedroom and rings Stander and Netcare and then runs downstairs to open the front door.
He then runs upstairs and hurriedly pulls off his jeans, tosses them on the floor and puts on the shorts.
He returns to the toilet, removes Reeva and carries her downstairs.

The change into shorts is to support his version that he was in bed asleep. This would be totally implausible if he was wearing his jeans and prosthetics.

If this theory is correct, it disproves much of his version.

SOMEONE WILL KNOW whose jeans they were even though we don't.

I agree with you!! - Then he shot with prostetics on and was kneeling?? My presumption always until the EXPERT came.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't think that is safe to rely on not hearing a sound. There are many points at which neighbours should have heard shots/bangs/cries/screams in order to tell a consistent story but they did not. For various reasons distance away/walls/windows/line of sight/weather conditions/air conditioning on or off/recollection we might expect different reports.

[modsnip]

1. a circumstantial case must be considered holistically.
2. The court must weigh and consider the totality of the admissible evidence before reaching a conclusion, on the whole of the evidence,
3. Tortuous reasoning in order to explain away every individual circumstance as being consistent with innocence should not be engaged in
4. the judge should not look at the evidence of each witness 'separately in an hermetically sealed compartment'; they should consider the accumulation of the evidence
5. a circumstantial case is not to be considered piecemeal

The points are in evidence. No sound was heard.

Wild speculation around that data point is not to be engaged in.

To put it country simple - Mr and Mrs N heard no bangs at 3.17. That is there evidence.

It is not conclusive there were no bangs at 3.17 - but it is strongly probative.

The Court is not allowed to engage in wild speculation as to how they might not have heard them.

Rather the Court must examine all the other evidence together.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't have a "version".

I am looking at the evidence, nothing else.

Since there is absolutely no evidence informing us of what may or may not have gone on before the first bangs, what on earth leads you to expect to hear/not hear anything? You are working backwards and making assumptions....."If there was an argument, Mrs Stipp would have heard it. She didn't. Therefore no argument, therefore he's innocent". And this passes for logic with you?

First, demonstrate what happened before the bangs (you can't) then look at what evidence there should or shouldn't be to support you.

You cannot support any hypothesis without evidence. Science 101.

Science 102...."Loudness is the perception of sound energy"? Er yes. So?

Are you familiar with decibels (db?) It measures sound pressure. The greater the pressure/energy, the higher the number of decibels, the louder our physical perception.

DB's are logarithmic - they don't go up in singles, they go up in units of ten. A 10db increase is roughly double. Therefore 100db is double 90db.

A bat on a door has been measure at about 80db - roughly the loudness of a vacuum cleaner.
A gunshot is about 120/140db - roughly the loudness of a jet engine taking off.

A gunshot is somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 times louder than a bat on a door.

According to your "physics" human beings should not perceive a jet engine taking off as being any louder than a hoover!!!!

BIB

Interesting. I read recently that the loudest female scream on record is 129 Decibels. So a female scream (remembering that Reeva's was terrified screaming) is in the range of a gunshot.


"The loudest verified scream emitted by a human measured 129 dBA, a record set by teaching assistant Jill Drake in 2000 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming

 

[mrjitty]

I agree with everything you say but I do think Nel makes a mess of this, compounded by his written closing argument, where he still completely ignores both the fact that the Stipps' clock is fast and also the sound heard by Mrs Nhlengethwa.

Disagree 100% as a question of trial tactics.

Once Nel goes down the road of timeline, then the Judge is guaranteed to, and then Roux's work is done.

Had the Judge adopted a holisitc view (as required by the rules of evidence) then we don't have this discussion because precise timeline is not critical.

The fact that the Judge has gone down Roux's road cannot be prevented by Nel advancing some other timeline.

The judge already ignored numerous pieces of powerful evidence - she is not going to be swayed by a fast clock.

Nel's approach was deliberate.

Of course it looks wrong with the benefit of hindsight - but I believe it is a myth that if Nel only argued better he would have won.

The judge did not believe in Nel's case.

Roux merely provided the exit ramp.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Disagree 100% as a question of trial tactics.

Once Nel goes down the road of timeline, then the Judge is guaranteed to, and then Roux's work is done.

Had the Judge adopted a holisitc view (as required by the rules of evidence) then we don't have this discussion because precise timeline is not critical.

The fact that the Judge has gone down Roux's road cannot be prevented by Nel advancing some other timeline.

The judge already ignored numerous pieces of powerful evidence - she is not going to be swayed by a fast clock.

My point was that Nel appears to concur about the 03:17 time for Johnson and Stipp hearing the second sounds, thereby appearing to support Roux's argument to some extent in respect of this particular time when, as we believe, Johnson's call time is suspect and the Stipp's clock is 3-4 minutes fast, it only read 03:17. He does give a partial timeline in his written closing argument and contradicts Stipp's sequence by placing the second sounds after his call to security, as per Roux.

 

[Trotterly]

I don't have a "version".

I am looking at the evidence, nothing else.

Since there is absolutely no evidence informing us of what may or may not have gone on before the first bangs, what on earth leads you to expect to hear/not hear anything? You are working backwards and making assumptions....."If there was an argument, Mrs Stipp would have heard it. She didn't. Therefore no argument, therefore he's innocent". And this passes for logic with you?

First, demonstrate what happened before the bangs (you can't) then look at what evidence there should or shouldn't be to support you.

You cannot support any hypothesis without evidence. Science 101.

Science 102...."Loudness is the perception of sound energy"? Er yes. So?

Are you familiar with decibels (db?) It measures sound pressure. The greater the pressure/energy, the higher the number of decibels, the louder our physical perception.

DB's are logarithmic - they don't go up in singles, they go up in units of ten. A 10db increase is roughly double. Therefore 100db is double 90db.

A bat on a door has been measure at about 80db - roughly the loudness of a vacuum cleaner.
A gunshot is about 120/140db - roughly the loudness of a jet engine taking off.

A gunshot is somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 times louder than a bat on a door.

According to your "physics" human beings should not perceive a jet engine taking off as being any louder than a hoover!!!!

My point about Mrs Stipp was in illustration of the fact that not hearing something does not necessarily indicate that it did not occur. I am not suggesting what may have gone on in the same way that Mr and Mrs N not hearing something does not necessarily indicate it did not happen.

You analysis of loudness is flawed. You are correct about loudness increasing with increasing dB and loudness increases with sound energy. But loudness is perceived sound energy, it is subjective and loudness is not directly proportional to sound energy however you measure it. So twice the sound pressure (+10dB) does not sound twice as loud. I'm afraid you've been googling the wrong sources.