Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

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.

Ok I agree with that.

However I also believe that Nel is simply a very practical advocate.

If he isn't winning the battle with his strongest evidence (I heard a woman screaming) then he isn't winning which ever way you slice it.

Once Nel is reduced to arguing with Roux about what time it was - that shows the judge doesn't believe the witness - no matter what time it was.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

Agreed. Not hearing something does not mean it didn't occur. But if it's reasonable to assume that a person with fully functioning ears would hear something, then the fact that they didn't is telling.

If someone told me that a helicopter had taken off from my front garden this morning while I was sitting drinking my coffee, I would disbelieve them. I have good, normal hearing, and I should have heard that. If they demonstrated with video that it had happened and I just hadn't heard it, I'd go and see an audiologist.

Likewise, Mr & Mrs Mike were up and listening for more sounds having been disturbed by a bat smacking a door but then managed to miss considerably louder gunshots...all four of them. They should have heard gunshots, that fact that they didn't either means that their hearing is defective or the gunshots didn't happen. Logically, it is considerably more likely to be the latter.

[modsnip]

0db is the quietest sound we can hear. Close to silence.
30db (a person speaking quietly) is about 1000 louder than 0db.
A jet engine taking off is 1,000,000,000,000 louder than the smallest sound we can detect.

And you don't believe that the sound of a jet engine taking off is 1000 louder than a hoover?

"Sound" is defined as vibrations moving through the air (or whatever medium) that can be heard when they get to our ears.

Decibels are used to measure (amongst other things) sound. Sound only applies to what our ears perceive, so they are a way of determining how loud a sound seems to us.

Yes, hearing is subjective - but not as subjective as you'd like. There are not many people with functioning ears that would miss hearing a jet engine take off.

But this is a very silly conversation. Surely you know that the sound of a bat on wood is considerably quieter than a gunshot? Nobody would go deaf listening to repeated smacks from a cricket bat....everyone would if they were subjected to gunshots over and over again.

This is because a gunshot is much, much LOUDER! And you seem to be trying to argue that it isn't!

Of course, sound energy drops away as it travels....but Mr and Mrs Mike didn't move and neither did the source of both sounds.

[modsnip]

Bottom line - gunshots = much, much louder than wood on wood smacks. And that's all we need to know for this discussion.

 

[Trotterly]

Agreed. Not hearing something does not mean it didn't occur. But if it's reasonable to assume that a person with fully functioning ears would hear something, then the fact that they didn't is telling.

If someone told me that a helicopter had taken off from my front garden this morning while I was sitting drinking my coffee, I would disbelieve them. I have good, normal hearing, and I should have heard that. If they demonstrated with video that it had happened and I just hadn't heard it, I'd go and see an audiologist.

Likewise, Mr & Mrs Mike were up and listening for more sounds having been disturbed by a bat smacking a door but then managed to miss considerably louder gunshots...all four of them. They should have heard gunshots, that fact that they didn't either means that their hearing is defective or the gunshots didn't happen. Logically, it is considerably more likely to be the latter.

[modsnip]

0db is the quietest sound we can hear. Close to silence.
30db (a person speaking quietly) is about 1000 louder than 0db.
A jet engine taking off is 1,000,000,000,000 louder than the smallest sound we can detect.

And you don't believe that the sound of a jet engine taking off is 1000 louder than a hoover?

"Sound" is defined as vibrations moving through the air (or whatever medium) that can be heard when they get to our ears.

Decibels are used to measure (amongst other things) sound. Sound only applies to what our ears perceive, so they are a way of determining how loud a sound seems to us.

Yes, hearing is subjective - but not as subjective as you'd like. There are not many people with functioning ears that would miss hearing a jet engine take off.

But this is a very silly conversation. Surely you know that the sound of a bat on wood is considerably quieter than a gunshot? Nobody would go deaf listening to repeated smacks from a cricket bat....everyone would if they were subjected to gunshots over and over again.

This is because a gunshot is much, much LOUDER! And you seem to be trying to argue that it isn't!

Of course, sound energy drops away as it travels....but Mr and Mrs Mike didn't move and neither did the source of both sounds.

[modsnip]

Bottom line - gunshots = much, much louder than wood on wood smacks. And that's all we need to know for this discussion.

I'm not denying that a gunshot can be much louder than a bat strike. I was disagreeing with the "1000 times louder" and think it would have been 2 orders less given the locations.
You are using easily measurable physical phenomena to quantify an amount of energy which a sound pressure wave could impart to a human ear. I am talking about the sensation felt as loudness. They are far from the same thing. Measuring loudness is far from a simple task and is not a simple direct proportion of sound pressure.

But no need to take my word for this as we have evidence from Dr Stipp who mistook bat and gun and the staff member at the firing range who mistook a bat strike for a gun shot.

 

[Colin de France]

Ok I agree with that.

However I also believe that Nel is simply a very practical advocate.

If he isn't winning the battle with his strongest evidence (I heard a woman screaming) then he isn't winning which ever way you slice it.

Once Nel is reduced to arguing with Roux about what time it was - that shows the judge doesn't believe the witness - no matter what time it was.

In relation to evidence....... going on the basis action=reaction all we have are the screams, once these have been rejected there's nothing else left....

 

[mrjitty]

In relation to evidence....... going on the basis action=reaction all we have are the screams, once these have been rejected there's nothing else left....

Can you clarify what you mean by action=reaction?

We are dealing with a case where the accused admitted to shooting the victim dead.

In such a case, it goes without saying that the accused must establish a lawful justification for his actions.

As such - the state had far more evidential points than merely screams?

 

[Colin de France]

Can you clarify what you mean by action=reaction?

We are dealing with a case where the accused admitted to shooting the victim dead.

In such a case, it goes without saying that the accused must establish a lawful justification for his actions.

As such - the state had far more evidential points than merely screams?

....... the only reaction from the shooting which prove that she was murdered and discrédits the version from Pistorious, apart from the screams there is nothing which proves that she was murdered.....she could have only screamed before or during being shot, therefore Pistorious knew who he was shooting at.....once the court refused to accept the screams then the prosecution had nothing left...once the screams are accepted then the case is won .....Masipa knew what she was doing throwing out the screams on block as if it was a determined decision on her part as in "the end justifies the means" ...she had no choice if she wanted Pistorious let off....

 

[soozieqtips]

....... the only reaction from the shooting which prove that she was murdered and discrédits the version from Pistorious, apart from the screams there is nothing which proves that she was murdered.....she could have only screamed before or during being shot, therefore Pistorious knew who he was shooting at.....once the court refused to accept the screams then the prosecution had nothing left...once the screams are accepted then the case is won .....Masipa knew what she was doing throwing out the screams on block as if it was a determined decision on her part as in "the end justifies the means" ...she had no choice if she wanted Pistorious let off....

Masipa believed OP's version that Reeva didn't scream once, despite evidence from independent witnesses who heard a woman screaming, and in "fear" for her life. If Masipa had accepted that Reeva screamed even once, she would had to have handed down a different sentence. Much easier to just wilfully discard the independent witnesses and go with OP's version, even though she admitted he was a very poor and unreliable witness!

 

[Colin de France]

Masipa believed OP's version that Reeva didn't scream once, despite evidence from independent witnesses who heard a woman screaming, and in "fear" for her life. If Masipa had accepted that Reeva screamed even once, she would had to have handed down a different sentence. Much easier to just wilfully discard the independent witnesses and go with OP's version, even though she admitted he was a very poor and unreliable witness!

....exactly and this is where the accent should be put when the appeal comes up, is it normal that multiple witnesses to a womans scream which corresponds to a death of a woman in the same area at the same time are denied acceptance in a court of law....

 

[WilliamMunter]

I'm not denying that a gunshot can be much louder than a bat strike. I was disagreeing with the "1000 times louder" and think it would have been 2 orders less given the locations.
You are using easily measurable physical phenomena to quantify an amount of energy which a sound pressure wave could impart to a human ear. I am talking about the sensation felt as loudness. They are far from the same thing. Measuring loudness is far from a simple task and is not a simple direct proportion of sound pressure.

But no need to take my word for this as we have evidence from Dr Stipp who mistook bat and gun and the staff member at the firing range who mistook a bat strike for a gun shot.

I'm sorry I must have missed this testimony. Can you give a link for his/her evidence.

 

[soozieqtips]

Having logged back in and realised what's occurred since this morning...... predictable M.O.... seen that before here, as we all have. Doesn't make it any less irritating though.

And I'm sure another new name will pop up here in the not too distant!

Shame though, as it had become interesting again.

Oh well... the website itself is so slow and so irritating these days with ads and losing posts, continual log ins etc.

BIB - totally agree.

 

[mrjitty]

apart from the screams there is nothing which proves that she was murdered......

What about the uncontested evidence that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds, fired from the defendants gun, in circumstances where the natural inference is that he must have known there was a significant chance he would kill the victim?

That's the thing I find surreal about this case.

On the defence's own version he gunned down the victim and must have known the risks. They were both locked into a small space and the victim locked in a very small space. No one else was there. The inference is obvious. Direct or indirect intention to murder the victim

That is really all the state must show.

It is for the defence to offer a plausible explanation as to how it was otherwise.

 

[mrjitty]

H

Oh well... the website itself is so slow and so irritating these days with ads and losing posts, continual log ins etc.

Its loading so many ads and scripts in the background

 

[soozieqtips]

What about the uncontested evidence that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds, fired from the defendants gun, in circumstances where the natural inference is that he must have known there was a significant chance he would kill the victim?

BIB - the trouble with that is Masipa didn't make any such inference, as we know. "Must" have known and did know were separate issues for her, whereas accepting that a female screamed was something she had to dismiss in order to separate the above.

 

[Trotterly]

Having logged back in and realised what's occurred since this morning...... predictable M.O.... seen that before here, as we all have. Doesn't make it any less irritating though.

And I'm sure another new name will pop up here in the not too distant!

Shame though, as it had become interesting again.

Oh well... the website itself is so slow and so irritating these days with ads and losing posts, continual log ins etc.

What do you mean by this?

 

[mrjitty]

BIB - the trouble with that is Masipa didn't make any such inference, as we know. "Must" have known and did know were separate issues for her, whereas accepting that a female screamed was something she had to dismiss in order to separate the above.

Yes.

I was more reacting to a general meme that the "states evidence is weak" or "the state did not have much evidence"

In the normal course the state may not have the murder weapon, nor the offender caught red handed.

So in this case the state begins from a very strong position in which the offender must show lawful justification.

And the reason Roux is pleading self defence in the first place is because the evidence made it next to impossible for OP to deny the inference of intention to kill.

You know this is the very important point Nel is making on appeal. A plea of self defence in effect admits intention to kill as application of deadly force is implicit.

In such circumstances, the fans, curtains, ballistics, duvet etc etc are all as impt as screams - because every single one attacks the basis of subjective mistake.

But then somehow Masipa flies a passenger jet thru the eye of a needle

 

[Colin de France]

BIB - the trouble with that is Masipa didn't make any such inference, as we know. "Must" have known and did know were separate issues for her, whereas accepting that a female screamed was something she had to dismiss in order to separate the above.

....but more than that the screams were in direct reaction to the shooting...... that ties RS as a murder victim..

 

[Colin de France]

Yes.

I was more reacting to a general meme that the "states evidence is weak" or "the state did not have much evidence"

In the normal course the state may not have the murder weapon, nor the offender caught red handed.

So in this case the state begins from a very strong position in which the offender must show lawful justification.

And the reason Roux is pleading self defence in the first place is because the evidence made it next to impossible for OP to deny the inference of intention to kill.

You know this is the very important point Nel is making on appeal. A plea of self defence in effect admits intention to kill as application of deadly force is implicit.

In such circumstances, the fans, curtains, ballistics, duvet etc etc are all as impt as screams - because every single one attacks the basis of subjective mistake.

But then somehow Masipa flies a passenger jet thru the eye of a needle

...the screams are apart because they connect the shooting of a specific person at a specific time and place to the outside and onto witnesses, they are in direct reaction to the shooting, the rest IE the fans etc are down to interpretation and debate......

 

[mrjitty]

Another point about intention and inferences...

In this case - intention meant what must OP have subjectively foreseen. Intentions are always inferred from the facts.

Hypothetical:

When does one first foresee (intend) to fly to NYC?

1. When your boss emails to ask you to visit clients in NYC on business?
2. When you look up flights?
3. When you buy a ticket for NYC?
4. When you board the plane?
5. When you arrive in NYC?

When does one first foresee to possibly kill someone with a deadly weapon?

1. When you consider whether to buy a gun for self defence?
2. When you train with the gun and get a license?
3. When you buy a gun?
4. When you keep a loaded gun under your bed?
5. When you aggressively approach another person with gun pointed at them?
6. When you shoot a gun at someone?
7. When your girlfriend is lying dead on the floor?

 

[mrjitty]

...the screams are apart because they connect the shooting of a specific person at a specific time and place to the outside and onto witnesses, they are in direct reaction to the shooting, the rest IE the fans etc are down to interpretation and debate......

I agree they are vivid evidence - but I don't agree they are apart in terms of circumstantial evidence.

They are just part of the evidential weight that shows no mistake of identity was made

Its important to focus on what is the issue at trial - rather than what is the narrative.

I see the issue at trial as quite simple.

On the defences evidence, OP is locked into a confined space with one other person who is shot dead.

As such the opportunity for him to be confused about who he was shooting was limited.

Nel focussed all his efforts to prove that Reeva could not get in that toilet without OP knowing.

 

[cottonweaver]

Certainly, but before I move on from this, permanently, let me allow you the last word.

Quoted from Post 444, thread 16, 4.01.2014 at 10.42am
Trotterly:

"How's this for a theory:

Oscar and Reeva argue in the bedroom earlier in the morning starting before 2am

Estelle van der Merwe is woken at 1.56am by the noise of a fight.

It is hard to make out but she hears a woman's voice, but does not know where it is coming from

She tries and eventually gets back to sleep

At some time the bedroom door may have been damaged

At some point the arguing calmed down only to begin again later

Oscar picks up or threatens to pick up the cricket bat

Reeva starts to feel scared. She runs from the bedroom up the corridor to the bathroom

(She may have even opened the window thinking about getting out)

(Oscar may have argued with her in the bathroom and thrown her jeans out of the window)

She locks herself in the toilet.

The toilet is dark

He hears the door lock and is furious that he cannot confront her directly

The light in the toilet was broken so she could only see by the far away street lights

She does not have time to phone for help

Mrs Stipp has a bout of coughing which wakes her up

She looks at her clock which says 3.02. (Clock was fast - actual time about 2.58)
(She will look at her clock again at 3.17 actual time about 3.13)
The clock is now running and the defence must account for how OP used up this time an did not confirm to himself that he shot Reeva for another 15 minutes.

Oscar comes into the bathroom with the cricket bat. The light may already be on or he may now switch it on

He may or may no be on his prosthetics.
The damage shows the angle of the cricket bat in the door is consistent with being hit by a shorter person standing in a natural position
The damage is also consistent with a taller person leaning into the hit, putting their body weight into the blow to use maximum force.
After the defence case it is unlikely that this will be reliably decided.

Reeva sees the light go on, she may scream which is not heard due to the locked toilet or
does not scream so as not to escalate the situation.

Mr Stipp is woken by 3 loud bangs
Mrs Stipp is fully awake and hears 3 "gunshots" as OP hits the door with the cricket bat and moments after a woman screaming
Roux tries to make out that Mrs Stipp slept through the first "shot" by first lying to the court about her being "asleep" when cross examining Mr Stipp
She has line of sight to the bathroom window from her bed.

The "shots" are OP hitting the door breaking it. There are only 3 hits

The cricket bat has broken out a piece of the door along the weakest line of the joint at the right edge of the top inner panel
It runs almost the complete height of the panel and parts of it are the splinters lost from the door exhibit
Only the Stipps heard these "shots"

At this point OP may break away some other part of the panel. Now the panel is broken parts may be relatively easily lifted out

(Note: The toilet and bathroom windows are frosted. The toilet window is separate to and to the left of the bathroom window. The bathroom window has 3 sections, the left section was open. The Stipps could see straight in through the open section where the bathroom light appeared bright)

Mrs Stipp see's the bathroom light on and crucially LIGHT IN THE TOILET almost as bright as behind the closed part of the bathroom window.
She described it as a "light on in the toilet"
Mr Stipp said he ALSO SAW "LIGHT" IN THE TOILET. but it was not as bright as in the bathroom window - it would certainly not have been as bright as the light from the open part of the bathroom window.
He did at one point say he didn't see a "light on" in the toilet as he thought it was not bright enough for this.
The defence sought to confuse and negate this evidence. It appeared as if the Stipps disagreed about there being light in the toilet, which they did not. It was a difference in description only.
The fact that the Stipps had not colluded to clarify and strengthen this evidence is telling
THE STIPPS SAW THE BATHROOM LIGHT THROUGH THE HOLE OP MADE IN THE TOILET DOOR
If both Stipps saw light in the toilet straight after the first sounds which OP said were only gunshots then OP must have been lying.
Roux had already told the court that OP said the toilet light was broken.

Reeva's screams could now be heard clearly through the hole and out through the open bathroom window (Stipp said the screams were clear and unmuffled)
Roux argued Monday 4 March, Session 3 at 28.00min in support of MB hearing OP screams that should be easy to hear through same open window at the distance

The Stipps go quickly to their small balcony, they hear a woman/female screaming.

They say the screams were "moments" after the shots.

At about 3.03 (2.59 actual time) "just after 3" the Bergers are woken by Reevas screams. (They did not hear the door being hit)

Mr Berger very roughly estimates there is 2 minutes before the cries of "help"

After 3/4 min the Stipps move to their big balcony for a better view

Mr Stipp goes in and spends some time during the following events calling:
Silverwood Security No answer
Called 10111 - not in service

Its is now about 3.05/3.06 (3.01/3.02 actual time)
Reeva screams help help help
Oscar shouts help, help, help mocking her. He may have been in the bedroom at this point as Mr Stipp said the helps were muffled.

The Bergers call security

There is continued screaming some of which may not have been heard as the witnesses were busy getting dressed/phoning

Oscar goes to get his gun.

Reeva can see out through the hole in the door and she knows Oscar is coming with the gun

Her screams intensify. Mrs Berger says "to a climax"

Mr Berger is on his balcony and hears the same

Mrs Stipp hears this as screams coming closer as if along the road

He then hears "2 /3 loud bangs". Thinks it is shooting

The Bergers hear shot....shot shot shot taking
The shots lasted 3.5 seconds with a longer approx 1.5 second pause between shot 1 and 2

Mrs Stipp hears a man screaming just before the shots, she cannot make out words then hears 3 shots.

Mrs Stipp has just looked at he clock. It says 3.17 (actual time 3.13)

For a short time it was together with the woman screaming. There was differences in the pitches at the same time.

Estelle van der Merwe and her husband now both hear bang bang bang bang, her husband says they are gunshots

OP now angry beyond control comes into the bathroom
As he does so he raises his gun and fires four shots, moving towards the door and to the right as if to try to see Reeva through the long narrow vertical hole in the door
He may be on his stumps and firing with the gun raised to his eye although as he is moving this would seem odd
He may be on his prosthetics firing from the hip. He had a trapped easy target so as he was moving at the time this would seem more likely
The bullet holes are not tightly grouped and not consistent with double tapped shots.

Reeva fell back onto the magazine rack where a ricochet hit her

The next two shots hit her in the arm and head, She screamed as long as she could but it died away after the last shot.

The screams dying away after the last shot were heard by the Bergers and Mrs Stipp

Estelle van der Merwe describes silence after the shooting

When Mr Stipp goes back on the balcony and hears a man shouting "help" "help" "help"

Security arrive and talk to the Stipps on their balcony

Mr Stipp again went to the other balcony and watches Security leave

Mr Stipp sees a light coloured figure moving from right to left through the bathroom window

Mrs Stipp initially reported the same but retracted this when she realised it was her husbands recollection.
She also "remembered" the event before the final shots not after

Mr Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Mrs Stipp said the bathroom and toilet lights did not change at any time

Oscar with prosthetics now on, probably realising the terrible truth of what he had done, pulled out the rest of the panel, got the key and dragged her out.

It was as he was breaking down the rest of the panel that the bullet hole that the bat man expert pointed out caused a crack in the wood to deviate.

It was only 1 hole that showed this effect. It has been heavily assumed including by me, maybe wrongly, that all the shots preceded all the bat hits.

Oscar horrified at what he has done picks up Reeva and carries her downstairs where he is met by Security and later Dr Stipp."

I think you can safely say that you have proved one of your points after all.