Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

My last post is unresponsive to editing so I'll have to go again and then delete the last one.
so i meant to add



No. gr_turner had not posted his point/bit until 25 minutes AFTER he suggested that I read it myself and referred to page numbers. By the time 'd d gone to downloaded , read, copied, starting pasting I didn't see he had actually then posted the points I had been asking for.

(Is this a Rouxism? I'm not going to build you a detailed "timeline" of posts, as his inference at the outset was clear , so let us give it a rest shall we and move on.)

Mmmm - suitable "community service" was suggested on the last page....? The rigour of monitoring in the home beyond a tag and the odd home visit spot check in SA?

I'm also wondering for example, how much it costs to process this case to the Constitutional Court if it ends up dragging on for years.

or any novel topic that "we" haven't been posting on for last 40 threads? Anything will do.

You chose to post extracts- i didn't read any posts where gr turner said he/she requested/wanted them (implied in your apology post to 'normal' posters)

And yes- let's move on- good plan.... choose whichever topic takes your fancy

(Why the inverted commas? "We")

 

[aftermath]

BIB1 - how can you know what h/she is thinking?
BIB2 - mmmm, I think you're right

I suppose they will try and make the community service meaningful? If his interest is in working with children in the long term and there are community service projects that involve young people, it would make sense to match the two?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Not sure whether anyone will be interested at this stage but I will post it anyway. This is the link to all the trial videos by SABC Digital News. I have found it very useful in the past. It covers every session, finishing with Roux's closing argument on 8th August 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPWoQvCMB4gIIt8dDH4mZ82NU-PD80VlW

 

[Colin de France]

Ditto-- seemed like a lot of conflict for such a new relationship, especially considering how much time they spent apart in the 3-4 months they knew each other.

yes........and don't forget the bruising prior to the shooting ........as important as the screams....;

 

[Colin de France]

I just think of the following situation: Maybe Reeva and OP were at this time at different locations in the house and argued via phone??? Then it's possible the witness heard only the female voice if nearby and didn't hear the male voice because OP was in another room?? On the phone you (Reeva) can very well loudly shout and argue without a pause, if you (Reeva) have main things to say. Even if OP had answered a few sentences, the witness wouldn't have heard something. Maybe the allegations and accusations from Reeva to OP via phone had triggered the whole violent and deadly end. May also be, this call had been deleted by a nice and savvy brother.

....how about if he was lying in/on the bed and she was up walking around (leaving/packing her bag ?) ........?

 

[Interested Bystander]

You're certainly thinking outside the box there FG.( creatively )

I personally have never had a row by phone in the same house but I bet someone has! If R had locked herself in a room or just retreated to another room, I could certainly see why it could be possible. Even once at work I have seen a colleague argue with another, yelling from a different room to a person in another office!

But, i think the more likely reasons than phones are still location and arguing style which is so variable - yes they certainly could be arguing from different rooms, even on different floors of the house. People definitely don't always argue face - to -face, especially where it is a long protracted argument, that stops and starts up again. Many people leave the room and there are pauses, sulks, crescendoes etc..

Arguing style - there are many possible reasons - all plausible why RS was louder and OP quieter, almost too many to list.
- location of EVDM's bedroom compared to other neighbours etc. is only one factor.
- atmospheric conditions are very significant. (Where I live, I hear my neighbours cattle only on certain days purely depending on the weather despite distance and altitude differences from mine. So suddenly they can sound as if they are in the next field but they are almost 2 miles away as the crow flies. )

TBH I have never had a new relationship where there have been arguments so early on in the relationship as RS & OP were. That would be a big "red flag " ( warning sign) to end it , for me personally.

BIB

The fact you can hear cattle from such a distance, in certain conditions confirms, everything I have read (over the last couple of weeks) about acoustics. IMO Masipa et al have a lot to answer for with respect to poor interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Colin de France]

BIB

The fact you can hear cattle from such a distance, in certain conditions confirms, everything I have read (over the last couple of weeks) about acoustics. IMO Masipa et al have a lot to answer for with respect to poor interpretation of the evidence.

............selective evidence ....selective judgement...

 

[GR_Turner]

“There is also the question of onus. No onus rests on the accused
to convince this court of the truth of any explanation that he gives.* If he
gives an explanation, even if that explanation be improbable, the court
is not entitled to convict, unless it is satisfied not only that the
explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is
false.”
* A novel approach in so far as the SA legals have stated.

Here we have it – back to the same important point
Yes his explanations are improbable
Yes, her doubts, ( or my doubts based on the states evidence) means she could not convict him of DD.
I accepted that a long time ago. But many would claim had she interrogated the evidence properly she might actually have found there wasn’t any “reasonably possibly truth” to his account. She complains the evidence is “purely circumstantial” – ha! ( She wanted a CCTV tape – not the ballistics, pathology, crime scene, ear witnesses which actually should be disparate/potentially conflicting – it’s her job to piece them, wheat from chaff. )

I never expected that my suggestion to read 3 pages of double spaced typing could be so much trouble. She gave a reference for your point in bold. Shapiro's article is utterly wrong in several respects and Masipa has given references to judgments in her text to show precedent for her approach.

 

[cottonweaver]

BIB

The fact you can hear cattle from such a distance, in certain conditions confirms, everything I have read (over the last couple of weeks) about acoustics. IMO Masipa et al have a lot to answer for with respect to poor interpretation of the evidence.

BIB
Screaming

As you’re you’ve been looking at sound Bystander, article in Guardian this week :

Screaming really works,” Poeppel said. “It is one of the earliest sounds that everyone makes. It’s found across cultures and ages, so we thought maybe this is a way to gain some interesting insights as to what brains have in common with respect to vocalisation.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...stics-that-trigger-our-fear-centre-identified

We know the focus of the Lin testimony was mainly around decibels ( AFAIK they didn’t really go into pitch/tonality did they) and it’s much more complex and is based on human evolutionary development. Of course Lin fobbed off screaming perception with - it’s all cultural,subjective and thus variable, so there was no depth to his expert testimony. Shame that Nel got acoustic engineer Lin’s report the same day that Lin first took the stand- but NPA should have been prepped for that. And of course an acoustic engineer is not a neuroscientist hey.

 

[cottonweaver]

In more detail:
Screaming no. 2

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617134616.htm

“Human screams have unique auditory qualities. Human screams of terror are extremely effective at conveying distress and alarm, but exactly why has not been known. Now David Poeppel of New York University and his colleagues have looked beyond the measurements of sound pressure and frequency, which merely indicate that screams are louder and higher pitched than normal speech, and focused on their modulation power spectrum.

They found that while typical speech changes less than 5 Hz, screams fluctuate rapidly between 30 Hz and 150 Hz. Those fluctuations give the sound a certain “roughness” that is unique in human vocalizations. Based on the ranking of volunteers who listened to various terror screams, the researchers found that the more screams fluctuate in volume, the scarier they are perceived to be.
That’s because screams activate both the auditory cortex and the amygdala, the part of the brain attuned to emotional reactions; regular speech triggers just the auditory cortex.
The natural acoustic roughness of human terror screams has been effectively mimicked in artificial systems, such as house and car alarms, which is what makes them so “super annoying and hard to miss,” says Poeppel.

So much for screaming hyenas in the night eh?
AKA I told my neighbour this morning : your bull screams like a woman.

 

[soozieqtips]

I suppose they will try and make the community service meaningful? If his interest is in working with children in the long term and there are community service projects that involve young people, it would make sense to match the two?

So his punishment should include things he'd like to do, things that suit him, things that aren't "beneath" him? He's a killer. There are plenty of other people who can coach children... rather than a convicted killer.

 

[Colin de France]

So his punishment should include things he'd like to do, things that suit him, things that aren't "beneath" him? He's a killer. There are plenty of other people who can coach children... rather than a convicted killer.

.....i'd have him scrubbing ceilings with a toothbrush ........

 

[Interested Bystander]

BIB
Screaming

As you’re you’ve been looking at sound Bystander, article in Guardian this week :

Screaming really works,” Poeppel said. “It is one of the earliest sounds that everyone makes. It’s found across cultures and ages, so we thought maybe this is a way to gain some interesting insights as to what brains have in common with respect to vocalisation.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...stics-that-trigger-our-fear-centre-identified

We know the focus of the Lin testimony was mainly around decibels ( AFAIK they didn’t really go into pitch/tonality did they) and it’s much more complex and is based on human evolutionary development. Of course Lin fobbed off screaming perception with - it’s all cultural,subjective and thus variable, so there was no depth to his expert testimony. Shame that Nel got acoustic engineer Lin’s report the same day that Lin first took the stand- but NPA should have been prepped for that. And of course an acoustic engineer is not a neuroscientist hey.

Thank you for the link.

I think it is possible that Nel was so sure about the woman screaming, from the evidence of his earwitnesses, he determined there was no need for an acoustics engineer. However, he was at liberty to question the DT acoustics engineer deeply. I feel he really didn't know enough to conduct a proper cross examination but, of course as you suggest, he should have. It was bound to come up at some stage in the trial. A decision I am sure he will/has come to rue.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Snipped with respect.

So much for screaming hyenas in the night eh?
AKA I told my neighbour this morning : your bull screams like a woman.[/QUOTE]

:great::great:

 

[cottonweaver]

Snipped with respect.

So much for screaming hyenas in the night eh?
AKA I told my neighbour this morning : your bull screams like a woman.

[/QUOTE]

Yes Bystander, the farmer just looked at me strangely and walked away.

 

[cottonweaver]

Re Soozie's questions from yesterday :

Mannie De Witz quote - BIB in relation to your question after potential SCA new finding :

If the SCA finds in favour of the State, Pistorius could see himself going back to jail.
However, Pistorius could launch an appeal and apply for bail.
"I see this thing landing up in the Constitutional Court...
"Let's assume the SCA converts his conviction to dolus eventualis then 15 years can be given... he will appeal and if he does... he is entitled to ask for bail
"He will bring a bail application together with the appeal application. I don't see Oscar taking 10 years and not challenging it."
Witz said if he did not appeal or get bail, Pistorius would have 48 hours to put his affairs in order and return to prison.

I know we probably had this info before, but I'd forgotten it was 48hrs - not that that is ever gonna happen. Arnie is not going to turn out empty pockets even if SCA "upgrade" OP.

 

[aftermath]

So his punishment should include things he'd like to do, things that suit him, things that aren't "beneath" him? He's a killer. There are plenty of other people who can coach children... rather than a convicted killer.

Not his punishment, no. But as part of his rehabilitation, why not?
If he can help kids, why not let him help kids?

 

[cottonweaver]

House arrest conditions - will he be able to train? ( ie will it be classed as "work") ( I don't mean for health & fitness purposes)

2 differing opinions, same article:

M. de Witz again -
However, Witz said he doubted if Pistorius could still be considered a professional athlete as he was not getting paid, nor did he have any sponsors

dadic
"On training, Dadic said this was a questionable area and he did not think it could be argued that it was part of his job as a professional athlete." ( ? odd comment IMO, maybe journo mis-quote.)
"I don't know if he can say he's gainfully employed. I don't see it falling in the employment category.
"Training is not gainfully employed. That doesn't fall in that category. Whether he can ask to train for the sake of his legs and exercise, that seems viable. Exercise is part of a person's integration and well being. He comes from an exercise oriented background," Dadic said.
He could not see Pistorius being banned from training a few days or hours a week.

Witz said Pistorius would probably need to get special permission, but he would not be allowed to compete in events or travel. "They can't forbid him from being a professional athlete. But if he is training he will have to get special permission. You don't get extra leisure time to go train."

Well, we will see in August.

 

[Colin de France]

Not his punishment, no. But as part of his rehabilitation, why not?
If he can help kids, why not let him help kids?

......would you let a convicted woman killer waiting on an appeal look after your kids...............flop

 

[aftermath]

......would you let a convicted woman killer waiting on an appeal look after your kids...............flop

Who said 'look after'? I doubt that would be a community service option!!